We are now three Tuesday’s away from the first (perhaps only) midterm of the Biden Presidency, and things have certainly changed from last Fall when Republicans hailed their conquering hero in Virginia, now Governor Glenn Youngkin, as a harbinger of things to come; a Red Wave. However, a confluence of events has drastically altered the playing field for the two parties and Democrats now find themselves within striking distance of maintaining control of Congress. Last year I previewed the midterms here, and an update is necessary. Let’s start off checking in on a few predictions:

“Another Glenn Youngkin is Hard to Find. Therein lies the greatest hope for Democrats, Youngkin of course was not the choice of a primary electorate. The Virginia Republican party opted to hold a convention to select its nominees for statewide row offices as opposed to a regular primary. This was because the party establishment correctly understood that State Sen. Amanda Chase, who self-described as “Trump in heels”, would run away with the nomination if left up to primary voters. A convention however would limit the influence of party outsiders and the folks who might be motivated enough to vote but not spend several hours at a convention. Most states will have primaries and as we saw in 2010 when Republicans lost easy pickup opportunities in Senate races in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado; sometimes a bad candidate is just bad enough to break a wave.”

Possibly more than the Dobbs decision, Democratic prospects have been saved by abysmal candidate quality on the part of the Republicans. Earlier this month the nominee for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania, Dr. Mehmet Oz, was forced to play defense against a story that he managed experiments at Columbia which killed over 300 dogs including an entire litter of puppies. That same week, we found out that Herschel Walker in Georgia who has said he believes abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape paid for at least one abortion. That’s on top of scandals from earlier in the cycle where we learned that Walker had several secret children or that Walker had held a gun to his ex-wife’s head or more recently that he lied about Native American ancestry.

In Arizona, US Senate nominee Blake Masters has been all but abandoned by Mitch McConnell and his massive fundraising apparatus. Partially because of his history of extreme or heterodox views on every domestic issue (and unsuccessfully has tried to scrub them from his website), but more likely because he has consistently polled behind Senator Mark Kelly. In New Hampshire, Republicans opted to nominate Don Bolduc to challenge Sen. Maggie Hassan. The problem? Bolduc is an election denier in a state that leans Democratic and doesn’t appear to have any of the moderate inclinations that usually propel Republicans to victory in New England.

Then finally there’s the potential sleeper scare for Republicans in Ohio, a state that shouldn’t even be considered competitive. J.D. Vance has proven to be a much weaker candidate than the partisanship of the state would suggest. Even acknowledging the problems of modern election polling, in multiple polls that show President Biden significantly underwater and Governor Mike Dewine cruising to re-election by double digits, Vance either trails his Democratic opponent Rep. Tim Ryan or leads within the margin of error.

Let’s not bury the lead here, Republicans have seriously fucked this one up. The self-destructive tendencies of GOP primary voters as well as Donald Trump’s need to have himself surrounding by sycophants have produced a field so weak that the US Senate is not a toss-up but leans substantially in Democrats favor. Of course it is not a sure thing that Democrats will keep control of the Senate, a polling error as significant as 2020 would at the very least flip as many as two or three seats where Democrats are currently favored. However it seems likely that the polls will not have the same error as 2020, because as we saw in 2018 polling was actually quite good without Trump on the ballot who has twice produced millions of low propensity voters who were not reachable by conventional polling methodology.

“Split Ticket Voting is a thing of the past. The seats Democrats see as most vulnerable, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and New Hampshire are not necessarily full of voters that are trending towards Democrats currently. In Virginia according to exit polls, these white voters without college education went from voting Republican 62% to 38% in 2020 to 74% to 24% in 2021. There are of course problems with using only exit polling data but looking at county level swings in conservative southwestern Virginia tell this story too. Every county swung more Republican, some as little as Buchanan County which became only 2.1% more Republican but some as large as Radford County which swung right 18%. If you apply that kind of shift to Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and New Hampshire what you find is that every state flips Republican. The challenge becomes clearer when you look at the states Democrats want to flip; Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida which at least have 40% of their voters being non-college educated white people.”

This appears less true than a year ago as some issues, namely abortion, have risen in salience. In Kansas, a state which has not given Democratic candidates for President more than 41% of the vote since 1988 (and that year Dukakis only mustered 42%), voters enshrined Abortion in the state constitution with nearly 60% in favor. This could not have been possible without substantial support from the white non-college educated voters who Republicans have had great success with since the turn of this century. In recent years there has been much greater partisan sorting on the issue, with fewer Democratic politicians identifying as anti-abortion and even fewer Republicans politicians identifying as pro-choice. But the voters themselves have been much more varied, in 2020 24% of voters who thought abortion should be legal in most cases voted for Donald Trump and 23% of voters who thought abortion should be mostly illegal voted for Joe Biden. This year has the potential (more on those italics later) to deliver a not insignificant number of those pro-choice but otherwise conservative voters to Democratic candidates.

The greater split in voters however is related to perceptions of President Biden who despite being up from his nadir over the summer, is still significantly underwater in most of America and especially so in the states that will decide control of Congress. In an poll of Georgia from Emerson College just last week, President Biden managed a dismal 41% approval rating among likely voters with 52% disapproving. At the same time, Sen. Raphael Warnock leads Herschel Walker by 2-points, 48% to 46% (many other polls put Warnock further ahead). In a poll of Pennsylvania from Suffolk University, once again Biden receives a much lower approval (42%) than the share of support for the Democratic nominee for US Senate (John Fetterman leads Mehmet Oz 46% to 40%). That story repeats itself in North Carolina, in Wisconsin, in Arizona, and very notably in Ohio. There are many reasons for this split, but a lot of it can be attributed to voters who supported the President in 2020 and are generally left of center but disapprove of his performance now. This group, many of whom are under 35, non-white, and/or do not identify with either political party would traditionally be low-propensity voters as they were in 2014 and 2010. In 2022 however, their turnout is predicted to be closer to 2018 than 2010 or 2014 and they support down ballot Democrats over President Biden by upwards of 10%  in many polls.

“The Fundamentals favor the Republicans. On key questions where Democrats had previously enjoyed relatively good numbers in our hyper-partisan political environment but polling from YouGov/The Economist shows a pretty clear story of declining fortunes over the last several months.

Direction of the Country:

Generally headed in the right direction: 27% Nov., 31% Sept., 35% Jul., 42% May

Off on the wrong track: 61% Nov., 55% Sept., 51% Jul., 46% May

Trend of the Economy

Getting Better: 16% Nov., 17% Sept., 23% Jul., 28% May

Getting Worse: 54% Nov., 45% Sept., 38% Jul., 34% May

The bit of good news is the final question that most analysts look at when trying to handicap the political environment shows some hope for Democrats. The only thing people dislike worse than Democrats are Republicans! 53% of voters dislike the Democratic Party including 39% who strongly dislike Democrats, but 59% dislike the Republican Party including 40% who strongly dislike Republicans.”

It looked likely at the time that things could get worse, and things certainly have with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has certainly accelerated negative trends. Americans are not optimistic about the economy or the Direction of the Country and that appears unlikely to change as the Federal Reserve has indicated that they will continue to raise interest rates while OPEC has reduced the global oil supply. In YouGov polling from this week, perceptions have either gone from bad to worse or have simply stagnated at bad.

Direction of the Country

Generally headed in the right direction: 28%

Off on the wrong track: 60%

Trend of the Economy

Getting Better: 12%

Getting Worse: 52%

With less than a month before Election Day, it’s unlikely that American optimism will suddenly rebound to anywhere near where it was at the beginning of the Biden term. The cake is probably baked on this one, Americans think inflation and the economy are serious issues and they can’t be convinced otherwise when their bank statements confirm this truth every month. The fact that Democrats have been able to hold their own in such dire straits is noteworthy, but if they end up faltering on election day the answer will be obvious as to why.

“The Democrats Actually Are in Disarray. Despite what you might hear from party loyalists, self-proclaimed resistance members, never-Trumpers, and MSNBC viewers there is actually a lot of internal discontent in the Democratic Party. The left is likely more distrustful of moderates than ever after several betrayals over the last several months. Years of “Vote Blue No Matter Who” rhetoric to encourage disaffected progressives to support the party fell apart when the incumbent mayor of Buffalo was defeated by India Walton, a democratic socialist, in their democratic primary. Instead of conceding, the defeated mayor launched an independent bid for mayor which went unchallenged by Gov. Kathy Hochul (who had made endorsements in other races) and was actively supported by establishment figures in the state (except for Majority Leader Schumer). Brown was successful in his re-election, showing progressives that the relationship they have with the party is entirely one-sided as they were left flailing looking for support when just a year earlier, they we were decisive in defeating Donald Trump. There’s also the Build Back Better/Infrastructure chicanery which has produced a lot of bad will not just among rank-and-file voters but clearly amongst members….James Carville and his neoliberal allies have made clear that they blame Democratic misfortunes on leftist activists and progressives lending support to causes they think are electorally toxic. Namely “Defund the Police”, “Critical Race Theory”, “Wokeness”, “Cancel Culture” and “Socialism” generally. Admittedly these issues clearly have some cultural resonance among at least some voters although this has likely been helped by a media that seems insistent on promoting narratives as opposed to nuance. However much of the blame does lay with Democrats who have not effectively found a way to explain exactly what it is that they do believe in this new culture war. The answers they’ve given on these issues is some variation of “This isn’t real, it’s more of an academic thing that most people don’t engage with and it’s missing context, but we do agree with the sentiment and will attack anyone who attacks these ideas by name although we aren’t running on these things but opposing these things puts you closer to Donald Trump.” To be clear, it is not the job of activists to support popular policies, lunch sit-ins and Martin Luther King Jr. were widely disapproved of by white Americans. Their job is to shift the window of what is politically possible and bring issues to the attention of the actors who can address them. The job of politicians is to build public support for policies and then to enact them. If something associated with the Democratic Party is “Toxic” that is the fault of the party for not figuring out how to explain themselves to the voters.”

What a difference a year can make. Democrats have found themselves united, perhaps more so than anytime in 10 years, and that is in large part thanks to the United States Supreme Court’s extreme term which saw many right-wing decisions with the most far-reaching being the overturn of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey which ended the constitutional right to an abortion and effectively made abortion illegal in 13 states and virtually inaccessible in several more. It appears, at least for now, that Democratic voters and politicians have agreed to point their fire outside their circle as opposed to at each other.

President Biden has also encouraged this development over the last several months with wins on the Inflation Reduction Act (a diminutive spiritual successor to Build Back Better), the Supreme Court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, a limited but still expansive student loan forgiveness, the PACT Act for veterans, and the CHIPS and Science Act. The President with no time to spare seems to have caught his stride, and a party desperate for policy wins started getting them at a pretty rapid clip while the price of gasoline declined all summer long. It’s easy to cheer for your team when you’re winning.

So that leaves a question of, how does this midterm resolve itself?

My Prediction: A Divided Congress is Likely, but both Parties have Room for Error to Change That

Before we get into predictions, just briefly let’s talk about terms.

From www.ballotpedia.com:

“The Cook Political Report published its first Partisan Voter Index (PVI) in August 1997. The PVI was developed by Charles Cook, editor and publisher of Cook, and scores each congressional district based on how strongly it leans toward one political party. The PVI is determined by comparing each congressional district presidential vote to the national presidential election results. According to Cook, the PVI “is an attempt to find an objective measurement of each congressional district that allows comparisons between states and districts, thereby making it relevant in both mid-term and presidential election years”

You can find the 2022 updated PVI of your state or congressional district here. For example, Rep. Cori Bush (MO-1) represents the 27th most Democratic seat in the nation with a PVI of D+27. Therefore, in an election where nationally Republicans and Democrats tied in the popular vote (a D+0 or R+0 environment), you’d expect Bush to win her election with about 77% of the vote. In 2020, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by about 4.5 points nationally (meaning a D+4.5 national environment) and Bush won her election with about 78% of the vote, a slight underperformance. Meanwhile Rep. Jared Golden (ME-2) represents one of the most Republican leaning districts held by a Democrat at R+6. In 2020, Golden won with 53% of the vote, running ahead of his district’s partisanship by an impressive 8 points. What accounts for over performance or underperformance varies from race but political science says generally a few things matter: incumbency, fundraising, voter contact, and candidate favorability (not necessarily in that order). In the Senate we see a bit more of candidates defying state partisanship like Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in West Virginia which has a score of R+22 and Republican Sen. Susan Collins in Maine which has a score of D+2. The House is increasingly becoming more partisan with no Democrat representing a district redder than R+6 and no Republican representing a district bluer than D+9. This isn’t usually true in the aftermath of a wave election, 2006 and 2008 saw many Democrats representing Republican leaning districts while 2010 and 2014 brought a lot more Republicans from D districts. So, while you’d expect Republicans to lurch further into Democratic leaning territory and Democrats to lose some of their Republican leaning seats, partisanship will blunt some of that momentum. That said, the party favored usually wins most of the toss up races and I expect that to be the case in 2022.

THE HOUSE

While there will be a margin of error, perhaps as many as +/- 10 seats, this is how the House of Representatives could look in January. I think Republicans are still very clearly favored in the House for the simple fact that Democrats have such a narrow majority, it doesn’t take much for them to win. Democrats have 220 seats to Republicans 212, that means just 6 flips and it’s hard to imagine a scenario where Republicans can’t find 6 seats. The question I believe is can they find a governable majority and that is very much an open question. Kevin McCarthy will be greeted by no fewer than a dozen members of Congress who have espoused some belief in the QAnon conspiracy, if Republicans maintain a majority on the backs of these members then McCarthy may very well find himself in a situation like former Speaker John Boehner who was ousted in 2015 by a revolt in the right flank of his party conference. That’s a battle for 2023, the question before us is where might those GOP gains come from? There’s been some movement among Latino voters in the Rio Grande valley that should work in Republicans favor, you might also expect some reversion in the suburbs which could make the northeast and the southwest more competitive than it might otherwise be. However, the most beneficial factor for Republicans will be redistricting as states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama have drawn maps that have been largely regarded as racial gerrymanders by independent observers. Democrats have some upside to be sure, Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) seems well positioned against either Former Governor Sarah Palin or Nick Begich. There are also Democratic pickup opportunities in California, Illinois, and New York thanks in part to Democratic gerrymanders but also thanks to long term demographic trends. Still, you’d rather be the Republicans even if you wouldn’t necessarily want to be Kevin McCarthy.

THE SENATE

The Democrats are probably more likely to pick up a Senate seat than Republicans are to win the majority, although I think the most likely outcome is the status quo with a seat traded in Nevada for one in Pennsylvania. If Democrats hold a narrow margin in the House, they are living on a razor’s edge in the Senate with a 0-seat majority. Last year I thought it was likely that candidate quality would matter and it has in ways that I couldn’t have imagined at the time. The Democratic field is strong, and the Republican field with a notable exception in Nevada is fairly weak.

The “party crackup” in Pennsylvania never materialized as Lt. Governor John Fetterman won his primary in a landslide and despite health issues has maintained a lead the entire campaign. That’s in part because of Fetterman’s appeal, but the most relevant factor is the unpopularity of Republican nominee Dr. Mehmet Oz who rose to prominence as a television doctor who was investigated by the US Senate for advertising pseudo scientific health products. While Fetterman has a net +1 approval rating among Pennsylvania voters, Oz gets a net -17 rating with a majority of voters (51%) saying they have an unfavorable opinion of Oz. It wouldn’t be impossible to overcome those perceptions, but Oz would need a lot of things to break his way to even break even.

In Arizona, largely on the power of Donald Trump’s endorsement, Blake Masters defeated Attorney General Mark Brnovich and businessman Jim Lamon in the GOP Primary. Masters so far has had to mostly rely on the generosity of crypto bros and billionaires like Peter Thiel to raise money as Mitch McConnell and the NSRC have begun to triage this race. Senator Mark Kelly could’ve had a much tighter race had he faced any of Master’s opponents, then again Kelly amassed a war chest of over $73 million which probably always made the incumbent favored.

A lot has already been written about the Senate race in Georgia, and that’s because of Herschel Walker has been a lightning rod for controversy. The danger for Senator Warnock is not Mr. Walker, but it is Governor Kemp who will also be on the ballot and is heavily favored for re-election. Although there will be some split ticket voting to be sure, southern states like Georgia have incredibly racially polarized electorates with very few swing voters. It is possible for Gov. Kemp and Sen. Warnock to both win re-election, but the larger Kemp’s margin gets the closer Warnock will be to a runoff in which it’s harder to predict what the result might be. It’s less likely that Walker could win outright without a run-off due to the presence of a libertarian candidate who is likely to draw more votes from the Republican.

The closest race will likely be in Nevada where the wild card is not third-party voters but a ballot option that gives voters the chance to select “none of these candidates” which has received anywhere from 15,000 to over 50,000 votes over the last decade. Sen. Cortez-Masto despite serving in the US Senate for the last 6 years hasn’t built her own brand in the state once dominated by the Reid machine and it wasn’t until recently that most voters could form an opinion about her performance. Nevada is also a state that in theory could be ripe for a realignment as it has a significant Latino population, many voters are non-college educated, and even more voters are working class. The Republican, former Attorney General Adam Laxalt for his part has been a top-tier recruit. Nevada has historically been a difficult state to poll because it is so rural and a not insignificant population only speaks Spanish, yet that’s still the best predictive tool we have. Laxalt and Cortez-Masto have traded leads in polling throughout the election with Laxalt currently having a one-point edge in the fivethirtyeight polling average. Of course, Nevada is still a Democrat leaning state and every statewide office except secretary of state is held by a Democrat so there is institutional strength working in Sen. Cortes-Masto’s favor. Still, Las Vegas has been especially affected by inflation and without Clark County Democrats can’t win Nevada. Again, it’ll be close, but I’d give the advantage to Laxalt.

Now for some discussion on Ohio, Wisconsin, and North Carolina where Democrats are tied but facing significant electoral obstacles. Donald Trump won Ohio twice and both times by about 8%, which is better than he got in Texas. North Carolina has elected and re-elected it’s Democratic Governor, but it has not elected a Democratic senator since 2008 and has given Republicans it’s electoral votes in every election except one from 1980 until present. Wisconsin was won by President Biden and Democratic nominees from Obama to Dukakis, but Sen. Ron Johnson is an incumbent who despite being pugilistic and divisive has managed to win two statewide elections with at least 50% of the vote when the expectation was that he would not be favored. Democrats nominated very strong candidates in each race, and Republicans are frankly not sending their best. Despite that, you’d expect partisanship to still carry the day and give Republicans wins in each contest. That said, if Democrats win any of these races, then they have almost certainly won the Senate. If you had to ask me who I’d consider most favored in these races, I’d say Cheri Beasley in North Carolina, then Tim Ryan in Ohio, and then Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin.

It’s not worth discussing Florida, Iowa, Missouri, or South Carolina. Republicans will win these races, and in the case of Missouri and South Carolina it will be a landslide. If there is any mystery, it is in Alaska where Senator Lisa Murkowski and Trump endorsed Kelly Tshibaka are locked in an epic battle for that seat. In a split Senate, there is a world of difference between a Sen. Murkowski and a Sen. Tshibaka. Ranked choice voting has already helped Sen. Murkowski because it’s almost certain that she would’ve been defeated in a Republican primary as she was in 2010 when she had to launch a write-in campaign to win her election. Still, it’s not a sure thing that in a Republican leaning state that a Republican Senator can get away with voting to impeach a Republican President as Murkowski did after Trump’s role in inciting the January 6th insurrection. I have Murkowski favored, but there could be a surprise.

THE GOVERNORS RACES

Despite a surprisingly strong effort by Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Texas will re-elect Gov. Greg Abbott. The fact is, Beto’s run for President did him no favors and his comments on the trail have become a recurring campaign theme. Gov. Abbott has had a controversial term with many failures included the power grid collapse that left millions freezing, a mass shooting in Uvalde, and many more unforced controversies. Still, he is favored because Texas is still Texas, and Abbott is still popular among conservatives who remain the largest voting bloc in the state.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis looks like a presidential candidate in waiting and looks likely to announce for 2024 whether or not Donald Trump does the same. His culture war has been popular in Florida, and the state has only gotten more red between 2018 and today. Charlie Crist has been a Republican, an Independent, and a Democrat and has been painted as a political chameleon because of that. This race probably wasn’t ever going to be close; the question now is whether DeSantis will win left leaning Miami-Dade in his re-election.

Georgia is shaping up to be another disappointment for Democrats, and the nominee Stacey Abrams will likely lose by a larger margin than she did in 2018. Why? Gov. Brian Kemp by doing the bare minimum of not breaking the law to support Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud, has earned a reputation as a conservative willing to stand up to the former President which has endeared him to the suburbanites he lost in his first campaign. Abrams also did herself no favors by refusing to concede her race in 2018 which has been used against her by Republicans claiming Democratic hypocrisy. Finally, Kemp is the incumbent and he isn’t unpopular.

Republicans are in for barn burners in Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon (yes Oregon!) but they are favored in each race albeit slightly. In Arizona, Kari Lake is a Trump acolyte and true believer in his political vision which ordinarily wouldn’t be a strength in Arizona. However, Lake is a household name with decades of television experience and is frankly very very good on camera and has been able to out-message and out-perform her Democratic opponent Secretary of State Katie Hobbs who refused to debate Lake. Polling shows a close race, but more polls recently have given Lake an edge. In Nevada, Governor Sisolak is in a similar situation to Sen. Cortez-Masto which is a state where tens of thousands are employed in hospitality and tourism are facing hard times because of inflation. There seem to be plenty of undecided voters, but Sheriff Lombardo leads in most polls. Finally Oregon has gotten itself a competitive race because of a strong independent candidate, Betsey Johnson, running as liberal leaning centrist who is siphoning votes from the Democrat, Tina Kotek, which has left an opening for Christine Drazan to win with perhaps as little as 40% of the vote. As election day gets closer independent candidates usually fade as voters come home to one of the major parties, but Johnson has not faded as much as would’ve been expected and her candidacy will matter a lot in the final outcome

In Kansas, New Mexico, and Wisconsin Democratic Incumbents are in very different races but may very well win by similar margins. Kansas is a red state, but as we saw earlier this year Abortion is clearly on the mind of voters in more pronounced way than perhaps any other state. That works to Governor Kelly’s advantage who has led in the few polls of this race and has run an active campaign across the state. Still, her opponent Attorney General Derek Schmidt is no slouch and will gather more support from Republicans than Kris Kobach did 4 years ago. In New Mexico, Gov. Grisham is experiencing the same trends among Latino voters that are happening all over the southwest but New Mexico is much bluer than Nevada and for that reason alone she should win re-election. To be clear, New Mexico is not a done deal and has elected Republicans to statewide office as recently as 2014 and Mark Ronchetti, the Republican nominee, outperformed expectations in 2020 when he was a candidate for US Senate and lost by only 6%. That said, Ronchetti did lose in New Mexico and Gov. Grisham has won in New Mexico, and that’s worth something. Wisconsin will be the closest of these races, and that’s just the nature of Wisconsin. Gov. Evers and Tim Michaels have been in a two-point race since the summer as Wisconsin, more than any other Midwestern state, has the pedal to the floor on partisanship. Anything that happens between now and election day will affect things on the margins, and luckily for Evers there seems to be some evidence of falling gas prices in the Great Lakes states which is exactly the boost he’d need but the race may still be close enough for a recount.

In New England, voters will almost certainly continue their tradition of electing unorthodox Republicans to their Governor’s mansions in Vermont and New Hampshire but not Massachusetts or Maine. In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano has struggled to fundraise, attract volunteers, and any positive media attention and for that reason Attorney General Josh Shapiro should be heavily favored. In Michigan, Republicans had hoped for a closer race against Gov. Whitmer who has been a target on Fox for her response to Covid but an abortion referendum being held in the state seems to have foreclosed that possibility. Finally, Illinois and Ohio, states which were competitive in recent midterm cycles will re-elect their incumbents, Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Mike Dewine, if polling is to be believed, have gathered the weakest opponents possible and are headed to large victories in November. If there are any surprises they might come from South Dakota or Oklahoma where recent polling has shown Democratic candidates tied or leading Republican incumbents, but I’d take those polls with a grain of salt and expect a closer race but not a flip. Although stranger things have certainly happened.

Going Forward

What happens this November will directly shape what happens in the 2024 Presidential campaign and we might see some potential candidates, especially President Biden and former President Trump, recalculate their chances and opt not to run or decide definitively to throw their hat in the ring. If Republicans get their wave, and some Trump endorsed long-shots defy the odds then the former President would rightly feel vindicated and other candidates might back off. Alternatively, if Democrats maintain control of Congress, it would be difficult to imagine anyone challenging Biden although Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and others seem to be ready to jump on any sign of weakness. Ultimately though, 2024 is an eternity away and there are Secretary of State, Attorneys General, and Supreme Court Justices who might have more of an impact on our politics than anything else.

We are not dealing with politics as usual, and if I have learned anything about the Trump era it has been to forget what you know and expect the unexpected.

The post An (Updated) Honest Preview of the 2022 Midterms appeared first on Occasional Planet.

More and more Democrats are expressing dissatisfaction with President Joe Biden. It was particularly evident on the weekend of July 9 – 10 when thousands of protesters gathered outside the White House to express their frustration that Biden was not doing more to protect abortion rights. The protesters seemed absolutely unaware of what Biden had done the day before through executive action to protect reproductive rights, as accurately described in “The Week:”

President Biden on Friday signed an executive order aimed at protecting access to abortion and other reproductive health care services now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Per the administration’s fact sheet, the order “builds on the actions” the White House has already taken by protecting access to abortion and contraception; guarding patient privacy; promoting safety and security for patients, providers, and clinics; and coordinating federal efforts to safeguard reproductive rights. In more specific terms, the order directs Health and Human Services to expand access to abortion pills, fortify birth control coverage under Obamacare, and organize free legal services for those that have been criminally charged for seeking out or providing an abortion. [CBS News, The Week]

Within an hour of the Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, Biden expressed his outrage and his commitment to Congress codifying Roe. He has done all that could be expected of a reasonable person to find ways to minimize the impact of the Dobbs decision and to advance reproductive rights. What is it about what Biden has done that his protesters do not understand?

Biden has also done virtually everything that a reasonable person could do to control inflation. It is a global problem, not something that can solely be solved by the United States or any other individual country.

He just completed a trip to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Once again, progressives are giving him considerable criticism. When in Saudi Arabia, he did not shake hands with heir to the throne, but rather had a fist-bump with Mohammed Bin Salman. This had to be difficult for Biden to do, because he has repeatedly stated that MBS is responsible for the torture and mutilation of Washington Post writer Jamal Khashoggi.

So, why did Biden do this? Because oil prices in the United States have been soaring until the past several weeks. While Biden and many others know that in time more oil will be drilled, pumped and refined the U.S. to bring supplies to a level where prices will go down, most people cannot be the patient. The best source of additional oil at the present time is from the OPEC countries of which Saudi Arabia is a leader. So, Biden has to hold his nose and “beg” for OPEC to immediately increase supplies.

He did not do it in the most elegant way, but he did it as anyone would when it becomes essential.

Biden is doing so many of the things that Americans want, but he is getting little credit. More an more we are hearing that Biden is too old to be president; that he is a “doddering old man.” He may be older than most of us, he may not be the steadiest person on his feet, but he is mentally as sharp as he has ever been. He is probably smarter than ever because he is outstanding at learning from his past mistakes.

Maybe we want a younger person to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2024. But for now, Biden is our president and he’s a damn good one. If Joe Manchin won’t give him a break, the kind that would send his popularity soaring, then let’s have the rest of us provide him with the support that he needs and has earned. It’s time to say ‘yes’ to him.

The post What Part of ‘Yes’ Do You Not Understand About Biden? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Monday evening an unknown individual inside the United States Supreme Court leaked a draft decision written by Justice Samuel Alito which would explicitly overturn the landmark decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This would mean the end to a guaranteed federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and at least 22 states, including Missouri, would almost immediately ban abortion entirely. This has been the animating force behind the conservative legal movement for the last two generations and this is their grand triumph which will only embolden the court to go even further. The language of Alito leaves the door open for reconsiderations of Obergefell v. Hodges which legalized same-sex marriage and Lawrence v. Texas which invalidated state laws criminalizing homosexual intercourse, and if you compare his dissent in Obergefell to his draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization it’s not hard to imagine the Court deciding to also “Send the issue back to the states”. The Constitution of the United States of America is in the hands of 6 members of the federalist society, we are entering a new era of American politics.

President Biden has made clear that his administration has no plans to protect abortion access. In a statement the morning after the leak, the President said, “If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.  At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.” It’s important to be clear about two points. The first, is the most important and it is that the president’s party almost always has a bad midterm. Data from fivethirtyeight.com shows a familiar pattern (that I also wrote about in 2021 here) “Overall, in the post-World War II era, the president’s party has performed an average of 7.4 points worse in the House popular vote in midterm elections than it did two years prior. Therefore, since Democrats won the House popular vote by 3.0 points in 2020, Republicans can roughly expect to win it by 4.4 points in 2022 if history is any guide…Indeed, in the 19 midterm elections between 1946 and 2018, the president’s party has improved upon its share of the House popular vote just once. And since 1994, when (we would argue) the modern political alignment took hold, the president’s party has lost the national House popular vote in six out of seven midterm elections — usually by similar margins (6 to 9 percentage points) to boot.”

It took 9/11 for George W. Bush and Impeachment for Bill Clinton, as well as voter coalitions that no longer exist, for them to break history. It is extremely unlikely that President Biden, given his approval ratings, economic conditions, and redistricting will outrun history. The second point is, when Democrats had 60 Senators there were not enough votes to codify Roe into law. In 2022 there are not realistic opportunities to win 60 Senate seats, meaning the only avenue to codifying Roe or expanding the Court or any potential remedy would be through abolishing the filibuster which cannot find 50 votes in the US Senate. Currently in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is campaigning for the lone anti-choice Democrat in the House while he has a viable progressive challenger in Jessica Cisneros. This is the state of our opposition party, these individuals are the last line of defense.

There are some who have used this dark moment which represents the greatest contraction of civil rights since the end of Reconstruction to deliver an “I told you so”. These people would like to do historical revisionism about the 2016 election and have taken to blaming the left-wing in this country for the state of the Supreme Court. Generally, it’s not worth engaging in this discourse, but I’ve decided to do so today if not for the sole reason that these narratives are actively hindering the success of any centrist let alone any liberal project in this country. Candidly, we are rapidly approaching different entirely preventable disasters and we shouldn’t waste any more time promulgating useless ideas. So, I’m willing to address the skyscraper sized elephant lurking around this discourse, What if Hillary Clinton had won. It’s probably the most frequent hypothetical among liberals, and my read of the alternative is blessed by hindsight but is not informed by omniscience. This is what I believe would’ve happened, it is not exhaustive of everything that could’ve happened.

It’s important to note that Clinton didn’t lose because of insufficient support from the left. In 2008, Clinton did 13 public campaign events for then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama. In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders did 41 public campaign events for Clinton during the general election. In 2008, 25% of Clinton primary voters supported Sen. John McCain. In 2016, only 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump, meanwhile 13% of Obama’s 2012 voters supported Trump. Clinton lost because she was the most unpopular Democrat to run for President in the history of modern polling and would’ve been the most unpopular candidate period if not for Donald Trump. In terms of ideology, it’s hard to remember now but a critical number of voters wrongly perceived Trump to be more moderate than Clinton. To imagine a world in which Clinton wins the election is not difficult because in spite of her weak electoral performance and rock bottom approval ratings, she very nearly did win. Let’s imagine that James Comey does not release his October letter which hurt Clinton among late deciders and Clinton narrowly wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida bringing her to 307 electoral votes. Let’s assume, for Clinton’s sake, that her improved margin extends down ballot which would mean victories in the Pennsylvania and Missouri Senate races and probably an additional 2-3 house seats. This would give her the exact same evenly divided Senate the Biden has but a GOP controlled House. So, what would have happened to Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat?

President Hillary Clinton would submit her nominee to the Senate Judiciary Committee, likely Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit or Jane Kelly of the 8^th Circuit. The nomination would advance deadlocked from the committee, NeverTrump Republicans like former Sen. Jeff Flake would not adopt their current faux moderate posture without Trump as a foil but would return to the vapid anti-Clinton rhetoric that dominated the 90s. It is likely that Republicans would filibuster this Supreme Court nomination, led perhaps by Sen. Ted Cruz who would now likely be heir-apparent for the 2020 nomination or Sen. Jeff Sessions who instead of being disgraced former Attorney General would be an ideological leader in the GOP Conference. Even without the filibuster, the nomination is in jeopardy as Sen. Manchin is non-committal about supporting the nominee and no GOP Senator wants to cast the deciding vote in favor. Senate Majority Leader Schumer undertakes an effort to abolish the Senate filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, it fails 47-53 with Senators Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Manchin voting with all Republicans. President Clinton is forced to withdraw her nomination and through a compromise with Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley nominates then Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, a “moderate” Republican. He is confirmed with all 50 Democrats and 16 Republicans voting in favor. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointed by Reagan, opts not to retire while Democrats control the Senate and Presidency. Justice Ginsburg again postpones retirement, fearing that she too will be replaced by a conservative compromise candidate.

In 2018, Democrats suffer sweeping loses in the midterm elections. Republicans elect Josh Hawley in Missouri, Rick Scott in Florida, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, and Kevin Cramer in North Dakota just like in our reality. However, Republicans also pick up West Virginia and Montana while holding Nevada as Democrats narrowly squeak by in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. There is no special election in Minnesota, Democrats don’t force Al Franken to resign and launch at attempt to discredit the MeToo movement as liberal figures like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey find themselves accused of sexual misconduct. This is done partially to protect the tenuous Democratic majority, but also to discredit renewed criticism of former President Bill Clinton as his connections to child sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein become public knowledge during a special counsel investigation lead by Robert Mueller was launched by the House early in the administration. On January 3^rd, Mitch McConnell becomes Senate Majority leader once again with 55 seats. Democrats make gains in the House, although still in the minority they make gains in the suburbs bringing their numbers just above 200.

In 2019, Several Republicans announce their candidacies for President including Sen. Ted Cruz fresh off his double-digit re-election, Governor Nikki Haley, and Sen. Tom Cotton while Speaker Paul Ryan forms an exploratory committee before ultimately deciding against a run. Donald Trump is speculated to be a potential candidate, but instead successfully pivots his failed run for President into a New York Times best-selling novel with accompanying docuseries chronicling his rise to the GOP nomination self-describing as a “populist revolutionary”. Clinton herself faces a spirited primary challenge from Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley (the lone member of the Senate to endorse Sanders in 2016), and he wins the New Hampshire primary as well as a few caucuses, but he is never seriously close to overtaking Clinton and she wraps up the nomination before mid-March. The pandemic still rages across the globe in 2020, in the United States the pandemic is made worse by a severe economic recession. President Clinton and the GOP Congress deadlock on several fronts and settle on a relief package that mirrors the 2009 recovery, however it is not passed until May leaving millions scrambling to compete for resources from overwhelmed nonprofits. Infections are lower than our current reality because Clinton never disempowers the CDC and is prepared for a pandemic level event, but anti-lockdown activity begins earlier and is more violent as people are animated not just by anti-science conspiracy but also anti-Clinton sentiment. In September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, and Republicans hold open her seat for the duration of the 2020 Election. President Clinton is likely defeated, not since the election of 1820 have there been 2 successive 2 term presidents of the same political party. If Clinton did win re-election, it’s hard to imagine Democrats having better midterm prospects in 2022 than what they face today. When she does lose, Republicans appoint Attorney General Pam Bondi of Florida or perhaps law professor Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Anthony Kennedy retires shortly thereafter, and Judge Brett Kavanaugh is elevated to his seat. Roe and Casey are functionally though not explicitly overruled in a 5-4 decision, with Sandoval joining the liberal minority in dissent.

Seeing as a Clinton victory might not have been enough to avoid our current reality, what would’ve needed to happen to avoid this nightmare? You don’t have to get into butterfly effect level science fiction or have had psychic super power to be able to imagine how things could’ve gone differently. If:

1. At any point between 2009 and 2015, if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had opted to retire, abortion rights, voting rights, labor rights, and many civil liberties would not be facing near certain annihilation. In 2013, Ginsburg had battled cancer twice by the age of 80 and the political environment in Washington was increasingly polarized. It was clear to contemporary writers that should Republicans capture the Senate, something they were heavily favored to do given the history of midterm elections, because of rising partisanship it would be unlikely that a liberal successor could be confirmed. At the time, the balance of the court was 3 hard right conservatives, 2 center-right conservatives, and 4 liberals. The few liberal victories of the 21^st century were generally 5-4 decisions, and the disappearance of any justice would have a dramatic impact on constitutional law. Furthermore, the disappearance of a liberal justice would of course mean a hard right turn in the court at least until a conservative vacancy appeared. Ginsburg, understanding the stakes of her decision opted not to retire. When she died, as an attempt to shield her legacy perhaps realizing the disastrous effect of her decision to not retire, sheepishly relayed a message that she knew would not be honored. Ginsburg had no reason to believe her replacement would not be a woman, as President Obama had nominated both Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Ginsburg had no reason to believe that her replacement would be less liberal, as Sotomayor actually disagreed more with Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts than Ginsburg did in the 2019 term. There was no reason for Ginsburg to do what she did, and that decision more than anything else is responsible for this moment.
2. In 2014 and 2010, Democrats lost several close Senate races and spent tens of millions of dollars on blowout losing races. If the party had decided to abandon clear losers and directed that spending elsewhere, Democrats might’ve had a Senate majority in 2016 when Scalia died. Which would’ve meant a liberal Supreme Court, not just a not as far right one, but a genuine liberal majority which hasn’t existed in generations. Let’s look at the 2010 races, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR-D) spent $12 million for 37% of the vote, Gov. Charlie Crist (FL-I) and Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL-D) spent a collective $23 million to receive 29.7% and 20.2% of the vote respectively, and Robin Carnahan (MO-D) spent $10 million to receive 40.6% of the vote. Meanwhile Democratic Senate candidates in Illinois and Pennsylvania failed by less than 2% of the vote. What might an extra $45 million split between the two of them have meant? So, what about 2014? Mark Pryor (AR-D) spent $14 million to receive 39% of the vote and Alison Lundergan Grimes spent $18 million to receive 41% of the vote. Meanwhile, Democrats lost Alaska, Colorado, and North Carolina by less the 2.3%. If those races had broken Democrats way, they would’ve certainly had enough votes to Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, this pattern has only intensified as Democrats burned a whopping $250 million dollars to be beaten by double digits in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Alabama while losing several close House races.
3. In 2009, Democrats could’ve attempted to codify Roe. For 3 months, Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and then just shy of it the rest of that congressional term. There were likely enough Pro-Choice Republicans to overcome the objections of Anti-Choice Democrats, and even if compromise legislation had to be crafted it is a near certainty that it would’ve been better than our current system which has allowed states like Texas and Mississippi to ban abortion without outright doing so. It certainly would’ve been better than allowing a conservative court to decide the fate of abortion. But the fault on this one doesn’t lay solely with Harry Reid, but with President Barack Obama. In 2007, he said at a speech to Planned Parenthood that the first thing he’d do as President was sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would’ve codified Roe. Before he’d been President 100 days, it had been completely dropped from his agenda and he said of the bill that it was “not my highest legislative priority” and apparently not a priority at all.

That leaves just one burning question, what can we do now? Some of you will be tempted to say “vote!” or some variation of “elect more Democrats”. I’d like you to just consider this, for a moment. In 2018, more than half of Americans could not name a single Supreme Court Justice. Although most Americans (71%) blame Vladimir Putin and Oil companies (68%) for the rising cost of oil, however a majority also blame President Biden (51%) and Democratic Party policies (52%). Most voters don’t perceive politics through the lens of obsessive partisan observers, and often are more likely to see correlations and be unaware of longer-term trends. This is all to say that there is a critical mass of voters who will say “Why should I be convinced that my support has mattered or will matter? I’ve always voted for Democrats, and they just beat Trump so why is this happening.” If Abortion rights disappear while Democrats control congress and the Presidency, the fine details will be lost and I don’t think it’s logical to assume that the response among voters will be a Democratic surge. Although, you should support candidates who support abortion rights when given the opportunity. It’s important to keep protesting, donate to abortion funds to support people who are going to have trouble finding access, and testify against state efforts to criminalize abortion.  But beyond that, what else is there? Not much that isn’t 10 years too late. What’s really important is for the left to develop a sense of our place of history and work towards a long-term vision for society. The right knows who they are and where they are going and have been working for it since the New Deal. We must have that same determination and will or there will come a day when we wake up in a country that we do not recognize as our own. We may already be there.

The post Would President Hillary Clinton have saved Roe? Probably Not appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Mr. President,

Every day the President is confronted with major issues that affect the life and prosperity of our nation and our planet. The decisions that the President makes often are collaborative with input needed from many players and the Constitution provides that some decisions require consent from another branch of government. However, there are moments when the decision belongs to the President and the President alone and these issues are often of the greatest consequence and shape the very identity of our nation. You are now faced with such a moment as Justice Breyer has announced his intention to retire from the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has been at times the solitary mover of progress and it has often been the roadblock to advancement. It is the one branch of government that does not find itself accountable to voters, to the media, or to the wrath of political donors. The Supreme Court is accountable only to the Constitution of the United States of America and has the ultimate authority over what that Constitution means. This should mean that the awesome task of nominating and confirming a Justice should be taken seriously and not treated as another partisan exercise. However, this has not been the case in the last several nomination battles as Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett have been confirmed in a process that has been totally outside of regular order. Furthermore, organizations like the Federalist Society have removed all pretense of judicial impartiality by poisoning the process with right-wing ideology disguised as constitutional reasoning. Regrettably, politics has become part of the process and will remain part of the process until the political will exists to enact the reforms necessary to restore public faith in the Supreme Court.

It is vital that we engage with reality as it exists, not as we wish it existed. The reality is our system of government is threatened by forces who do not believe in representative government or American democracy. The reality is that these forces are poised to gain a meaningful amount of political power over the next year and will exert that power to meet their ends of disrupting American democracy. The reality is that it is not guaranteed that these forces can be defeated without extraordinary action. Therefore, I am presenting an extraordinary action that could prove immeasurable in preventing our slide towards illiberal democracy.

Nominate Vice President Kamala Harris to fill this Supreme Court vacancy. The obvious should be stated that Harris is qualified for this position, she understands the constitution to be a living document, and she generally can be counted on as a liberal vote despite justified criticism of her past positions on criminal justice. There is something that is perhaps less obvious that must be said, the public generally does not expect nor at this current moment desire to see you seek re-election to a second term as President. It is assumed then by the public and by our party that the next Democratic nominee for President will be Vice President Harris. I believe given the increased risk of permanent and irreversible damage to the American system should authoritarian forces be successful in electing their candidate for President, it would be worse than irresponsible to have Vice President Harris lead our party into a general election.

The Vice President was unable to continue her 2020 campaign for President into 2020, dropping out well before her home state’s primary who’s polling placed her outside any hopes for victory. Vice President Harris, despite having a lower profile than yourself has been rated as significantly more unpopular by virtually every pollster. Candidly, I would not be surprised if the Vice President were the first Democrat to lose the popular vote in 20 years. Some of the opposition she faces is because of her race and gender, undoubtedly it must be in a country with as much fraught racial history and racism denialism as ours. However, it would be dishonest to suggest that all of her opposition comes from misogynists or racists.

This is not meant to disparage or attack the character of the Vice President; she would be a champion for the rights of so many and would likely establish a legacy rivaling the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should she be nominated and confirmed. The Supreme Court allows an individual to make changes to our society not possible from the White House or Congress, it would not be a demotion but a vote of confidence in the Vice President’s ability to interpret law.  However, it is my sincere belief that she would be unable to win a general election for President of the United States even in the most favorable of circumstances. Nominating Vice President Harris would not only fulfill your promise to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, but it would also allow you to pick a successor who would have a greater chance of success in a campaign for President. It is my hope that you would select Rep. Karen Bass of California or Rep. Barbara Lee of California or Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin to succeed the Vice President. These distinguished women have shown themselves to be dedicated public servants, empathetic campaigners, and more than capable of being President of the United States. Furthermore, they have been champions of your agenda as President and progressive causes throughout their careers.

You have often stated that we are in “a battle for the soul of America”, I would counter that for the last 60 years we have been in “a war for the soul of America”. It is imperative that we are all doing what we can to pull this country back from the brink if it can in fact be pulled back. I do not know that the Vice President would accept a nomination to the Supreme Court, but I believe that she should be asked. Mr. President, ultimately the choice of a Supreme Court nominee is yours and I hope that you will consider all of your options.

Sincerely,

Reece Ellis

St. Louis, Missouri

The post An Open Letter to Joe Biden: Nominate Kamala appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Our political system is structurally stacked against Democrats. The U.S. Senate gives overweighted power to small states, helping Republicans. The Electoral College is equally advantageous to Republicans.

Republicans have held the White House for sixteen of the 34 years since 1988, yet in only one of those eight elections since then have they won the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2004). There is little that can be done about either of these discriminatory sets of rules, short of constitutional amendments.

There is one area in which Democrats can act alone, and that is how they operate and schedule their presidential primaries. Right now, the Democratic primary / caucus schedule is heavily weighted towards small and predominantly white states. First on the list of contests in Iowa, then usually followed eight days later with the New Hampshire Primary. Both of these contests favor candidates who can attract a lot of early volunteers, because door-to-door canvassing is feasible and effective in such small states with months, even years, of lead time in advance.

For candidates whose predominant appeal is to metropolitan voters in blue states, it is an excruciating wait until primaries occur in such states. By that time, they are often out of the race because (a) they did poorly in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, (b) the media minimizes their chances, and (c) they run out of money.

Democrats could fix this by establishing their own schedule for primaries. One idea that has been suggested is setting up a series of four regional primary days, (a) Northeast, (b) Southeast, (c) Northwest, and (d) Southwest. Or, the regions could be completely different, though it helps to have clearly define geographic areas. Also, the order of the regional primaries could change in each quadrennial election year.

By changing how their party selects its presidential nominees, Democrats would demonstrate to the American people that they truly support democratic processes. It might eventually help in changing the Electoral College and bringing needed reform to the Senate.

Regrettably, when it comes to doing the heavy lifting to modify the Electoral College and the Senate rules, the Democratic Party is the equal to the Republican Party in perpetuating the status quo.

This and other systemic obstacles to Democrats is eloquently stated in Jedediah Britton-Purdy’s recent guest essay in the New York Times.

At a more basic level, today’s Republican Party succeeds only because the Electoral College, the Senate and the Supreme Court all tilt in its favor. That system has handed conservatives a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, despite the fact that only one Republican has won the presidential popular vote after 1988.

The Electoral College is like the Senate; it favors small states and is tone deaf to the margins by which candidates win individual states. Wyoming, a Republican state, has equal representation in the Senate to California, a Democratic state. Equal representation, but California has fully fifty-seven times as many people. That means that each person in Wyoming has fifty-seven times as much power in the Senate as individuals in California.

Democrats are nearly as responsible as Republicans for the perpetuation of the antiquated Electoral College. While many rank-and-file Democrats would like to see it abolished, party leaders are radio silent about it. They need to take the lead in either abolishing the Electoral College or passing the National Popular Vote Act in states totaling more than 270 Electoral votes. That act, which has passed 16 states with 195 electoral votes, instructs electors to vote for whomever wins the national popular vote. But that might be dicey now with how Republicans are trying to take power away from the electors and give them to state legislatures in Red States.

So, if Democrats wish to advance democracy without opposition from the Republicans, they may well want to focus on how they plan their primaries. Time is actually short, as plans for the 2024 primaries are already being made.

The post What Dems can actually do without Republicans appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On Tuesday, Jan. 11, there were three examples of a public officials being unfairly reamed or slighted by another official. The highly bizarre attacks on Dr. Anthony Fauci by Sen. Rand Paul showed a complete lack of civility, and rational thinking. In some ways, it was understandable, because through the years, we have seen a continuous flow of bizarre and far-fetched behavior from the junior senator from Kentucky. All the same, it was completely unwarranted, especially since Paul’s diatribes have contributed to vicious threats of violence directed at Dr. Fauci and his family.

Groups such as Black Voters Matter boycotted President Joe Biden’s major speech on civil rights in Atlanta. Perhaps the most prominent individual who would have been expected to attend but didn’t was Stacy Abrams. She is founder of Fair Fight Action and the likely Democratic nominee for Georgia governor this coming November as she was in 2018. She, and others, thought that the Biden speech was too little too late. They may have been on target about too late, but in retrospect, it is difficult to call the powerful speech too little.

The third case involves government response to COVID, but nothing involving vitriolic senators like Rand Paul or Roger Marshall from Kansas.

Dr. Fauci and Centers for Disease Control director Dr. Rochelle Walensky were grilled about the often confusing and even contradictory recommendations that government officials have given re. COVID. Policies on masks, vaccinations, testing and more continue to change frequently and sometimes unexpectedly.

There is no question that mistakes have been made. But consider the complexity of the problems. Fighting COVID is somewhat like whack-a-mole; when you find solutions to one kind of problem, or variant, then another one pops up.

What to recommend in the way of vaccinations (other than get them as quickly as you can), is difficult because they involve new science with limited time for testing. What masks to recommend depends on the supplies available, and helping consumers determine which are effective and which are knock-offs. The idea of providing adequate testing for 330 million Americans is overwhelming, considering the scope of the numbers involved. Manufacturing techniques are new and distribution logistics are complicated.

If Drs. Fauci and Walensky were like Donald Trump’s fraudulent advisor, Dr. Scott Atlas, then criticism would be warranted because he was neither serious nor compassionately concerned. Yes, Drs. Fauci and Walensky have made mistakes, but who wouldn’t? So long as they are making good faith efforts with intelligence and concern, they should be given a great deal of slack.

Similarly, Stacy Abrams and others may have been right that President Biden waited to long to give his voting rights speech. But he had good reasons. As someone who served in the U.S. Senate for thirty-six years, he knew how to quietly negotiate. Unfortunately, Sen. Joe Manchin could not be persuaded (hopefully that will change now following the Biden speech and the follow-up).

As we have said before, it is much more difficult for progressives to advance their agendas than it is for conservatives. This is because progressives actually want to do something; not block progress. The Biden Administration is staffed with many outstanding individuals and is working hard to address America’s and the world’s greatest problems. Let’s give them a break!

The post When to give a break to a politician appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Since August of this year, President Joe Biden’s popularity has been plummeting. The rule of thumb is that a president needs to have an approval rate that is at least ten points higher than his or her disapproval rating in order to stand a good chance of being reelected.

According to 538, in early August Biden was up 52 – 42%. It was that month that the president announced that the United States was initiating a thorough and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, where American troops had been since shortly after Nine-Eleven in 2001.

At the time of Biden’s announcement, MSNBC anchors Nicolle Wallace and Brian Williams jointly said that they speculated that 95% of the American people would support the withdrawal while 95% of the media would oppose it. If it was true that the preponderance of the American people supported the departure, it did not take long for the media to exercise overwhelming influence over the populace. By early September, Biden was underwater (higher disapproval than approval rating), 46%-47%. It wasn’t just Afghanistan; it was the lack of organization and progress with key domestic legislation such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Build Back Better Act (expanding the social safety net).

Biden had formidable members of Congress who preferred gridlock to giving him victory when he really needed it. The so-called “corporate Democratic twins” in the Senate, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, did and continue to block passage of the Build Back Better Act. If the bill passes at all, it will probably be at a tab that is $1 trillion less than what forty-eight other Democratic senators want.

In the House, the Progressive Caucus fashioned a strategy whereby the infrastructure bill would not be voted upon without a commitment to vote for the Build Back Better bill. They withheld their votes on the infrastructure bill, but fortunately thirteen Republicans voted for it to allow it to pass (nineteen Republicans in the Senate also voted for it earlier in the year). But the lack of unity among the Democrats made Biden look weak to some and contributed significantly to his drop in the polls.

To many, the fact that Joe Biden is such a nice guy and doesn’t seem to have a mean bone in his body would be reason enough for his popularity to stay well above water. Yes, he has made tactical mistakes with both foreign and domestic policy, but we all make mistakes, don’t we?

The fact that he has been burned for the kind of miscues that anyone might makes causes me to think that maybe the so-called independent voters are more like Republicans than Democrats. Republicans are much less tolerant at giving Democrats a break than Dems are of Republicans. Biden’s good intentions and humane governance is not playing well enough with independents to keep his job approval rating intact.

Is there anything that Biden can do to improve his job approval rating, and encourage citizens to be more positively inclined towards Democrats in general? Molly Jong-Fast of the Atlantic Magazine writes that “Biden Needs an Enemy.” She asserts that demonizing his enemies is what has allowed Donald Trump to stay so popular among his base. Biden needs to play hardball and forego giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt. The reluctance of Republicans to support virtually any proposal from Democrats shows that while the GOP can talk the bi-partisan game, it rarely plays it. One of the most telling incidents was in 2009-2010 when President Barack Obama was bending over backwards to get Republicans to support the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). He had exclusive meetings with Republicans in which he encouraged them to share their thoughts and let his administration know what they wanted in the bill. Of course, this was all premised on the assumption that they cared about improving affordable and effective health care for American citizens. That proved to not be the case.

Iowa Senator Charles Grassley seemed interested in engaging in the dialogue, and Obama repeatedly tried to incorporate some of his suggestions into the bill. But whenever it became time to count noses and see who would approve a compromise version of the bill, no Republicans would indicate support. At the time when the bill was passed exclusively with Democratic votes, Grassley admitted that he never had any intention of supporting the bill. He seemed to simply enjoy jacking around Obama and other Democrats.

Joe Biden has tried to forge bi-partisan alliances for his domestic policies. To a certain extent, it worked for the infrastructure bill. But for the most part, Republicans have shown little interest in collaboration. Those who worked and voted with him on infrastructure are now facing repercussions from party leadership. The bottom line is that there is little point in Biden using valuable time to try to get Republicans to try to change their ways.

But what if Biden adopted a different strategy; one in which he is played hardball and essentially attacked Republicans whenever they engaged in behavior that was outside the bounds of the rational and empathetic thinking that characterizes most Democrats, both in and out of Congress and the White House? Even if it would be a good idea for Biden to do this (and there are ample opportunities for his team to poll the American people on how they would react to this), it really would be an impossibility for one simple fact.

Being nasty and aggressive is not who Joe Biden is. What’s more, he doesn’t seem to have a sarcastic sense of humor, the type that Barack Obama utilized at the White House Correspondents Dinner against Donald Trump in 2011. He himself would likely become a target of mockery if he tried to vitriolically lash out at his opponents.

However, he could be firmer in his deadlines with Republicans. It hurt him that votes on much of his domestic agenda extended beyond the time that he decided to pull the United States out of Afghanistan. Since Republicans have a consistent and proven record of jacking around Democratic presidents, it would serve him well to give them ‘x’ amount of time to contribute to a solution, and if they don’t, then move ahead as best he can without their input. It may be that this will irritate Joe Manchin, but Manchin too is going to have to show that he does not want to make the Democratic Party look tentative and even feeble at time.

Those who criticize Biden for being either too patient or too rash are being unfair to him because neither option is without its negative consequences. What is important to keep in mind is how he is a quantum leap over Donald Trump in how to function as president of the United States. It is not Biden’s fault that Republicans are as strong as they are in the Congress. He has been dealt a difficult hand. Let’s work with him and encourage others to show compassion towards him. We have already gotten half a loaf of what we want from him; hopefully we can up that considerably with passage of a credible form of the Build Back Better Act and then focus on maintaining control of one or both houses of Congress in 2022.

The post Should Biden Play Hardball or Softball? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Donald Trump uttered the word and visited the place. We’re talking about Iowa. And off we go, the 2024 presidential election is under way.

There is virtually nothing democratic about the Iowa caucuses. But that has not kept Democrats from worshiping at the altar of Des Moines, Bettendorf and Dyersville where there is a Field of Dreams.

At a time when virtually all Democrats in the House and forty-eight in the Senate are strongly advocating strengthening our democracy with The For the People Act (H.R. 1) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4), the party is hamstrung by Republicans and a few of their own, most notably Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ).

The Democratic Party also has a structural disadvantage in the U.S. Senate. While far more Americans vote for the 50 Democrats in the Senate than the 50 Republicans, any gain that Democrats would accrue is negated by the gerrymandered nature of the Upper Chamber. Wyoming has as many senators as California even though California has 57 residents for every individual in Wyoming.

But there is one part of our political process where Democrats can effect meaningful change without constitutional changes. This is the manner in which the party of progressives selects its nominees for president. The method for choosing nominees for president is as archaic and undemocratic as any part of our political process, and Democrats do not seem particularly concerned about it.

The quadrennial nomination process begins in Iowa. With a population of 3.1 million people, it represents less that one percent of the United States. The U.S. is 13.4% African-American; Iowa is 4.1%. The U.S. is 18.5% Hispanic; Iowa is 6.3%. In the U.S. as a whole, 13.6% of the population is foreign-born; in Iowa the number is 5.3%. Oh, and Iowa does not have a presidential primary; it has caucuses in which less than 10% of eligible voters participate.

Just across the Mississippi River from eastern Iowa is Illinois. Like Iowa, Illinois is rich in farmland and rural development. But it also is home to America’s third largest city, Chicago. It is a state that consistently votes Democrat, thus making it an excellent state in which candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination can compete. It has minority representation reflective of the country as a whole. It has strong components of virtually every crucial constituency of the Democratic Party.

It clearly makes sense for the Democrats to open their primary season in a state like Illinois. However, we all know that relegating Iowa to a lower ranking would not play well in Iowa. In the past six presidential elections, Democrats carried Iowa in 2000 (Al Gore) as well as 2008 and 2012 (Barack Obama), so there may well be a price for Dems to pay if they relegated Iowa in the nomination process.

If the Democrats choose to engage in meaningful electoral reform, it will require creating a level playing field across the country. The process of leveling will mean that some states like Iowa will have less clout in the nomination process and other states like California will have far more.

It is quite possible that in the short run, the Democratic Party will lose support in smaller states. But that is already happening, and trends indicate that Democrats will be paying less attention to New Hampshire and more to Texas.

But once the Democratic Party has a clear policy of promoting democracy across the board, it will be easier for it to argue for statehood for the District of Columbia as well as Puerto Rico. Both such developments would help Democrats bring more democracy to the U.S. Senate. Once that happens, our country will be much closer to operating as a true democracy.

It’s a small window of opportunity to talk about Iowa without getting thrown out of the room. Now is the time for Democrats to initiate that conversation. Promoting true democracy should be a consistent goal for the Democratic Party.

The post How Democrats Can Promote Democracy starting with Iowa appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s been clear for some time that Joe Manchin is a one-man wrecking crew. With help from Kyrsten Sinema, for the past seven months, he has essentially stopped all major legislation that the Biden Administration and Congressional leadership have wanted passed. He has played right into the hands that Donald Trump and his legion of sycophants have wanted – making Biden appear weak and ineffectual.

Progressive Democrats can be praised for their strategy that has kept alive the possibility of a significant “soft infrastructure” bill with a price tag of $2.5 trillion or more. But without demonstrative help from Manchin and Sinema, each day is another one in which nothing happens, and Biden appears incapable of enacting his agenda.

With the exception of the Trumpsters, Biden is personally liked by most American voters. But his affability is not enough to keep his popularity above water – above 50%. That is the minimum level for it to be for Democrats to have a chance to hold on the Senate and the House in the 2022 mid-term elections.

When Biden took office in January of this year, his ratings were in the mid to high 50s. Now, he has slipped to 43%, far too low to help keep his party in power following next year’s elections, particularly since 2022 will reflect a new landscape with further Republican gerrymandering and undermining of our electoral systems at the state levels.

As reported in Gabe Fleisher’s Wake Up to Politics, one Quinnipiac poll released last week showed that Biden’s approval rating was recorded as low as 38%; among independents, his approval rating sank to 32% while his disapproval rating swelled to 60%.

It would seem logical to cast blame on Biden himself, but he has skillfully and patiently worked with all segments of his party as well as some Republicans to advance the legislation that is fundamental to his programs to improve the economic, social, and human rights qualities of life in America.

The central problem is with the way in which the Democratic Party is stuck in stagnation. While there are now hundreds of outstanding Democratic legislators in Congress, they each have particular elements of a people-centric agenda that they want to advance. The problem is that at this point, virtually nothing is advancing.

In the current political quagmire, we have heard the often-used term, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” If that were ever true, now would be the time. President Biden, the fifty Democrats in the U.S. Senate and the 220 Democrats in the House are spinning their wheels, each trying to get a little more of what is best for them and their constituents.

Now is the time for President Biden and Congressional leaders to pull together and determine what their “lowest common legislation denominator” is. What legislation would be in a package that they could agree upon NOW.

It might not be much, but at least it would get things moving. Voters would see new construction projects with those wonderful signs adorning them, “Your tax dollars at work.”

Get the low-hanging-fruit, and then work to pull together winning alliances for the remaining parts of the Democratic legislative agenda. If something is not going to pass, put it near the top of campaign planks for 2022 and 2024. But keep going back to passing what you can. There is enough that Manchin and Sinema want to keep the bucket of legislative accomplishments in motion. Democrats should keep in mind that virtually all of their proposed policies are overwhelmingly favored by the American people. As Republicans get more and more absurd in their priorities, Democrats stand to gain further strength with the American people.

Right now, the most effective thing that Democrats can do to optimize passage of the legislative priorities is to make Joe Biden look good. He is doing his part. Others need to rally around him. Let’s put some of these disagreements into the ‘W’ column for the Democratic Party and then further build off that momentum.

The post Democrats need to rally behind Biden appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If there is a single word that best describes what is key to being a good friend, and also being a good Democrat, it is empathy. You care. You care about people who you know, and equally important, you care about those who you may not know, but who are in need of support. It is a form of synchrony; you deeply value those who share many of your political views as well as those you don’t know but who benefit from your progressive policies.

That’s why if you take a look at the $3.5 trillion proposal that President Joe Biden and progressives in both the House and Senate are advocating, it is clear that you want to provide essential help for those within our society who are most in need.

The bill offers key support to virtually all parts of our society that are struggling economically or socially. There is $450 billion to provide childcare and universal pre-K for young children, at tremendous help to their parents and other care-givers. Medicare for the elderly is expanded to include coverage of dental, hearing and vision services. Prescription drug prices will be cut; there will be more paid family and medical leave.

For the first time since FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, a broad and vibrant plan is proposed to address the major societal needs of the day. Yes, there would be some inevitable inefficiencies in funding a bill so large, but both the public and the private sectors of our economy have repeatedly demonstrated that money can be wasted regardless of how much of it is involved. The bottom line, as President Biden and so many progressives have iterated, is that the economic and social benefits provided to the recipients of the goods and services included in the bill is of far greater value than the cost in marginal inflation or normal waste or inefficiency.

Simply put, it is what friends do for one another.

Which brings us to the question of personal friendships among Democratic leaders in our government. We know from the writings of Chris Mooney (The Republican Brain) and George Lakoff (Don’t Think of an Elephant) that most Democrats are warm and caring towards one another, lacking the harshness of many Republicans. Democrats are less authoritarian, less certain of themselves, and more willing to work through compromise with one another. They place more value on the “common good” than Republicans do; while Republicans are more committed to preserving individual liberties, with some key exceptions such as reproductive rights and voting rights.

You rarely see Democrats going hot and cold at one another the way that Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham do with Donald Trump. The reverence with which most Democrats speak of Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi bears no resemblance to the ways in which the Republicans speak of one another.

Democrats are “doers;” they see problems in our society and are committed to using public policy to address quality of life problems. They are impatient with stalling. Every moment wasted is additional time when those in need must suffer.

This gets us to the curious case of Joe Manchin, senior senator from West Virginia. He is a Democrat, and many regard him as the only Democrat who could be elected from his state which over the course of fifty years has essentially flipped from all blue to all red. Manchin, along with Senator Kirsten Sinema of Arizona, have been the sole Democrats in the upper chamber who have not supported President Biden’s 3.5 trillion “soft infrastructure” plan. Both are playing it coy like a cat, making it difficult to ascertain what they really support. Just recently, it was revealed that Manchin had indicated this past July that he would accept $1.5 trillion in spending, though with little certainty as to which programs he supported and which ones he opposed. He seems in no hurry to advance the Biden agenda.

But what may be most interesting about Manchin is how he simply did not act like a friend to his fellow Democrats. He expressed opposition to his colleagues’ support of $3.5 trillion measure and went through the motions of trying to reach compromise. But to date, he has not come close to the neighborhood where his fellow Democrats reside.

What is most baffling about Manchin is the lack of loyalty and friendship that he offers to his fellow Democrats. This is particularly true with the President Biden. Joe Biden is the consummate political professional who makes time to understand the perspectives and positions of all his fellow Democrats as well as a number of Republicans.

No one could be more gracious with Joe Manchin than Joe Biden, yet Manchin seems to offer nothing of substance in return. It is difficult to say this, but what Joe Manchin reminds me of is ….. is a Republican. Manchin shows no urgency to move ahead with progressive legislation. He cavalierly postpones deadlines for when legislation should be considered, all the while forgetting that the Democrats in the Senate are a single heartbeat away from losing control of the chamber.

If Joe Manchin cannot act like a true friend to Joe Biden, and to forty-eight of his colleagues in the Senate who repeatedly bend over backwards to try to accommodate him, then he truly is an outcast.

Not only does he fail to be an active Democrat trying to seize the moment to address a myriad of domestic problems, ones which may have more impact on his home state of West Virginia than any other state, but he refuses to engage in the give and take that characterizes warm friendship.

We mentioned Chris Mooney’s book The Republican Brain, and it may be that Manchin has personality traits more like a Republican than a Democrat. If that is the case, then we may have to give up hope that he can be part of the solution. I hope that I am wrong.

I’d love to say, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.”

The post Being A Good Democrat Means Being A Good Friend appeared first on Occasional Planet.