Like many progressives, I would be delighted to have a Green New Deal as well as a host of other progressive programs that would immediately and directly help the American people. However, this is not going to happen anytime soon. Joe Manchin has shown that he can single-handedly prevent it now; he has in the past. His help from Republicans will grow exponentially if they reclaim one or both houses of Congress this coming November.

All the same, political power in the United States is distributed in a way that gives Republicans far more influence than they are warranted. They hold half the seats in the U.S. Senate despite the fact that their senators represent only 43% of the population, compared to the Democrats 57% In other words, 43% of the American people are represented by the 50 Republican senators; the remaining 57% by the 50 Democrats. That is clearly unfair.

In the U.S. House of Representatives, five million more Americans (3%) voted for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates, and yet the Democrats have only a few more seats than the Republicans. Once again, this is unfair, especially as we will shortly have new elections for the House with hundreds of districts that are gerrymandered.

The Supreme Court is heavily weighted towards Republicans, in a particularly pernicious way since five justices were appointed by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote. They became presidents only because of the antiquated Electoral College.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed by President George W. Bush who lost the popular election to Al Gore by 500,000 people. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were appointed by Donald Trump who lost the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton by three million popular votes.

Over half (5 out of 9) of the justices who were appointed by semi-illegitimate presidents. This has been a grave and great injustice and needs to be corrected.

These problems of disproportionate power in the hands of Republicans exists in all three branches of our government. This is why we need a recalibration of how power is distributed in Washington and in our states. Recalibration is different from retribution. Changes should not be designed to make it “the Democrats turn.” Instead, it should be time for “fairness to prevail.”

Here’s how we would do it in three steps:

1. Either abolish the Electoral College or codify the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in which the electors in all states are bound to vote for whomever one the national popular vote, not the vote in their state. This would be fair because our presidents would be elected solely on the basis of the vote of the people – the people who he or she represents.
2. Outlaw gerrymandering, the practice of dividing geographic areas into legislative districts in a way that gives one party an advantage over another. By outlawing gerrymandering, the number of seats from each party from each state would come close to reflecting that party’s percentage of voters in the state.
3. Institute some permanent and temporary changes to the Supreme Court:
   1. Permanent: Put term limits on how long a Supreme Court justice can serve, perhaps twenty years.
   2. Temporary: Because the court is currently leaning so far to the right, allow President Joe Biden to nominate three additional justices to the Supreme Court, temporarily constituting the court with ten members. Each of Biden’s nominees would be linked to one of the three Trump appointees. They would leave the Court when that particular Trump appointee no longer serves. The president at that time will then select one nominee to replace the two. When all six of the Trump and Biden appointees (exclusive of Ketanji Jackson Brown) are no longer on the court, it will be back down to nine members.

It is fair to ask how could this come to be. Why would Republicans accept these three changes, all of which would help Democrats, at least in the short run? These would be difficult changes to enact under any circumstances.

Naturally, there is no guarantee that Republicans would accept any of these changes. However, if the American people knew that Democrats were going to take a temporary pass on the most impactful items in their legislative agenda in order to spend several years focusing on recalibrating our democracy, it is possibly that many independents would join Democrats and a few Republicans to get this done. No guarantees, but the idea of advancing and simplifying democracy has a natural appeal to a great many voters. It’s worth a try because Manchin and the Republicans are not going away.

The post Recalibrating our Political System appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Filmmaker Michael Moore was on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show on Tuesday, May 24, 2022. It was the day of another senseless mass shooting in the United States. The targets this time were once again school children. Twenty-one people in all killed in the town of Uvalde, Texas.

Moore is clearly for strong gun control legislation, but he didn’t say what so many proponents of gun control frequently say, “I believe in the Second Amendment.”

Instead, Moore pointed out how the Second Amendment has essentially given pro-gun people free license in opposing meaningful gun control. Then Moore raised a fascinating hypothetical question. “What if bullets had not been invented until fifty years after the U.S. constitution was written?”

His point was that gun rights are completely different from any other rights in the constitution. All of the other rights would have been relevant in the times of Greece, or Rome, or really any time. These non-gun rights could easily have stood alone without the Second Amendment.  This doesn’t mean that people could not have had guns once they and bullets were invented. The difference is that there would not have been a constitutional guarantee to be able to purchase and possess guns.

There are many who say that even with the Second Amendment, there is no such guarantee. The wording is thoroughly ambiguous:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It may seem at first that this amendment guarantees people the right to bear arms, but the context is having a well regulated militia. So does the right to bear arms only apply for those who are in a militia (armed forces) or the United States, or can they own guns regardless of whether or not they are in the U.S. military?

This argument is one which America’s gun owners have won. Much as those who favor gun control want immediate new regulations, it appears that it will be years before Congress passes meaningful legislation or the Supreme Court chooses to value public safety above gun rights.

There are numerous reasons why the gun advocates are currently winning this dispute:

1. They own most of the guns, and that frightens many who want to limit gun rights.
2. The roots of the Second Amendment have a great deal to do with slave owners’ rights and needs to hunt down runaway slaves. Creating the constitution required considerable compromise to get southern states to agree to the document. Protecting their control over slaves who were already in the United States was essential to southern states’ acceptance of the constitution. In contemporary American society, many White Americans feel that they need to have guns to protect themselves against Black Americans.
3. Unlike most other democratic countries, the United States has this peculiar institution called states rights. In many cases, the rights of states supersede those of the federal government. For example, the state of Georgia can make a law stating that it is illegal to bring a glass of water to someone standing in line to vote, and currently there is nothing that the federal government can do about it. In the absence of strong federal gun controls, the states pass more “gun rights.”
4. The U.S. Senate favors small and southern states, and those are the states in which gun rights are most deeply cherished. This makes it very difficult to pass meaningful gun control legislation. It might be possible without a filibuster, but that arcane rule is cherished by senators from small states, rural states and southern states.

The United States did not come close to writing a constitution in a time before guns and bullets were invented. The first guns were invented in China in the 10^th Century. Michael Moore was not trying to point out that we almost avoided having the Second Amendment in our Constitution. What he meant is that it is significantly different than any other part of the constitution, and had guns not existed, we would have found a way to agree on the constitution.

It’s one of those “What ifs ….” that keep us thinking. It’s interesting talk, but regrettably, only academic now. Barring some sort of unforeseen circumstances, we’re going to have to live with lightly regulated guns for some time which means that we’ll have more Uvaldes and other mass shootings. The “thoughts and prayers” come easily; meaningful gun control is stymied by the oddity of having the Second Amendment in our Constitution.

The post What if Guns and Bullets Had Not Been Invented Before the Constitution Was Written? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We are now at the end of Women’s History Month after recognizing Black History Month in February. The United States Senate, appropriately, is now on the precipice of confirming the first Black woman to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. When Senator Booker told Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson that he couldn’t help but look at her and see his own mother, I knew exactly what he meant. I saw my own mother, a Black woman, and I thought about her and what it might’ve meant to her as a little girl to have seen this moment.

Booker said “I’m not gonna let my joy be stolen, because I know – you and I – we appreciate something that we get that a lot of my colleagues don’t. I know Tim Scott does…And I want to tell you, when I look at you, this is why I get emotional. I’m sorry, you’re a person that is so much more than your race and gender. You’re a Christian, you’re a mom, you’re an intellect, you love books. But for me, I’m sorry, it’s hard for me not to look at you and not see my mom, not to see my cousins, one of them who had to come here and sit behind you. She had to have your back. I see my ancestors and yours. Nobody’s going to steal the joy of that woman in the street, or the calls that I’m getting, or the texts. Nobody’s going to steal that joy. You have earned this spot. You are worthy. You are a great American.”

Senator Booker cried, Judge Brown Jackson cried, I cried, and I imagine millions of Black people in America cried as well. This should be a moment of national solidarity and great celebration, as a Black twitter user said “If Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson gets confirmed she’ll be the first Black Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall to serve. And before you try to correct me with your thinky thoughts, I know what I tweeted. Thanks for understanding in advance.”

So why doesn’t any of this feel celebratory? Why does it feel like some of my joy has been stolen?

Black History month is something like a dark joke (no pun intended) among many Black Americans. We’d gladly tell you that February is an opportunity for White people to learn about what we already know (and then promptly forget in time for next February). It’s become as commercialized and hollowed out as every other holiday in America and so we’ve even developed our own traditions, like the collective gritting of teeth when coworkers inevitably say something along the lines of “at least you get a whole month!” and of course the corporate apology for the ill-thought racist product. The curriculum offered to children in school (more on that later) is so reductive that it usually consists of a listing of inventors, a poem from Langston Hughes, watching the “I Have a Dream Speech”, and some discussion of the civil war but generally not it’s cause (slavery). There’s a Frederick Douglass speech titled “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July” where he calls out the contradictions of a freedom centered holiday in a nation which at the time had over 3 million enslaved people. I’m reminded of that every year in February, and I’m reminded of it now with the President’s well-meaning gesture of nominating Judge Brown Jackson by the end of February.

I can’t say I’m as familiar with the dynamics surrounding Women’s History month, but I’m sure similar ironies and contradictions present themselves. What do I mean by contradictions? Consider the last several years which nonetheless has very public acknowledgements of Black History.

In 2005, many residents of almost entirely black neighborhoods in New Orleans were left scrambling after the worst Hurricane the region had seen in living memory. Many died without assistance during the flooding, and many of those who didn’t were met with silence from the federal government.

In 2012, Trayvon Martin was murdered in Florida and Barack Obama was pilloried for displaying a semblance of sympathy for an unarmed teenager who was killed by a racist.

In 2014, Ferguson Missouri was consumed by protests and police aggression after the shooting death of Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer. A no-fly zone was instituted by the governor, to keep the cameras from showing the despair of the people on the ground. Eric Garner, another Black man, was strangled to death by police in New York City for allegedly selling individual cigarettes. Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old, was shot for holding a plastic toy rifle. Meanwhile in Nevada, a white rancher named Bundy claimed to “know a lot about the negroes” including how “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”  All while pointing dozens of actual loaded rifles at federal law enforcement.

In 2015, a white supremacist domestic terrorist killed 9 Black parishioners in South Carolina. He did it to start a “race war”. When he was captured, the police delivered him to burger king for a hot meal before delivering him to prison. A 5-year-old survived by laying in the blood on the floor pretending to be dead.

In 2016, the man who had popularized the racist myth that the first Black President was illegitimate because he wasn’t an American citizen was elected President himself and his party won a majority of the popular vote in Congress the same year, many of them not condemning the myth and others having trafficked in it themselves with no consequence from the voting public.

Then there’s everything that’s happened since. These past two years especially have made the contradictions clearer than they’ve ever been, beginning with the international outpouring of righteous indignation at the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. But as time went on, the government’s resolve weakened and the patience of the white public which has since soured on the idea that Black Lives Matter with the media glad to write stories making imaginary links between a nonexistent defunding of police and crime. Now just 2 years shy of the anniversary of the murder and the outrage, we’re confronted nationally with a wave of white parents successfully lobbying government at all levels to erase Black people from history. To quote Senator Booker, God Bless America.

So, we arrive in February once again, the Judge is nominated, the kabuki begins and the insincere niceties are written everywhere that they can be read. Then we entered March, and that was forgotten. If you watched the confirmation, you know what I’m talking about. There’s only so many times you can see someone accused of being soft on child pornography and pedophiles. There’s only so many times you can see someone’s intelligence and credentials questioned. There’s only so many times you can watch someone be talked over, shouted down, disrespected, and condescended to. There is only so much one can withstand and still maintain their joy.

Judge Brown Jackson will become Justice Brown Jackson, and the swelling pride I feel because of her success is shared by many other Black Americans. But the joy that Sen. Booker feels I reckon still escapes most of us, it certainly has escaped me. Sen. Booker is known for being this generation’s happy warrior, it is in his nature to see our better angels first. There is a liberal tendency to cope with these moments by imagining the “end of history” and the moral arc of the universe bending towards justice or the increasing diversity or the passion of the next generation. It should be said this is a step forward and it speaks of the progress that might be possible, though not inevitable.

As Booker and Brown-Jackson and myself and the 40 million Black people living in America must know, this nomination changes the racial composition of the Supreme Court, but it does not change the soul of America.

The post Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Confirmation Should’ve Been a Celebration appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s really hard to be a Democrat these days. Yes, at the moment, we have a slim majority in the House of Representatives and the slenderest of margins in the Senate. Joe Biden is our president. All of this contributes to why it is especially important now for Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to join their fellow Democrats and support the Build Back Better Act.

Everything comes with difficulty for Democrats. It’s not like with the Republicans where there is a myriad of ways to say no, to obstruct, to negate, to undermine. Democrats have to deal with a real diversity of opinions within their ranks and focus on constructing policy rather than destructing programs.

In 2009-10, Democrats had a slim workable majority in Congress and were able to pass the Affordable Care Act. It was a significant step forward, but because of literally no help from Republicans and some dissension within their ranks, it was a watered-down version of the bill that President Barack Obama wanted. It did not include the public option which would have given citizens the right to choose a government-sponsored health care program that would have been more affordable than others because unlike private plans, it did not involve make a profit for the insurer. Despite the absence of the public option, the ACA was the biggest new federal program passed since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

Right now, there is an opportunity for Democrats to once again pass major legislation. They have done so with the COVID-related American Rescue Plan and then the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. But there is a third piece of legislation that will really strengthen the social and economic safety net that was created in President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and then the Great Society. It is the Build Back Better Act.

This omnibus bill is a remarkable proposal that provides comprehensive benefits for everyone from infants to the very elderly. Once again, it appears that there will be no help in the Senate in passing the bill. And, if history serves us right, next year’s mid-term elections will see one or both houses of Congress revert to the Republicans. That will put an end to any meaningful social, economic and human rights legislation that Joe Biden wants to pass.

This is why now is not the time for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to not jack around Biden, Congressional Democrats and the American people. We have a window of opportunity that is almost certain to shut after next year’s elections. Currently, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and others can go to Manchin and Sinema and ask them to support the Build Back Better Act. Manchin in particular has shown a willingness to meet, even at inconvenient hours. He hears, though we don’t know how well he listens. But this is the time for him to accept the wins that he has already accomplished (including reduction of the bill by more than a trillion dollars). He could still qualify to be TIME Magazine’s Person of the Year because he has perhaps had more influence of the US, if not the world, than any other person. TIME awards the honor whether the change effected by the recipient is positive or negative.

After the 2022 mid-terms, Democrats will likely be in the minority. Any talks between Biden and Congressional leaders with Manchin or Sinema will be meaningless. As the political pendulum has swung in recent years, there may not be another opportunity for a decade or more.

So, Joe and Kyrsten, whether your really are Democrats or not, now is the time to at least pretend to be one and help the party in this infrequent window of opportunity. Tomorrow’s next chance is far too far off.

The post Another reason why Manchin and Sinema should vote like Dems, at least for now appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Robert Byrd served in the United States Senate for 51 years representing the people of West Virginia as a Democrat. 51 years is worth several lifetimes in politics and the country changed in a myriad of ways from 1959 to 2010, and so did Robert Byrd. Growth is important not just in politics but in life and often if one is a politician those can look like the same thing, but there is a difference between genuine introspection and political gamesmanship. Byrd falls into the former, and so far, former Vice President (and Senate contemporary) Joe Biden has fallen into the latter.

Before Byrd was elected to office he was still active in local politics, he recruited over 150 people to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan and he was elected the top officer of his chapter by a unanimous vote. Byrd in his capacity as a Klan leader was a prolific writer and one of his letters addressed the possibility of an integrated army, “I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” Eventually Byrd left the KKK but he did not leave behind the ideas of that organization, for decades Byrd clung to his beliefs that were without question rooted in white supremacy and he pursued policies that protected racist institutions.

Byrd joined Senate Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a filibuster that lasted over 80 days and the legislation was only able to pass after the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927. Byrd’s personal filibuster of 14 hours and 13 minutes remains today the 11th longest filibuster in the 213-year history of the practice. Byrd also voted against the Voting Rights Act and the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, going as far as to solicit the help of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to dig up dirt to kill his nomination. Byrd didn’t just have a bad record on race, he also supported the red-baiting Joseph McCarthy and the failure of conscience that was Vietnam. Byrd could’ve continued to align himself with bitter regressive men like Strom Thurmond and Herman Talmadge, there would’ve been no political consequences as Byrd was electorally secure in West Virginia and was quickly gaining seniority in the Senate. But he didn’t continue as he did, Byrd apologized and then he spent the rest of his life attempting to come to terms with his past.

In his autobiography Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields he said “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again.” Starting in the 1970s Byrd renounced his segregationist past and began to attempt to make amends with the communities he had harmed. Byrd was fiercely outspoken against President Bush’s determination to launch an illegal war in Iraq. After originally calling the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. “self-seeking rabble rouser”, he advocated the creation of a federal holiday to celebrate his memory and acknowledging “I am the only one in the Senate who must vote for this bill.” Byrd eventually went on to earn the support of the NAACP and respect within West Virginia’s black community. The biggest symbol of Byrd’s evolution happened in May of 2008, after a string of losses and a controversy involving an explosive pastor there was doubt about whether DNC superdelegates would continue to support Sen. Barack Obama. Then Robert Byrd endorsed Obama, perhaps securing delegate support and ultimately the nomination of America’s first black President. Byrd later went on to cast the deciding vote in support of Obamacare while dying from a terminal illness.

Byrd did not have a perfect record nor was he progressive, not really by any metric. He supported anti-gay legislation which was common for the time though still abhorrent. Byrd was a proponent of tough on crime policies and his politics while more liberal in his old age were still reflective of conservative West Virginia. Byrd’s politics overall were not especially commendable, but they were evidence of a man who was affected positively by his experiences and became a more ethical leader.

Joe Biden served with Robert Byrd for 30 years and witnessed his evolution first hand, that is why it is so disappointing that he has not learned from his example. Biden’s record may not include segregation, but it does include some of the worst policy decisions in recent years. Biden wrote the mass-incarceration ‘94 crime bill that has imprisoned a generation of black and Latino men. Biden voted for the illegal war in Iraq that left hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s dead, gave rise to ISIS, cost trillions of dollars, and has ushered us into an era of forever war. Biden wrote the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act which lead to millions of Americans falling deeper into economic despair as they were unable to file “clean slate” bankruptcies during the Great Recession forcing people into what Bob Cesca called “neo-indentured-servitude to creditors”.

Joe Biden’s record is mixed but there are countless times, whether relating to Anita Hill or his affinity for the same segregationists that Byrd distanced himself from, when Biden was decidedly not on the side of progress. Biden has had bright spots like his support of marriage equality as Vice President while the official position of the administration was opposed, but those bright spots are far and few between. Now Biden is running for President of the United States (again) and his record is coming under fair scrutiny. Biden is leading the field and stands a good chance to be the nominee of the Democratic Party and perhaps beat Donald Trump in the upcoming Presidential election. He has had a little over a decade to evolve and learn and change his politics for the better, but he’s failed to rise to the occasion thus far.

It is not too late for Biden to become a better politician and a better person by looking inward and taking account of the consequences of the actions of his career and redefining his politics to serve as reparations for those he’s harmed. Humility is often missing from politics and hubris is often excessive, and Biden has shown too much of the latter and has only been forced into the former after embarrassing himself through unforced errors. Not only do the American people deserve a better Joe Biden, but Biden deserves a better version of himself. It’s difficult to change in politics and in life and more difficult still to sustain that change (see the many faces of Mitt Romney). Biden should ask himself why does he want to be in government. If the answer is to exploit proximity to power to achieve some personal fantasy of grandeur, then it’s not necessary to change. However, if the answer is something more noble, to be in the service of the public and use government as a tool to meaningfully improve the lives of others, then he must recognize that he has not always achieved that goal and spend this campaign and a potential presidency fighting for that end.

The post The Redemption of Robert Byrd and What Biden Could Learn appeared first on Occasional Planet.

This week Stacey Abrams announced that she would not be a candidate for US Senate in Georgia in 2020 perhaps gearing up for a run for the White House instead. She is not the only top-tier senate recruit who has opted not to run. In Texas both Beto O’Rourke and Julian Castro are running for President instead of against Sen. John Cornyn. In Colorado former Gov. John Hickenlooper, who has proven his staying power in his state by being elected and re-elected in Republican wave years, has launched a quixotic quest for the presidency instead of challenging Sen. Cory Gardner. It also appears that in Montana, Gov. Steve Bullock will decide to seek the Presidency instead of challenging Sen. Steve Daines who is potentially vulnerable. It was always going to be difficult to retake the Senate in 2020, but Democrats have made the path increasingly more narrow which has widespread consequences regardless of how the Presidential election pans out.

Democrats need to pick up three seats in order to retake the Senate which in theory sounds simple enough until you look at a map of the contested races. Democrats have an Alabama sized problem in their plan to retake the majority, and it’s very unlikely that Sen. Doug Jones is going to be able to outperform the partisan identity of his  state considering President Trump will also be on the ballot and Roy Moore (probably) won’t. So Democrats will probably need four seats, which again is a heavy order.

The path of least resistance for Democrats runs through Colorado, Arizona, Maine, and it’s difficult to imagine another pick-up opportunity:

• Some Democrats have hopes for Kentucky given that according to Morning Consult, Sen. Mitch McConnell is the least popular senator in America. However, he is also of course the Majority Leader, and will have access to one of the largest fundraising networks in the United States.
• There are also hopes for North Carolina but given that in 2016, no state voted for a candidate for senate and president from opposite parties, partisanship may once again win out. Incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis hasn’t uniformly behaved as a Trump sycophant in the Senate, which may help with moderates in his home state.
• Iowa is another potential pick-up opportunity, but Iowa seems to be trending red. In 2018, they re-elected their Republican governor (as well as some statewide Democrats). Incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst is also fairly popular, and now a member of GOP senate leadership.
• Kansas seems to be an unlikely state for Democrats, it has after all been represented exclusively by Republicans since 1939. However with the election of a Democratic governor last fall and the retirement of incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts, there does exist a strong bench of contenders, including Congresswoman Sharice Davids (KS-3) and 2014 gubernatorial nominee Paul Davis.

So Democrats are left in a somewhat awkward position, because while winning the Presidency seems paramount, we could still effectively be locked out of power because of Republican obstruction in the Senate. If Democrats should lose the presidency, it’s likely that President Trump will replace somewhere between one and three Supreme Court justices, essentially guaranteeing a right-wing majority for decades to come. That is the biggest threat, but there are probably other unforeseen consequences of giving Republicans two more years with the Senate and the White House. If Democrats defeat Donald Trump, things still look grim. It seems likely that Republicans would block any Supreme Court nominee of a Democratic president. Republicans also would block progressive ideas like healthcare reform, the Green New Deal, and student loan forgiveness, to name a few. If history is our guide, Democrats would suffer in the 2022 midterm and further solidify Republican control of the senate, and if things go really bad the house could fall as well.

This is all to say that Democrats need the Senate. We can all still be disgusted by Donald Trump and want to get him out of the White House. However, none of the policy debates we’re currently having will ultimately matter if Mitch McConnell is majority leader in 2021. Democrats like Beto, Abrams, Hickenlooper, and Bullock need to re-evaluate their priorities. Their home states would not be cakewalk contests even if they were candidates, but we need to maximize our chances of capturing the Senate if we hope to accomplish anything.

We’re quickly approaching the Rubicon. Demographic destiny will not save us, just as it didn’t in 2016. Democrats are perfectly capable of multitasking, but the Senate is the real prize. and we need to remember that.

The post Democrats need to focus on winning the Senate in 2020 appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Somehow, I was led to believe that voting was a fundamental part of democracy. And when a majority exists, and no vote can take place – well, that is more than just a shame; it’s not democracy.

At center stage on this is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). There are currently forty-seven Democratic senators who want to pass legislation to open most of the closed departments and agencies of the federal government. There are also at least four Republicans; that makes a total of fifty-one; i.e. a majority of the one hundred members of the Senate.

But McConnell refuses to allow the Senate to vote on the bills that have already passed the House. His reasoning is that the president has said that he would veto such legislation.

McConnell was not born yesterday. The fact that Donald Trump is unpredictable and not good to his word is not a surprise to most people, and that includes him. If McConnell would allow the Senate to vote to reopen most of the agencies that are currently closed, who knows what Trump would do? In a sense, McConnell is now doing Trump’s bidding. A more responsible Majority Leader would let democracy prevail, and if the president would want to veto the bills, he would be free to do so. We have no way of knowing what he actually would do, because Trump himself has no idea.

The problem is not just McConnell. It is a system that has existed in Congress since its origins. Each house has its leadership. It makes sense to have men and women in positions to organize the legislation that is considered before Congress. There need to be traffic cops; one who will say let’s deal with Bill ‘D’ before Bill ‘A’ because it currently is more urgent. For example, it is far more important now for each house of Congress to deal with issues reopening the government, and even addressing border security, than it is to vote on a bill that would rename a post office.

We often talk about presidential abuse of power, and we are certainly seeing quite a bit of it with Donald Trump. Seldom do we talk about abuse of power with Congressional leaders, but it may be more prevalent and nearly as insidious. This is what we are seeing now with Mitch McConnell. He is essentially ostracizing fifty-one or more members of the U.S. Senate, leaving them with as much power to effect policy as you and I, as ordinary citizens, have.

We talk a great deal about structural changes necessary to improve our democracy. These include abolishing the Electoral College, eliminating gerrymandering, and eradicating voter suppression. But equally important is for Congress to drastically reduce the power of its leaders, including committee chairpersons.

Right now, Mitch McConnell is being cowardly, loyal, undemocratic and savvy all at the same time. It seems that he prefers to think of himself as loyal and savvy rather than cowardly and undemocratic. But his audience is more than a crowd of one – Trump. It is the American people, and in particular the 800,000 government workers who did not receive their paychecks yesterday.

Come on, Mitch, show Trump what courage and good judgment look like. It’s a way to try to rejuvenate the Republican Party.

The post McConnell As Much at Blame as Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Before casting your vote on Tuesday, November 6, for the individuals who will be tasked with representing you in the House or the Senate, consider this shocking fact. The U.S. Constitution is nearly silent on the expected duties of members of Congress. The only formal rule requires that members be present to vote on the questions before their respective chambers.

What this means is that the way in which our representatives conduct the duties of their offices has simply evolved over time. In other words, our representatives have no printed road map for the major responsibilities of their jobs, such as the vital responsibility to interact with constituents. It’s difficult to imagine, but there’s no rulebook for the degree to which representatives must take into account the viewpoints and desires of constituents when voting on legislation. Think about it. Our representatives – those people who write and vote on the legislation that determines our taxes, our healthcare options, the rules of the workplace, the guarantees of our civil rights, the safety of our food and water, and much more — govern by adhering (or not) to what is often referred to these days as nothing more than norms and traditions.

It’s hardly shocking, then, that lacking clear guidelines those norms and traditions can be summarily tossed out the window and with them the assumptions about how our democracy works. In the past, those norms and traditions were respected. But times are changing. And the brazenness of some members of Congress to disregard those traditions and depart radically from what is called “regular order” should shock us to our very core. Of course, the most egregious example was the denial by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of a confirmation hearing for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. This is where we are on the eve of the most consequential election of our lifetimes—deeply uncertain and justifiably distrustful about even the rules of the game, thanks to Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party.

With no set rules, it’s not surprising that the manner in which our elected officials approach representing our interests becomes a personal choice, depending on personality, outlook, or commitment or courage for the time, energy, and fortitude it takes to interact in person with individuals and interest groups and weigh their sometimes conflicting opinions. It’s generally accepted, however, that two main styles of representation have emerged over time. Some representatives see their job as responding directly to the viewpoints and instructions of their constituents. This is called the delegate style. Members of Congress who follow the delegate style are more apt to hold public town halls and to solicit directly the viewpoints of their constituents before casting their votes. Other representatives follow what’s called the trustee style, in which they rely primarily upon their own judgment and initiative.

The trustee style, which seems to predominate among the current Republican members of Congress, has most certainly led to a lack of accountability and to the perception by many Americans that their elected officials do not reflect nor represent their interests. Combine the trustee style with the influence of donors, lobbyists, and special interest groups and it’s easy to understand why the fundamentals of truly representational government are threatened and why, unfortunately, so many Americans question the relevance of voting and believe that politics has no place in their lives.

The post Why voters don’t trust Congress anymore appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Missouri’s incumbent U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill faces a challenge in November from Republican Josh Hawley, and things are heating up, as I learned today in a phone call from a polling company. A nice young man [clearly needing a megadose of Dayquil], who identified himself as representing a polling outfit known as SSI Research, asked the questions. Curious, as always, I stayed on the phone, even though I had to say “Hello” three times before he picked up [a dead giveaway that it’s a boiler room call]. Still, I persisted. And I’m glad I did, because this “poll” was clearly about message-testing—and the messages they’re contemplating are nasty.

Here’s my walk-through of the survey, as accurately as I can recount it, based on the fast and furious notes I was trying to take. Don’t take the quotes literally, they’re transcribed as best as I could get them in the moment. [I had him repeat several of the questions so I could get them down.] The questions are in bold. My responses are in brackets, in case you care.

It started with the typical, “How likely are you to vote?” [Very likely]

“Which of these individuals are you aware of? And do you view them favorably or unfavorably?”

Donald Trump [Unfavorably. Very unfavorably]

Josh Hawley [Unfavorably. Don’t know quite enough to be “very unfavorable,” but somewhat unfave.]

Claire McCaskill [Very favorably. Well, I’m a bit less enthusiastic than that, but I’m not telling that to a Republican pollster.]

“In the U.S. Senate race, are you set on voting for Claire McCaskill, or is there still room for you to change your mind?”  [Definitely voting for Claire. Not changing my mind.]

Here’s where it got good. This is obviously the message-testing portion of the program. I’m sending this post to Claire McCaskill’s campaign, so in case they haven’t seen it yet, they can fact check it and be ready to counter the bullshit.

“Now I’m going to read you a list of statements about Claire McCaskill. Please rate them on a 100-point scale, with 100 meaning that this statement makes you very angry, upset or concerned. You can use any number from 0 to 100.”

“Claire McCaskill voted for an energy bill that would kill 76,000 jobs in Missouri.”  [I ranked that 0. Hope I did that right. I’m trying to send the message that I support what Claire does. I would have to give that statement itself a 100, because it makes me angry when polls use push questions, exaggerate, and distort the facts.]

“Claire McCaskill’s husband’s company invested in low-income housing that has received 100 million dollars in government funding. Receiving these taxpayer-funded handouts didn’t prevent the company from displacing thousands of disabled veterans.”  [I ranked that one a 0, too. Again, it’s a 100 for negative messaging. Fact-check, please.]

“Claire McCaskill voted against tax relief for middle-class Missourians, while personally taking advantage of complicated tax schemes to avoid paying her fair share of taxes.”  [0, for the same reasons as above.]

“Claire MCaskill has failed as a champion of veterans. She missed 50 percent of votes in the Senate Armed Services Committee.” [0]

“Claire McCaskill is out of touch with her Missouri constituents. She billed the government for use of private jets, and she said that ‘normal people’ can afford private jets.’ [0.]

Was my rating strategy correct? Was the rating system confusing? Did I overthink it and outgame myself? Maybe someone can help me figure that out. Whatever the case, Claire needs to prepare for some negative messaging—assuming, of course, that this was a Hawley-sponsored poll.

In the final portion of the survey, my sniffly pollster reads me a series of statements, to which I am asked to respond on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 meaning I completely agree, and 1 meaning I do not at all agree. Here it is:

“We should prevent sanctuary cities from protecting illegal immigrants and defying immigration authorities.”  [1. I actually understand this rating scale.]

“Congress should include funding for more immigration enforcement and building a wall along the Mexico border.”  [1. Nope.]

“We should find a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers—immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents.”  [Trick question, to see if I’m paying attention? I’m paying attention: 9.]

“The United States should decrease immigration and prevent refugees from entering the country.” [Give me your tired, your poor… 1]

Mr. Sniffles told me that, had I answered that I was probably going to vote for Josh Hawley, I would have gotten a list of statements about him instead. In a way, I wish I had gone for Hawley, just to see what the questions would be. Silly me. I was honest.

The post McCaskill vs. Hawley: What the pollster asked appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On Tuesday, the people of Alabama will go to the polls and choose a replacement for the senate seat left vacant by beleaguered attorney general Jeff Sessions. For many Alabama voters, choosing a candidate will be a legitimately difficult decision. Thinking as a liberal, it easy for me to say, “Doug Jones is the most qualified, and there’s no competition”. But living in a rural area and talking to my conservative friends, I’m beginning to understand how they could vote for a man like Roy Moore. If you’re a Republican, and you believe that life begins at conception, then how could you possibly vote for a person who supports policies that you believe are tantamount to killing a child? If you believe that the Supreme Court needs conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch or Clarence Thomas, then how could you support a person who would oppose a Trump nominee? If you are a conservative, if you support President Trump, then how can you support a person who will oppose Trump’s agenda?

However, if the person on your side of the issues is an accused child molester, it’s easy to see why the polls are close.

I don’t have to rehash the things Roy Moore has said or the things he believes. Although, suggesting 9/11 was God’s divine punishment for America accepting homosexuality, saying that America was at it’s peak when there were slaves, or his seeming inability to respect the separation of church and state are worth mentioning.

There’s an ugly stigma about Alabama because of its checkered history, there’s an assumption that Alabama is backwards and bigoted. I’ve been to Alabama, and while most voters are unabashedly conservative, they’re still decent people who are aware of how outsiders view their state. A lot of people recoil when they hear “Alabama” and the people in that state have been trying to move past George Wallace and Jim Crow for a generation.

Roy Moore pulls Alabama backwards, and it may not matter how much voters agree with Moore on policy.

The truth is, and everyone has been acknowledging this, but we don’t really know what turnout is going to look like. However, the models that polls have put out that show Moore leading have two things in common, women don’t make up greater than 52% of respondents and blacks don’t make up greater than 25%.

On average, Alabama women make up 53% of the electorate. But it stands to reason that Roy Moore might energize women voters, and they could conceivably turnout so high that they could comprise 55% of the electorate. We know this could happen because it has happened, in Missouri way back in 2012 when Claire McCaskill trounced Todd “legitimate rape” Akin. There’s data already that suggests that Jones holds a sizable lead among women, so higher woman can only benefit Jones.

The real uncertainty comes from how many black voters will turn out for Jones. We know it won’t be the level Barack Obama received (Blacks made up over 35% of the electorate). However, it’s unlikely that black turnout will fall as low as the polls are predicting. Granted this is an off year special election which historically means black turnout shouldn’t be especially high. However, this race has received national attention and voters have been saturated by ads as well as robocalls from two former Presidents. Blacks might not show up with Presidential level turnout, but pollsters shouldn’t underestimate the power of community organizers in communities of color. That’s not to mention the mobilizing factor that is Roy Moore.

Ultimately though, I’m not a statistician or a pollster. When people start handicapping polls because of this factor or that factor, it means they’re losing. The Romney people did it in 2012 and the Bernie people did it in 2016. However, this race is legitimately close unlike the others.

Just finally, Alabama isn’t as red as we’d like to think. In 2010 during the Republican wave, a democrat received 48% of the vote in his race for lieutenant governor. Roy Moore only was just barely elected to the Supreme Court in 2012. Alabama voters are willing to split their ballots, and a Doug Jones victory should surprise no one.

The post Don’t be Surprised if Doug Jones wins in Alabama appeared first on Occasional Planet.