Search This Blog

Divided We Stand

Divided We Stand
New book about the 2020 election.

Friday, December 20, 2024

Biden's Decline and Fall

 Our most recent book is Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Our next book will describe how Biden had to exit the race after his disastrous debate performance. Less than 48 hours after Biden's withdrawal, Kamala Harris became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee. 

 Annie Linskey, Rebecca Ballhaus, Emily Glazer, and Siobhan Hughes at WSJ:

Presidents always have gatekeepers. But in Biden’s case, the walls around him were higher and the controls greater, according to Democratic lawmakers, donors and aides who worked for Biden and other administrations. There were limits over who Biden spoke with, limits on what they said to him and limits around the sources of information he consumed.

Throughout his presidency, a small group of aides stuck close to Biden to assist him, especially when traveling or speaking to the public. “They body him to such a high degree,” a person who witnessed it said, adding that the “hand holding” is unlike anything other recent presidents have had.

The White House operated this way even as the president and his aides pressed forward with his re-election bid—which unraveled spectacularly after his halting performance in a June debate with Donald Trump made his mental acuity an insurmountable issue. Vice President Kamala Harris replaced him on the Democratic ticket and was decisively defeated by Trump in a shortened campaign—leaving Democrats to debate whether their chances were undercut by Biden’s refusal to yield earlier.
...

The president’s team of pollsters also had limited access to Biden, according to people familiar with the president’s polling. The key advisers have famously had the president’s ear in most past White Houses.

During the 2020 campaign, Biden had calls with John Anzalone, his pollster, during which the two had detailed conversations.

By the 2024 campaign, the pollsters weren’t talking to the president about their findings, and instead sent memos that went to top campaign staff.

Biden’s pollsters didn’t meet with him in person and saw little evidence that the president was personally getting the data that they were sending him, according to the people.

People close to the president said he relied on Mike Donilon, one of Biden’s core inner circle advisers. With a background in polling, Donilon could sift through the information and present it to the president.

Bates said that Biden stayed abreast of polling data.

But this summer, Democratic insiders became alarmed by the way Biden described his own polling, publicly characterizing the race as a tossup when polls released in the weeks after the disastrous June debate consistently showed Trump ahead. They worried he wasn’t getting an unvarnished look at his standing in the race.

Those fears intensified on July 11, when Biden’s top advisers met behind closed doors with Democratic senators, where the advisers laid out a road map for Biden’s victory. The message from the advisers was so disconnected from public polling—which showed Trump leading Biden nationally—that it left Democratic senators incredulous. It spurred Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) to speak to Biden directly, according to people familiar with the matter, hoping to pierce what the senators saw as a wall erected by Donilon to shield Biden from bad information. Donilon didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

Early Authoritarian Moves

 Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Our next book looks at the return of Donald Trump.

He is planning an authoritarian agenda and would take care to eliminate any internal dissent.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Maggie Haberman, David Enrich and Alan Feuer at The New York Times.

President-elect Donald J. Trump sued The Des Moines Register for running a poll before the election that showed him trailing Vice President Kamala Harris, escalating his threats to seek retribution against the mainstream media and his political enemies.

Mr. Trump has long said that people he claims have wronged him should be prosecuted, including President Biden and his family; Jack Smith, the special counsel who charged Mr. Trump with trying to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents; and Liz Cheney, the former representative from Wyoming who helped lead the House investigation into Mr. Trump’s efforts to cling to power in 2020.

...

Just this week, Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress moved to support his efforts to seek retribution against Ms. Cheney, a chair of the House committee that investigated the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and recommended criminal charges against Mr. Trump.

On Tuesday, a House oversight subcommittee issued a report recommending that Ms. Cheney herself face criminal investigation for some of the work she did while investigating Mr. Trump. The report accused Ms. Cheney of secretly communicating with one of the committee’s star witnesses, Cassidy Hutchinson, without Ms. Hutchinson’s lawyer knowing.

Ms. Hutchinson gave significant but disputed testimony at one of the committee’s public hearings, describing, among other things, how Mr. Trump was warned that his supporters were carrying weapons on Jan. 6 but expressed no concern because they were not a threat to him.

By recommending that Ms. Cheney be investigated — including for possibly violating the same federal obstruction count that the congresswoman recommended against Mr. Trump — the House Republicans appeared to be laying the groundwork for a potential criminal prosecution. Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that Ms. Cheney and other members of the Jan. 6 committee should face charges and jail time.

In Mr. Trump’s own telling, winning his civil legal actions isn’t always the point.

Mr. Trump, who has often attacked journalists publicly for details in news accounts that he hasn’t liked, famously lost a libel case that he brought against the writer Timothy O’Brien over Mr. O’Brien’s description of Mr. Trump’s net worth as much less than he claimed it to be.

The case played out over the span of years. But during the 2016 election, Mr. Trump told The Washington Post that it was worth it, even with the loss.

“I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more,” he said of Mr. O’Brien and his book publisher. “I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

 

Lloyd Green at The Guardian:
Then there is ABC News. The network recently agreed to pay $15m to settle a Trump defamation suit. Last spring George Stephanopoulos, its Sunday talkshow host, repeatedly said Trump was liable for rape when a jury had actually found him liable for abuse.

But there is more to it than that. In August 2023, Trump lost his counter-claim for defamation against Carroll. Dismissing the Trump counter-claim, a judge in New York, Lewis A Kaplan, said that when Carroll repeated her allegation that Trump raped her, her words were “substantially true”. Kaplan also set out in detail why it may be said that Trump raped Carroll.

In May, Stephanopoulos said he would not be “cowed out of doing my job”. This weekend, however, he and ABC expressed collective “regret” over his choice of words. However you look at it, the network caved. With ABC having folded under pressure, expect the president-elect to be emboldened.

Trump has also filed a $10bn action against CBS for purportedly doctoring its 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Pending in a federal court in Texas, that lawsuit too is predicated upon alleged violation of a state consumer fraud law. Earlier this month, CBS moved to dismiss the case.

For Trump and his allies, however, overturning New York Times v Sullivan, the US supreme court’s unanimous 1964 landmark ruling on press freedoms, is the ultimate prize. In their view, public figures facing off against the press should be aided by a lower burden of proof. They should no longer be required to demonstrate “actual malice”. The fact that more than half a century has passed since the decision means little.

Justice Clarence Thomas has branded Sullivan and its progeny as “policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law”. Justice Neil Gorsuch more subtly contends that the emergence of cable television, the internet, and the 24/7 news cycle warrant re-examination of the “actual malice” standard.

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

Gerrymander?

Our latest book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Mike Johnson blames gerrymandering for the Republicans' failure to win more seats in 2024.  In fact, their seat share matches their vote share.

 Ben Cohen at Factcheck.org:

Jonathan Cervas, assistant teaching professor in political science at Carnegie Mellon who was a nonpartisan consultant on redistricting in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New York, told us in an email that he agreed with Niven and the Brennan Center’s findings. While “the net effect of gerrymandering is difficult to gauge,” partisan redistricting “created a substantial advantage for Republicans nationwide,” making it “pretty clear that the Republicans have the advantage in terms of how the districts lines were drawn to favor a party,” he said.

Cervas, Nevin, and the Brennan Center’s report all pointed to North Carolina as an example of partisan gerrymandering affecting the 2024 election. In 2023, the state Supreme Court reversed an earlier ruling that had prevented the implementation of a Republican-drawn map in the 2022 election, with the court now concluding that they could not rule on cases concerning partisan redistricting. As a result, the Republican-controlled state legislature redistricted the state to favor their party. In what Cervas termed “textbook gerrymandering,” the Democrats lost three congressional seats in North Carolina between 2022 and 2024 under the newly drawn map, despite what he says were similar statewide Democratic vote shares in both elections.

However, Cervas also argued that the Republican advantage through gerrymandering has decreased in recent election cycles. The “Great Gerrymander of 2012,” as experts called it, created significant partisan advantages for Republicans in the aftermath of the 2010 census. But Cervas told us that shifting political control and interventions to courts and independent commissions have lessened the Republican Party’s advantage in recent election cycles. For example, Niven and Cervas both said that recent court rulings enforcing redistricting changes in Alabama and Louisiana favored Democrats over Republicans.

Alternatively, other experts used differing methodologies to quantify the effects of gerrymandering and found a smaller net effect from partisan redistricting.

In a 2023 study, Kosuke Imai, professor of government and statistics at Harvard University and the leader of the Algorithm-Assisted Redistricting Methodology Project, found — along with his team — that Republicans possess a net advantage of only two congressional seats from partisan gerrymandering.

Similar to Cervas, Imai told us in an email that partisan redistricting efforts largely favored Republicans over Democrats after the 2010 census. However, he said that “in the 2020 redistricting cycle, some states had a partisan bias toward Democrats. As a result, even though there was widespread gerrymandering in 2020, the partisan biases were mostly canceled out at the national level.”

Monday, December 16, 2024

Informal Checks and Balances: Stocks and Media

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Our next book looks at the return of Donald Trump.

He is planning an authoritarian agenda and would take care to eliminate any internal dissent.

Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman at NYT:
When Donald J. Trump rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday with news cameras rolling, the moment perfectly captured two of the president-elect’s biggest obsessions: the stock market and television.

Mr. Trump’s fear of falling markets and bad imagery on TV may serve as more formidable checks on some of his more aggressive policies, like mass deportations and sweeping tariffs on trade with China, than any institutional restraints he may face in Washington.

Those guardrails are not foolproof, of course: Mr. Trump has proved himself willing to shatter longstanding political and legal norms in Washington while enduring the crush of condemnation from his adversaries at home and abroad.

But more than a dozen people close to Mr. Trump say he sees the market as a barometer of his success and abhors the idea that his actions might drive down stock prices. And they say he is so obsessed with how he comes across on television that a barrage of negative coverage can make him hesitate, or even reverse course.

...

The old guardrails from his first term have rusted away. The kind of people who saw themselves as the “adults in the room” who needed to protect the country from Mr. Trump — like John F. Kelly, the former Marine general who was his longest-serving chief of staff, and former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis — will not be hired again.

 The old guardrails from his first term have rusted away. The kind of people who saw themselves as the “adults in the room” who needed to protect the country from Mr. Trump — like John F. Kelly, the former Marine general who was his longest-serving chief of staff, and former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis — will not be hired again.



Sunday, December 15, 2024

Turnout in 2024

Our latest book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Our next book -- titled TBD -- looks at the 2024 election.

G. Elliott Morris, Amina Brown and Katie Marriner at FiveThirtyEight:
Exacerbating Democrats’ vote share losses among key groups was a decline in turnout among those formerly their most fervent supporters. Cities saw a large decline in turnout in 2024. By our calculations, turnout in the most urban counties in the U.S. fell from 53 percent of the voting-age population in 2020 to just 45 percent in 2024. On the other hand, turnout was steady at 71-72 percent of the voting-age population in the most rural areas.


Turnout also seemed to drop in other counties that voted strongly for Biden in 2020, regardless of how urban they were. In Jefferson County, Mississippi, where Biden won 85 percent of the vote, turnout fell from 71 percent in 2020 to 58 percent in 2024, despite remaining high in counties that voted strongly for Trump in the last presidential election. Turnout fell by 6 points in Taos County, New Mexico — popular with both avid skiers and liberals (Biden won 76 percent of the vote there in 2020) — while rising by 7 points in Haralson County, Georgia — a rural county on the border with Alabama where Biden garnered just 13 percent in 2020. This story is repeated over and over again nationwide; turnout went up in the whitest, most rural and most Trump-friendly areas of the country, and it dropped in cities, Democratic strongholds and counties with high percentages of minorities — especially in the Southern Black Belt.

Nate Cohn, however, says that turnout was not the main reason she lost.

For one, the story doesn’t apply to the battlegrounds, where turnout was much higher. In all seven battleground states, Trump won more votes than Biden did in 2020.

More important, it is wrong to assume that the voters who stayed home would have backed Harris. Even if they had been dragged to the polls, it might not have meaningfully helped her...[In] a presidential election, turnout and persuasion often go hand in hand. The voters who may or may not show up are different from the rest of the electorate. They’re less ideological. They’re less likely to be partisans, even if they’re registered with a party. They’re less likely to have deep views on the issues. They don’t get their news from traditional media.

Throughout the race, polls found that Trump’s strength was concentrated among these voters. Many were registered Democrats or Biden voters four years ago. But they weren’t acting like Democrats in 2024. They were more concerned by pocketbook issues than democracy or abortion rights. If they decided to vote, many said they would back Trump.

 

Saturday, December 14, 2024

Republicans and the Aggregated Vote for the House

Our latest book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

In 2024, as in 2022, Republicans won the aggregated national vote for the House.  Their vote share (50.6%)  matches their seat share.  It was not always thus.  Until a few years ago, their seat share was larger than their vote share because the Democratic vote was concentrated in urban areas where Democrats won by huge margins that resulted in wasted votes.  But now more Republicans are winning by rubble-bouncing margins, mainly in rural areas.

Philip Bump at WP:
[C]ontrol of the House came down to only about 7,300 votes. If you were shaking that many hands starting at midnight, you’d be done by about 2 a.m.

This interesting little bit of trivia comes from a social media post by the Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman. Republicans will enter the 119th Congress with a 220-215 seat majority. That means that, with a three-seat flip in November, Democrats would have the majority. (220 minus three is 217; 215 plus three is 218. QED.) But thanks to three districts (in Colorado, Iowa and Pennsylvania), Republicans will have control of the chamber.

I was, probably predictably, curious how this could be visualized. So I visualized it, showing the margins in House contests arranged from biggest vote-margin victory for a Democrat to the biggest for a Republican. ... There’s an interesting pattern, as you’ve likely noticed: Republican victory margins jump upward a lot more quickly than do Democratic ones. 


Friday, December 13, 2024

Slotkin v. Identity Politics

In Defying the Odds, we talk about the social and economic divides that enabled Trump to enter the White House. In Divided We Stand, we discuss how these divides played out in 2020. Our next book will discuss the extraordinary fight between an elderly white ex-president and a younger Black/Asian woman. 

Marc Rod at Jewish Insider:
Sen.-elect Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) said Wednesday that the Democratic Party needs to abandon “identity politics” to succeed in the future, and discussed her strategy to appeal to both Jewish and Muslim voters in Michigan on a webinar with the Jewish Democratic Council of America.

“I feel very strongly that identity politics — we need to have it go the way of the dodo,” Slotkin said on the webinar. “The idea that you can say ‘this group, because of their race or religion or ethnicity, is going to do this predictable voting behavior’ is not right. Coalitions are changing. Voters are changing.”

Slotkin said that she experienced this personally on her campaign, giving an example of an event with a group of Pakistani-American doctors she assumed would be reliable voters for Vice President Kamala Harris, but were actually all voting for Trump. She said the Democratic Party has also made mistaken assumptions about Latino and African American voters.

“You’ve got to appeal to people’s core issues regardless of their historical voting patterns, and you can’t get lazy,” Slotkin said. “And I think Donald Trump was not lazy.”

She described pocketbook issues as the key question in the race, and said her campaign had tackled the issue head-on. Voters, she said, were “confused” about what Democrats’ priorities were, especially at the presidential level, following President Joe Biden’s departure from the race.

Wednesday, December 11, 2024

Immigration, Politics, and Wages

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the politics of immigration, as will our book on the 2024 election.

David Leonhardt at NYT:
The scale of recent immigration helps explain why the issue has played a central role in American politics over the past few years.

Mayors and governors, both Democratic and Republican, have complained about the strain on local government. In Chicago and elsewhere, residents have filled public meetings to make similar criticisms. In Denver, where tens of thousands of migrants have arrived, homeless people say that shelter spots are harder to find. In Queens, residents say that an influx of street vendors has created chaos in some neighborhoods.

Some of the biggest effects have occurred in South Texas, and Mr. Trump made big electoral gains there. Eight years ago, he won less than 30 percent of the vote in a strip of six counties along the Rio Grande. This year, he won all six counties.

Elsewhere, Democrats who managed to outpace Vice President Kamala Harris and win tough congressional races — including in Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New York and Wisconsin — frequently criticized Mr. Biden’s border policies. Polls suggest that the immigration surge was Ms. Harris’s second biggest vulnerability, after only the economy.

Voters expressed particular frustration with the high recent levels of illegal immigration. Of the roughly eight million net new migrants who entered the U.S. during the Biden presidency, about five million did so without legal authorization, according to Goldman Sachs.

Some Republican politicians, including Mr. Trump, have spread falsehoods about recent immigrants, claiming that they have caused a crime wave. In truth, immigrants have historically committed crime at lower rates than native-born Americans, and crime fell nationwide over the past few years as immigration levels spiked.

Similarly, academic research suggests that the immigrants of recent decades, who have come primarily from Asia and Latin America, are climbing the economic ladder and assimilating into American society. Their children and grandchildren have made progress at a pace similar to that of the predominantly European immigrants of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

But high levels of immigration do have downsides, including the pressure on social services and increased competition for jobs. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that wage growth for Americans who did not attend college will be lower than it otherwise would have been for the next few years because of the recent surge. On the flip side, higher immigration can reduce the cost of services and help Americans, many with higher incomes, who do not compete for jobs with immigrants

Bernard Yaros Jr., a lead U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, a research firm, described the recent increases as “something that we really haven’t seen in recent memory.” Mr. Yaros said that they had “helped cool wage growth.”

Tuesday, December 10, 2024

More on State Legislative Results

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Paul Demko and Liz Crampton at Politico:
Republicans controlled 55 percent of the 7,000-plus state legislative seats going into Election Day, and they’re poised to hold almost exactly that — 55.25 percent — when legislatures gavel in next year. That’s a shift of only about 50 seats – far below the average of 195 over the past two decades, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

...


Michigan Republicans flipped four state House seats, giving them a six-seat advantage. That will empower them to hit the brakes on the policy goals of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer – widely seen as a potential 2028 presidential contender -- and the Democratic-controlled state Senate.

Exact control of the Minnesota House remains up in the air — the results led to an even split, with each party controlling 67 seats. But Republicans are contesting the outcomes in two races, and seemingly have plausible arguments for why the results might be challenged. Whatever happens, the disappointing results for Democrats were a further blow to Gov. Tim Walz, who enjoyed a stratospheric rise over the summer to become the (doomed) vice presidential nominee.

Republicans also made big gains in some Northeastern states. In New Hampshire, for example, they expanded majorities in both chambers, picking up two seats in the 24-member Senate and 25 seats in the chaotic 400-member House (although there were 11 vacancies heading into Election Day).

Perhaps the most surprising gains for Republicans came in deep-blue Vermont, which accounted for close to half of all GOP state legislative gains across the nation. Republicans gained 28 seats across both chambers, significantly eroding Democratic majorities and strengthening the hand of popular GOP Gov. Phil Scott, who was elected to a fifth term by a landslide margin and campaigned heavily on behalf of Republicans in the state legislature.

For Democrats, the party’s biggest victory was arguably not winning a chamber but rather holding the Pennsylvania state House — an accomplishment that speaks to the bruising night Democrats in state legislatures faced throughout the country. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro will continue to do business with a divided legislature: Democrats control the House and Republicans manage the Senate.

Democrats are also celebrating picking up 14 seats in Wisconsin, thanks to new maps that give them hope they’ll be able to flip the legislature in the near future. New maps in Montana also helped Democrats gain nine seats in the state House and two seats in the state Senate, taking away Republicans’ supermajority.

And Democrats broke the GOP’s supermajority in the North Carolina state Assembly, taking away Republican power to override the governor’s vetoes. That will spare Democratic Governor-elect Josh Stein from the treatment received by his predecessor, Roy Cooper: Republicans overturned all 11 of Cooper’s vetoes in his final year in office.

Yet those modest successes were tempered by disappointments elsewhere. Before the election, Democrats were optimistic about their chances in purple states like Arizona, where Democrats believed this cycle was their best shot at flipping the Legislature in years. But Democrats ended up losing seats in both chambers in the state.

Another disappointment for Democrats was Idaho, where the party bragged about recruiting a candidate to run in every district for the first time in at least 30 years, believing they had an opportunity to bring over voters alienated by the rightward turn of the GOP. Instead, they lost seats in both chambers, and now will control just 15 out of 105 legislative seats

Monday, December 9, 2024

Uncontested Elections

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Brianna Ryan at Ballotpedia:
Sixty-five percent of more than 40,000 elections across the country on Nov. 5, 2024, were uncontested, meaning that the sole candidates on the ballot were virtually guaranteed to win each election.

In five states—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, and Michigan—more than 75% of elections were uncontested. Iowa topped the list: of the 1,902 elections held there, 1,614 (85%) were uncontested. Conversely, the five states with the lowest uncontested rate were New Jersey (0%), New Hampshire (11%), Virginia (19%), Connecticut (23%), and Utah (26%).

The map below shows the percentage of uncontested elections by state out of the 40,646 elections we covered on Nov. 5. Of those, 26,218—or 65%—were uncontested.

Congressional and state elections made up 15% of the roughly 40,000 elections covered. Thirty-one percent of those elections were uncontested.

That leaves local elections as the largest group of elections on a given major election day and the level of government with the highest percentage of uncontested elections.

For several office types—including district and city attorneys, who prosecute crimes, and clerks and auditors, who often run elections—more than 90% of elections were uncontested.

Overall, on Nov. 5, a majority of elections were uncontested across every type of local office we covered, except those for boards of regents (46% uncontested), fire boards (46%), and school boards (45%).

Sunday, December 8, 2024

Same-Day Registration Flipped a Seat

 

Trump Wants to Jail the J6 Committee

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Our next book looks at the return of Donald Trump.

He is planning an authoritarian agenda and would take care to eliminate any internal dissent.

Tommy Christopher at Mediaite:

Trump sat for an exclusive interview that aired on Sunday morning’s edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, during which Trump lashed out at the members of the committee that investigated the January 6 riot and the circumstances surrounding it. Trump has nominated staunch loyalists Pam Bondi and Kash Patel to lead the Department of Justice and the FBI, respectively.

After Trump repeatedly said they should “all go to jail,” Welker asked him “Are you going to direct” his Justice Department to move against his opponents, and even as he denied he would Trump said “they’ll have to” look into it:
KRISTEN WELKER: We’re going to —

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: For what they did –

KRISTEN WELKER: Yeah –

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: – honestly, they should go to jail.

KRISTEN WELKER: So you think Liz Cheney should go to jail?

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: For what they did –

KRISTEN WELKER: Everyone on the committee you think –

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I think everybody –

KRISTEN WELKER: – should go to jail?

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: – on the — anybody that voted in favor –

KRISTEN WELKER: Are you going to direct your FBI director –

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: No.

KRISTEN WELKER: – and your attorney general to send them to jail?

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: No, not at all. I think that they’ll have to look at that, but I’m not going to — I’m going to focus on drill, baby, drill.

Watch above via NBC’s Meet the Press.

Saturday, December 7, 2024

Gabbard Is Dangerous

 Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Our next book is about the 2024 election. The consequences of that election are coming into view.  Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's pick for DNI, is a clear and present danger to national security.

Tim Snyder on Tulsi Gabbard:
In June 2015, as a congresswoman from Hawai'i, Gabbard visited Syria. During her stay, she was introduced to girls who had been burned from head to toe by a regime air strike. Her reaction to the situation, according to her translator, was to try to persuade the girls that they had been injured not by Syrian forces, but by the resistance. But this was impossible. Only Syria (at the time of her visit) and Russia (beginning weeks later) were flying planes and dropping bombs.

Either Gabbard was catastrophically uninformed about the most basic elements of the theater of war she was visiting, or she was consciously spreading disinformation. Those are the two possibilities. The first is disqualifying; the second is worse.

And if she was spreading disinformation consciously, she was also doing so with a pathological ruthlessness. Anyone who would lie to the child victims of an air strike to their burned faces would lie to anyone about anything. In January 2017, she visited Syria again, this time to speak to Assad. She began thereafter to deny that his regime had used chemical weapons on its own people. That was a very big lie.

... 

As Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard would do enormous harm, unwillingly or willingly. She is not just completely unqualified for this role -- she is anti-qualified. She is just the sort of person enemies of the American republic would want in this job. This is not a hypothetical -- Gabbard is the specific person that actual enemies of the United States do want in the job. The Russian media refers to Tulsi Gabbard as a "Russian agent" and as "girlfriend," with good reason.

Gabbard is worse than unfit. Her public record is as a disinformer and apologist for mass murderers. And there is nothing on the other side of the ledger. There are no positive qualifications. (Yes, she wrote a bestselling book. It became a bestseller because she scammed her followers into donating to a PAC which bought the book in bulk.)

State Legislative Results

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Daniel Nichanian at BOLTS:

In the presidential election, the GOP fared better than in 2020 in every state. But in thousands of legislative races across the country, the results were more complicated. The GOP unquestionably had a better night than Democrats in state legislatures, but their gains were also modest and uneven.

Republicans grew their legislative ranks in 20 states, erasing Democratic majorities in two critical chambers in Michigan and Minnesota and soaring in a trio of New England states. But Democrats did the same in 11 states. They coalesced with centrist Republicans to flip the Alaska House away from GOP control, broke the GOP’s ability to override vetoes in North Carolina, and scored double-digit swings in Montana and Wisconsin.

Overall, Republicans gained 58 seats out of the roughly 6,000 races on the ballot, Bolts has determined in its third annual review of each state’s legislative elections.

In 2022, the GOP gained 20 legislative seats, a meager result that deflated their expectations for a Democratic president’s midterms. (Several cycles in the 2010s saw swings that numbered in the hundreds of seats.) Democrats then gained five seats in 2023.

These legislative results fit a broader pattern of short coattails for Trump: The GOP did not surge downballot as it did in the presidential race. The party secured full control of Congress but Democrats added a seat in the U.S. House and salvaged four U.S. Senate seats in states Trump carried. Bolts also reported that results were also mixed in state supreme court elections.

Going forward, the GOP will enjoy a trifecta—one-party control of both legislative chambers and the governorship—in 23 states, a number that did not change after last month’s elections. Democrats meanwhile will hold a trifecta in 15 states after losing one-party control in Michigan and Minnesota.


Thursday, December 5, 2024

How Democrats Gained House Seats in New York

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

 Melanie Mason, Mia McCarthy and Emily Ngo at Politico:
New York Democrats similarly swelled their efforts after being stunned by the loss of four House races in 2022. House Majority PAC plowed $50 million into the state, nearly quadrupling its previous investment, and two separate efforts founded in the wake of the midterm drubbing beefed up the Dems’ ground game.

The New York Democratic Party launched a “coordinated campaign” — led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Gov. Kathy Hochul, who was blamed for some of the 2022 losses — that knocked three times more doors in battleground districts than in 2022. A coalition of labor unions and left-leaning groups called Battleground New York raised $11 million and focused on turning out three groups: “drop-off voters,” voters of color and newer voters.

As a result, Democrats flipped four seats between a February special election and last month’s contests, reversing their midterm losses.

Two of the newly elected New York House Democrats — Laura Gillen and Josh Riley — won after losing by mere points in 2022, both appealing to independent and Republican voters and voicing their willingness to stand up to their fellow Democrats on border security.

“Frankly, I think in 2022, we, the Democrats, were surprised by some of those races, and certainly had not put a lot of money or organization or attention into those,” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. “This time around, there was no surprise. … the state party was far more involved. Certainly, we in the delegation in Congress were very actively campaigning in those districts, and you just had high-quality candidates.”

How Democrats Gained House Seats in California

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Shira Stein at The San Francisco Chronicle:

They underperformed with Latinos — but by less than other Democrats.

Although California Democrats weren't alone in seeing decreasing support from Latino voters, they lost less support from that group.

"Everybody underperformed to a certain level with Latino voters. It was just that these House races underperformed less compared to historical norms in these places," Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha said.

Trump won 43% of the Latino vote this election, an 8-point increase from 2020 and 15 points ahead of his 2016 share, according to the Associated Press.

"Even though Republicans made inroads with nonwhite voters, on balance, higher nonwhite turnout still helped Democrats," especially in the cases of Gray, George Whitesides, who ousted Garcia and Derek Tran, who beat Steel, Dave Wasserman, a House race analyst with the Cook Political Report, told the Chronicle.

"California was ground zero because there were just so many districts with so many Latinos living in one place. But we damn sure saw Latinos perform better in places where there's more college-educated Latinos than rural Latinos," which is why Democrats weren't able to defeat Valadao and almost failed to trump Duarte," Rocha said.

Rocha's firm Solidarity Strategies was hired by the House Majority political action committee, a group that focuses on electing House Democrats, to reach Latino voters with culturally competent ads, he said.

Typically, Spanish-language ads are made by consultants on the coasts who "think that they've read some philosophy book about why Latinos and what Latinos care about, and they go and Google translate their English ad into Spanish and call it a day," Rocha said. He said his firm had conversations within targeted districts early on and continued doing so for several months. It began putting out ads as early as March.

"This is not being overly simplistic … the ads being made for Latinos in these districts in Spanish were literally made by Latinos who grew up in some of these districts in California," Rocha said.

He said quality ads can be far more effective than quantity.

"There's a difference in doing good Spanish ads and showing up early, (rather) than dumping a whole bunch of money into Spanish ads in the last 30 days — which is what Kamala did — and losing," he said.

Rocha's ads framed Garcia, whose district has more college-educated Latinos, as an incumbent who wasn't fighting or standing up for workers, and Duarte, who represents a more rural, non-college educated district, "as a product of the big-time D.C. lobbyist and showing him as out-of-touch with the community," he said.

Weaker support from Latino voters, however, did help two incumbent Republicans — Calvert and Valadao — keep their seats.

"There's been a pattern in these races in California — and the pattern stayed true with somebody like David Valadao, let's be clear — that Democrats have been losing ground with Latino voters," Rocha said. This election, however, Democrats put a "new emphasis on trying to stop and fix the Latino problem."

One of the ways Democrats held on to more Latino voters in California and in New York was by going into those states early on.

"We still have more work to do, but at least we figured out ways to stop the bleeding and now start trying to reverse that trend," Rocha said.

Redistricting helped Democrats.

The new California congressional map, which took effect in 2022, disadvantaged Republicans. Steel and Garcia, in particular, ran in friendlier districts in 2020 than in 2024.

"Those districts were made bluer in redistricting, which only took effect in 2022. So had we been talking about this scenario under the 2020 set of lines, they would likely still be members of Congress," Wasserman said.

Whitesides won his race by nearly 8,000 votes, while Tran and Gray's races were much closer. Tran ultimately won by 615 votes and Gray won by 187 votes.

One consultant argued that the narrow margins are the result of the presidential race.

Duarte won his seat in a close race in 2022 — beating Gray by 594 votes.

"Conventional wisdom would have been that he's (a) dead man walking because with presidential turnout, Gray would have a much greater advantage in a seat that Biden won by 11 points," Acosta said.

Democratic turnout in California — and across the country — dropped, however, and that made these races "closer than they probably should have been," Acosta said. About 1.8 million fewer Democrats voted in California this November than in 2020, according to a Chronicle analysis, and about 6.8 million fewer voted for Vice President Kamala Harris than for President Joe Biden in 2020, according to a CNN analysis.

Democrats benefited from a rise in split-ticket voters.

Mike Madrid, a California-based Republican strategist, attributed some of California Democrats' success to a new trend where voters select one party for president and then the opposite for down-ballot races to hold the party in power accountable.

These largely college-educated voters are in favor of a divided government, Madrid said.

"Voters are getting more methodical as their distrust, lack of confidence and dislike for both parties grows. They're becoming much more strategic" and voting to oppose the party in power, he said.

This has been a more common dynamic in Orange County since 2016, but it's expanding nationally. Ticket splitting was infrequent for many years, with red states getting redder and blue states getting bluer. A similar occurrence happened in 2020, but in reverse. Voters elected Joe Biden president, and also voted in a tied Senate and a Democratic-led House.

This yo-yoing of voting behavior will likely continue in future election cycles, Madrid said.

Challengers outraised incumbents and zeroed in on local issues.

As the saying goes, "all politics is local." The Democratic challengers far outraised the Republican incumbents and focused on issues that mattered to their community, rather than national messaging about democracy and gendered issues.

"Each one of these candidates represented and had their own authentic brand that could differentiate themselves from a mold or caricature that Republicans were desperately trying to paint," Orrin Evans, a Democratic consultant who worked on Tran's campaign, told the Chronicle.

Tran outperformed Harris significantly in Little Saigon, a Vietnamese enclave in Orange County, and other areas where Steel had previously been able to outrun Trump's shadow, Wasserman of the Cook Political Report said.

Evans said Tran's campaign "chose not to just do a broad general audience message, but we were continually re-investing in our outreach efforts within the Vietnamese community." The campaign also emphasized his experience as a veteran, consumer attorney and a small business owner, and not just that he was the child of Vietnamese immigrants.

Gray's deep family roots in Merced and long track record on the ballot helped him succeed in a district that wasn't as familiar with Duarte, several analysts said.

Whitesides' campaign turned out minority voters in higher numbers in the Antelope Valley, pushing him to victory, Wasserman said. Whitesides' most effective communication "was that he had created jobs, not just blue-collar jobs, but jobs of the future in the Antelope and Santa Clarita Valley," Evans said. His campaign was also able to use allegations that Garcia sold stocks based on inside information he obtained as a lawmaker to argue Garcia wasn't focused on voters' needs.

The Democratic challengers also had an added boost from their enormous war chests, according to FEC filings.

Gray raised $5.3 million to Duarte's $4 million and Whitesides raised $9.1 million to Garcia's $5.9 million. The only successful challenger to raise less than the incumbent was Tran, who won with just $4.9 million against Steel's $9.1 million.

Will Rollins, the Democrat who failed to oust Calvert, raised $11.3 million — putting him in the top 10 House fundraisers. Rudy Salas, Valadao's failed challenger, raised $5.6 million to Valadao's $4.5 million.

Wednesday, December 4, 2024

House Elections Final Score

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

 and 

 Republicans will have a narrow majority in the House next year with Democrats flipping one final seat in California, leaving GOP leaders with even less margin for error as they try to advance President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda.

Democrat Adam Gray has defeated GOP Rep. John Duarte in a rematch in California’s 13th District in the Central Valley following weeks of ballot counting, NBC News projects, meaning Republicans won 220 House seats in the 2024 elections to Democrats’ 215. The GOP can lose just two votes on legislation in the House in the next Congress if Democrats all vote in opposition, giving them little wiggle room for absences, internal fighting and vacancies.

Duarte told the Turlock Journal that he had called Gray to concede on Tuesday evening.

Thanks to Gray’s victory, Democrats netted one seat in the House elections, flipping nine Republican-held seats, mainly in blue states, as Republicans flipped eight Democratic-held seats.

The 13th District is one of three Democratic pickups in California alone, with Democrats Derek Tran and George Whitesides defeating GOP Reps. Michelle Steel and Mike Garcia. Democrats also flipped three seats in New York and one in Oregon, and they gained one seat each in Alabama and Louisiana because of new congressional maps in those states.

Republicans, meanwhile, picked up three seats in North Carolina because of the state’s new congressional map. They also defeated two Pennsylvania Democrats, Reps. Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright, as well as Democratic lawmakers in Alaska and Colorado, and they flipped an open seat in Michigan

President-Senate "Mismatches"

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Drew DeSilver at Pew:
Four states that Republican Donald Trump carried in this month’s presidential election also elected Democratic senators. That may not seem like a lot, but it’s twice as many “mismatches” between states’ presidential and U.S. Senate results as in all Senate elections held in 2020, 2021 and 2022 combined.
  • This year, the states that chose Trump for president and sent a Democrat to the Senate were:Arizona: Rep. Ruben Gallego won the seat that independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is vacating.
  • Michigan: Rep. Elissa Slotkin will succeed retiring Sen. Debbie Stabenow.
  • Nevada: Incumbent Sen. Jacky Rosen fended off political newcomer Sam Brown.
  • Wisconsin: Incumbent Sen. Tammy Baldwin edged out financier Eric Hovde.
No states had mismatches in the other direction, electing Republican senators but picking Democrat Kamala Harris for president.

The four mismatches, out of 34 Senate elections this year, made for a “mismatch rate” of nearly 12%. That’s the highest since the 2017-18 cycle, when the mismatch rate was 22%, according to Pew Research Center’s analysis of results going back to 1980. Along with a Democratic win in the 2017 special Senate election in Alabama, seven out of 35 Senate races in the 2018 midterms (including two special elections) went to a different party than the state’s 2016 presidential vote did.

President-Senate mismatches of this sort used to be fairly common. But since 1990, fewer than half of Senate elections have diverged from their state’s most recent presidential vote – and over the past dozen years, the trend has been for fewer and fewer to do so.

BUT the AZ, MI, and NV results ended with same-party delegations in each state. WI remains split-party.  

Hannah Recht and Eric Lau at WP:

Voters in Montana, Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania — states that Donald Trump won on Nov. 5 — also voted for Republicans to take over Senate seats currently held by Democrats, helping Republicans secure control of the upper chamber.

After these flips, only Maine, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will send a split-party delegation of one Democrat and one Republican to the Senate. That is the lowest number since Americans began directly electing senators more than a century ago.

 



Russia Applauds Trump's Picks

 Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Our next book is about the 2024 election. The consequences of that election are coming into view.

Julia Davis at The Daily Beast:
The incoming Trump administration fills Russian state TV propagandists with glee. In mid-November, when president-elect Donald Trump started to announce his future appointees, state TV host Olga Skabeeva gushed, “All of them are totally wonderful!”

Evgeny Popov, Skabeeva’s husband and the co-host of Russia’s 60 Minutes, concurred, describing Trump’s picks as his “radical dream team” and gleefully noting, “All of them personally despise Zelensky.” He cautiously added, “They aren’t friends of Russia, except for Tulsi Gabbard.”
For years, Gabbard’s propensity for spouting talking points that neatly aligned with the Kremlin’s agenda was seen as a boon for Moscow, with state TV host Vladimir Solovyov referring to the former congresswoman as “our girlfriend” and agreeing with pundits who described her as “Putin’s agent.”

Her planned appointment is not the only one that is being celebrated in Russia. Putin’s mouthpieces are even more excited about Trump’s choice of an FBI director—Kash Patel.

Patel, a lawyer and conspiracy theorist, served in roles at the National Security Council, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Defense during Trump’s previous term.
During Sunday’s broadcast of a state TV show The Evening With Vladimir Solovyov—a program that Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly watches on a regular basis—host Vladimir Solovyov rejoiced about Trump’s picks.

“What an excellent team is coming along with Trump! Not with respect to Ukraine, but as far as everything else goes. If they are allowed to get in, they will quickly dismantle America, brick by brick. They are so great!” he said.

After airing a clip of Patel threatening to upend the FBI’s operations, Solovyov continued, “Trump’s nominee to head the FBI, Kash Patel, is simply on fire... He’s tremendous! Really, really good.”

Tuesday, December 3, 2024

An Anti-RFK Coalition?

 Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  In 2024, RFK Jr. initially looked as if he might be a consequential independent candidate. But after Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee, his support collapsed.  He pulled out and endorsed Trump, who is nominating him to head HHS.

 RFK Jr. will probably win confirmation on a party-line vote. But if he doesn't, his downfall could result from a coalition of vaccine supporters, Republicans who oppose his stance on abortion and regulation, and farm-state senators who object to his plan to stop high-fructose corn syrup.

Mary Kekatos at ABC:

Ever since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was picked by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, he has been vocal about his plans to "Make America Healthy Again."

Kennedy has vowed to crack down on dyes in the food industry and to reduce pesticides in the farm and agriculture industry.

He has called for restrictions on ultra-processed foods as part of an initiative to address the high rates of chronic disease in the United States, and he's said more research needs to be conducted on vaccines.

"I think where you would see the challenges would be on allocation of money," Shana Gadarian, a professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in New York, told ABC News.

"If all of a sudden HHS is now in the business of passing more regulations on the food industry, on agriculture, we might see that a Republican Senate majority and a Republican House is less interested in allocating a budget to HHS that then would be under a different leadership," she continued.