It's premature to make too many specific guesses about winners in post-season series, when so many specific details of the National League brackets are yet to be finalized. So please grant me the indulgence of allowing me to do so, anyway.
Whereas the focus during the close of the regular season is entirely on the NL, in the playoffs one should look first to see what's happening in the junior circuit, the American League.
I would say that the name of the game, until changed, will be "Who Can Stop the Red Sox"? They have had a regular season of historically high quality, one of the best in our lifetimes. They have few weaknesses, and they are relatively minor ones. The offense is explosive, they even have hitters like Brandon Phillips and Hanley Ramirez in reserve, and they have sufficient top-line starting pitching along with the best closer in the majors (over the past few years) in Craig Kimbrel. They have lost so few series with opponents, so few games for that matter. They are certainly going to take some beating. But, in a short series, or more precisely in a series of those series, the unexpected can surely happen.
First round for the Botox Dynasty Bid: 2018, will of course be the Yankees. Well, it should be, but those upstart A's could take out the Bombers in a single-game playoff. Either team will come in with strong confidence in their capability, and it will be up to Boston to take them out, quickly and decisively. And that includes getting that toughest win--the fourth (just ask the 2004 Yankees).
The ALCS should also be a true test for the wannabe-Warriors (referring of course to the current dynasty-holder in the NBA; the American League Championship Series is now the MLB equivalent of the Western Conference finals. On that note, remember the 2018 ones, Golden State vs. Houston?) It will either be Cleveland or Houston, both hardened postseason veteran teams, coming off a similar series success. Both are huge offensive-minded teams with great defense, like the Red Sox. The series will likely come down to a hot starting pitcher: the Red Sox have Chris Sale and David Price who could be That Man, but the Indians have Corey Kluber and the Astros have Justin Verlander (and Gerrit Cole, for that matter).
Let's say that, in spite of those two tough tests, the Red Sox win through to the World Series. I would give that a probability in the 45-50% range (I'll check back with Fivethirtyeight's to see what they have or will have, once all the names are known). Who the heck will they play in the Series, and what will the matchup be like? Hard to say--I will take that up in a moment--but I would give the Red Sox a blanket 60% chance against the NL field. * That 60% chance, layered on the 45-50% for the New-Look BTD (see above), gives the Red Sox something like a 27-30% chance. Not so high, you could say, but it's several times higher than any other team's.
As for the NL races, they have turned out to be just as tight as promised earlier. We have been able to eliminate 3-4 "pretenders" (the Nationals, now the Phillies, Pirates and Diamondbacks), but there are still two division titles to be determined, as well as both Wild Card spots. The Cubs and Dodgers would seem to be the best bets, to win the contested divisions, to survive the playoffs and to have a chance to stop the Red Sox' bats, or at least slow them, if Boston makes the Series. For a NL team to win vs. Boston, should require one or two pitchers who can consistently demonstrate command of their pitches, under the conditions of the World Series. But it could happen.
It could also happen that the AL pitchers--from any team--are not able to command and control the NL hitters; that might happen, for example, if any of the other three NL teams in serious running (Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Colorado) get to scalding temperature with their hitting. In that vein, my two dark horse candidate for Series MVP are the leading candidates for Rookie of the Year and MVP in the NL, Ronald Acuna, Jr. (sorry, no tilde) and Nolan Arenado.
(Note on 9/22: I omitted the Cardinals from consideration, which is a very dangerous thing to do. They will need to run the gauntlet through the Wild Card, but it is far from impossible.)
OK: My bet is Red Sox defeat Braves, 4-2. If I'm given proper (longshot) odds on that Trifecta.
* I think there is a higher probability for the underdog in MLB's 7-game series than in the NBA Championships, the random event distribution shifting more toward repeated wins by the underdog. Subject for another day, I promised "just baseball". Fact is, though the AL has consistently bettered the NL in interleague games (a little less margin this year, I think) and talent has tended to flow the AL's way in things like the trading deadline moves and thourgh the draft (again, a little more balanced this year), the NL has won 4 of 7 championships this decade (5 of 8, if you include 2010, which I do not). We can mostly thank the SF Giants, who are now pretty much out of it, for that.
Friday, September 21, 2018
The Lead, wth Jake Tapper
I just watched an interesting discussion on CNN moderated by Tapper. He asked the panel the question what to make of it--it being Trump's latest Twit-off about the Kavanaugh assault allegation: Ms. Kucinski clearly answered the question, it hurts the campaign for Kavanaugh's confirmation, by making the support of Senators Collins and Murkowski more problematic. Tapper moved on, yes, clearly that is the case, but what is the strategy?
I was surprised that no one answered the question correctly. Bill Kristol seemed so shell-shocked by the blunderbuss that he could not offer a rationale. Robby Mook--how would Tapper go to him for a discussion of strategy?--expressed some talking points of the whole thing being the game of hopscotch (see previous post) and getting through it (so, the strategy of the tweet?) .
What I didn't hear (did I miss something?) was that, for Trump, this confirmation is not the real objective. It doesn't matter to him, that much--particularly as long as he can blame someone else if he "loses" this one. That would be easy. He can find another guy like Kavanaugh, also relatively easily, he could "even be a woman"--Trump had just drawn Brett from a list of 10 vetted for their politics by the extreme right-wing Federalist society, perhaps particularly attracted by Kavanaugh's statements, on the record, limiting the ability of Justice to impede Presidential criminality, and there are confirmable women judges on the list. And, unless McConnell somehow blows it in the Senate contest (it would be entirely his fault), he can get that person confirmed, preserving his "legacy".
Bottom line is: As always, Trump is just trying to whip up his base. Playing the long game, the one win that would matter for Trump in the midterms is if he can somehow save control of the House. He can dare Collins or Murkowski to turn against him in the key vote, whether to proceed to the final confirmation vote, which will be as close to party-line as there is. He can even shut the government down about his Stupid Wall (the crux will come by the end of the month, if it happens). So far, he hasn't seen the need to do it; but he can still do it (to everyone) if he wants. And he likes that.
I was surprised that no one answered the question correctly. Bill Kristol seemed so shell-shocked by the blunderbuss that he could not offer a rationale. Robby Mook--how would Tapper go to him for a discussion of strategy?--expressed some talking points of the whole thing being the game of hopscotch (see previous post) and getting through it (so, the strategy of the tweet?) .
What I didn't hear (did I miss something?) was that, for Trump, this confirmation is not the real objective. It doesn't matter to him, that much--particularly as long as he can blame someone else if he "loses" this one. That would be easy. He can find another guy like Kavanaugh, also relatively easily, he could "even be a woman"--Trump had just drawn Brett from a list of 10 vetted for their politics by the extreme right-wing Federalist society, perhaps particularly attracted by Kavanaugh's statements, on the record, limiting the ability of Justice to impede Presidential criminality, and there are confirmable women judges on the list. And, unless McConnell somehow blows it in the Senate contest (it would be entirely his fault), he can get that person confirmed, preserving his "legacy".
Bottom line is: As always, Trump is just trying to whip up his base. Playing the long game, the one win that would matter for Trump in the midterms is if he can somehow save control of the House. He can dare Collins or Murkowski to turn against him in the key vote, whether to proceed to the final confirmation vote, which will be as close to party-line as there is. He can even shut the government down about his Stupid Wall (the crux will come by the end of the month, if it happens). So far, he hasn't seen the need to do it; but he can still do it (to everyone) if he wants. And he likes that.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Two Games Changed
1) Trump Dodgeball - If you know the game, we are now down to that last stage: there's only one ball active in play, and Mueller's got it. The question is, who is/are the target(s)?
Paul Manafort copping the plea will make it clear--finally--to Donald that he will not be able to snuff this out through use of his pardon. Mueller didn't particularly need Manafort to turn in order to finalize his case, but this will allow him to connect the dots more clearly for the cases he will bring. Whatever crimes were committed in the original Russian-political-interference case, Manafort was there and knows what they were. He also should understand fully that any lies he gives to the investigators would invalidate his deal (and put him in jail forever, probably), so he would have to be extremely careful, saying nothing that anyone could prove false. For Mueller, Manafort will help him wrap things up more quickly and effectively.
Based on what I've seen, there is no solid criminal case against the President for this stuff. We can take a clue from the Anonymous op-ed (remember that? It was six days ago!) The way DrumpfOrg worked and continues to work is: the Boss is strictly on a Need-to-Know basis, the less the better. Any funny business, these career hacks and dirty tricksters know, keep him out of it, protect him completely. If we are waiting for Mueller to name him Un-Indicted Co-Conspirator (as happened with Nixon), we should stop waiting, as it really doesn't mean that much anyway. The real danger to Donald is that Donald Jr. and maybe Jared could be implicated, in something like taking an illegal meeting with known foreign agents to benefit the campaign, and they wouldn't have any immunity from indictment. Now, Trump could announce pre-emptively that he will "forgive" (read: pardon) any misstatements or missteps because they were trying to do right by him, our one and only President. Trump used similar logic earlier in pardoning Scooter Libby, the top assistant for VP Dick Cheney who took the fall for the 2003 Valerie Plame outing scandal.
A pardon will keep them out of jail, but it won't keep The Donald from the jail he will come to see the White House being next year--it will be that bad for him. The question is: will he want to stick it out? Supposedly he likes doing this and wants to continue; basically that is an unrealistic view of the job for any President, and if he does feel that way, I would expect that view to change. I continue to think defeat in 2020 is the sure path to ending Drumpfenreich once and for all, but I would say the odds of him just quitting, or of announcing that he will not run in 2020, both just got shorter (I previously rated those two as #2 and #4 most-likely of the six ways it can end; maybe the opt-out from the 2020 run now passes the likelihood of Trump's death in office.)
2) Hop-SCOTUS - There is a path to confirmation for any nominee, power dynamics permitting, and regardless of the nominee's ideology. It resembles the kids' game of hop-scotch: step in the right spots, stay off the lines, bounce over the selected blocked-off square (the one you put the chalk on, after your first run through). It's a sort of solo dance, but not too difficult if you follow.
The game was going according to form until today, really. The anonymous letter accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault back in his high school days didn't appear to be much of an obstacle for him to leap over (along with the one from the previous round, Roe v. Wade) and get to victory. Until the accuser chose--possibly under pressure from some unwelcome journalistic snooping--to reveal her identity and come forward.*
Now it's going to be Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, variations on a theme. She said, he denied. Surely some things have changed, though. One, of course, is that this is a white-on-white offense, which is viewed differently than a black-on-black one. One was a "lynching" (Thomas' word); this will be a "witch hunt". Let's see how long it takes Donald to come up with the use of his favorite phrase for the Mueller investigation for this one, too.
But seriously, when the accuser comes to testify, as it appears she will be bound to do, and the Republican senators have their chance to "cross-examine" (to use the court term), it is going to be ugly all the way around. Apparently, she does not remember the particulars, like the date, address, anyone who else might be able to corroborate. Though she passed an (unofficial) lie detector test that she is telling the truth, that will not count as evidence. They will ask harrowing, hounding, speechlike-questions such as, "Who told you the alleged assailant was Brett Kavanaugh? How do you know it wasn't someone pretending to be him? Had you ever met him before? He denies being there, wherever it was."
I do think that this "game-changer" gives pause to Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senators who were on the fence but leaning toward voting for confirmation. Outgoing Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who feels free to do the right thing, has already announced he will vote against immediate approval in committee, which would mean the vote might well fail there if the party leadership tries to force it through now. That defeat, however, would not prevent Kavanaugh's nomination coming to the floor of the Senate. The ultimate outcome there would now be uncertain (while it was not really uncertain before this development), but I feel it will make it almost impossible for any Democrats, no matter how red their states may be, to vote for confirmation now. One phenomenon that seems likely to continue is that Democrats own up to their failings in the #metoo arena, while Republicans dare to defy their accusers.
Thus, even heavier implications for the massive gender divide emerging in the midterms.
*No need to call her out by name, since it seems she was originally trying to avoid the unwanted publicity.
Paul Manafort copping the plea will make it clear--finally--to Donald that he will not be able to snuff this out through use of his pardon. Mueller didn't particularly need Manafort to turn in order to finalize his case, but this will allow him to connect the dots more clearly for the cases he will bring. Whatever crimes were committed in the original Russian-political-interference case, Manafort was there and knows what they were. He also should understand fully that any lies he gives to the investigators would invalidate his deal (and put him in jail forever, probably), so he would have to be extremely careful, saying nothing that anyone could prove false. For Mueller, Manafort will help him wrap things up more quickly and effectively.
Based on what I've seen, there is no solid criminal case against the President for this stuff. We can take a clue from the Anonymous op-ed (remember that? It was six days ago!) The way DrumpfOrg worked and continues to work is: the Boss is strictly on a Need-to-Know basis, the less the better. Any funny business, these career hacks and dirty tricksters know, keep him out of it, protect him completely. If we are waiting for Mueller to name him Un-Indicted Co-Conspirator (as happened with Nixon), we should stop waiting, as it really doesn't mean that much anyway. The real danger to Donald is that Donald Jr. and maybe Jared could be implicated, in something like taking an illegal meeting with known foreign agents to benefit the campaign, and they wouldn't have any immunity from indictment. Now, Trump could announce pre-emptively that he will "forgive" (read: pardon) any misstatements or missteps because they were trying to do right by him, our one and only President. Trump used similar logic earlier in pardoning Scooter Libby, the top assistant for VP Dick Cheney who took the fall for the 2003 Valerie Plame outing scandal.
A pardon will keep them out of jail, but it won't keep The Donald from the jail he will come to see the White House being next year--it will be that bad for him. The question is: will he want to stick it out? Supposedly he likes doing this and wants to continue; basically that is an unrealistic view of the job for any President, and if he does feel that way, I would expect that view to change. I continue to think defeat in 2020 is the sure path to ending Drumpfenreich once and for all, but I would say the odds of him just quitting, or of announcing that he will not run in 2020, both just got shorter (I previously rated those two as #2 and #4 most-likely of the six ways it can end; maybe the opt-out from the 2020 run now passes the likelihood of Trump's death in office.)
2) Hop-SCOTUS - There is a path to confirmation for any nominee, power dynamics permitting, and regardless of the nominee's ideology. It resembles the kids' game of hop-scotch: step in the right spots, stay off the lines, bounce over the selected blocked-off square (the one you put the chalk on, after your first run through). It's a sort of solo dance, but not too difficult if you follow.
The game was going according to form until today, really. The anonymous letter accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault back in his high school days didn't appear to be much of an obstacle for him to leap over (along with the one from the previous round, Roe v. Wade) and get to victory. Until the accuser chose--possibly under pressure from some unwelcome journalistic snooping--to reveal her identity and come forward.*
Now it's going to be Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, variations on a theme. She said, he denied. Surely some things have changed, though. One, of course, is that this is a white-on-white offense, which is viewed differently than a black-on-black one. One was a "lynching" (Thomas' word); this will be a "witch hunt". Let's see how long it takes Donald to come up with the use of his favorite phrase for the Mueller investigation for this one, too.
But seriously, when the accuser comes to testify, as it appears she will be bound to do, and the Republican senators have their chance to "cross-examine" (to use the court term), it is going to be ugly all the way around. Apparently, she does not remember the particulars, like the date, address, anyone who else might be able to corroborate. Though she passed an (unofficial) lie detector test that she is telling the truth, that will not count as evidence. They will ask harrowing, hounding, speechlike-questions such as, "Who told you the alleged assailant was Brett Kavanaugh? How do you know it wasn't someone pretending to be him? Had you ever met him before? He denies being there, wherever it was."
I do think that this "game-changer" gives pause to Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senators who were on the fence but leaning toward voting for confirmation. Outgoing Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who feels free to do the right thing, has already announced he will vote against immediate approval in committee, which would mean the vote might well fail there if the party leadership tries to force it through now. That defeat, however, would not prevent Kavanaugh's nomination coming to the floor of the Senate. The ultimate outcome there would now be uncertain (while it was not really uncertain before this development), but I feel it will make it almost impossible for any Democrats, no matter how red their states may be, to vote for confirmation now. One phenomenon that seems likely to continue is that Democrats own up to their failings in the #metoo arena, while Republicans dare to defy their accusers.
Thus, even heavier implications for the massive gender divide emerging in the midterms.
*No need to call her out by name, since it seems she was originally trying to avoid the unwanted publicity.
Friday, September 07, 2018
2018 Elections: Gun Lap
The final phase of the midterm elections traditionally begins at Labor Day; this one entered with a bang. Wherever Man has permanently pissed off his own team, and his lunatic approach is coming back to bite him through the collapse of his White House. I can't imagine that the timing of Woodward's book release, full of damning quotes about Drumpf from his own people, and of the Anonymous New York Times op-ed, in which a "senior administration" individual questions Trump's fitness to continue to govern, can be accidental. It's an effective 1-2 kick in the shins, to which his natural reaction can only be to overreact.
The op-ed shouldn't be a big deal, unworthy of lie detector tests and additional loyalty oaths. The news Drumpf is and has been unfit has long been perfectly obvious to many of us observers. You could say that the only things he lacks to perform his job are judgment, temperament and comprehension (as long as his health holds up), but the most damning behavior is his unwillingness to learn. As for Woodward, it's the usual hatchet job, full of the confidential views which derive from his trusted access; he applies it at least once to every President, just because he can.
The timing could hardly be worse, as in spite of both parties' desire to show they have some substance, it's still going to be a referendum on Trump (and your representatives' stances toward him, and how that plays). In his most recent comments on the election (before this week's blow-up), Trump seemed to have been coached to understand that Republicans' loss of the control of the House was likely and its effect should be minimized, but that their control of the Senate may still be retained. In a fundamental way, it is true that the House does not pose an existential threat to Trump; they can impeach, but not remove him from office. They would be able to change patterns of government spending, the implication of which is that it is probably next year that Trump would now choose to shut down rather than accede to Democratic priorities, instead of this year, as he was previously threatening to do.
Most importantly for the Democratic strategy to cripple Trump by 2020, even if there is no way to take him out without the assistance of some 15-20 Republican senators, there is an opportunity for some serious vengeance through control of House committees, and their powers for oversight and investigation. The Trump Administration desperately needs and deserves this function to be applied, even if it is ultimately killed by it, for the sake of us all.
I'm not quite convinced that Anonymous' motives are entirely benign, but I can only applaud the sabotage to Drumpfenreich. Am I the first to suggest that this Resistance against Drumpfy-(read: Vichy) Occupied Washington could get bloody, as in enhanced interrogation and challenges to habeas corpus? It would not be out of character.
60-Day Weather Forecast: Stormy*
The campaign has been underway for nine months at least--the early special elections, #metoo, more special elections, a drawn-out primary season (even now still some states are finishing theirs), and a whole lot of nothing. The Kavanaugh news is almost a relief from the hype, as this confirmation is truly significant (the potential ideological shift in the swing vote of the Court), but that show has deliberately been given a short dramatic run by Yertle McConnell. The answers sought will not be forthcoming for Democratic conferees, but there is only one question they must get a clear answer upon: Do you interpret the Constitution as providing for any right of privacy, or not? And don't settle for that "settled law" baloney on that one. With Kavanaugh, either it will be in the Constitution, or it will be next to nothing.
Control of the Senate would be the great prize for the Democrats, but it is not likely to be granted. The Democrats could have a great night, winning elections all over the country, but still fall short. The most distressing outcome--though one which would be very promising for 2020's battle for control--would be for the Republicans to end up with 50 seats, retaining control through Vice President Pence's tie-breaking vote. In order to have that negative outcome, the Democrats would have to successfully win 26 of 35 contests. Successfully holding onto seats in red West Virginia, Montana, and Missouri, along with purple Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota (twice), and Wisconsin, and picking up seats from Arizona and Nevada--all of these successes would not be enough if they cannot hold Florida, North Dakota, or Indiana, or come up with a miracle win in Texas or Tennessee. One thing that is in the Democrats' favor, so far, is that the majority of voters do not seem inclined to punish incumbent Democratic Senators for the lack of progress on most issues: this is something the Republicans' national strategy will try to correct, by trying to place these contested Democrats in a position where they must block ugly Drumpfenreich-stuff, and bringing up those Republican agenda items that were blocked by Democrats in the Senate.
The most interesting story on Election Night will be the battles for control of state governments--governorships and state legislatures. For gubernatorial races, Politico shows six toss-up states and 12 more which only "lean" toward one party's side or the other. The Democrats will definitely make some gains, but they are starting from a very low place. This area will most truly provide the basis to evaluate the depth of the Democratic wave. The big ones are Florida and Georgia, in which African-American Democrats will try to make history, Ohio (need I say more?) and Wisconsin, where the Democrats will have one more chance to finally hang a defeat on Scott Walker. But there are also interesting contests in Kansas, where a super Trump crony (who took on the fake inquiry into voter fraud for Trump) has an unusually difficult challenge (for a Kansas Republican), due in part to the fiscal disasters his predecessors produced, and Iowa, the winner of which will immediately be plunged into the 2020 jockeying for position in the national race which begins there.
The House race will be covered as a binary outcome--did the Democrats get a majority, one vote is big enough?--which will probably be resolved late in the evening, if at all. With so many tight races--somewhere between 60 and 80 are considered "in play" at this point--only a massive victory, a pickup of 50 seats or more, would show up early in the evening, and the quantity of races to cover will be too much for the networks and most blogs to cover very effectively in real time.
The predictit markets on the ranges of GOP House seats, and on the complementary ranges of Democratic seats (two separate markets!) allow one to give rough probabilities from this source; these could (with a little guesswork or inspired interpolation) be compared against the probabilities for the same ranges on Fivethirtyeight.com, the most rigorous of all the probabilistic methodologies (see below). They have three different "flavors" of compiling the likelihood, varying the degree to which prior records and population trends are considered along with recent polls. Their work is absolutely first-rate, and they show their data in a variety of ways. Two key numbers: 230 is their current median projection for Democratic seats, and 5.4% is the margin Democrats are projected to need in order to gain a majority (because of the net effect of gerrymandered districts). Right now, they are showing a margin varying between 8 and 10 points: A 10-point margin, if it were to hold up in actual voting numbers, would lead to a large margin on the order of 50 seats for the Democrats, and a gain just as large.
Investment Strategy for Resistance Donations
Remember, though, that a one-vote margin for the Democrats in the House is almost as good as one that's many times larger; control of committees, electing the Speaker, etc. should strictly follow party control lines. 230 seats (vs. 205 for the Republicans) is a good outcome, in terms of optimal amount of investment vs. the other races. So, help your state's candidates in close races; take enough time to find out which they are (most states have at least one). Don't be too picky about where they lie on the ideological spectrum. Sure, give to your local Democratic representative even if s/he doesn't need it; their leverage should work for your district's benefit, in ways direct or indirect.
The time to respond to appeals to "build ground games"in individual markets is over; either they've done it or they are behind where they need to be. From now on, you are helping to decide where the TV money will go. Florida, Ohio, Georgia, and the DLCC are my recommendations for discretionary contributions--the DCCC and the DGA+ will continue to get money from me. The long primary/special election campaign has allowed many candidates with high recognition and easy races, or none at all, to amass 'warchests' of their discretionary funds, to contribute toward other races this year--some of that '3X multiplier' money candidates think will help draw response--or save for future years' races (though only indirectly for Presidential runs, I think). So make sure you know who you are choosing to give to, and that they really need it now.
The op-ed shouldn't be a big deal, unworthy of lie detector tests and additional loyalty oaths. The news Drumpf is and has been unfit has long been perfectly obvious to many of us observers. You could say that the only things he lacks to perform his job are judgment, temperament and comprehension (as long as his health holds up), but the most damning behavior is his unwillingness to learn. As for Woodward, it's the usual hatchet job, full of the confidential views which derive from his trusted access; he applies it at least once to every President, just because he can.
The timing could hardly be worse, as in spite of both parties' desire to show they have some substance, it's still going to be a referendum on Trump (and your representatives' stances toward him, and how that plays). In his most recent comments on the election (before this week's blow-up), Trump seemed to have been coached to understand that Republicans' loss of the control of the House was likely and its effect should be minimized, but that their control of the Senate may still be retained. In a fundamental way, it is true that the House does not pose an existential threat to Trump; they can impeach, but not remove him from office. They would be able to change patterns of government spending, the implication of which is that it is probably next year that Trump would now choose to shut down rather than accede to Democratic priorities, instead of this year, as he was previously threatening to do.
Most importantly for the Democratic strategy to cripple Trump by 2020, even if there is no way to take him out without the assistance of some 15-20 Republican senators, there is an opportunity for some serious vengeance through control of House committees, and their powers for oversight and investigation. The Trump Administration desperately needs and deserves this function to be applied, even if it is ultimately killed by it, for the sake of us all.
I'm not quite convinced that Anonymous' motives are entirely benign, but I can only applaud the sabotage to Drumpfenreich. Am I the first to suggest that this Resistance against Drumpfy-(read: Vichy) Occupied Washington could get bloody, as in enhanced interrogation and challenges to habeas corpus? It would not be out of character.
60-Day Weather Forecast: Stormy*
The campaign has been underway for nine months at least--the early special elections, #metoo, more special elections, a drawn-out primary season (even now still some states are finishing theirs), and a whole lot of nothing. The Kavanaugh news is almost a relief from the hype, as this confirmation is truly significant (the potential ideological shift in the swing vote of the Court), but that show has deliberately been given a short dramatic run by Yertle McConnell. The answers sought will not be forthcoming for Democratic conferees, but there is only one question they must get a clear answer upon: Do you interpret the Constitution as providing for any right of privacy, or not? And don't settle for that "settled law" baloney on that one. With Kavanaugh, either it will be in the Constitution, or it will be next to nothing.
Control of the Senate would be the great prize for the Democrats, but it is not likely to be granted. The Democrats could have a great night, winning elections all over the country, but still fall short. The most distressing outcome--though one which would be very promising for 2020's battle for control--would be for the Republicans to end up with 50 seats, retaining control through Vice President Pence's tie-breaking vote. In order to have that negative outcome, the Democrats would have to successfully win 26 of 35 contests. Successfully holding onto seats in red West Virginia, Montana, and Missouri, along with purple Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota (twice), and Wisconsin, and picking up seats from Arizona and Nevada--all of these successes would not be enough if they cannot hold Florida, North Dakota, or Indiana, or come up with a miracle win in Texas or Tennessee. One thing that is in the Democrats' favor, so far, is that the majority of voters do not seem inclined to punish incumbent Democratic Senators for the lack of progress on most issues: this is something the Republicans' national strategy will try to correct, by trying to place these contested Democrats in a position where they must block ugly Drumpfenreich-stuff, and bringing up those Republican agenda items that were blocked by Democrats in the Senate.
The most interesting story on Election Night will be the battles for control of state governments--governorships and state legislatures. For gubernatorial races, Politico shows six toss-up states and 12 more which only "lean" toward one party's side or the other. The Democrats will definitely make some gains, but they are starting from a very low place. This area will most truly provide the basis to evaluate the depth of the Democratic wave. The big ones are Florida and Georgia, in which African-American Democrats will try to make history, Ohio (need I say more?) and Wisconsin, where the Democrats will have one more chance to finally hang a defeat on Scott Walker. But there are also interesting contests in Kansas, where a super Trump crony (who took on the fake inquiry into voter fraud for Trump) has an unusually difficult challenge (for a Kansas Republican), due in part to the fiscal disasters his predecessors produced, and Iowa, the winner of which will immediately be plunged into the 2020 jockeying for position in the national race which begins there.
The House race will be covered as a binary outcome--did the Democrats get a majority, one vote is big enough?--which will probably be resolved late in the evening, if at all. With so many tight races--somewhere between 60 and 80 are considered "in play" at this point--only a massive victory, a pickup of 50 seats or more, would show up early in the evening, and the quantity of races to cover will be too much for the networks and most blogs to cover very effectively in real time.
The predictit markets on the ranges of GOP House seats, and on the complementary ranges of Democratic seats (two separate markets!) allow one to give rough probabilities from this source; these could (with a little guesswork or inspired interpolation) be compared against the probabilities for the same ranges on Fivethirtyeight.com, the most rigorous of all the probabilistic methodologies (see below). They have three different "flavors" of compiling the likelihood, varying the degree to which prior records and population trends are considered along with recent polls. Their work is absolutely first-rate, and they show their data in a variety of ways. Two key numbers: 230 is their current median projection for Democratic seats, and 5.4% is the margin Democrats are projected to need in order to gain a majority (because of the net effect of gerrymandered districts). Right now, they are showing a margin varying between 8 and 10 points: A 10-point margin, if it were to hold up in actual voting numbers, would lead to a large margin on the order of 50 seats for the Democrats, and a gain just as large.
Investment Strategy for Resistance Donations
Remember, though, that a one-vote margin for the Democrats in the House is almost as good as one that's many times larger; control of committees, electing the Speaker, etc. should strictly follow party control lines. 230 seats (vs. 205 for the Republicans) is a good outcome, in terms of optimal amount of investment vs. the other races. So, help your state's candidates in close races; take enough time to find out which they are (most states have at least one). Don't be too picky about where they lie on the ideological spectrum. Sure, give to your local Democratic representative even if s/he doesn't need it; their leverage should work for your district's benefit, in ways direct or indirect.
The time to respond to appeals to "build ground games"in individual markets is over; either they've done it or they are behind where they need to be. From now on, you are helping to decide where the TV money will go. Florida, Ohio, Georgia, and the DLCC are my recommendations for discretionary contributions--the DCCC and the DGA+ will continue to get money from me. The long primary/special election campaign has allowed many candidates with high recognition and easy races, or none at all, to amass 'warchests' of their discretionary funds, to contribute toward other races this year--some of that '3X multiplier' money candidates think will help draw response--or save for future years' races (though only indirectly for Presidential runs, I think). So make sure you know who you are choosing to give to, and that they really need it now.
Appendix: Predictit.org latest market prices on number of Democratic seats (compiled from two markets of predictit.org)
Dem Market
Seats GOP Dem
<200 span=""><200 16="" font="">199 - 16%
200-217 28%
218-230 31%
231 + 53%
Those add up to 128%! Clearly the best strategy is to bet No on all except the correct one (joke). But these numbers indicate the estimated median price is around 225 seats for the Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
