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.
Posts
2 comments:
Blogger gave me a hard time showing properly the table I brought in. The numbers should read: Dems <200, 16%; 200-217, 28%; 218-230, 31%; 231+, 53%. Devalued evenly, that would be <200, 13%; 200-217, 22%; 218-230%, 25%; 231+, 41%. My betting is Yes on the 218-230 range, and a little on the 5-to-7 point range adjacent on either side (as a hedge) and heavily on No beyond 235 or below 211.
I believe I made a counting error in my Senate discussion: the Democrats would need to in 27 of 35 contests (not 26) to get that (unfortunate) 50-50 tie And, another way, I think it's eight Trump-won states' Senate seats the Democrats would have to win to get to 51.
Post a Comment