Confusion will be my Epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying
--Epitaph, King Crimson
I'm thinking of the song lyrics above as an epigram for the elections themselves, or for one, or more likely, both parties, not for me personally. I'm saving my emotions somewhat for the War of 2020.
Watching and reading the talking heads, I find that they were burned too badly in 2016; nobody is willing to step up and make a prediction on the outcome(s). Is there a red wave, and will it cancel out the blue one? Will this be an affirmation, a check, or a rejection of the Drumpfenreich? Nobody is saying.
Not having a professional reputation in this area to defend, I am less constrained. For the most part, I'm not going to make many specific predictions on individual races, as I don't have good enough sources of data. However, I will do something that not many have done and make some broad general predictions, to wit:
1. The most lasting result of the 2018 elections will be confusion and stagnation. We can expect the Democrats to control the House of Representatives--how much or how little won't even matter that much in practical terms; we can expect the Senate control to stay in Republican hands, and most likely they will do a little bit better than the 51-49 margin they have now. We can expect a fairly large number of state governors to flip from Republicans to Democrats, and some in important states for the 2020 elections--that will be the most significant outcome in the longer run.
The expected split in control of the houses of Congress means that very little is likely to be accomplished legislatively in the next Congress. The "do-nothing Congress" will be a term that both parties will overuse in the 2020 campaign; partisans on both sides will know whom to blame (the other side), while independents will be able to maintain their states of confusion and of indifference-to-hate with which they view both sides. President Trump will continue to do his best to undermine the effectiveness of the Federal government through his incompetent and destructive leadership.
2. It will take a long time for the final numbers of the 2018 midterms to be confirmed. This will be very frustrating for the news organizations on Election Night; I think it is unlikely that they will be able to make a call on control of either the House or the Senate until deep into the night, or until the morning after. There are so many close races--something like eight races listed as "tossup" in both the Senate and the Governors' categories, and 30 or so in the House, by the reckonings of most experts. To make things worse, a runoff is likely in the Mississippi Senate special election, and very possible in the Georgia governor's race (more on this one later). The former could be decisive on Senate control (a good result leading to a relatively bad outcome for the Democrats, if true); the latter is going to be full of controversy, it is already apparent, due to efforts by the Georgia Secretary of State and his minions to affect the outcome--in the race for which he is the Republican candidate--through voter suppression (or, if you like, "prevention of voter fraud") measures. There are going to be many races in which the result will depend on absentee ballots, recounts, or even court decisions on disputed outcomes. The muddle will continue for weeks, or months.
3. Donald Trump will declare the result "a huge victory"; so will the Democratic National Committee, and especially the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. I guess this is obvious. I will be interested to see if the House results (the purview of the DCCC) will make my (very fine) Congressman, Ben Ray Lujan, a national star. (he is the head of the DCCC this year) . Again, in the House of Representatives, even a one-vote margin will suffice for the Democrats to claim victory, though they are shooting for more than that, to make sure they get control. Same goes for the Republicans in the Senate, really, as getting to 60 Republican Senators, something which would give them full control on Senate legislative activity, seems out of the question. If you're wondering, the head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee is Cory Gardner of Colorado, who will be a key target for Democrats in 2020 trying once again to regain control of the Senate. He's keeping a pretty low profile this year but will become a focal point later, particularly if he is not able to expand his party's current narrow margin.
4. Bottom Line: the can will effectively be kicked down the road, and the 2020 campaigns will begin immediately, even before the numbers are finalized. Democratic Presidential candidates will not be able to tell whether to contest Trump's' bluster and insults fiercely, or matter-of-factly, or just to ignore them. There will be enough candidates that several will try each strategy. The one of those strategies that works best, and things like personality, name recognition, and organization will determine which candidates will survive the pre-primary and early-primary free-for-all. For some of the debates, there will not be enough room on the stage for all of them, let alone enough time for each to make more than a sound-bite line or two.
5. The incredible waste of money in the current format and (lack of) regulation of campaign financing and spending will itself become a major issue. I really am just hoping this is true; it will not be resolved by 2020, but I expect to see some new approaches to the problem (how to raise enough money to defeat one's opponent without compromising oneself in the eyes of the constituents) from candidates--maybe from both parties!--who see what a problem it is, who see how it is leading to the bad outcomes (disapproval of all parties and candidates, low turnout, polarization, and the aforementioned stagnation) we are getting. I would cite Beto O'Rourke's campaign as an early version of what I'm talking about, though the jury is out whether that will be a winning strategy in his Senate race in Texas.
2020 Democratic Presidential/Vice-Presidential Endorsements. (I am only half-serious here, obviously there are many, many hills and valleys ahead, starting November 7.)
For President: Sherrod Brown, Senator from Ohio. Despite the Republicans' best efforts--multiple Trump/Pence visits, lots of money, etc.--Brown is headed for a resounding re-election victory in this super-critical, Republican-leaning state. That in itself tells a lot, but there's more: he is a strong Democratic partisan (critical for the nomination), something of a populist when it comes to foreign and trade policies (in line with most Americans' views these days, whether right or wrong), and his gruff, colloquial speaking style could appeal to disaffected blue-collar men all over the country. But don't let that fool you too much: he is a veteran (though not undefeated) electoral campaigner, highly knowledgeable (yes, a Yale graduate) and a convincing public speaker.
The negative: he has denied any interest in running for President ("I don't want to do it"), From my personal point of view, that's a positive for consideration--anyone who wants to be President too much, shouldn't be, and anyone who wants to run for President must be a masochist. Still, the days of nomination by draft are probably over.
For Vice-President: Carmen Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico. She has emerged into national semi-prominence in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, the often-heroic efforts to address the devastation it caused, and the controversy over the blame for the failures to address life-and-death health issues in the territory since then. In every regard, she has emerged as a powerful, honest voice concerned above all for her constituents and unafraid of anyone. She would make a great "attack dog"--no insult intended--to mock and counter Trump effectively (what the 2020 Democratic VP nominee must do, and what 2016 nominee Tim Kaine failed to do), as well as someone who could help bring attention to what should be a strong Democratic platform element: statehood for DC, and a debate, leading to a referendum and Congressional action, on Puerto Rico's permanent status. Better than .anyone, she can analyze why the current P.R. status does not work and what should be done about it. In case anyone is wondering, she meets the constitutional eligibility requirements for the position.
While I'm at it:
For Speaker of the House (assuming Democrats win control): former President Barack Obama. It amazes me that no one--at least as far as I have seen--has suggested this solution to the potential bloody internecine problem the House Democrats would have. Sure, Nancy Pelosi will win a showdown if it comes to that, but that will leave many unhappy or unsatisfied, and the Democrats need a recognized party leader to take them to 2020. I anticipate that Mitt Romney will become the new Republican "conscience of the Senate", the person who can stand up to our Banana Republic would-be autocrat, taking the place of the departed McCain, Corker, Flake, and the abdication from that role of Lindsay Graham; who better to top Romney than the man who comprehensively defeated him? Who knows, I would bet Romney and Obama would be able to find some common ground behind closed doors and overcome the stagnation in some cases (like keeping the government running, despite Trump). Like Cruz, he meets the requirements for the position--they do not include being an elected House Representative.
I will make two stipulations: 1) Speaker Obama would not/can not be part of the line of succession to the Presidency; it would just skip over that office to the next person (I think Speaker is between President pro tempore of the Senate and Secretary of State); and 2) The possibility of this is really just between Pelosi, Obama, and Michelle Obama. I know President Obama has some things he wants to accomplish outside of Washington, and Michelle can't wait to leave it behind, but neither does Obama seem comfortable sitting on the sidelines. This would be a two-year commitment only; Pelosi would still get a "promotion" to Majority Leader. It would be a great move of self-abnegation for Pelosi, historic in its significance, unprecedented--but these are times that cry out for innovative thinking. I think if she made the announcement, he would be approved by acclamation in the Democratic caucus--he'd better be!
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Monday, October 01, 2018
Do Due Diligence
I can only imagine the anguish that a Senator who had not decided whether to vote for Brett Kavanaugh, someone whose decision lay in resolving the truth of Professor Blasey Ford's accusation, might have felt watching the drama Thursday. I wonder if there were any such Senators.
I have no trouble at all believing both Dr. Ford's account and Kavanaugh's protestations of innocence. Innocence is a state of mind, and I can easily believe that it happened, just as she said (sketchy though the details may be) and that he remembers nothing of it. I don't even believe he would have had to have been pass-out drunk to lose his memory of it, just that what happened was not sexual assault in his mind, and he forgot about it. When it came up recently, he readily convinced himself that it couldn't have happened. There can be that much difference in how people perceive events.
I do thank Senator Flake for his crisis of confidence (or of conscience), his second thoughts just after announcing his intention to vote to confirm. We can call it courage, but it was certainly human, in the best sense of the word. The result was a well-drawn political compromise, in the way these finally occur: not horse-trading, but the merging of varying interests.
We can all wish that a week's investigation will firmly establish the truth of the matter, or of the Yale freshman dorm indecent exposure charge, but that is not the way this life works. Truth reveals itself much more subtly than that, if at all. I have no doubt that a persistent investigation would show that Kavanaugh's "white lies" were much more numerous and substantial than those that have already been uncovered. If I were the FBI investigator, I would want to talk to that ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, someone whose name I have not heard mentioned as an investigation interview subject. Though it would all be hearsay, there could be no better source to get the hidden dirt.
The Senators who have the true leverage in this story are Senators Collins and Murkowski, as they have been for weeks. Though they were not in the Judiciary Committee, they enlisted Flake to be their voice there, and he came through for them. I have heard that they are both very concerned about process, and this will give them a chance to satisfy themselves and vote for confirmation, if that is what they feel they must do. As for Sen. Manchin and Sen. Heitkamp, they have correctly understood that their best interest (vote maximizing in the midst of challenging re-election bids) is to wait until the last moment to make their decisions, thus having all the information of their respective states' public opinion. Their votes are unlikely to be decisive, unless Collins and Murkowski both vote No.
Just as Flake desperately needed to find another door when he was cornered in the elevator by the women demonstrating their despair, Friday's change of story provided Mitch McConnell a way out from a difficult situation, as the immediate agreement both he and President Trump gave to the one-week delay proposal showed. There had been a scheduled vote the next day to set the date of the final vote--that was looking like a vote that McConnell was going to lose. The vote to end debate was always the one he had to find all 51 Republicans to support, and now he has the means to get it--or rather, he will, in a week.
What it appears to me from Thursday's session is that Justice Clarence "Uncle" Thomas may find that he need not stay on any longer in the Court, for Justice Kavanaugh should adequately represent the men-feeling-aggrieved-by-women's-accusations constituency. I don't dispute its existence, and it's probably growing, but does it really need two Supreme Court justices (and a President) to defend its interests?
Professor Ford's civic-minded sacrifice should have at least one positive effect, though it may not stop Kavanaugh's confirmation: she will have provided the national culture something permanent, in terms of women's ability to speak out against bad actors. And, though regardless of his guilt, based on his performance Thursday I would indeed describe Kavanaugh as a bad actor, I also find that the Republican base is in love with them (see Reagan, Trump). As such, I think Kavanaugh's stance will also help juice up Republican turnout, which will make Election Night even more uncertain and much too interesting.
"The Ranking Member"and Team
I cannot help giving some reviews to some of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee--for one thing, three of them seem likely to run for President, and this was their unavoidable national audition. Of those three, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota had the best moments, and she, along with moderates Blumenthal and Coons ended up winning the day for their team's search for delay, while Cory Booker and Kamala Harris were less successful in creating positive momentum for their embryonic candidacies. I will cite the public service of Sen. Whitehouse (not in a close race this year, probably not running for President) for taking on the ugly, unpopular task of going through Kavanaugh's damaging high-school yearbook quotations and the evasive and sarcastic responses that exercise was sure to elicit.
The Democrats on the committee stuck together, as they needed to do, and worked cooperatively.. I am concerned, though, about Sen. Feinstein, the "ranking member" (what a crummy title!) of the committee's Democratic contingent, who was unable to provide leadership in the meeting room--maybe she did better away from the cameras. She was not able to provide a Kavanauvian denial of the leaking of Prof. Ford's original letter which had been entrusted to her (she denied it, but not very passionately), never showed much capacity to defend herself from the criticism (from all sides) for respecting Ford's privacy for so long, and was clueless on Friday about what was going on. While I don't see that she did anything improper, running for re-election this year at age 85, against another Democrat (the general election pits the two survivors of California's open primary), she might want to consider gracefully stepping aside. Or, put another way, Californians might take another look, a more favorable one, at her opponent, Kevin de Leon.
I have no trouble at all believing both Dr. Ford's account and Kavanaugh's protestations of innocence. Innocence is a state of mind, and I can easily believe that it happened, just as she said (sketchy though the details may be) and that he remembers nothing of it. I don't even believe he would have had to have been pass-out drunk to lose his memory of it, just that what happened was not sexual assault in his mind, and he forgot about it. When it came up recently, he readily convinced himself that it couldn't have happened. There can be that much difference in how people perceive events.
I do thank Senator Flake for his crisis of confidence (or of conscience), his second thoughts just after announcing his intention to vote to confirm. We can call it courage, but it was certainly human, in the best sense of the word. The result was a well-drawn political compromise, in the way these finally occur: not horse-trading, but the merging of varying interests.
We can all wish that a week's investigation will firmly establish the truth of the matter, or of the Yale freshman dorm indecent exposure charge, but that is not the way this life works. Truth reveals itself much more subtly than that, if at all. I have no doubt that a persistent investigation would show that Kavanaugh's "white lies" were much more numerous and substantial than those that have already been uncovered. If I were the FBI investigator, I would want to talk to that ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, someone whose name I have not heard mentioned as an investigation interview subject. Though it would all be hearsay, there could be no better source to get the hidden dirt.
The Senators who have the true leverage in this story are Senators Collins and Murkowski, as they have been for weeks. Though they were not in the Judiciary Committee, they enlisted Flake to be their voice there, and he came through for them. I have heard that they are both very concerned about process, and this will give them a chance to satisfy themselves and vote for confirmation, if that is what they feel they must do. As for Sen. Manchin and Sen. Heitkamp, they have correctly understood that their best interest (vote maximizing in the midst of challenging re-election bids) is to wait until the last moment to make their decisions, thus having all the information of their respective states' public opinion. Their votes are unlikely to be decisive, unless Collins and Murkowski both vote No.
Just as Flake desperately needed to find another door when he was cornered in the elevator by the women demonstrating their despair, Friday's change of story provided Mitch McConnell a way out from a difficult situation, as the immediate agreement both he and President Trump gave to the one-week delay proposal showed. There had been a scheduled vote the next day to set the date of the final vote--that was looking like a vote that McConnell was going to lose. The vote to end debate was always the one he had to find all 51 Republicans to support, and now he has the means to get it--or rather, he will, in a week.
What it appears to me from Thursday's session is that Justice Clarence "Uncle" Thomas may find that he need not stay on any longer in the Court, for Justice Kavanaugh should adequately represent the men-feeling-aggrieved-by-women's-accusations constituency. I don't dispute its existence, and it's probably growing, but does it really need two Supreme Court justices (and a President) to defend its interests?
Professor Ford's civic-minded sacrifice should have at least one positive effect, though it may not stop Kavanaugh's confirmation: she will have provided the national culture something permanent, in terms of women's ability to speak out against bad actors. And, though regardless of his guilt, based on his performance Thursday I would indeed describe Kavanaugh as a bad actor, I also find that the Republican base is in love with them (see Reagan, Trump). As such, I think Kavanaugh's stance will also help juice up Republican turnout, which will make Election Night even more uncertain and much too interesting.
"The Ranking Member"and Team
I cannot help giving some reviews to some of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee--for one thing, three of them seem likely to run for President, and this was their unavoidable national audition. Of those three, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota had the best moments, and she, along with moderates Blumenthal and Coons ended up winning the day for their team's search for delay, while Cory Booker and Kamala Harris were less successful in creating positive momentum for their embryonic candidacies. I will cite the public service of Sen. Whitehouse (not in a close race this year, probably not running for President) for taking on the ugly, unpopular task of going through Kavanaugh's damaging high-school yearbook quotations and the evasive and sarcastic responses that exercise was sure to elicit.
The Democrats on the committee stuck together, as they needed to do, and worked cooperatively.. I am concerned, though, about Sen. Feinstein, the "ranking member" (what a crummy title!) of the committee's Democratic contingent, who was unable to provide leadership in the meeting room--maybe she did better away from the cameras. She was not able to provide a Kavanauvian denial of the leaking of Prof. Ford's original letter which had been entrusted to her (she denied it, but not very passionately), never showed much capacity to defend herself from the criticism (from all sides) for respecting Ford's privacy for so long, and was clueless on Friday about what was going on. While I don't see that she did anything improper, running for re-election this year at age 85, against another Democrat (the general election pits the two survivors of California's open primary), she might want to consider gracefully stepping aside. Or, put another way, Californians might take another look, a more favorable one, at her opponent, Kevin de Leon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
