Fall Forward, Spring Back (Pt. 2)

The number one question which will be answered by the midterms is our political system's 2018 response to its catastrophic fall forward on its face in 2016.  Will it be to lie prostrate and pathetic, or to spring back ? There is a third option,  for it to rise groggily to its feet and ready itself for the real conflict which lies ahead.

Not for nothing, I have decided to spend the one hour given back by this day--and what an exceptionally lovely fall day it was here today--and post some of my current thoughts within a strict, one-hour limit. I am five minutes into it now as I write. Of course, this has nothing to do with the time zone change here, for which the mnemonic is the inverse. 

My predictions for the election, defined as of the first day of the new Congress' session:
 229 for Dems in the House  (vs. 205), and
 48 Dem. senators (including Independents).

With senators, the prediction comes from looking at the individual races and how they are likely to turn out.  Right now, there is one very likely D-to-R (Heitkamp in ND) and five that are basically toss-ups  (AZ and NV that the Republicans are defending, and IN, MO, and FL that the Democrats are defending).  Viewed as a product of the function of the number of seats changing party hands, 1, 3, and 5 are very likely results for that; each of those is most likely to result in the Republican Senator number being 52.  Considering only those, if the Democrats lose ND they cannot win the Senate, looking only at those states.

The main wild card is if the Democrats can win one of North Dakota (Heitkamp defending), Tennessee (open seat with Corker's retirement) or Texas (the Beto O'Rourke phenomenon).  Any of those outcomes is a game-changer and suddenly makes the Senate contest both relevant and a top story.  There are going to be a whole lot of states we can expect the Democats to win and hold their Senate seats, in spite of 2016 Trump wins (OH, PA, MI, WI, MT, WV, and the special case of Bob Menendez defending in the Clinton state of NJ ).  These will not be news--though Ohio should be--unless the Democrat is defeated.

Otherwise, the top story will be the governors' races.  Leading the coverage will be those of Florida and Georgia, where history can be made in 2018.  First African-American governor(s) in the Deep South (i.e., excluding Virginia) since Reconstruction?   Gillum seems very likely in FL, while Stacey Abrams' bid to become Governor of Georgia (!!) is highly plausible but very possibly will be wrecked on the (il)logic of the state's political system.  It looks to me as though she may have a plurality on Tuesday, but having less than 50% of the votes it would go to a runoff, which may be harder for her to win.  (It may take quite a while to determine if that's so; if there needs to be a runoff)

There are a whole lot of other close governors' races through the night, allowing national coverage to fill with plenty of content.  Iowa is a particularly important one; so is Kansas, where a total Trumpite voter suppression creep (Kris Kobach) has the opportunity to continue a Kansan tradition of failed Republican governors.  New Mexico should return a Democrat to office; real control of the state government remains just beyond reach, but the win takes out of the statewide picture a prominent right-wing elected official (Steve Pearce, no relation to the World Series MVP).

The Upper Midwest will be a good story for the Democrats.  Illinois, Michigan, Pennsyvania will all go Democratic or remain comfortably Democratic.  Wisconsin has an exciting race to see if Scott Walker can be displaced.  Ohio is a nail-biter, and a win for Richard Cordray would have implications for the 2020 voter issues in that critical state.

My House estimate is based on one statistic:  the average, between realclearpolitics' number and fivethirtyeight's one, for the difference between parties in the generic Congressional preference poll.  Those are themselves averages of various poll results, weighted according to their judgment.

From the results of studies, there is a definite mathematical relationship between that gap and the expected pick-up of Congressional seats for the Democrats.  Five38 has a 5.8% gap being the estimate of what is required for the Dems to have 218 seats (pickup of 23), while a 12% gap is estimated for the Democrats to reach 250 (pickup of 55).  The relationship is largely linear, but with non-linearities at the top and bottom of the distribution, and around the 8-10% range, this last one when the numerical net advantages the Republicans achieved through redistricting fall apart and accelerate the increase.  My fit of that, and the data showing about 7.8% average, gives me an estimate of a 34-seat pickup for the Democrats, to 229.

Enough about that.  I am moved to write by the beauty of the fall day here.  It is to protect the quality of life, for my kids, theirs, my neighbors kids, etc.  The sense of the meaning of quality of life that these kinds of days bring allows me to make my choices.

Start Thinking About Tomorrow--It'll Soon Be Here:  I can not choose between electoral reforms and climate change defenses that I should make as my top issue for 2020  (and polls have asked me that question, though about the 2018 elections, several times; I switch between the two, and typically I'd have to write-in either one, as they don't include those among the suggested answers.  If they don't let me write in, I put "Education".)

Next I would put, but don't even mention it, "it's not a priority" in choosing a President, foreign policy: Withdrawing for the Paris Climate Change accords is one of the great scars on the record of the Trump Administration, an unthinkable act of stubborn ignorance which brings shame upon the country.  I give Trump credit for avoiding getting us in a stupid war--so far, but no credit at all for unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear accord and sabotaging his European trading partners.  When Mattis leaves, and Kelly, and it is just Stephen Miller and John Bolton, I fear the worst.

It's not on the horizon in the pre-race discussion but watch out, as it could easily overshadow any other issue (and could save Trump's bippy if the economy stalls).

For the Democratic platform, I recommend a plank for Electoral College representation for Puerto Rico.  A constitutional amendment if that's what it takes.  DC Statehood, also (a plank); whether legislatively or the same amendment.  It should help focus Republican attention on the fact that they are going to lose Florida real quick, and Texas maybe, also, in the next few years.  You take away those two states' votes and the Republicans will no longer look on the Electoral College as their friend.  If you make Puerto Rico and D.C. more viable, in several ways, this being one of them, you strengthen the nation.

In terms of tactics for all these, these should be bipartisan in scope and an attempt made to negotiate with the Republicans and Trump.  In return, they can agree to whatever middle-class tax cut the 3-D President would sign, an infrastructure agreement, and a gradual change in some of the legal immigration trajectories, bringing some sense and thought into that effort.



I saw the bold CBS 60 Minutes' piece on the AR-15, the weapon of choice for mass killers throughout the country.  That's #3 for me:  If you can't advocate changes to help our environment,  support some meaningful changes to the electoral system, or propose something positive on reducing gun violence (even through mental illness treatment), I got no use for you, and I don't care what party you're in, or how you feel about "welfare" or "entitlement programs" or even women's liberation or affirmative action.   Those things come later, after you've passed the initial intelligence test.


P.S. 3-D President was originatlly (Dumb Duck Dubya).  The King Duck title has now been passed on  (around Obama) to Trump, making him Dickhead Duck Drumpf.