Parenthetical Politics

(Political Ramblings from a Little Left of Center)

Immunity

Posted on by admin

As I was reading multiple news summaries and opinion pieces related to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on 4/25/2024 for “Trump v. United States”, I was mentally composing an expletive-filled rant to publish herein.  I was more than appalled by the Court’s insane take on Presidential immunity.  With considerable effort, I managed to table my composition in order to calm down and to do some more homework.

The homework primarily entailed studying the entire 192-page transcript of the oral arguments and listening to a 2-hour, 39-minute audio recording of the session.  The former allowed for more in-depth consideration of the various positions; the latter allowed for the attitudes and biases of the various speakers to be revealed via verbal nuances that don’t translate well to the written word.  I also reviewed the relevant portions of our Constitution for myself, and I read/watched numerous analyses from across the political spectrum.

I am now more informed.  And I am now even more pissed off.

While I’m not an attorney, a degree in constitutional law is completely unnecessary to draw what should be a patently obvious conclusion:

No President should be immune from criminal charges under U.S. law.  NO ONE is above the law, including the President.  It’s what we were all taught in grade school.

Criminal actions taken by a sitting President should be subject to criminal charges once the President is no longer in office.  Impeachment and removal by constitutional means would be necessary to bring criminal charges before the end of his or her term in office, but a former President should enjoy no criminal immunity.  [It makes some sense from a practical standpoint for a former President to be immune from civil charges brought against official actions taken while in office. That, however, is an entirely different conversation.]

Of course, legal actions taken by a President related to official duties, regardless of political bias, should not be subject to criminal charges.  For example, deploying the U.S. military to assassinate a foreign leader would likely be legal, given the broad Constitutional powers granted to the Commander in Chief.  Such an action might not particularly align with American values, but it would probably be legal.  However, deploying the U.S. military to assassinate an American political rival should be incredibly illegal.  Period.

And yet, …

A Harvard-educated lawyer stood in front of nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United State and claimed that a President cannot be prosecuted, even after leaving office, for ordering the assassination of a political opponent unless the President has first been impeached, convicted, and removed from office by Congress.  Rather than being laughed out of the building, a majority of the nine justices seemed eager to agree.

A few of my own observations follow.

The Justices

There are some real assholes on the Court:

  • Alito spouted numerous proposals while explicitly stating that he didn’t yet know how he’d constitutionally defend them.  WTF.  It’s not his job to write new laws; it’s his job to apply the Constitution to existing laws.  Alito, however, wanted to define an outcome that personally suited him and THEN determine how to justify it.  Asshole.
  • Gorsuch didn’t want to hear anything except the sound of his own voice.  He asked questions but then constantly interrupted with his own answers.  Asshole.
  • Kavanaugh seemed to argue that if a law doesn’t explicitly state that it applies to the President, then it doesn’t apply to the President.  Stupid asshole.

As for the other justices:

  • Thomas, as usual, wasn’t particularly verbose.  However, it’s abundantly clear that he’d vote to give Trump complete immunity and then throw him a party – likely funded by one of his billionaire benefactors.
  • Roberts, as usual, kept his cards fairly close to his chest. However, he left little doubt that he wants to punt this down to a district court and let Trump off the hook prior to the 2024 election.
  • Coney Barrett surprised me.  She asked good questions of both sides.  She correctly noted that, in any other case, they’d let the criminal trail proceed with instructions as to how the lower court should consider any possible immunity claims.  The case would then, of course, be reviewable on appeal – all the way back to the Supreme Court – if there’s a conviction.  While that seems like a sane, fair approach, it won’t happen.  It would also not surprise me at all if Coney Barrett gets intimidated into joining the other conservatives during deliberations.
  • Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson seemed quite shell-shocked by their conservative colleagues. They did their best to highlight the absurdity of the immunity claims and the fact that the conservatives were arguing against their own judicial philosophies. They quickly knew they were going to lose, and they seemed genuinely incredulous.  Same.

Textualists

The conservatives on the Court have repeatedly claimed to be textualists who interpret the Constitution based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the original text.  In that world, there can be no consideration of perceived intentions, implied meanings, or real-world concerns.  Only the text matters.  It was the lack of the word “abortion” in the Constitution that these conservatives used to overturn Roe v. Wade.

And yet, despite no mention of “immunity” in the Constitution, the conservative majority seems to have divined that Presidential immunity is implied by the Executive Vesting Clause.  No. it’s not.  I can read.  Immunity is neither stated nor implied anywhere in the Constitution.  In fact, the Executive Vesting Clause does state that the President has a duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  That’s the polar opposite of immunity.

As Kagan rightfully noted:

“The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to. There were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn’t provide immunity to the president.  And, you know, not so surprising. They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law.”

Official vs. Private Actions

There were a lot of discussions about a President’s official vs. private actions.

The defense conceded early that private actions by the President should not be subject to immunity but then proceeded to essentially argue that there are no private actions for a sitting President.  Every action that a President takes could be considered an official act merely because it was taken by the President.  Under questioning, the defense explicitly argued that a President could sell an ambassador appointment, provide nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, stage a coup, and assassinate a political opponent – all as official acts immune from criminal prosecution unless preceded by a Congressional impeachment, conviction, and removal from office.

Coney Barrett then rightfully asked: “What if the criminal conduct isn’t discovered until after the president is out of office, so there was no opportunity for impeachment?”

To which the defense casually responded: “We say the framers assumed the risk of under-enforcement.”

Allowing a President to kill a political rival is an acceptable “risk of under-enforcement”?

Wow.

Case and Precedent

The conservatives were absolutely adamant that their positions had nothing at all to do with Trump and everything to do with setting precedents:

  • Alito: “I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case.”
  • Kavanugh:  “I’m not focused on the here and now of this case.”
  • Gorsuch: “I’m not concerned about this case.”

First:  Bullshit.

Second:  Why the hell aren’t you concerned about this case?  It’s the case before you and IT’S YOUR JOB to rule on it.  While precedent matters, this case also matters.  It matters a lot.  If you must, you could explicitly state that a decision here isn’t intended to set a precedent (see Bush v. Gore).  But the nation needs a ruling on this case, and it needs it before the election.

Timing

Which brings us to the calendar.

The Supreme Court sets its own case docket and schedule.  It can act very quickly; it can drag its heels.  It can push things to lower courts when it so desires; it can grant a writ of certiorari to grab any case from any lower court.  If a majority wants to delay a case forever, it can easily find ways to do so.

I’ll get back to this point in a bit.

Faith in the Justice System

Here’s something that was largely swept under the rug during oral arguments:  Being charged with a crime isn’t the same as being convicted of a crime.  Immunity isn’t necessary if there’s no crime that can be proved in a court of law.

In an attempt to make this point, the prosecution argued that any criminal allegations first need to be presented to a grand jury, which votes on whether or not to issue an indictment.  There’s then a structured jury trial and an appellate process, all the way up to the Supreme Court, that guarantees due process for everyone, including former Presidents.  When the defense noted that grand juries do sometimes refuse to even issue requested indictments, Alito interrupted with: “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse, too.”

That’s right.  A Supreme Court justice just mocked the American judicial system in open court.  Hilarious, huh?

Maybe Alito can work this into his stand-up routine:  While conservatives would heavy rely on the impeachment process to hold Presidents accountable for illegal actions, can you guess how many times in American history a President has been impeached, convicted, removed from office, and then held accountable for a criminal act?  Zero!  <Ba dum tss!>

I’m here all week.  Try the veal.

History

There were minimal discussions of relevant history related to Presidents and criminal actions.  None, however, seemed to drive home any point.  Unfortunately, there was actually a point to be made.

The Nixon discussions focused on Nixon v. Fitzgerald which (by a 5-4 majority) granted absolute immunity to a President in civil cases for any official action taken while in office.  That case had nothing at all to do with criminal conduct and is completely irrelevant here, despite numerous attempts to make it so.  Of note, though, is that Nixon also accepted a full pardon from Ford – which, by definition, implied Nixon’s acceptance that he had committed a crime which required said pardon.

Although it wasn’t mentioned in oral arguments, much has been made of Clinton’s legal issues related to possible perjury charges.  Clinton was impeached for that action but was not convicted.  Could he have still been criminally charged after leaving office?  Yes, that was recognized as a possibility and, in fact, Clinton accepted a five-year suspension of his law license and agreed to pay a fine of $25,000 in a plea deal to avoid indictment on the perjury charge.  He thus recognized that criminal charges were indeed possible.

Alito brought up Roosevelt’s decision to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II, sarcastically asking if that action could have been subject to criminal charges.  He presented it as a “gotcha” question – which was strange on multiple levels.  Japanese-American internment camps weren’t exactly an apex of American history.  More to the point, however, is that the Supreme Court at the time ruled that the camps were legal.  The case went to court and the court ruled.  End of story.

In short, there is no historical argument for granting a President immunity from criminal prosecution.  Indeed, the historical precedent firmly implies that Presidents are, in fact, answerable in court for their actions.

My Prediction

My own bet is that Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh will form the core of the majority opinion.  While those four would likely just give Trump practical immunity from any criminal prosecution and end the current criminal cases outright, they may need to settle for something less to get Roberts to sign on.  Roberts is slightly more concerned than others about the reputation of the Court and he might balk at joining such a blatantly political opinion.

With Roberts, the five-vote majority (six if Coney Barrett caves) will likely send the case back to a district court to define what crimes can and cannot be charged against a former President based on some random and frankly meaningless instructions.  This approach will be solely designed to delay the criminal trial until after the 2024 election and, to that end, the Supreme Court might not even issue their opinion until August.  Because they can.

If Trump wins the election, his Justice Department will simply drop the case.  If Trump loses the election, the Supreme Court will take the case back and overrule any district court opinion that was unfavorable to Trump.  In either case, Trump wins.  Game over.

And, of course, another Trump presidency would now be completely unbound by any threat of accountability for any criminal actions.  Just think about that for a moment.

Shit.

A Proposal

The Supreme Court certainly seems poised to guarantee that Trump will not be held accountable for anything before the November elections.  It’s also likely that the Court will pocket enough cards to be able to grant Trump full immunity should he lose the election.  I’m sure the Court would dearly love to figure out how to grant that immunity solely to Trump without setting a precedent, but that may be beyond the limits of their twisted logic. Or not.

In any case, we now have yet another reason to want Biden to win re-election.  Personally, I’m considering drafting an open letter that might look something like this:

Dear President Biden:

We really, really need you to win re-election.  However, if you unfortunately lose, we’d like to make a modest proposal.

The Supreme Court has opened the door to making anything that a President does completely legal.  That seems kinda cool since, well, you’re the President!

Here’s the thing:  Losing the election doesn’t mean you necessarily have to leave office!  There’s a whole lot of messing around you can apparently do with complete immunity.  While we would suggest identifying someone with a higher IQ than Rudy Giuliani to lead your election-tampering efforts, we don’t consider that to be a particularly high bar.

You will need to get 34 Democratic Senators on-board to avoid that whole impeachment/conviction thing.  History is firmly on your side there.  Come to think of it, though, you might consider screwing with things enough to make sure that Democrats maintain a solid Senate majority – which should be a great selling point for you.  Guaranteeing a majority in the House would also be nice.  Hey, you’re the President.  You can do whatever you want!

Now, sure, the Supreme Court will subsequently claim that they most certainly didn’t mean for criminal immunity to apply to a Democratic President.  And here’s where you might need to get just a little creative.  The Court seemed open to the idea that ordering assassinations are merely a “risk of under-enforcement” of Presidential immunity.  While we will stop well short of making specific suggestions, we will simply remind you that Presidents have the power to appoint replacements for any Supreme Court justices that are, uh, no longer able to serve.

Good luck in November!

Sincerely,

America

2024 Electoral College, Take 3

Posted on by admin

To complete my snapshot look at the 2024 elections, here’s my current and still-too-early take on the Presidential election. [No, you don’t need to point out that this isn’t really my third take on the topic. But go ahead and send the email if it makes you feel better.]

My Electoral College projections don’t look much like what you’re reading elsewhere. While professional political pundits have cleaner access to more and better data than I can painstakingly pull and normalize from numerous public sources in weird formats, most seems to overweight their own omniscient opinions and the results of questionable polls.

Could I be dead wrong while the pundits are universally brilliant?  Absolutely.  But until the data tells me something else, I’m going with what I have.

Here’s my model’s current take:

For this round, my model says that 41 states aren’t at all in-play, leaving only nine swing states worth following.  Of those nine, one state leans Democratic, two states lean Republican, and only six states are true toss-ups.  While the pundit class might have Democrats contemplating that Canadian citizenship, my analysis says the Presidential election is pretty much a toss-up at the moment.  Frankly, I’m not sure I understand how that could be a huge surprise to anyone.

I’ll dig into each state as things progress, but here’s a few general observations that are applicable across the board:

  • Realignment of Electoral College votes between the states for 2024 tilted the math slightly in favor of the GOP.  Demographic changes in swing states, however, slightly favors Democrats.
  • The GOP does start with a better hand than Democrats.  By my math, considering only the six toss-up states as being truly winnable by either party, Republicans have 14 paths to 270 Electoral votes; Democrats have 10 paths.
  • Third-party candidates – specifically Kennedy and Stein – could have impacts in all nine swing states.  It’s just too soon to tell how big those impacts will be and which major party loses more votes to third-parties in each state.  The only given is that these races all look tight, implying a high probability of a third-party spoiler in multiple states.
  • The Biden campaign and the DNC should continue to have a major cash advantage… particularly since much of the RNC’s money will apparently be paying for lawyers.
  • The GOP’s vice-presidential choice could have an impact.  If Republicans were smart, they’d pick someone that could deliver a swing state all by themselves and then simply park them there for the duration of the general election.  Fortunately, the Orange Guy doesn’t think he needs help, and he could well pick a non-factor sycophant.
  • The Orange Guy’s legal issues could have an impact in the swing states.  Unfortunately, it appears that the NYC fraud case is the one most likely to resolve before the election – and that’s the weakest of all the cases.  A rogue Florida judge and the U.S. Supreme Court have effectively delayed everything else.
  • The status of the wars in Ukraine and in the Middle East could have an impact, but it’s unclear who benefits from a political standpoint.  I’m pleasantly surprised that neither party seems to know how to turn out war votes.
  • Women voters could again be a decisive factor.  Abortion – rebranded as women’s rights – could be a winning issue for Democrats.  Related ballot initiatives in Florida, Arizona, and Nevada could help deliver Democratic votes.
  • Younger voters could again have a huge impact.  While they pay almost no attention this early in the game, they tend to eventually vote Democratic.  However, Democrats need to pay serious attention to their concerns.  The GOP doesn’t need to actually win their votes; they just need young voters to stay home or vote for Stein.

2024 Senate, Take 3

Posted on by admin

Things have changed a bit since I last weighed in on the Senate races in 2024.  Things will change again.  However, here’s my current snapshot:

The above table is sorted by the likelihood that the seat will be held by a Democrat in 2024. I was frankly surprised that my current model turned out to as favorable to Democrats as it is.  Almost all professional pundits put the Senate completely out of reach for Democrats in 2024.  My model says it’s a VERY tough road, but Democrats at least have a fighting chance to maintain a 50/50 split and, if Biden/Harris wins the Presidency, a 50/50 Senate is good enough.  By “tough”, I mean that Democrats would have to run the table on all Senate contests in which my model says they are slightly favored AND win both contests that my model says are Toss Ups.

There’s even an outside chance of Democrats maintaining their current 51/49 majority.  By “outside chance”, I mean “tough” plus Democrats would also need to win the one race that my model says is Lean R.

Here are brief, subjective looks at each state contest above:

  • California:  Democrat Adam Schiff will beat Republican Steve Garvey in the general election.  The problem is that two House Democrats in addition to Schiff resigned to run for this Senate seat.  Katie Porter will be sorely missed in the House and her district is now in-play to be flipped Republican.  Barbara Lee’s district isn’t at risk, but we lost a competent legislator. Sigh.
  • Maryland:  This is an open 2024 seat.  Larry Hogan, the popular former Governor of Maryland, unfortunately changed his mind about running and will be the Republican nominee.  David Trone, the founder of Total Wine & More, could mostly self-fund his campaign and has a slight polling lead for the Democratic nomination.  Given a competent campaign, Trone should be able to defeat Hogan in deep-blue Maryland, even given Hogan’s name recognition advantage.  Hogan’s popularity is mostly related to state issues that likely won’t apply as well to the national stage.  In a sense, it’s sad.  Hogan is actually a sane Republican – a rare breed these days.  However, Democrats cannot afford to lose this seat and they’ll be forced to spend some money here.
  • Pennsylvania:  Current Democratic Sen. Bob Casey is well-liked in PA and should win re-election.  However, the likely Republican nominee, David McCormick, is a former Army Ranger and hedge-fund CEO who will put up a good, well-funded fight.
  • Michigan:  This is an open seat in a purple state.  U.S. Rep Elissa Slotkin is the presumptive Democratic nominee but there are about a dozen candidates competing in what could be an ugly GOP primary that won’t be resolved until August. The Orange Guy recently waded into this race by endorsing former Rep. Mike Rogers, immediately making him the current favorite.  Rogers has been out of politics for about a decade and it’s unclear at this point how competitive he will be against Slotkin’s popularity and formidable fundraising abilities.
  • Wisconsin:  Current Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin is popular in WI but this purple state is never a sure thing.  Likely Republican nominee Eric Hovde, the multi-millionaire CEO of Sunwest Bank, certainly has the bankroll to make this a competitive race.  He has the endorsement of the Orange Guy – which might prove to be mixed bag in Wisconsin.  Already, Hovde is trying to walk a tightrope that could well backfire with both the MAGA crowd and the anti-MAGA crowd.  Also, while both Baldwin and Hovde were born and raised in Wisconsin, only Baldwin can claim continuous residency.  Hovde lived in Washington, DC for most of his adult life, works for a Utah company without a presence in Wisconsin, and owns a $7M California estate.  He moved back to Wisconsin just to run for the Senate and Wisconsinites aren’t generally fond of carpetbaggers.
  • Ohio:  Current Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has been the rare Democrat to win state-wide in red-leaning Ohio over the last decade.  Brown is popular in OH but a good GOP candidate would have made this a very competitive race.  Thankfully, Republicans settled on Bernie Moreno, the Orange Guy’s favorite candidate, who has wasted no time sucking up.  State Sen. Matt Dolan would have been a much tougher opponent for Brown but he didn’t sufficiently genuflect to the MAGA gods to appease the GOP base.  That said, this race is most certainly not a slam dunk given Ohio’s demographics.
  • Arizona:  Current independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema decided against running in 2024, leaving this race a likely contest between Democrat Ruben Gallego and Republican Kari Lake.  Lake is a far-right conspiracy theorist who has alienated pretty much everyone in Arizona except for the fire-breathing MAGA crowd.  Unfortunately, Gallego is a unapologetic progressive who doesn’t have a stellar history of playing well with the center, either.  This race will be narrowly won by whoever is most successful at rebranding between now and November.  My money’s on Gallego. Lake’s ego will make this all about her past grievances and Arizona is very tired of that story.
  • Nevada:  First-term Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen is in for a tough re-election contest in a purple state.  Republicans haven’t quite settled on a challenger yet, but it looks like Sam Brown will win the GOP nomination over far-right nut-job Jim Marchant.  That’s not good news for Democrats. Brown is a retired Army officer and a purple heart recipient for severe injuries in Afghanistan.
  • Montana:  Current Democratic Sen. Jon Tester has survived since 2007 in deep-red Montana and he still has a powerful brand.  However, Democratic hopes of a repeat contest against far-right idiot Rep. Matt Rosendale have been dashed and retired Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy will be his opponent.  Sheehy is wealthy enough to self-fund his campaign and has proven himself to be a competent politician. Crap.
  • Florida:  Current Republican Sen. Rick Scott isn’t particularly well-liked nor is he a particularly talented politician.  However, Scott is a rich incumbent in an increasingly red state.  The current surprise is just how well Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is doing at the moment.  Even with almost no statewide name recognition, she’s polling well.  While Florida is one of the most expensive states in which to run an insurgent campaign, Democrats should spend some money here.
  • Texas:  As a Texan, I’d love to declare that current Republican Sen. Ted Cruz can be beaten.  However, while U.S. Rep. Colin Allred might get within low single digits of Cruz and could easily do better than Beto O’Rourke did against Cruz, I unfortunately see no reasonable path to an actual win.  I’ll admit that I considered tweaking my Democratic turnout projections in Texas to make this race closer. I just can’t force myself to believe that possibility.  I’ll still be writing a check, though, just to make me feel better.  And miracles do happen!
  • West Virginia:  With current Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin deciding against a run, this seat is a slam-dunk pickup for the GOP.  Anyone with an (R) beside their name would beat any Democrat in this race.  The fact that Republican Jim Justice is popular will just make the margins larger.

Lest anyone thinks I’m being a Pollyanna (in which case we’ve never actually met), allow me to be clear.  At the moment, it’s more likely than not that Democrats will come up slightly short of maintaining a Senate majority.  It’s just not quite time to panic about it.

So what can we do now? If you feel strongly about individual states, I suggest finding your candidate’s campaign website and donating directly to their campaign.  Sadly, the DSCC, the independent Blue Senate PAC, and numerous other groups appear to be way too egalitarian – spreading money evenly across Senate races that matter, races that don’t need help, and races that aren’t winnable.  Democrats.  Geez.  Don’t waste your money.  If you want a one-stop donation site to help maintain a Democratic Senate majority, here’s my recommendation:

  • Senate Majority PAC:  This is an independent group associated with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.  Schumer really wants to remain the Majority Leader and he has excellent political instincts.  The PAC has a ton of money already and they seem to be using it wisely in states where the money will be put to the best use.

2024 House, Take 3

Posted on by admin

While predictive analysis is fun, prescriptive analysis is more useful.  To that end, I again focused on identifying which races might be the most important to a Democratic effort to retake the House.

As before, I first identified the House races that were even worthy of further analysis.  That pass eliminated those seats that are safely Democratic or Republican in 2024.  I next ignored those races that are likely to be won by whoever wins either the Democratic or Republican nomination.  While a few of these races could turn out to be important, limited resources should be directed toward those races in swing districts that appear to be somewhat close.

At the moment, that leaves only 39 races of interest for the 435 House seats.  Of the rest, my analysis is not particularly good news for Democrats. Republicans are likely to win 203 seats; Democrats are likely to win 193 seats.  In the 39 interesting races, Democrats are also defending more seats than Republicans and thus have a steeper climb than Republicans to a 218-seat House majority.

Democrats were not helped by a number of factors:

  • 2024 Congressional redistricting efforts did not generally favor Democrats.
  • Democratic retirements significantly hurt the chances of holding several current D seats.

On the other hand, things are not all doom and gloom for Democrats:

  • The current 118th Congress has been one of the least productive in history.  In 2023, Congress managed to pass only 34 bills into law, the lowest number in decades.  Republicans controlled the House and thus shoulder that blame.  Democrats need to constantly remind voters that their Republican representatives were incredibly incompetent at their jobs.
  • The OG lost to Biden in 2020 in 14 of the 18 districts where the Republican candidate won the 2020 House race!  Democrats need to coat those 2024 Republicans with bright orange paint.
  • The Orange Guy is raiding the coffers of the RNC to pay his legal bills at the expense of down-ballot races, including House races.  In close contests, party money could easily make a difference.
  • Since party primaries are still in-progress, many of the candidates are not yet set in stone for these races.  I’ll update things when I can discuss actual people.  At the moment, though, the candidate quality factor looks like it will favor Democrats by a fairly wide margin.  While admittedly subjective, the Democrats in many of the close races have impressive resumes – doctors, teachers, military veterans, etc.  Others have long, well-respected histories of working across the aisle in their respective state legislatures.  The Republican field, however, looks to once again be dominated by MAGA extremists whose primary qualifications are fealty to the OG, insistence that the 2020 election was stolen, an aversion to compromise, and a dedication to conspiracy theories and fear-mongering.  While that resume might motivate the GOP base, close races are mostly won in the center.

Here’s my current take on the 39 races:The strategy is straight-forward:

  1. Democrats first need to defend the 21 seats above that they currently hold.  That’s not an easy task since 8 of them are currently Toss Ups.  Win all of these, and Democrats would have 214 seats – which is still not a majority.
  2. Democrats next need to flip the 11 Republican seats that are currently forecast as Lean D or Toss Up.  Win all of these, and Democrats would have a 225-seat majority – a workable margin.
  3. Democrats finally need to target at least a few of the 7 Republican seats that are currently forecast as Lean R – both to allow for some losses above and to make Republicans spend money defending their seats.

So what can we do now?  As the candidates come more into focus, I’ll try to post some individual campaign donation links.  In the meantime, I’ll suggest two DCCC programs that might be worthy of consideration for some hard-earned cash:

  • DCCC Frontline:  This program distributes money to current Democratic members of Congress that the DCCC deem to be in competitive 2024 races. Frontline has identified 29 members while I identified 21.  I think they missed a couple of close races and they’re throwing money at several races that likely don’t need the help.  Still, Frontline’s overlap with my list is significant and I have no problem recommending this program for a one-stop donation to help hold the line.
  • DCCC Red to Blue:  This program distributes money to Democratic candidates that the DCCC deem to have a decent chance of flipping a Republican-held seat.  Red to Blue has identified 20 races while I identified 18.   Again, I think they missed a couple of close races and I think they’re throwing money at a few lost causes.  While Red to Blue’s overlap with my list isn’t quite as large as Frontline, it’s still a decent set for a one-stop donation to help grow a Democratic majority.

Well-Informed vs. Sane

Posted on by admin

A good friend recently sent me this remarkably appropriate cartoon:

Wanting to include proper attribution, I did a little research.  Turns out that this is the work of David Sipress and it’s not at all new.  In fact, the cartoon dates back to the Clinton administration and even Sipress doesn’t remember where it was originally published. Still, the work quite accurately describes my current state-of-mind and I had to share.

My absences from this blog have become more regular than my posts.  I’ve certainly started multiple rants on topics too numerous to enumerate.  Sadly, none even made it to a complete first draft.  Such is life.

So, I thought perhaps I’d go back to the well of data analytics for a bit, retreating to a world that seems at least slightly sane to me.  I’ve been building a rather large data set to support the analytics and I’ve been sporadically tweaking some models to use that data.  Thus, my next few posts will hopefully take an updated look at the 2024 House, Senate, and Presidential races.

Polls and Other Lies

Posted on by admin

Democrats have been absolutely soiling themselves over a New York Times / Siena College poll released this past weekend.

Granted that a front-page headline reading “Trump Leads Biden in 5 Key Battleground States” – in a newspaper that Democrats intrinsically trust – certainly provides a sufficient stimulus for an abrupt outbreak of explosive diarrhea.

So okay.  That happened.  But while Democrats are cleaning themselves up, perhaps they should consider some background before they overdose on Imodium.  In particular, I suggest that folks consider both the methodology of the poll and the timing of the poll.

Methodology

I’ll start by giving some credit to these pollsters for at least recognizing that national polls are useless.  Swing state polls can provide the only interesting data since we can be assured that the Electoral College votes in something north of 80% of the states are preordained and victory margins in those states are less than meaningless.  The states that the NYT polled – Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania – are a decent set.  At this point, I’d have added Virginia, New Hampshire, and North Carolina to the potential swing-state list, but that’s a nit.  The poll claims to have had 600 respondents in each state, attempting to cover various demographics (age, race, income, education, & party).  That’s all fine.

Unfortunately, that’s all the credit I’m going to give.

First, it took some digging to derive their methodology.  I’ll begrudgingly admit that they did at least publish it (unlike many other pollsters), but they certainly didn’t highlight the potential issues.  Raise your hand if you even thought to look beyond the headline into the methodology details.  Yeah, thought so.  Only data geeks would do that.  And one of them happens to have a blog.

The most glaring problem is that the poll intentionally over-sampled Republicans!

In an apparent attempt to avoid underestimating Republican support (as this poll did in 2016), the pollsters decided to over-sample Republican voters and then statistically adjust the results.  That approach “could” work with a large dataset and a low oversampling rate.  This sample, however, isn’t nearly large enough to accurately reflect reality with statistical weights.  And the over-sampling rate was way too high.

Only 20% of respondents self-identified as liberal or somewhat liberal while 36% self-identified as conservative or somewhat conservative.  No amount of mathematical magic in a 600-person poll can properly adjust the demographic coverage when one ideology has almost double the representation.

Swing states are called swing states for a reason:  The electorate in each is divided between Democrats and Republicans with a significant number of independents. In any given election, either party has a chance to prevail.

While this same poll over-corrected in both 2020 and 2022, underestimating Democratic support, they made a conscious decision to keep making the same mistake for 2024.  Go figure.

Furthermore, the poll’s definition of “likely voter” seems rather suspect.  The model uses a proprietary turnout-probability formula modified by a weighted version of self-reported voter intentions.  Wow.  Methinks the complexity of that math far exceeds the limitations of the minimal, statistically-adjusted data.

A valid poll today shouldn’t even try to weight the sample.  It should focus instead on identifying the most representative voter sample possible and stay far, far away from math tricks.

At the VERY least, it is inexcusable for these facts to have not been noted upfront in the New York Times’ coverage of the poll.

Timing

Even if we make the massively questionable assumption that the NYT poll provides an accurate snapshot, we still have another huge issue:

The poll was taken over a year out from the 2024 elections!

That’s an eternity in today’s political environment.  Here’s just a few related observations:

  • The general election campaigns haven’t really started, and Biden’s re-election messaging is still a TBD. He’ll hopefully focus again on sanity and an improved economy.  He also needs to remind the electorate that his opponent is only four years younger… and is certifiable.
  • As the campaigns progress, Biden will be Biden and will continue to be gaffe-prone.  He’s been that way for decades.  He’ll warm up when necessary but, more importantly, his Democratic surrogates will debate circles around what’s left of media-savvy Republicans with a multi-digit IQ.
  • Biden’s opponent might be in jail.  Or at least under house arrest.  Seriously, I have to believe that any felony conviction will have an impact on the polls.  Also, a continued emphasis on revenge as a campaign message should wear very thin for those not already in the cult.
  • We don’t yet know who will mount serious third-party campaigns nor what their impacts will be in the swing states.
  • Younger votes simply don’t pay attention this early in election cycles.  Their impact will show up much later in the polls.
  • Shit happens.  We have a couple of ongoing wars, an unpredictable economy, and a Congress that can’t handle the basics of governance.  There’s even a non-zero probability that the party nominees won’t be who we think they’ll be.  Oh, and locusts.  Swarms of locusts.

Bottom Line

The NYT poll mostly tells us that the 2024 election will likely be tight.  We already knew that.

Should Democrats be concerned?  Absolutely.  It would be much better to have such a commanding lead in the polls that timing & methodology problems are irrelevant.

Should Democrats panic?  Absolutely not.  This election has the highest stakes of any in my lifetime and some moderate levels of anxiety are certainly healthy.  However, there’s no current need for either Imodium OR Prozac.  While Chicken Little’s genes are in the Democratic Party’s DNA, we all need to just chill.  If necessary, we can always panic later.

2023 Elections

Posted on by admin

We finally have a Speaker of the House.  Woo.  Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) will be an unmitigated disaster and a likely topic of future blog posts.  For the moment, though, I’m simply exhausted with all of the House drama and needed to switch my focus towards some state-level elections.  Even in this off year, there are some current contests that are worth watching.

None of them, however, are in my home state of Texas.  We have no statewide candidates on the November 7 ballot and instead have 14 proposed amendments to our state Constitution.  None are meaningful at a national level, a few are meaningful to Texans, and others aren’t particularly meaningful at all.  Early voting started Monday; I voted Monday.  “Shit happens. Vote Early.”

Louisiana held their gubernatorial election earlier this month.  Gov. John Bel Edwards (D-LA) was term limited and, sadly, Republican Jeff Landry flipped that statehouse red.  Louisiana isn’t in-play at the national level, but it’s still a shame to lose a Governor’s office to a MAGA idiot.

Kentucky’s gubernatorial elections are Nov. 7 and Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) is running for re-election against Republican David Cameron.  Kentucky is definitely a red state and Republicans hold a strong supermajority in the state legislature.  However, the state has a long history of thinking locally when it comes to the Governor’s office and Beshear has been good for Kentucky’s economy.  With a slight lead in the polls (even the GOP-funded polls), there’s a decent chance he’ll win re-election.  A Beshear win, however, would be indicative of nothing at the national level.  Biden lost Kentucky by a 26% margin; he’ll lose the state again in 2024.

Mississippi’s gubernatorial elections are Nov. 7 and Gov. Tate Reeves (R-MS) is in a surprisingly tight race with Democrat Brandon Presley (Elvis’ second cousin).  Reeves is the least popular Republican governor running for re-election this year.  On the other hand, Presley has run a great campaign and the latest polls show him only slightly behind, well within the margin of error.  I’d love to see the statehouse flip in a bright red state, but it’s doubtful and it wouldn’t be indicative of a trend in any case.  Biden lost Mississippi by a 16% margin; he’ll lose the state again in 2024.

Pennsylvania has a Supreme Court race that is highlighting one particular issue.  The race between Democrat Daniel McCaffery and Republican Carolyn Carluccio won’t itself change control of the state court but could shed some light on how potent the abortion issue might be in 2024 swing states – including Pennsylvania.

Ohio will vote on a state Constitutional amendment to protect abortion access and a separate ballot initiative would legalize marijuana in the state.  Despite Republican efforts to keep both issues off the ballot, polls show that both have a high chance of passing.  Ohio is itself a red state, but the vote margins here may provide a hint toward what issues will resonate with voters in 2024.

Virginia’s state legislative races will provide a major clue about how that state will factor in the 2024 elections.  Virginia is definitely a swing state.  Biden won by 10% in 2020, but Republican Glenn Youngkin won the governor’s race by 2% in 2021.  Democrats have a slight majority in the state Senate; Republicans have a slight majority in the state House.  However, all seats in both state chambers are up for election this year.  While education is the prominent local issue this cycle, abortion access is a close second.  Both parties will be targeting suburban swing districts, trying out key campaign messages that will take them into 2024.

Finally, it’ll be interesting to see the results of a ton of Nov. 7 elections in New York’s Long Island.  Yeah, you heard me.  Long Island.

All county legislature seats are up for election in both Nassau and Suffolk counties, the county executive election in Suffolk will be the first without an incumbent in a decade, and there’s a ton of town supervisor races.  If you’re wondering why anyone that doesn’t live there should give a damn, it’s because Long Island is a quintessentially purple suburban swing district with a fairly equal number of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.  This area has thus been a testing ground for political messaging and serves as a decent bellwether for the strength of each party’s pitch to voters in swing states.

Off year elections in Long Island historically favor Republicans and, indeed, they did quite well in 2022.  Democrats took a beating, including the loss of all four U.S. Houses seats.  Presidential election years are almost always closer.  In 2020, Biden won Nassau county by a wide margin and only barely lost Suffolk county.  Current polls indicates that Biden would do even better today, but 2024 is too far away for accurate polling.  The upcoming elections will thus provide a much better canary in the coal mine.

Both parties have their own albatrosses in this cycle.  Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) isn’t particularly popular in Long Island and Rep. George Santos (R-NY) was the winner of one of the aforementioned Congressional seats in 2020.  Republicans will try to focus on policy issues while steering away from abortion restrictions that aren’t popular here.  Democrats will pounce on issues of candidate integrity while steering clear of unpopular state policies out of Albany.

Local issues and candidate personalities will prevail at a micro-level in Long Island, so I’m not personally focused on any individual races.  However, a macro-level review of the Long Island election results could shed some light on how 2024 might play out in swing states.

*** Remember to Vote!  ***

Dysfunction Junction

Posted on by admin

What’s your function?
Hooking up two parties and making ’em run right.
…
In the evenings, when I’m usually feeling wonky,
I love to take a walk through the Mall and to a honky tonky,
Where I often see an elephant and a donkey,
And I wonder, as I walk by, just what they could do if they’d talk to each other,
Although I know that’s an absurd thought.

Oh.  Hi!  Sorry.  My mind drifted there.

As I’ve followed coverage of the U.S. House drama, I’ve been flashing on a much more intelligent cartoon series.  Could we perhaps reboot Schoolhouse Rock to teach the folks in D.C. how to do their jobs?  I’m thinking “217 is a Magic Number” would be great place to start.  [Fun Random Fact: “3 is a Magic Number” was the pilot episode of Schoolhouse Rock.]

This morning, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) went down in flames yet again in his latest bid to become the Speaker of the House.  217 votes are required to win the Speakership and Jordan could have lost no more than 5 GOP votes without Democratic support.  Jordon lost 20 GOP votes in the first round, 22 in the second round, and 25 in today’s third round.  Based on that trend, Jordon’s vote total would have been zero by the 13rd round.

In a contentious closed-door intra-party meeting after the floor vote, the GOP apparently decided to (a) move on from Jordan and (b) not work with Democrats.  Okay.  Fine.  But now what?

The idea was apparently floated to empower the temporary speaker, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), to fill the role in a limited capacity through the end of the year.  That would have been non-optimal all around, but it would have been better than nothing.  (Nothing, however, was far better than Jordan.)  Democratic votes would have likely been required, but I suspect that could have been easily negotiated.

Instead, it was reported that numerous far-right Republicans nixed the mere idea of talking to <ptui!> Democrats.  They were seen waving pocket copies of the Constitution, presumably claiming that selecting a bipartisan Speaker was tantamount to treason.  Perhaps they should have read the document before waving it.

The Constitution, in fact, barely mentions the Speaker.  Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 states only that “the House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other officers.”  [Yeah, it actually says “chuse”.]  The power of the role is completely defined by the rules of the House, which the House can change at will.  And the Constitution doesn’t mention political parties at all.

So the GOP’s next step was to pick another candidate.  Cool.  But rather than break out the sleeping bags and hunker down at the Capitol until they identified their fairy-tale Speaker candidate who can get to 217 votes without Democratic support, Republicans instead decided to just go home… at about 2pm on a Friday… until Monday evening… when they’ll throw a “candidate forum” to talk about it again.

WTF.

The world looks like a D&D game and the GOP can’t even decide on a Dungeon Master.  But, hey, I guess everyone’s tired and they need to go home and take a nap.  Damn.  Haven’t any of these people ever had a real job with deadlines?

Even after nap-time, it is highly unlikely that the entrenched Republican camps will be able to find anyone that can get to 217 GOP votes.

The far-right Republicans who ousted Kevin McCarthy from the Speakership will complain, with no trace of irony, that a larger group of slightly more centrist Republicans are blocking their picks.  The centrists will remain so enraged at the far-right’s tactics, that they will never reward their behavior.  And, even if a miracle candidate did manage to emerge, his or her margin would be so thin that the Speakership would be as useless as it was under McCarthy.

Thus, the only reasonable path forward seems to be something along the lines of my previous proposal.  Centrist Republicans need to cut a deal with centrist Democrats and elect a Republican Speaker who is acceptable to both sides.  The fringes of both parties would likely be very unhappy, but sanity might prevail and the House could get back to work.

The question is:  How much longer is this going to take?

Well, now I’m stuck in committee,
And I’ll sit here and wait,
While a few key Congressmen discuss and debate.

A Speaker Proposal

Posted on by admin

I opined just yesterday that a bipartisan approach to electing a Speaker of the House could have been a path forward.  Given the continuing implosion of House Republicans, the idea might not be as far-fetched as I thought.

First, a quick landscape summary:

Republicans do hold a majority of seats in the U.S. House.  Republicans have 221 seats; Democrats have 212 seats; 2 seats are currently vacant.  Given 433 voting members, a majority is 217 votes.  Thus, Republicans do have the numerical ability on paper to do anything they want with zero Democratic support – including electing a Speaker.  However, given their very thin majority, Republicans alone can afford to lose the votes of only 5 of their own members.  (The math can change if not everyone is present and voting, but you get the idea.)

That margin is, of course, the cause of the current dysfunction.  Any five idiots can tank anything they want and demand anything they want.  And, unfortunately, there are way more than five idiots in the U.S. House.

To break their hold, the still-sane members of both parties need to find a way to work together.

It won’t be easy.

One problem is that 84% of House Republicans and 70% of House Democrats were not in Congress prior to 2010.  None of these newer members have any experience whatsoever with bipartisanship.  (There wasn’t rampant Congressional bipartisanship prior to 2010, but it did exist.)  They will need to be convinced that a bipartisan approach can actually work to everyone’s benefit.  They will need to be reminded that, while this has never been formally attempted in the U.S. House, numerous state legislatures have made variations of a bipartisan structure work quite well.

Here’s my brief outline of one possible bipartisan approach in the U.S. House:

  • The bipartisan Speaker would be a Republican.  (See below.)  As noted, Republican hold a House majority and the Speaker should be a member of their party.  Democrats would just need to accept this.
  • The bipartisan Speaker would need the support of 60% of House members.  That’s 260 votes.  This margin would force the selection of someone who is acceptable to a significant subset of both parties.  It would also negate the impact of both the far-right and the far-left fringes.  Finally, the possibility of another successful motion to vacate the Speakership would be greatly reduced.
  • Republicans would retain a majority of seats in most House committees, perhaps even keeping the current memberships intact.  Changing things too much would be disruptive and a complete reorganization would take way too long.  Congress has work to do.  It’s also highly unlikely that enough Republicans would back any effort that would greatly reduce their committee power.  However, Democrats would need to be granted the same subpoena power as Republicans within each committee.
  • Democratic would have some independent ability to force select measures directly to the House floor to be voted up or down by a cross-party majority.  While there are various ways to accomplish this, Democrats could be granted the ability bring bills out of the various committees without Republican votes and bypass both the Rules committee and the Speaker to bring such bills to the House floor for debate, amendments, and votes.  Some modification and streamlining of the current discharge petition might be appropriate, but that process would need to be stripped of its numerous partisan roadblocks.  A majority would still rule, but it would be majority of individuals… not simply the majority party’s leadership.
  • Many Democrats may want the impeachment hearings halted, but they’ll frankly be better off just letting Republicans fumble that ball.

The first test of bipartisanship in the House would be the selection of a Speaker and none of the names currently in-play would be able to get any significant Democratic support.  My personal choice would be Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE).

Bacon is a retired Brigadier General, having served 30 years in the Air Force with several combat deployments.  He earned the Air Force Distinguished Service Medal, two Legion of Merit awards, and two Bronze Stars. While often considered a moderate Republican, winning his seat in a competitive district, Bacon is still most definitely a conservative with “A” ratings from the Susan B. Anthony List and the NRA.  However, he tends to focus mostly on national defense, veterans, and agricultural issues, serving on the Agriculture and Armed Services committees in the House.  Most importantly in my book, Bacon did not support the 2020 Republican efforts to overthrow the presidential election and voted to certify the results.

Bacon is a conservative Republican and, given some of his positions, I likely wouldn’t vote for him if I lived in his Nebraska district.  However, I recognize that he seems to be an American first.  He’s a proven leader with a military background from a breadbasket state who has shown a willingness to work across the aisle to get things done.  We could do worse for a position that is second in line for the Presidency.  Much worse.  Think Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH).  God help us if that happens.

A bipartisan solution to the current Speaker dilemma could not only be good in the near-term, it could be an institutional savior for the U.S. House.

The status quo isn’t working.  Maybe we should try something different.

Quick Takes

Posted on by admin

Now that the writers strike is over, I can finally start posting again!  No, I’m not a WGA member.  But, hey, I’m not above abusing their strike as a flimsy excuse for my own absence from this blog.

In all seriousness, I’m relieved that all parties agreed upon an equitable deal, and I hope that the SAG-AFTRA strike can be similarly resolved in due course.  I need new seasons of “Severance”, “For All Mankind”, “The Mandalorian”, and “Poker Face” to occasionally take my mind off of politics.

Rare instances of exceptional writing still manage to successfully navigate the gauntlet of corporate concerns.  AI will evolve into a transformative tool for mankind and could even today be an excellent research assistant.  I cannot, however, imagine that AI will ever replace the creativity of a talented human writer who can fully exploit the prodigiously pliant poetic potential of the written word [… says the guy who occasionally dumps word salads onto his self-indulgent blog].

That said, I’m increasingly convinced that AI would be a much better alternate to many American politicians.

Anyway, …

I started numerous blog entries over the last several weeks but, for various reasons, never advanced any of them to publication.  I’m thus taking this opportunity to clear some my drafts and post quick takes on just a few of the many topics that have recently been newsworthy.

The Orange Guy’s Court Cases

OG’s legal problems could easily fill a separate blog – which is itself the problem.  As the charges mount and the various cases progress, there is a clear danger that media saturation will cause everyone to just look away.  I’m a political nerd and even I’m exhausted trying to follow every filing, every hearing, and every ruling in every case in every venue.  I find it useful to occasionally take a step back and review the Big Picture…

  • Federal Civil Case in New York
    • Major Charges: Sexual Abuse, Defamation
    • OG has been found guilty of sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s and then defaming her by lying about it.  A jury awarded Carroll $5M in damages. Appeals are pending. Subsequent charges have been filed for repeated defamation.  A trial is currently scheduled to begin on January 15, 2024.
  • State Civil Case in New York
    • Major Charge: Fraud
    • OG has been found guilty of fraud, knowingly overstating his net worth by up to $2.2B by vastly inflating asset values to obtain better loan terms while keeping valuations lower for tax purposes. A trial is in-progress on related charges and to determine damages. Appeals are pending.
  • State Criminal Case in New York
    • Major Charges: Falsification of Business Records, Election Law Violations
    • OG has been indicted by a state grand jury on 34 counts related to his alteration of business records to conceal a hush money payment made to a porn star from campaign funds.  A trial is scheduled to begin on March 25, 2024.
  • State Criminal Case in Georgia
    • Major Charges: Election Tampering, Racketeering
    • OG has been indicted by a state grand jury on 13 counts related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.  While the trial for two co-conspirators is scheduled to start on October 20, 2023, no trial date has yet been set for OG.
  • Federal Criminal Case in D.C.
    • Major Charges: Conspiracy, Obstruction
    • OG has been indicted by a federal grand jury on 4 counts related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. A trial is currently scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024.
  • Federal Criminal Case in Florida
    • Major Charges: Willful Retention of Classified Documents, Obstruction
    • OG has been indicted by a federal grand jury on 40 counts related to his willful retention of national security documents and his efforts to hide them. A trial date has not yet been set and OG is attempting to delay it until 2025.

No sane person can believe that OG is innocent of all of the above. Most of the related facts are not even in dispute!  The Big Picture is thus quite obvious:  OG is an amoral criminal who truly believes that laws don’t apply to him.

Of course, the devil will be in the details as the American justice system grinds through the cornucopia of cases.  In the meantime, however, the devil is also the leading contender for the 2024 GOP Presidential nomination.

I’d say that Republicans should be ashamed of themselves but, alas, they have no shame.

A Military Execution

I’m well beyond commenting on most of OG’s verbal diarrhea – even at the risk of normalizing said crap.  One comment, however, deserves much more focus than it has received.

OG recently suggested that former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley deserved to be executed.

Such rhetoric from a wannabe Kim Jong Un cannot be simply ignored.  Where’s the outrage from the GOP?

Hillary Mania

Contrast the above to the faux Republican outrage related to a comment by Hillary Clinton suggesting that many OG supporters need to be “deprogrammed” out of their cult.

Ya’ know, Hillary may be an old MAGA enemy, but she holds no public office and she’s not running for anything.  She’s been a private citizen for many years now.  MAGA-World’s continued infatuation with her is pathetic at best.  But, hey, thanks for elevating her comments within the national media!  I’d missed them myself.  Turns out she’s absolutely right and I agree with everything she said.

The Republican Sideshow

Democrats may have their fair share of circus performers, but none can hold a bright red nose to the giggle of clowns on the other side of the tent.   Just since I last posted here, …

  • Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-FL) was thrown out of a live theatre performance of a kid-friendly show for being massively disruptive and was caught on video in the audience giving a handjob to her date.
  • Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) was detained by law enforcement for being belligerent at a rodeo.
  • Rep. George Santos (R-NY) has now been charged with 23 felony counts, including conspiracy, wire fraud, identity theft, money laundering, theft of public funds, and numerous FEC violations.
  • Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) brought the U.S. House to a screeching halt by calling for the ouster of Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) with no follow-on plan beyond his own fund-raising efforts.
  • Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) just yesterday wore a white shirt with a large, red “A” saying, “I’m wearing the ‘scarlet letter’ after the week that I just had, last week, being a woman up here and being demonized for my vote and for my voice.” So… just askin’:  Has “The Scarlet Letter” been banned in South Carolina?  In the book, Hester Prynne was forced to wear the letter “A” as a punishment for Adultery.  Unless this was a confessional, I assume Mace’s “A” was simply indicative of an Asinine stunt.
  • Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) claimed that the movie “Barbie” is brainwashing young girls with Chinese propaganda… due to a crayon drawing of a map found in the background of a scene.
  • Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) continues to single-handedly block over 300 senior military promotions putting our country at risk.
  • Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) displayed enlarged naked pictures of Hunter Biden during a live House Oversight Committee hearing on IRS whistleblowers.  And Hunter’s whistle wasn’t even getting blown!

Step right up, Ladies & Gentlemen, to the Lamest Show on Earth!

The Former Speaker of the House

Eight Republican members of Congress backed Gaetz in his mission to oust McCarthy – which was more than enough given the GOP’s thin House majority.  Of course, Democrats also voted in unison to vacate the office.  Picking a Speaker is the sole responsibility of the majority party unless they explicitly want to play nice.  Since McCarthy has been loathe to reach across the aisle, he shouldn’t have expected any help from the minority party.  This is the way.

The problem wasn’t the loss of McCarthy as Speaker; he simply wasn’t a strong leader.  The problem was that the GOP vacated the office with no clue what to do next.  And, since they were stumped, they just decided to go home for the week!  That’s right.  Despite the facts that (1) they’re on a very short self-cut leash to fund the government and (2) nothing can get done without a Speaker, they just decided to take some time off.  <sigh>

The Next Speaker of the House

So.  The Gaetz Motel has a vacancy but it’s unclear who’s going to get to rent the room and when they might be able to move in.

While this is all playing out as I type, it appears that Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) has been nominated over Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) for the Speakership after a very close internal vote within the GOP caucus.  However, a vote still needs to be held on the House floor and it is as yet unclear if Scalise will have the votes there.  And, if he does manage to get a majority of votes, it is as yet unclear who he will have had to fellate to get them.  While it’s possible that we could have a new Speaker by the time you’re reading this, it’s also possible that we’ll be right back where started – with a weak Speaker who is again handcuffed by extremists.

Unfortunately, no one in D.C. recognized the opportunity here.  In a perfect world, both parties “could” come to an agreement where they could actually get things done.  It’s not the “Screw the Democrats” approach that most Republicans want and it’s not the “Power Sharing” approach that many Democrats want.  Republicans currently hold a majority in the House.  It’s a thin majority, but it’s a majority.  Since there’s no Co-Speaker contemplated in the Constitution, a Republican should hold that office and Republicans should retain a majority of seats in most House committees.  However, in exchange for supporting a sane Republican Speaker who is not under the thumb of far-right idiots, it would seem reasonable to grant Democrats some ability to bring bills to the floor to be voted up or down by a cross-party majority.

Is a world where Democracy actually works too much to ask?

Yeah… probably.

The Senate

Dysfunction has fully infected the House and the disease is spreading to the Senate.

Senators also decided to take a week off despite the approaching deadline they gave themselves to fund the government.  The corporate world would see “All Hands On Deck” while Congress just sees a chance to take a vacation.

I will admit to being a bit surprised that the Senate Judiciary Committee seems poised to let Democrats name a replacement Democratic member now that Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-CA) has been sworn into the late Diane Feinstein’s Senate seat.  I rather expected the GOP to put up an unprecedented, ultra-partisan fight here, but it appears that they won’t.  I am thus quite happy to award GOP Senators a few Brownie Points for not being complete assholes.

Biden Impeachment

There’s no question that Hunter Biden leveraged the fact that his father was Vice President and/or President in his businesses.  Okay. And?  Company boards are rife with “name” members and leveraging a famous last name for marketing purposes isn’t exactly breaking news in corporate America.

Would Neil Bush have been on the board of Silverado or been given a multi-million-dollar consulting contract with Grace Semiconductor if he had a different last name?  Would Billy Beer have been a thing if his brother hadn’t been the President?  Would anyone give a damn what Ginni Thomas thinks if her husband wasn’t on the Supreme Court?  And I’m not even going bring up OG’s kids.

If Hunter Biden is guilty of crimes, he should be tried in a court-of-law like anyone else.  The Republican Special Prosecutor seems quite capable of handling any such prosecutions without “help” from the U.S. House.

If there was any influence peddling resulting in inappropriate actions taken by Joe Biden, that would also be worthy of legal pursuit.  However, the GOP has produced zero evidence of any wrongdoing here.  If they had such evidence, we’d be seeing daily Special Reports on Fox News.  Instead, in the midst of numerous real crises, Republicans are focused on holding impeachment hearings to prove that Joe Biden took phone calls from his kid.

It’s all political theater.  And on that note, …

Paxton Impeachment

The failure of the Texas Senate to remove TX AG Ken Paxton from office was no big surprise.  It may have looked like a trial, but that was also just political theater.  Neither side did a great job presenting their cases.  No, scratch that.  The arguments from both sides were absolutely pathetic.  These were the best attorneys in Texas?  Wow.  I really shoulda gone to law school.  In the end, though, none of it mattered.  It was quite obvious based on the pre-trial motions that the prosecution was going to end up a couple of votes short.  I suspect that the votes to convict on one or two charges were VERY close in the closed-door sessions.  However, if the the two-thirds mark wasn’t going to be met, Republican Senators had little reason to take the political hit of casting a public vote against Paxton.  Justice be damned.

Now, we can only hope that the federal fraud charges against Paxton eventually stick.

Governing

As our government deals with all of the above, let’s take one brief moment to reflect on the fact that NONE of the above has anything to do with governing.  On that front:

  • Our elected representatives barely and temporarily avoided defaulting on our national debt for no particularly good reason.
  • Our elected representatives only managed to pass a stop-gap budget measure the keep the government’s doors open for 45 days.
  • Our elected representatives are busy randomly assigning blame for a decades-long conflict in the Middle East since they are structurally incapable of responding to the recent terrorist attacks in Israel.
  • Our elected representatives can’t even manage to take a vote on continued aid to Ukraine.

Our elected representatives suck at their jobs.

Congressional Redistricting

This topic deserves more attention than I’m going to give it at the moment.  For now, I mostly want to mention the rather surprising SCOTUS win for a fair congressional map in Alabama and a probable SCOTUS loss for a fair map in South Carolina.

Despite the best efforts of the Alabama GOP to gerrymander most of the state’s Black voters into a single district, a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling will now require a new 2024 map in Alabama that gives Black voters a fighting chance to elect their chosen representatives in two of the state’s seven congressional districts.  While that’s only a net increase of one district, the principle matters.  Racial gerrymandering is both wrong and illegal.  Approximately 27% of Alabama voters are Black and they should have a proportional voice in their government.

On the flip side, oral arguments were recently heard for a similar case in South Carolina.  That state is arguing that their map was not racially gerrymandered but was instead politically gerrymandered simply to give Republicans more seats than they deserve.  The fact that the gerrymander also just happens to limit racial representation is a mere coincidence.  Unfortunately, a SCOTUS majority seems to be perfectly okay with this argument.

There are redistricting cases pending in other states and I may come back to this topic.  In the meantime, Democracy Docket is a good resource for keeping up-to-date.

2024 Elections

I’ll try to rerun my analytics with updated data in the near-ish future.  For now, I’m going to do my broken record thing:

Can we PLEASE stop conducting and obsessing over national popularity polls?  Such polls are meaningless to the nominating process given the way party primaries are scheduled and conducted.  Such polls are also meaningless to the general election given the Electoral College.  There is no relevant information to be gleaned from national polls.  Just.  Stop.

Epilogue

Well, that was fun.

We do live in interesting times.