Parenthetical Politics

(Political Ramblings from a Little Left of Center)

Gun Control

Posted on by admin

The recent school shooting in my home state of Texas encouraged me to review a post to my blog on gun control from early 2019.  Unfortunately, after more than three years, the landscape is unchanged.  My own viewpoints have slightly evolved but are still likely to piss off just about everyone on both the right AND the left.  So be it.  Perhaps a solution where no one is completely happy is the best we can do. Anyway, using my old post as I would use a first draft, here are my current thoughts.

I’ll start with a statement that is a tad presumptuous from someone whose entire legal education consists of two semesters of business law:  I contend that the Supreme Court’s 2008 DC vs. Heller opinion was wrongly decided.  In essence, that 5-4 decision ignored precedents and declared that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to possess any firearm, completely disjoint from service in a militia.  Justice John Paul Stevens was quite eloquent in his dissent but, in essence, we both agree that the majority’s opinion was bullshit.

The Second Amendment consists of exactly one sentence that reads, in full:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms is unrelated to a militia?  Seriously?  “Militia” is the subject of the introductory clause of the sentence!  If the clauses are completely independent, the Amendment could well have read:

A future majority of Supreme Court Justices, being complete idiots, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Heller majority generally claimed to be strict constructionists who theoretically consider only the historical meaning of the words in question at the time the Constitution was written.  While I don’t necessarily subscribe to that judicial philosophy, I can respect it if it is consistently applied.  In this case, it is not.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that the Second Amendment was intended to protect “an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”  If that was the indeed the case, why wasn’t this amendment a whole lot shorter?  The Founding Fathers were mostly concerned with protecting states’ rights against an all-powerful federal government and the glaringly obvious intention of the Second Amendment was to enable each state to form and arm its own regulated militia.  Furthermore, given that the most lethal firearm in 1787 was the musket, it is preposterous to extend any strict interpretation of the Second Amendment to include personal ownership of today’s automatic weapons of war.

Hence, from my perspective, the Second Amendment simply does not apply to this conversation.

That said, …

I also see nothing in the Constitution that disallows individual gun ownership.  The libertarian in me sees few reasons for the federal government to simply dictate that Americans can’t own something that they want to own.  I don’t personally understand why anyone needs an AR-15 unless they’re vacationing in eastern Ukraine.  But, fine.  I can respect someone else’s right to own one as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others.

Many on the left want very strict federal gun controls and a complete federal ban on automatic assault weapons.  I contend that they’re wrong.  They argue that other countries with strict gun ownership laws don’t have the number of mass shootings that we have in the U.S. and, unfortunately, that is quite correct.  However, while extolling “the price of freedom” sounds trite and hollow in the aftermath of tragedies, there is truth in the argument that individual freedoms have always been paramount within the American implementation of democracy.  Those on the left need to remember this fact even when the exercise of such freedom doesn’t support their worldview.

Many on the right want no gun controls whatsoever and they largely have their wish.  I contend that they’re wrong.  Reasonable gun regulations are both prudent and necessary.   This is not a Constitutional issue.  It’s a legislative issue and there are no “slippery slopes.”  Firearm laws no more suppress gun ownership than speed limits suppress car ownership.  Defining reasonable limitations on personal liberties for the public good is indeed a definitional job of government.  Those on the right need to remember the valid purpose of government even when the exercise of such a purpose doesn’t support their worldview.

I firmly believe that some limited forms of legislative firearm regulations, with all levels of government playing a role, can preserve gun rights while better serving the public good.

The federal government should rightfully define and enforce a few minimal, common-sense laws at a national level, where consistency and interstate coordination are required.  These include:

(1)  Increase the minimum age for firearm purchases to 21.

  • Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984 to prohibit alcohol purchases by anyone under 21.  It’s idiotic that a teenager can buy an AR-15 before they can buy a beer.

(2)  Require a valid license to purchase and/or possess any firearm.

  • To get a license, an over-21 individual would need to complete a gun safety course and pass a simple background check (as currently required for healthcare workers, lawyers, public-school teachers, etc.).  For the license to allow the purchase or possession of an automatic weapon, the individual would need to complete an additional hands-on training and safety course. Common sense suggests that the mere process of getting a license, while not overly difficult, would still significantly reduce gun-related suicides and rage-induced homicides.
  • A national database of valid licenses would be constantly updated with relevant data such as arrest records, court orders, mental health holds, terrorist watch lists, etc. to invalidate licenses as appropriate. All gun sellers (both commercial and private) would simply be required to check the purchaser’s license using this database – eliminating the need for additional point-of-purchase background checks.  Note that licenses are currently required to drive a car, fly a plane, and even to fish.  It should be harder to buy a lethal weapon than it is to catch a salmon.

(3)  Require all firearms to be registered to their owner.

  • All firearms would be registered to a valid license and reflected in the above national database.  Such registrations would help to ensure gun owner accountability, assist law enforcement in resolving crimes, allow law enforcement to disarm individuals who become ineligible to possess a firearm, and discourage illegal gun sales.  Registrations are currently required for cars, boats, and planes.  The government knows what types of cars you own.  If you don’t want the government to know what types of guns you own, I don’t think I want you to own a gun.

State and local governments should be able to define and enforce additional limitations as appropriate for their communities and electorate.  If, for example, a state wants to ban concealed weapons and the possession of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and silencers within their borders, they should be free to do so.

Conversely, states and local governments should be free to impose no additional regulations beyond those implemented at the federal level.  I personally believe that the open carry laws in my home state of Texas are ridiculously broad.  I’m not thrilled that someone can legally brandish a weapon of war in front of a Chuck-E-Cheese.  I’m not thrilled that someone can legally bring a gun into a classroom at the University of Texas despite the fact that the University’s administration, faculty, and students object.  However, these are Texas problems, and our asinine laws should have no impact on how citizens of other states deal with guns within their own borders.

In my own utopia, assault weapons would be banned outright, open carry laws would be non-existent, and it would be harder to get a concealed carry permit than to get a pilot’s license.  However, as uncomfortable as I am with the proliferation of guns in my country, I’m even more uncomfortable projecting my beliefs and preferences onto others – so long as my own rights are not sacrificed in the process.

Thus, my proposals above do not at all prohibit the purchase or possession of any firearm at the federal level.  They merely limit the ownership of registered weapons to eligible, licensed adults who know how to use them.  This approach is a sane balance between personal liberties and the common good, it doesn’t violate even the Heller interpretation of the Second Amendment, and yes, it would have likely prevented the tragedy in Uvalde.

Eventually, common sense must prevail.  If the gun lobby’s political sheep continue to block even reasonable federal regulations that have no impact on gun ownership, they need to be voted out of office.  We cannot continue to mourn children who are slaughtered due to the inaction of our elected officials.

U.S. Senate 2022

Posted on by admin

Yeah, it’s been a while.  There’s certainly no shortage of potential blog topics – upcoming elections, the probable demise of Roe, the war in Ukraine, the Jan 6 committee’s work, school shootings & gun control, the economic roller-coaster, etc., etc. – and I certainly have no shortage of strong opinions.  So.  No excuses. I’m just going to try again.

It’s still too early to handicap the 2022 Senate races given that the candidates haven’t all been finalized.  However, since most professional political pundits seem so unreservedly certain of a Republican takeover of the Senate, I felt compelled to do my own research.

My contrarian bottom line:  Democrats may have nothing resembling a lock on retaining Senate control, but neither are things all doom and gloom on their side of the aisle.

There are 35 Senate seats up for election in 2022 but, by my count, only 10 of them are at all competitive.  Five are current Democratic seats; five are current Republican seats (three of which are being vacated by retiring R incumbents).  If the November split of these 10 seats is also 50/50, Democrats will retain their paper-thin control of the Senate.  But, of course, it’s not that simple.

Given my political preferences, I should state that my analysis is not simply wishful thinking.  If it was, I’d also be predicting that Democrats have a remote chance to retain the House in November.  I’m not and they don’t.  Rather, I’m objectively looking at early Senate polls, state voting histories & trends, new state-specific voting restrictions, turnout projections, incumbency advantages, fundraising, etc.  The most subjective components are candidate analyses – but even there I made an attempt to consider the perspectives of each state’s likely voters.

I did discount the conventional wisdom that the President’s party generally loses mid-term elections.  While numerous House races may reflect that trend, I don’t see it as a major factor for these 10 Senate races.  The outsize influence of the former President in this election makes him at least as much of a lightning rod as the current President.  Since neither are particularly popular outside of their bases, I’m calling that variable a wash.

And, yes, I considered “showing my work” but my collection of spreadsheet tabs isn’t at all pretty and this post is already way too long.

Okay, enough prelude.  Here’s my summary of the 10 races, ordered by the current likelihood of a Democratic win:

(Click for a larger image; use the back button to return.)

A few brief notes on the races above:

  • Colorado:  Bennet should win, but his race gets much easier if Ron Hanks, a 2020 election-denying idiot, continues to be favored for the Republican nomination against a sane Joe O’Dea.  Republican Primary: 6/28.
  • Arizona:  Similarly, Kelly should win, but his race gets easier if his opponent is not the current AZ AG Mark Brnovich.  Brnovich committed the sin of refusing to simply overturn the 2020 election results in AZ –  incurring the wrath of a former President who is actively undermining his campaign.  Unfortunately for Republicans, Brnovich is the candidate who would have the best chance against Kelly in the general election – despite some serious R money being otherwise thrown around here.  Once Brnovich loses the primary, this race might move to the Likely D column.  Republican Primary: 8/2.
  • Pennsylvania:  This open seat is the best D pickup opportunity.  John Fetterman, while not the perfect Democratic candidate, is non-traditional enough to make waves and command news cycles – assuming he stays healthy after some recent heart issues.  As PA’s current Lt. Governor, he’s proven he can win a statewide election and he understands his electorate.  Neither of his potential rivals (“Dr.” Oz and David McCormick) have ever run for public office and both only recently moved to PA to carpetbag this election.  If the snake oil salesman comes out on top of the ugly Republican primary, Fetterman’s chances get even better.  Republican Primary recount in-progress.
  • New Hampshire:  Democrats lucked out when popular Republican Governor Chris Sununu opted out of this race.  While he would have cleared the GOP field and beaten Hasan, it’s much less clear if any of the five R candidates have a chance to win.  Republicans will be fighting each other into September while Hassan gets to immediately begin her general election campaign.  Still, since NH is a purple state and Hassan won her seat in 2016 by less than 1% of the vote, this race only barely gets ranked as a Lean D.  Republican Primary: 9/13.
  • Georgia:  Warnock is a good incumbent candidate who knows how to work a crowd.  Walker was a good running back who could mow down the crowd but is quite likely to fall flat on his face in a political debate.  Thus far, even in softball interviews, his answers have been laughably nonsensical.  If this wasn’t Georgia, the race wouldn’t even be close.  However, the state is solid red and Republicans made it more difficult to vote after Democrats surprised everyone (including me) by taking both Senate seats in 2020.  On the other hand, the popular Stacey Abrams at the top of the GA ticket will attract Democratic voters even if she loses her race for Governor.  This race is a true Toss-Up.
  • Wisconsin:  Johnson, the Republican incumbent, is remarkably unpopular and wasn’t expected to run for re-election.  That decision is the only reason this race is competitive.  Democrats, however, can’t get their act together and will likely be fighting each other into August.  The current top two D candidates are Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and Milwaukee Bucks exec Alex Lasry.  Both are capable but neither are yet setting this purple state on fire.  Until they do (or don’t), I rate this race a Toss-Up.  Democratic Primary: 8/9.
  • Nevada:  This will be the most difficult seat for Democrats to hold. Cortez Mastro, the first Latina Senator in American history, has the benefits of incumbency and she’s a competent fighter.  However, Republicans are quickly rallying around former NV AG Adam Laxalt.  Laxalt has endorsements from all corners of the GOP (quite a feat these days), has proven he can win statewide in a purple state, and comes from political royalty (he’s the grandson of popular former NV Gov & Sen. Paul Laxalt).  I thus currently put this race in the Lean R column.  Republican Primary: 6/14.
  • Ohio:  Had popular Sen. Rob Portman not decided to retire, this seat would have remained safely in the R column.  As it is, Republicans did themselves no favors by selecting the odd J.D. Vance as their substitute nominee. Josh Mandel would have likely been unbeatable in the general election, but he couldn’t survive against the former President’s endorsement of Vance.  Still, this is a very red state and Tim Ryan, the Democratic nominee with good statewide name recognition, has a huge hill to climb.
  • North Carolina:  Beasley is a good all-around candidate and Budd is another 2020 election-denying idiot.  However, this is North Carolina and, despite polls showing a tightening race, a Democratic win here isn’t very likely.
  • Florida:  The party primaries aren’t until 8/23 but the race will be between Demings and Rubio.  Pundits are predicting a close race here since Demings has an impressive resume and is an excellent candidate.  But let’s be real:  This is Florida.  For all sorts of reasons, Rubio is going to win.  The best Democrats can hope to do here is to force Republicans to spend some money to defend a seat in a very expensive state – assuming they can do so without spending a ton themselves.

The “Dem Goal” column reflects my current opinion of where Democrats should spend their time & money.  In order, they should:

  1. make sure they hold the three D seats where they currently have a non-overwhelming advantage (CO, AZ, NH).
  2. defend a toss-up race for a seat they now hold (GA).
  3. play offense to win a Republican seat where there is currently a non-overwhelming D advantage (PA).
  4. play offense to win a toss-up Republican seat (WI).
  5. try to defend a seat they now hold but may well lose (NV).
  6. put in an effort to win three other R seats and hope for a miracle (OH, NC, FL).

Democrats can maintain the current 50/50 Senate split with 1-3 while 4-5 provide a cushion.  6 is mostly intended to keep Republicans busy elsewhere… but miracles do happen.

Of course, we still have almost six months before the election.  Things will change.  As of now, though, Democrats have a decent chance to retain control of the Senate and could even expand their majority.  Unfortunately, they could also lose it.

One way to help is with money.  Small amounts add up and there are numerous ways to donate.  The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Senate Majority PAC are possibilities, but both spread their money perhaps a bit too thin.  The Swing Left PAC’s Senate fund seems to be targeting most of the right races and is a decent option for a one-shot donation – albeit with some overhead.  The best option is to directly contribute to the individual campaigns of the Democrats noted above.  Google a candidate’s name followed by “campaign” to donate via their campaign websites (likely using the ActBlue engine).

COVID-19 Progression

Posted on by admin

I was asked to update my COVID-19 progression video.  Despite knowing it would be quite depressing, here ’tis:

 

The video shows he relative spread across the U.S., showing weekly new cases per capita by state.  The darker the shade, the higher the per capita new case count.  A low threshold of 0.05% is used to equate white with a controlled (even if non-zero) per capita infection rate in a given state.

The video now runs at 4X the prior speed so that the entire pandemic timeline is summarized in 30 seconds.

In case you missed the lede, the resurgence is real.  We’re considerably worse off now than we were in August of last year.

This time, however, the damage is self-inflicted.

Voting in 2022

Posted on by admin

While there’s no shortage of published opinions on numerous voting-related topics, I’ve seen few attempts to address the “Big Picture” overlap of these topics in terms of the 2022 elections.  Since that intersection is my current cause for political anxiety, I thought I’d give it a brief shot.

Background

Let’s start with one simple given:  The 2020 Presidential election was not stolen by Democrats.  Biden won by a 74-vote margin in the Electoral College and, incidentally, by over 7 million popular votes.  The Trump campaign filed at least 86 court cases challenging the election results.  They won zero.  There is not a single indication of any incidence of fraud that would have even come close to impacting the election.

Nevertheless, Republicans have continued to cling to the myth that they really won and that cheating Democrats managed to commit what their cult leader continues to call the “crime of the century”.

Am I generalizing about “Republicans” here?  No, I’m not.  To be sure, a few sane Republicans still remain and most of my own Republicans friends (hopefully) fall into that category.  However, numerous independent polls show that a huge majority of Republicans sincerely believe that Trump actually defeated Biden.  A recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll showed that fully 2/3 of Republican voters believe the election was stolen!  Thus, Republican politicians continue their parade to Mar-a-Lago to kiss Trump’s ring and blindly accept the ludicrous election conspiracy theories of a sore loser.

Census & Redistricting

The 2020 Census and the associated reapportionment of both Congressional seats and Electoral College votes absolutely favors Republicans.  Seven seats will shift between the states and, based solely upon how each state voted for President in 2020, Republicans will net one additional seat.  That, however, isn’t nearly the whole story.

Concurrent, once-a-decade Congressional redistricting will have a much larger impact.  This will be the first such effort conducted subsequent to the 2013 Supreme Court opinion that negated the pre-clearance of state district maps by the Department of Justice.  Since such pre-clearance helped to preclude obvious racial gerrymandering, all bets are off this time.  States will be able to redraw districts however they wish and, again, Republicans will have a clear advantage.

A FiveThirtyEight analysis shows that Republicans will have total control to redraw 43% of Congressional districts while Democrats will have total control to redraw only 17%.  (The remainder are split-party or non-party decisions.)

For those that don’t have a calculator handy, redistricting alone will give Republicans a 2.5X advantage.  Ouch.

State Election Laws

Abandoning efforts to attract voters with their policies, Republicans everywhere have decided that it’d be much easier to simply disenfranchise those Americans that might vote against them.

As of this writing, the Brennan Center has identified around 400 bills that have been introduced by Republicans in 49 states to restrict voting access.  18 states have already passed 30 such laws… and Republicans are just getting started.

The laws are quite diverse but are all specifically – and transparently – designed to decrease Democratic turnout.  The laws include limiting the number of voting locations, restricting mail-in voting, making early voting more difficult, imposing more stringent voter ID requirements, making faulty voter purges more likely, enabling poll watchers to more easily intimidate voters, criminalizing water distribution to voters in long lines, etc.

[ Now, before anyone complains (and you know who you are):  No, I am not simply repeating claims made by “liberal” media outlets.  While such articles may have caught my initial attention, I’ve made a point to actually read the poorly written bills passed (or pending with a high probability of passage) in various state legislatures.  When you’ve done the same, we can talk. ]

Here’s just a few egregious examples in just a few states:

  • Texas:   Texas has 254 counties, ranging in population from 4 million people (in Harris County which includes Houston) to 100 people (in Loving County on the New Mexico border).  It would thus make a whole lot of sense to let each county run their own elections based on their distinct demographics and geography.  However, the new state law will reduce the number of voting locations and voting machines allowed in large counties (all Democratic strongholds) and increase the number of voting locations and voting machines allowed in small counties (all Republican strongholds).  [ Yes, Texas Democratic legislators have delayed the adoption of the draconian election laws by leaving the state.  Unfortunately, the delay is just that.  Republicans control the Texas state government and the laws will eventually pass. ]
  • Georgia:  Georgia will seriously reduce the number of ballot drop boxes available to absentee voters and further restrict access to those drop boxes.  The changes will have a wildly disproportional impact in the most populous counties that voted overwhelming Democratic in 2020.  In the four Atlanta-area counties where over a third of the state’s Black population resides, the number of drop boxes will be cut by 75%.
  • Michigan:  Michigan law will prevent the hiring of people to transport voters to the polls – which will have an obviously disproportional impact on low-income voters who tend to vote Democratic but who might need a ride to get to a polling location.
  • Florida:  Florida will now seriously restrict access to mail-in voting, despite a strong historic usage of such ballots.  In 2016 and 2018, roughly a third of Florida voters cast mail-in ballots and more Republicans used that method than Democrats.  In 2020, however, the trend switched to favor Democrats – causing Republicans to suddenly decide that mail-in voting was a bad idea.

State Election Officials & Election Certifications

There’s another trend that is even more disturbing than the above.

Numerous Republican election officials in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania were willing to defend the results of the elections they ran in 2020 – even while lamenting the fact that their party didn’t win.  However, such public servants with the convictions to do their jobs regardless of the political fallout appear to be a dying breed.

In numerous states, people who vocally championed overturning 2020 election results by pure political fiat are looking to take over the state offices where they could do exactly that in future elections.  The top state election official is generally the Secretary of State and 26 of those seats are up for election in 2022.  Current Republican Secretary of State candidates include:

  • Rep. Jody Hice (GA) – who led the congressional effort to overturn the 2020 Electoral College results.
  • State Rep. Mark Finchem (AZ) – who is leading his state’s continuing, conspiracy-laden “audit”.
  • Kristina Karamo (MI) – who publicly challenged her state’s election certification efforts.
  • Jim Marchant (NV) – who sued to have his five-point 2020 Congressional election loss overturned.

In addition:

  • Ruth Hughs (TX) was forced to resign as Secretary of State by Texas Republicans after she rightly claimed that she ran a “smooth and secure” 2020 election.  By the way, Republicans handily won across the board in Texas – but apparently not by large enough margins to satisfy her party’s officials.
  • Secretary of State Steve Simon (MN) has been under fire by his state’s Republican legislature for opposing voter restriction laws that he deems to be both unnecessary and harmful.

Far-right candidates will undoubtedly appear in many other states as we approach the 2022 elections.

In some cases, Republicans are going even further.  For example, a provision in the new Georgia election law will give the Republican state legislature the power to directly intervene in the operation of local elections and even to unilaterally decertify any election results they don’t like.

With the presumed power to simply ignore or overturn any Democratic wins, Republicans won’t need to worry about changes to elections laws.  In fact, they really won’t need to worry about elections.

Federal Election Laws

Since Republicans have mounted a frontal attack on voting rights at the state level, many Democrats are counting on a federal counter-attack.  Reasonable legislation has certainly been proposed and has garnered significant media attention.  After spending considerable time researching, summarizing, and opining upon these proposals (most notably the “For the People Act” and the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act”), I eventually deleted all of that text in favor of one simple conclusion:

State-level Democrats will get no federal help whatsoever with respect to election laws.

There is zero chance of any relevant election laws overcoming a Republican filibuster in the Senate and any Democratic pursuit of such legislation is nothing more than political theater that will waste considerable time, energy, and money.

2022 Impact

While all of the above will certainly have an impact on the 2024 Presidential election, the most immediate concerns are the 2022 elections in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.  As we get closer to that election, I hope to attempt a more detailed analysis of the truly contested seats in both chambers.  There will, however, be serious limitations to any predictive model given all of the changes to state election laws.  All polls will likely be even more meaningless than before.  That said, an overall conclusion is already abundantly obvious:

Democrats are screwed.

Republicans will redraw U.S. House districts to give their candidates a distinct advantage regardless of the wishes of the majority of a state’s voters.   Republicans will continue to change election laws in competitive states to make it more difficult for Democratic-leaning constituents to vote.  Republicans will block any federal efforts to protect voters’ rights.  As a final backstop, numerous states will give their Republican legislatures – or a single Republican official – the power to overturn the results of any election that they still somehow manage to lose.

Damn.

My guess at the moment is that it will take a miracle for Democrats to retain control of the U.S. House in 2022.  The game there will be to minimize the Republican margin of control to allow for a possible 2024 comeback.  Control of the U.S. Senate in 2022 is tougher to predict – but it’s likely a toss-up.

What can Democrats do?  Well, they first need to follow the old axiom of accepting the things they cannot change – and, unfortunately, that’s almost everything noted herein.  Republicans may quite reasonably be relatively complacent on the ground in 2022 given the massive structural advantages that they are bestowing upon themselves.  Thus, the only possible strategy for Democrats is to try to out-organize Republicans with voter registration, voter ID, and voter information initiatives.

Yeah, I know.  After being silent on this blog for a long while, I come back with a thoroughly depressing post.  Sorry ’bout that.  My point is that Democrats need to quickly recognize that fairness is sadly irrelevant.  The only path to retaining Democratic majorities is a very long, very rough, very expensive toll road.

Democrats need to stop complaining about it and start driving.

COVID-19 Year One

Posted on by admin

I’ve now been tracking the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S for 52 weeks.  A Year One update thus seemed appropriate.

The U.S. has seen ~30M COVID-19 cases with ~530K resultant deaths.

My latest video shows weekly new cases per capita by state to help visualize the relative spread across the U.S. over the past year.  The darker the shade, the higher the per capita new case count.  I use a low threshold of 0.05% to allow a white color to imply a controlled (if non-zero) per capita infection rate in a given state.

 

The U.S. has approved three COVID-19 vaccines, two of which are currently being distributed and both of which require two doses.  26M people have received both doses so about 8% of the U.S. population has been fully vaccinated.  Another 26M people have received their first dose.  (Two U.S. Vaccine Rollout links have been added to my COVID-19 links page.)

Overall, while things have improved since the holiday season peak, trends now appear to be headed in the wrong direction again.  Despite some state governments (such as Texas) declaring a very premature victory, I don’t have a good feeling about this.

Yogi Berra was absolutely right.  It ain’t over ’til it’s over.

U.S. Senate 2022

Posted on by admin

Of course it’s too early to handicap the 2022 Senate elections.  Things change and shit happens.  However, since a net gain of a single Senate seat in 2022 will give Republicans control of the chamber, it’s definitely not too early to start worrying about the landscape.

  • The Bad News:  Historically, the party that wins the White House has about a 70% chance of losing Senate seats in the subsequent mid-term election.
  • The Good News:  The current board very slightly favors Democrats in 2022.

Technically, there are 34 Senate seats on the 2022 table.  In reality, only nine of them are at all competitive at the moment.  I say “at the moment” because there are a ton of unknowns this far out.  The competitive landscape could be changed by:

  • Deaths or as-yet-unannounced retirements of incumbents.
  • Superstar or lackluster candidates from either party.
  • A 2022 state-of-the-union that is either outstanding or pathetic.
  • Trump-backed far-right candidates winning Republican primaries in competitive states who might be more vulnerable in the general election.  (Far-left candidates are less likely to be a factor in competitive states, but that’s also a possibility.)

Here are the nine 2022 Senate races that I’m currently watching.

(Click for a larger image; use the back button to return.)

Status is my current analysis; Dem Goal is my current recommendation; the order reflects the order in which I’d throw money… if I was throwing money this early… which I’m not.

In summary, there are currently no easy pick-up opportunities for Republicans this cycle.  On the other hand, Republicans will be defending three seats that are definitely competitive.

FWIW, here’s my brief take on each of these races:

  • Arizona:  Sen. Kelly gets to defend the seat he just won in a special election.  Arizona is definitely a purple state but Kelly showed he was a good candidate.  Republican Gov. Ducey’s recent decision to not challenge Kelly helped Democrats a lot.
  • Georgia:  Ditto. Sen. Warnock also won a special election, Georgia is purple, and Warnock is good.
  • New Hampshire: While Biden won here by a wide margin, Sen. Hassan won her Senate seat in 2016 by only 0.1%.  If Republican Gov. Sununu or former Republican Sen. Ayotte run against her, this race could become more competitive.
  • Nevada:  Sen. Cortez Masto is currently favored to retain her seat, but if Republican Gov. Sandoval decides to run against her, this race becomes more competitive.
  • Pennsylvania:  Sen. Toomey’s retirement makes this race competitive.
  • North Carolina:  Sen. Burr’s retirement makes this race competitive.
  • Wisconsin:  Sen. Johnson isn’t very popular and is apparently considering retirement.  The race is competitive in either case.
  • Ohio:  Sen. Portman’s retirement makes this race competitive.  If Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan runs, this could move to a Toss Up.
  • Florida:  Sen. Rubio is heavily favored and, unless Democrats find a great candidate, this race could easily move off of my radar.

 

Impeachment II

Posted on by admin

I’ve been asked why I haven’t weighed in on the current impeachment hearing.  Hell, I’m barely following it.  We all know Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection.  We all know that the Senate won’t find him guilty.

But fine.  Here’s my two cents…

This snippet from the opening statement of Trump’s defense team is worth noting up front:

“This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we’ve only seen once before in our history,”

I question the legal strategy behind defending your client against an incitement to insurrection by threatening an insurrection.  But, hey, that’s just me.

Based on the brief filed by Trump’s defense team, their planned arguments against conviction can be summarized by three positions statements:

  1. Position: Trump can’t be impeached because he is no longer in office.
    • Facts: The Constitution says “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”.
    • Conclusion:  If the only result of an impeachment was removal from office, this argument might be valid.  However, since there’s an additional possible consequence, this argument is crap.
  2. Position:  Trump was merely exercising his First Amendment right to free speech.
    • Facts: A Supreme Court opinion written in 1919 by Oliver Wendell Holmes famously ruled that free speech did not extend to “shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”  The Court clarified that ruling in 1969 to explicitly ban such speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
    • Conclusion:  Free speech has limits and this argument is crap.
  3. Position: Trump had no intention of interfering with the counting of Electoral votes.
    • Facts: Really?  Just roll tape.
    • Conclusion: Trump made it quite clear what he wanted and this argument is crap.

In short, there is no sane defense.  On the other hand, however, none of the above matters.  Not even a little bit.  As I posted when we went through this the first time:

The problem is that the impeachment of a President isn’t a legal issue.  It’s political. …  Senators are bound by no laws and can cast their votes as they individually deem fit with no ramifications whatsoever.  There is no judge that can direct them nor override even an obviously incorrect verdict.  There is no appeal. 

GOP Senators are perfectly free to just say: “I’m afraid that Trump will get mad at me and I won’t get re-elected if I vote to convict him.”

That is their Constitutional – albeit balls-free – prerogative.

I only wish they’d be honest about it.

Two Americas

Posted on by admin

I previously posted my skepticism that our nation could find any common ground upon which to unify.  Each day’s news verifies that opinion.

Some on the far-right are again making explicit calls for civil war as Democrats display the audacity to pursue the agenda upon which Biden was elected.  Conversely, some on the far-left expect their party’s razor-thin majority to produce a progressive’s wet dream, despite that not being the agenda upon which Biden was elected.

Since a Second Civil War doesn’t seem like a particularly good idea, I thought I’d give some brief thought to a less bloody separation.  While I’m certainly not claiming that an American divorce is anywhere in the neighborhood of a decent option, contemplation of the extreme shines some unfortunate light on the scope of our polarization problem.  I’ve already spent too many cycles on this than I should have, but it’s an interesting academic exercise.

Consider if you will….

A division of the United States into two independent nations: the Democratic States of America (DSA) and the Confederate Republic of America (CRA).

Below is my attempt to quickly define the separate entities based on the apparent majority opinions in both camps.

To simplify matters for this thought experiment, the separation would be along state lines – allowing existing state and local governments to function relatively unchanged within new federal frameworks.  Each state would optimally be able to chose the country to which they belong.  However, for my purposes, I’ll simply assign states to a country based largely on 2020 Presidential preferences – with the notable exception of granting Georgia to the CRA purely for geographical convenience.  Splitting the states into Biden and Trump camps (modulo Georgia) gives the CRA 26 states and the DSA 24 states.

Thus, the big picture looks like this:

(Click for a larger image; use the back button to return.)

American Union

First, acknowledging that an American breakup would make Brexit look like summer camp, we’d start with both countries belonging to an American Union (AU). The AU (an EU-lite) would initially be a short-lived entity with perhaps a three-year lifespan that could be shortened or extended only upon mutual agreement.  During the AU transition period, the AU would function as the U.S. federal government does today.  However, all AU laws, executive orders, and court rulings would be subject to veto by either the DSA or the CRA – making it imperative that the two countries finalize their divorce as quickly as possible.

All state borders would be open within the AU during the transition period.  People and corporations would be free to relocate to any state in the country of their choice during this time and there would be a temporary free-trade agreement between the two countries.  All military personnel would be free to serve the country of their choice by requesting duty station changes as appropriate.

The transition period would allow the two countries to finalize the details of their governments, ratify constitutions, and agree on a division of current U.S. resources.  For simplicity, all current federal resources that are not physically tied to a given state would be evenly split between the two countries (including nuclear weapons).  The national debt would also be evenly split.

Both countries could choose to join existing international entities (e.g. United Nations, NATO, and NAFTA) as each desires, but some bilateral treaties and trade agreements would also seem appropriate (e.g. an Open Sky agreement and cooperation in the space program). A free trade agreement would be optimal but likely elusive.  Some mutually-beneficial arrangement could also possibly give the CRA access to the Pacific in exchange for traversal rights through the CRA between the geographically separate parts of the DSA.  In any case, a permanent, severely downsized version of the AU could be considered as an umbrella for all bilateral agreements and Washington D.C. could become the AU’s home.

Democratic States of America

The DSA features a strong federal government.  Briefly, …

  • Federal Structure:  Elimination of the Electoral College with the President elected by popular vote.  The Senate remains as-is with two Senators per state but with a Constitutional 60% vote requirement for most legislation and judicial appointments.  The House concept remains but with districts drawn by independent commissions w/ set rules and with minimal Representatives decided by the smallest state (1) and apportioned accordingly to other states by population.  Supreme Court Justices are term-limited to 15 years, Senators to 12 years, and Representatives to 10 years.
  • Health Care:  Universal single-payer health care at the federal level with Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA rolled in.
  • Education:  Free federally-directed public education through junior college or trade school; free 4-year college and graduate programs in return for military or public service.
  • Finance:  Retain U.S. financial systems with continuation of the Federal Reserve and international monetary involvement.
  • Federal Taxes:  Progressive personal income tax plus a wealth tax.  Capital gains are taxed as ordinary income.  Corporate tax rates are increased.
  • Gun Controls:  Extensive federal background checks with a federal registry and federal carry laws.  Personal ownership of some assault weapons is banned outright and some firearms require additional background checks with more restrictive carry laws.
  • Voting Rights: Federally-mandated, broad requirements for voter eligibility.
  • Immigration:  Path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants.  DACA becomes established law.  Immigration welcome.
  • Abortion: Legal in the first trimester and legal thereafter for defined health reasons.
  • Environment:  Focus on renewable energy with strong environmental regulations.
  • Trade:  Globalist approach using multiple international free-trade agreements and a limited use of tariffs.
  • Foreign Affairs:  International approach with strong alliances. Almost all military operations are conducted through alliances.
  • Capital:  Denver.
  • Pre-Split Statistics:
    • # States = 24
    • U.S. Electoral Votes = 286
    • GDP = 13.8 Trillion
    • Population = 178 Million
    • White = 59%
    • College-Educated = 34%

Confederate Republic of America

The CRA features a weak federal government.  Briefly, …

  • Federal Structure:  Retention of the basic U.S. structure, leaving the Electoral College, Senate, House, and Judicial branch largely as-is.
  • Healthcare:  Rely on optional commercial individual health insurance managed at the state level.  Eliminate the ACA and Medicaid at the federal level.  Keep Medicare at the federal level, but move some current coverage to commercially available supplemental plans.
  • Education:  Give states total control of and responsibility for education within their borders with no federal involvement whatsoever.
  • Finance:  Eliminate the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard.
  • Federal Taxes:  Flat personal income tax; no corporate tax.
  • Gun Controls:  No federal limitations or controls on firearm purchases.  Open and concealed carry privileges granted by any state are recognized throughout the CRA.
  • Voting Rights: States have full control over voter eligibility.
  • Immigration:  Deportation of all undocumented immigrants.  DACA repealed.  Border wall completed between Texas and Mexico.  Immigration discouraged.
  • Abortion:  Always illegal with no exceptions.
  • Environment:  Focus on fossil fuels with extremely limited environmental regulations.
  • Trade:  Protectionist approach using tariffs; limited international free-trade agreements.
  • Foreign Affairs:  Largely isolationist, America-first approach with weakened international ties.  Almost all military operations are conducted unilaterally.
  • Capital:  Dallas.
  • Pre-Split Statistics:
    • # States = 26
    • U.S. Electoral Votes = 252
    • GDP = 9.2 Trillion
    • Population = 153 Million
    • White = 63%
    • College-Educated = 28%

Brief Analysis

The DSA/CRA rabbit hole is ripe for further exploration but, for now, I’ll only make three interpretive statements:

  1. Even if we only considered real issues and not political personalities, the two countries would have wildly divergent views of just about everything   Half of Americans would likely prefer to live in the DSA; half would prefer the CRA.  A middle path may be possible for the United States, but the road to compromise will be difficult at best.
  2. Personally, I’d have to move.  I suspect that many of the residents of my blue pod in Austin would have to leave Texas and the CRA.
  3. It seems fairly obvious to me that the DSA would be the most sustainable independent country over time.  I’ll accept that other interpretations may be plausible (albeit wrong).  Perhaps I’ll write a future history novel someday.  Or not.

 

Unity?

Posted on by admin

Just as dolphins swim together in pods to protect each other from predators, people tend to gravitate toward those who share their worldviews in order to jointly defend against opposing perspectives.  My center-left viewpoint is well-represented within my pod and I admit to thoroughly enjoying the time I spend in my personal echo chamber.  However, I do have numerous good friends who swim in other political pods.

I find my friends on the far-left to be mostly well-intentioned if not particularly practical.  I try to remind myself that similar groups of people throughout history have championed worthy causes that shook the political norms of their day – causes such as women’s suffrage, civil rights, gay marriage, food safety laws, Medicare, and Social Security.  Still, I visibly wince at some of the “Big Block of Cheese” ideas that are advocated by today’s progressives.  (If you’re not a fan of The West Wing, you’ll just have to look it up.)

With many of my friends to my right, I unreservedly enjoy debating political issues and I can respect their sincere, informed positions even when we strongly disagree.  I have even been known to change my mind when confronted with sound arguments.  Not often, though.

With other friends further to the right, I desperately avoid political discussions altogether in attempts preserve the relationships.  Sometimes I think that the intrinsic problem is my inability to fully understand their perspectives.  Sometimes I think that the intrinsic problem is that they are blithering idiots.  It’s a work-in-progress.

I have, however, completely disconnected from almost everyone in the far-right pod.  (I try hard to maintain family exemptions, but that waiver is under constant review.)  Despite some redeeming qualities that initially welcomed these people into my pod-adjacent world, I find their political viewpoints reprehensible to the point of moral outrage.  I brand this group as predators who pose a clear danger to my pod.

The predator pod includes, but is definitely not limited to:

  • Those who participated in or approved of an open insurrection against the United States.  I reject the premise that there are anarchists on both political extremes as a false equivalency.  The far-right mob that stormed the Capitol self-identified as Trump supporters; the destructive rioters who took advantage of peaceful BLM protests weren’t wearing Biden hats.  Both groups were criminals; only one was politically aligned.
  • The 45 GOP United States Senators who just voted against holding an impeachment trial for a President who quite obviously incited an insurrection on national television.  They didn’t vote to clear him of the charge; they voted that the charge wasn’t worth considering.
  • A GOP United States Congresswoman who claims that the Parkland school shooting was a hoax designed to advance gun control laws.
  • The so-called “Christian Right” who makes a mockery of religion.  When confronted with their hypocrisy, I find it difficult to suppress a verbal cascade of obscenities.  While that would be an admittedly non-optimal strategy for winning a spiritual argument, the fact is that I find nothing at all spiritual about those who would hijack Christianity for amoral political purposes.

So.  Is there a point to this diatribe?

I try to make an honest, concerted effort to understand opposing political positions.  Nevertheless, I can quite happily write off an apparently large portion of the populace.  I have zero desire to engage with any of the political predators on the far-right.  Since I suspect others’ tolerance levels may be even more restrictive than my own, I am increasingly skeptical of our ability to find any common ground upon which to construct some semblance of national unity.  My post-election affair with optimism didn’t last long.

Do I have a suggestion for addressing our political polarization?  Nah.  I have no clue.  I just thought I’d share the little black cloud that is lingering above my pod today.

You’re welcome.

And thanks for all the fish.

The Filibuster

Posted on by admin

So much for bipartisanship.

As of this writing, the Senate can’t even agree on how to disagree.  They’re stuck on an organizing resolution that will set the structure of Senate committees given the 50/50 split in the chamber.  The obvious quick-route was to simply adopt the rules hammered out by Tom Daschle (D) and Trent Lott (R) the last time we had such a split two decades ago.  But no.  Of course not.

The complex specifics of the prior deal aren’t of great importance here.  In brief, it recognized that one party was “in charge” due to the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote while still acknowledging that both parties had equal numbers of elected Senators in the chamber.  The deal was fair.

This time around, Mitch McConnell (R) demanded that the legislative filibuster be formally enshrined within a modified version of the agreement to protect the 60-vote threshold for most legislation.  Chuck Schumer (D), in turn, told him to take a hike around NeverLand.  Both are wrong.

On one side, it is unreasonable for McConnell to expect Schumer to agree to something that McConnell didn’t agree to when he was the Majority Leader.  Sure, McConnell didn’t try to ditch the legislative filibuster despite Trump’s pushing him to do so.  Importantly, however, this wasn’t due to any perceived legal or ethical boundary.  McConnell didn’t do it simply because he didn’t have the votes within his own caucus to pass the rules change.  Period.  If he could have passed it, he would have.

On the other side, there is little reason – other than spite – for Schumer to refuse to recognize reality.  Schumer doesn’t have the votes in his own caucus to pass the rules change, either.

Both are missing the point.

Eliminating the filibuster is a bad idea.  It is not simply some arcane rule.  In fact, it provides an extremely important guardrail that must be preserved.  Otherwise, the Senate becomes just a smaller version of the House where the majority has absolute control and the minority has no reason to even show up.  The Senate is intended to be the more deliberative Congressional body with six-year terms for two Senators from each state and a 60-vote threshold to complete most of its work.  Agreement in the Senate isn’t supposed to be easy and the minority isn’t supposed to be irrelevant.  Democrats may be charge right now but that will change at some point.

Of course, in recent years, the filibuster has become the minority’s middle-finger to the majority and has been used – by both parties – to simply block all of the majority’s efforts purely for the sake of blocking them.  This “tyranny of the minority” is also wrong but it is undoubtedly at the core of McConnell’s game plan.

A fix is complicated but likely includes re-introducing earmarks.  The practice – which allowed discretionary funds to be directed to specific projects and entities bypassing normal bidding processes – was formally dropped about a decade ago.  The “reform” had good intentions but didn’t really stop the practice.  Lawmakers simply found other ways to specifically fund their pet projects and “pork” has never been more than 1% of the budget anyway.  All that the earmarks ban really did was to prevent the horse-trading that Congress needed to gather the necessary individual votes to pass broader bills.  Without earmarks, everything ended up being decided purely along party lines.  And that’s not working for anyone.

In any case, to get out of our current stalemate, Schumer and McConnell need to simply have a “gentlemen’s agreement” that the elimination of the filibuster is off the table for now.  That’s a simple recognition of fact and there’s no reason to make it more of the issue than it is.  Unless Republicans retreat to filibustering everything from the lunch menu forward, there are way too many institutionalist Democrats to allow a rules change along party lines.  However, the very distant threat of eliminating the filibuster might help the cause of compromise.

One can at least hope.