For the five people on the Supreme Court who are unilaterally turning back our societal clock, I’ve resurrected a few real ad campaigns from decades past…
(Political Ramblings from a Little Left of Center)
Dobbs v. Jackson
My father taught me that it was always best take a breath and calm down before responding in the moment out of anger. It was good advice and it still is. But, well, I’m absolutely livid. And I have this blog. Sorry, Dad. I did at least edit my first draft to remove (most of) the expletives.
Five justices of the Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, reversing a 50-year-old precedent. While it wasn’t a surprise, it was still a gut punch. As of today, roughly 40 million women no longer have the right of autonomy over their own bodies.
The majority‘s claims of states’ rights on the issue of abortion is a sham, particularly when the same jurists just signed another opinion – in the same week – telling states to take a hike by overruling long-standing state-level concealed-carry gun laws. Again unsurprisingly, the current Supreme Court majority has made it clear that they recognize states’ rights only when they feel like it.
On the issue of abortion itself, there was a middle ground – favored by Chief Justice Roberts – that would have weakened Roe & Casey but would not have overruled them. While not a perfect solutions for anyone, it would have been a reasonable compromise. This, however, was not nearly enough for the five justices.
Ignoring the essential judicial concept of stare decisis and completely discounting the fact that 80% of Americans were in favor of retaining Roe in some form, five people summarily imposed their will upon everyone else in the country.
And, as bad as the decision is, the downstream reality is actually much, much worse.
Make no mistake: This ruling was a purposeful middle-finger by five individuals to the Constitution, to their judicial oaths, and to the American populace. And this is just the beginning.
Alito has been an unapologetically angry jurist for decades, railing against any and all social or cultural changes that, in his mind, diminish the predominance of the straight white male with a gun that his version of the Founders so obviously wrote the Constitution to protect. Thomas and Kavanaugh are still pissed off that Democrats had the gall to even listen to women who felt harassed by them – and the two are positively orgasmic over any opportunity to remind their tormentors that they were confirmed anyway. Barrett, a Scalia wanna-be without the intellectual heft, has consistently shown her preference for deciding cases based upon her personal worldview and only then searching for legal justifications – or, more likely, simply latching onto the justifications of others. Gorsuch, another Scalia wanna-be, but with considerably more intellectual prowess, is generally more subtle with his Constitutional interpretations, but is still predisposed to invent justifications to impose his own version of morality upon others.
Thomas Jefferson himself understood that interpretations of the Constitution would need to be dynamic or could otherwise be likened to requiring a man to wear the same coat he wore as a child, disregarding any concept of growth. Scalia, on the other hand, championed the concept of originalism – favoring an interpretation of the Constitution based solely on the words as written. While a young Scalia was at least consistent in his philosophy, he modified his approach over time to suit his own preferences. In turn, the majority of current jurists have further morphed the concept of originalism into a pseudo-intellectual cloak to restrict government actions that they don’t personally favor and to enable government overreach when it suits their purposes.
Related to the issue of bodily autonomy as just trashed by the Court, there will now undoubtedly be countless new laws and rulings to restrict or eliminate access to medication abortions, access to contraceptives, interstate commerce for pregnancy-related medications, interstate travel to obtain reproductive medical care, third-party assistance to individuals who seek such care, a woman’s conduct during pregnancy, and even access to related information. The floodgates are now open for all manner of intrusive measures to make women considerably less than second-class citizens.
Women, however, are definitely not the only people impacted by this remarkably broad ruling. By limiting the application of the Constitution’s due process clause, a vast number of other Supreme Court rulings are now in question. And, lest anyone believe that to be an overly dramatic concern, Thomas took the time to make damn sure we didn’t miss it. In his concurring opinion, he specifically stated that this ruling should now be applied to overturn other Supreme Court decisions related to the right to privacy – which, apparently, no longer exists.
Note that “decisional privacy” has long been considered an implicit right derived from other rights that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The number and scope of rulings based upon the right to privacy are truly massive and the potential impacts of overturning them could seriously transform American society.
A short list of rulings that are now directly on the table include decisions that allowed same-sex marriage, same-sex sex, consensual extramarital sex regardless of orientation, the use of contraceptives, marriage outside of one’s race, refusal of unwanted medical treatments, and the implementation of numerous data privacy laws related to healthcare records, online search histories, cell phone location data, etc.
Indirectly, the decision by the majority to easily disregard precedent upon precedent also signals their willingness to do so for other Supreme Court rulings unrelated to privacy. In their dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote that “the Court betrays its guiding principles” and that the decision “undermines the Court’s legitimacy”.
Or, to put it another way, the Supreme Court is now officially just another bunch of partisan hacks – but with lifetime appointments and unchecked power.
This is a sad day for America.
State Elections 2022 (3)
[Part 3 of 3]
During most election cycles, I remain only moderately aware of internal state races that aren’t in Texas. This time, however, I started looking at races in other states that could impact national elections. While it’s enormously sad that the conduct of democratic elections has become partisan, it is what it is. The prevalence of 2020 election-denying Republicans running in 2022 means that we must consider whether state officials might try to overturn a valid 2024 election in their states simply because they don’t like the result. This three-part series looks at State Legislatures, Governors, and Secretaries of State.
Secretaries of State
In many states, the Secretary of State (SoS) plays an important role in certifying election results in their respective states. The Republican strategy is simple: If we can’t win the game based on merit, let’s make sure we own the referees.
The SoS is appointed by the Governor in three big states (FL, PA, TX) and by the state legislature in one other state (NH) – adding another level of importance to some non-SoS races. Three states (AK, HI, UT) don’t have the office at all.
Of the rest, there are 27 SoS races in 2022, 14 currently held by Republicans and 13 by Democrats. Of those, I find 11 races to be of interest, listed here in (my) order of importance:
(Click for a larger image; use the back button to return.)
A few notes on the races above:
- Arizona: I tried really hard to write a single paragraph here. I failed miserably. AZ is just too powerful of a magnet for election deniers.
- This is the state where Republican legislators commissioned their own “Cyber Ninja” recount of the 2020 election results that, despite being horribly run and widely discredited, still managed to determine that Biden won by an even larger margin than the official count. That had to hurt.
- Now, the open AZ SoS office has attracted two Democrats and four Republicans. The D side pits State Rep. Reginald Bolding against former Maricopa County election official Adrian Fontes. Both are qualified.
- The R side, however, is another matter:
- Up first is state Rep. Mark Finchem, a 2020 election-denying idiot who attended the Jan. 6 “rally” in DC and who has the former President’s endorsement. With associations from Oath Keepers to QAnon, Finchem demands that AZ decertify the 2020 election results – whatever the hell that means.
- Next up is state Rep. Shawnna Bollick, another 2020 election-denying idiot, who is known for latching onto insane conspiracy theories (e.g. “sharpiegate”) and sponsoring insane legislation (e.g. giving the AZ legislature the power to ignore the popular vote and simply certify their own slate to the Electoral College).
- The other GOP candidates, advertising exec Beau Lane, and state Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, are only better by comparison.
- Both Primaries: 8/2.
- Michigan: Jocelyn Benson, the Democratic incumbent, is up against community college professor Kristina Karamo, a 2020 election-denying idiot running with the endorsement of the former President. Karamo claims, without any evidence, that she “saw” 2020 election fraud in Detroit, despite numerous audits proving otherwise. A regular QAnon conference speaker, she also fought in court to overturn Electoral College slates in MI – and in WI, PA, and GA.
- Minnesota: The Republican challenger to incumbent Democrat Steve Simon is still TBD. The frontrunner appears to be attorney Kim Crockett, a 2020 election-denying idiot. Crockett’s anti-semitic tweets about Simon earned her a rebuke in the Jerusalem Post – quite an accomplishment for a MN SoS candidate. Running behind Crockett is Erik van Mechelen, the author of “How Machines Controlled 2020” who, you guessed it, thinks that all electronic voting is evil.
- Nevada: Attorney and businessman Cisco Aguilar is the Democratic nominee. The Republican candidate is former NV Assemblyman Jim Marchant, a 2020 election-denying idiot, running with the endorsement of the former President and with connections to Mike Lindell and QAnon.
- New Mexico: Incumbent Democrat Maggie Toulouse Oliver is running against Republican Audrey Trujillo, a 2020 election-denying idiot, a rabid anti-vaxxer, and a conspiracy theorist with a history of anti-semitic viewpoints. She pretty much fills out the nutjob BINGO card.
- Wisconsin: This one’s weird. In WI, the SoS doesn’t currently have much power and elections are overseen by a bipartisan Elections Commission. Republicans want to change that and give a ton of power to the SoS – assuming, of course, that it’s a Republican SoS. State Rep. Amy Loudenbeck is the leading Republican SoS candidate and is also leading the power parade. On the other side, Democratic incumbent Doug La Follette is facing a primary challenge from Alexia Sabor, the head of the Dane County Democratic Party. It’s a long WI-centric story, but since La Follette is likely the most electable Democrat, the challenge isn’t particularly welcome. Both Primaries: 8/9.
- Colorado: The Republican challenger to incumbent Democrat Jena Giswold is still TBD. One of the candidates, former Jefferson County Clerk Pam Anderson, seems relatively sane. One of the others, though, is Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters – a 2020 election-denying idiot. Peters faced a court-mandated removal from overseeing elections in her county after she was charged with obstructing the 2020 elections that she was supposed to oversee. Damn. Republican Primary: 6/28.
- Connecticut: Four Democrats and three Republicans are running for this open office. One of the latter, Dominic Rapini, has his party’s endorsement after making a lucrative living pushing spurious allocation of voter fraud in 2020. Both Primaries: 8/9.
- Kansas: In the Republican primary, incumbent Scott Schwab is being challenged by Mike Brown, a 2020 election-denying idiot. The Democrat doesn’t have a chance, so we root for the sane Republican. Republican Primary: 8/2.
- Georgia: It’s safe to say that incumbent Republican Brad Raffensperger does NOT have the endorsement of the former President, since refusing his (taped!) request to “find 11,780 votes” in 2020. On the Democratic side, the choice is between State Rep. Bee Nguyen and former state Rep. Dee Dawkins-Haigler. Normally, neither Democrat would have a chance in the general election, but the vitriol directed at Raffensperger by the former President could make things interesting. Democratic Runoff: 6/21.
- Alabama: The Democrat doesn’t have a prayer. On the Republican side, State Rep. Wes Allen and State Auditor Jim Ziegler are in a runoff of 2020 election-denying idiots. Both have incessantly lambasted the outgoing Republican SoS – essentially for counting ANY 2020 Democratic votes in a state that the former President won by a margin of 24%. I mention the AL SoS race here just in case anyone was thinking of moving to Alabama. Republican Runoff: 6/21.
There is no sane possibility that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Republicans. I understand that they didn’t like the result. I didn’t like the result in 2016 and that was actually a whole lot closer. Both, however, were valid elections. I thus consider anyone who still believes in wide-spread 2020 election fraud to be incredibly unqualified to hold any office that has the responsibility of running a democratic election.
I don’t want – nor would I accept – a Democratic SoS candidate who couldn’t set aside their own partisan preferences to run a fair election. Is it naïve to expect the same from Republicans? Yeah, I guess it is.
The “Dem Goal” column in the above table reflects my current opinion that national Democrats should focus on the first eight rows to maintain election interity in swing states. To that end, the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State seems to be a decent destination for a one-shot donation – even if its reach isn’t particularly targeted.
A Moral Compass
There are many stories in the news these days that irritate me. It’s not a particularly high bar. One story, however, struck a particularly raw nerve.
Back in 2016, the so-called “Religious Right” made a bargain with the devil to flush any pretense of spiritual convictions and offer their unqualified support for the former President – an individual who could not be remotely mistaken as having any moral compass whatsoever. In return, they asked for a Supreme Court majority that would overturn Roe. And their bargain appears to have paid off.
And now, rather than perhaps regretting the consequences of electing a wanna-be despot as the leader of the free world, they are now drooling over what other freedoms they could possibly trample under the blasphemous cover of religion by taking control of Congress and the White House in 2022 and 2024.
Ralph Reed’s “Faith & Freedom Coalition” held their annual conference last week in Nashville and the gathering was an insulting affront to both faith and freedom. The speaker list at this particular conference was a virtual Who’s Who of pandering snakes, self-appointed morality police, demagogues, and false prophets. Sadly, there are more far-right politicians who missed the conference itself but who nonetheless share these descriptions. Few of these people have shown adherence to anything resembling true faith nor, given their incessant attacks on the validity of the 2020 election, have they shown any regard for true freedom.
I flatly refuse to cede any moral high ground to any of them. While I believe that the majority of people who might tangentially align themselves therein are good people with generous hearts and the best of intentions, I also want to believe that they can recognize the dangers inherent in their leaders who use religion purely as a means to a political end. Not only do these leaders have no monopoly on morality, they are a corruption of morality.
Below is a collection of philosophical notes that I have hesitated time and again to turn into a post. It’s simply not a topic that I often discuss and is one that is full of landmines. While my experience suggests that my opinions are not at all uncommon, I’ll offer them here as my own – repeat: my own – vague understanding of a completely unorganized and purposely unnamed anathema to the “Religious Right”:
- We are guided by an internal moral compass that we may each independently interpret as a religion, a philosophy, a belief system, a spiritual confluence, or whatever. As a group, we are inclusive and not particularly interested in labels.
- Our compass is an intrinsic part of who we are and how we view the world. We strive for it to be consistently reflected in our words and deeds.
- We generally do not wear our compass as a badge. We can accept those who do, so long as they understand that the badge grants them no authority whatsoever, moral or otherwise.
- We are tolerant of others’ compasses and expect them to be tolerant of ours. We are only intolerant of subterfuge and of intolerance itself.
- We strive not to force our compass upon others and we expect others not to try to force theirs upon us.
- No manifestation of any compass, particularly in terms of any formal religion, should be a requirement for an American passport. We firmly support the separation of Church and State – not just to keep religion out of politics, but also to keep politics out of religion. We contend that religious beliefs should never be imposed upon others via political power. We contend that political agendas should never be advanced under the guise of religion.
- Our compass, however, certainly informs our political views and preferences. For those of us who lean to the American political left, our desire to protect the environment is directly related to our intrinsic respect for it. Our call for universal healthcare reflects our empathy for the sick, the poor, and the powerless. Our advocacy for reasonable firearm regulations is rooted in our desire to protect the most vulnerable members of our society.
- We readily acknowledge that others’ compasses may sincerely lead them in different directions on the political issues of the day. With these people, we welcome informed debate and hope that common ground can be found.
- Unfortunately, we also acknowledge that there are many people who only pretend to have a moral compass and yet present their counterfeit compass of convenience as better than others. We consider these people to be supremely dangerous to society.
- We do not have all the answers. We are appalled by those who claim they do.
Please note again that my obvious disdain for the “Religious Right” is most certainly not directed at Christians, nor at evangelical Christians, nor at Republicans in general. For example, while I could fill a separate blog detailing my many issues with Mike Pence’s political views, I can still respect his general adherence to his own internal moral compass. Indeed, all true Christians, regardless of their political affiliation, share a basic moral compass by definition – as do all true Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc. And a secular moral compass is no less valid than a religious one.
My issue is with those individuals who wield religion as a political hammer with little regard to the underlying tenets of said religion. Whatever may be one’s personal definition of Hell, I pray that it features a dark, windowless room where these people are eternally tortured by their own hypocrisy.
Since I seriously doubt that the vast majority of speakers and attendees at the above conference have actually read the Book which they so loudly gathered to ostensibly promote, I’ll close by offering them one brief excerpt:
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
– Matthew 6:5-6 (KJV)
State Elections 2022 (2)
[Part 2 of 3]
During most election cycles, I remain only moderately aware of internal state races that aren’t in Texas. This time, however, I started looking at races in other states that could impact national elections. While it’s enormously sad that the conduct of democratic elections has become partisan, it is what it is. The prevalence of 2020 election-denying Republicans running in 2022 means that we must consider whether state officials might try to overturn a valid 2024 election in their states simply because they don’t like the result. This three-part series looks at State Legislatures, Governors, and Secretaries of State.
Governors
Many Governors have the power to appoint at least a temporary replacement if one of their state’s U.S. Senate seats becomes vacant. In a split Senate, even one such appointment could swing control from one party to the other. More importantly, Governors often play a role in certifying election results in their states. In states where both legislative chambers are controlled by one party, Governors complete the “trifecta” of total state control. Many party candidates for Governor are still TBD, but even my very early research verified that political dysfunction in America is limited neither by geography nor by party.
Of the 36 Governors races in November, there are 17 that I currently find “interesting” from at least some perspective. They are ordered below by the likelihood of a Democratic win (although things will undoubtedly change before November):
(Click for a larger image; use the back button to return.)
A few brief notes on the races above:
- Massachusetts: This open seat is a great pickup opportunity for Democrats. The Democratic candidate is likely to be MA AG Maura Healey; the Republican candidate is likely to be former state Rep. Geoff Diehl, a 2020 election-denying idiot. MA is not a swing state and Democrats control both legislative chambers. However, this is low hanging fruit and a loss here would just be embarrassing. Both primaries: 9/6.
- Colorado: Polis is fairly popular and should win re-election. His GOP opponent will be either Heidi Ganahl or Greg Lopez, a 2020 election-denying idiot. Republican Primary: 6/28.
- Pennsylvania: This open seat is a good pickup opportunity for Democrats. Shapiro is the PA AG.; Mastriano is a 2020 election-denying idiot who attended the Jan. 6 “rally” in DC. PA is a swing state and Republicans currently control both legislative chambers.
- Maryland: This should be a pickup opportunity for Democrats… unless they self-destruct. There are TEN Democrats running in the primary (prompting one Democrat to opine that “the ballot’s gonna be longer than a CVS receipt”). Many are well-known, but none have yet broken out of the pack. That’s bad. The good news is that MD Republicans are also dysfunctional. The GOP nominee will be either the sane Kelly Schulz, a former MD Secretary of Commerce, or state Del. Daniel Cox, a 2020 election-denying idiot who has the endorsement of the former President. While Schulz could well win the general election, the MD GOP is more likely to nominate Cox. Both primaries: 7/19.
- Minnesota: Walz should win reelection, but former state Sen. Scott Jensen leads a 9-way race for the GOP nomination and cannot be discounted. MN is a swing state and the legislative chambers are currently split between Democrats and Republicans. Republican Primary: 8/9.
- Oregon: Kotek is slightly favored here only because OR is a sold blue state. Drazan has pointedly refused to answer whether she thinks the 2020 election was stolen. In my book, that’s worse than at least taking a stand. Betsy Johnson, a former state senator is running as an independent and it’s unclear who that helps or hurts.
- Michigan: Whitmer was looking to be one of the most vulnerable Democratic Governors in 2022 after the former President made her a GOP priority. MI Republicans, however, can’t seem to stop shooting at their own feet. Three of Whitmer’s Republican opponents, including once front-runner Detroit Police Chief James Craig, have been disqualified due to forged candidacy petition signatures. This from the party of “election integrity.” Heh. The new primary leaders are conservative pundit Tudor Dixon and Ryan Kelley – a 2020 election-denying idiot who was just arrested by the FBI on charges related to the Jan. 6 “rally” in DC. MI is a swing state and Republicans currently control both legislative chambers. Republican primary: 8/2.
- Connecticut: Lamont should win re-election, but it may be close. His likely GOP opponent is Bob Stefanowski, in a rematch of the 2018 Governor’s race. Republican Primary: 8/9.
- Maine: Mills should squeak through to re-election, but former GOP Gov. Lepage can’t be written off. The good news for Democrats is that this race will likely be won in the middle while LePage is a very polarizing, 2020 election-denying idiot. The bad news for Democrats is that a long-shot independent recently entered the race who is likely to drain mostly Democratic votes.
- New Mexico: Grisham should win re-election but will face former TV meteorologist Mark Ronchetti as the GOP nominee. Ronchetti will be a strong challenger who has good name recognition in NM.
- Wisconsin: Former Lt. Gov Rebecca Kleefisch was the favorite for the GOP nomination until the former President endorsed extremist construction exec Tim Michels. With a clear field, Kleefisch had a very good chance of beating Evers. Now, with the GOP likely fighting themselves into August, this race is a big question mark. WI is a swing state and Republicans currently control both legislative chambers. Republican primary: 8/9.
- Nevada: This election will be determined by how the Las Vegas economy is doing in November. Whether it will be fair to blame or credit Sisolak will be completely beside the point. His GOP opponent will be one of three front-runners: Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, former NV Sen. Dean Heller, and Reno lawyer Joey Gilbert. Lombardo has the endorsement of the former President; Heller has statewide name recognition; Gilbert, with the NV GOP party endorsement. is a 2020 election-denying idiot who attended the Jan. 6 “rally” in DC. NV is a swing state. Republican Primary: 6/14.
- Arizona: This open seat is a toss-up. Secretary of State Katie Hobbs is the likely Democratic candidate. The GOP nominee is a bit more uncertain, but is likely to be Kari Lake, a 2020 election-denying idiot with the endorsement of the former President. AZ is a swing state and Republicans currently control both legislative chambers. Both Primaries: 8/2.
- Georgia: Abrams is a formidable Democratic candidate. However, Kemp won the GOP primary despite the former President actively campaigning against him based on a personal 2020 grudge. It is quite possible that grudge will spill into the general election campaign – with an unpredictable impact. Republicans currently control both legislative chambers.
- Kansas: Kelly won in deep red KS against a horrible 2018 Republican opponent. The GOP isn’t making the same mistake in 2022 and their likely candidate is the relatively popular KS AG Derek Schmidt. KS is not a swing state. A win would be great, but it’s not a huge national priority. Republican primary: 8/2.
- Florida: DeSantis will unfortunately win re-election. His Democratic opponent will be either Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried or former Gov. Charlie Crist. A win would be great, but it’s not a national priority. FL is not a swing state – despite constant Democratic claims otherwise. Democratic primary: 8/23.
- Texas: Entertainment factors aside, Abbott will unfortunately wipe the floor with O’Rourke. However, it’s my home state and perhaps Beto can attract Democratic voters that can help in down-ballot races. TX is not a swing state. A win would be great, but it’s not a national priority. Yet.
The “Dem Goal” column reflects my current opinion of where national Democrats should spend their time and money. In order, they should:
- make very sure they hold five swing states (PA, MN, MI, WI, NV).
- play offense to win an open swing state that currently has a Republican Governor (AZ).
- defend five states where they currently have a non-overwhelming advantage (CO, OR, CN, ME, NM).
- win two blue states that currently have Republican Governors (MA, MD).
- try to to beat an incumbent Republican Governor (GA).
- try to keep a state they now hold but may well lose (KS).
- pay attention to two major R states to see if a miracle might happen (FL, TX).
For those residing in the above states, voting is critical. Unsurprisingly, money also helps. Contributing to individual campaigns is always an option, particularly in one’s home state. However, the Democratic Governor’s Association is a good choice for a one-shot donation to provide support across multiple races.
State Elections 2022 (1)
[Part 1 of 3]
During most election cycles, I remain only moderately aware of internal state races that aren’t in Texas. This time, however, I started looking at races in other states that could impact national elections. While it’s enormously sad that the conduct of democratic elections has become partisan, it is what it is. The prevalence of 2020 election-denying Republicans running in 2022 means that we must consider whether state officials might try to overturn a valid 2024 election in their states simply because they don’t like the result. This three-part series looks at State Legislatures, Governors, and Secretaries of State.
State Legislatures
Control of state legislatures is of paramount importance to the national goals of both parties. These are the bodies that can gerrymander control of the U.S. House at the expense of representative government,. These are the bodies that can turn “The Handmaid’s Tale” into a dystopian reality upon the demise of Roe. These are the bodies that can ban schoolbooks discussing race, sexuality, or inconvenient history. These are the bodies that can claim the power to ignore Presidential elections in their respective states and appoint their own electors to the Electoral College.
Republicans figured out the importance of state legislatures a long time ago and have literally spent decades playing the long game. Democrats have continually failed to provide any party focus or commit any significant national investments toward state-level legislative races. That dichotomy could easily prove fatal to Democrats sooner rather than later.
At the moment, Democrats control both chambers in 17 states; Republicans control both chambers in 30 states – including most of the national swing states. Oops.
So. If control of state legislatures is all that important, why have Democrats largely punted? Well, for the same reason that I’m going to punt: Because it’s hard. Really, really hard.
Across 50 states, there are 1,972 state senators and 5,411 state representatives. That’s just a whole lot of races. My brain hurts even thinking about the Herculean effort involved in cherry-picking the states and races in 2022 that are winnable and that could actually matter with respect to legislative control and 2024 election certifications. Back in 2020, I made an (ultimately futile) attempt to analyze just 30 competitive Texas House races. That was a ton of work to cover only 0.4% of the nationwide state legislature contests. Hence, my personal decision to punt.
That said, and with apologies to Monty Python, I can perhaps punt in a general direction. The Forward Majority Super PAC seems to have the right targeting approach. They claim to have identified short-term opportunities in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and Virginia and longer-term opportunities in Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas. Furthermore, in a joint effort with The States Project , they are specifically targeting 40 state legislative seats in Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, hoping to win at least 25 of them in order to flip at least one chamber in each state from R to D in November. I don’t have the data to judge their choices, nor do I have any idea how good these folks are at execution. Still, I can certainly applaud the effort!
Gun Control
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
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:
- make sure they hold the three D seats where they currently have a non-overwhelming advantage (CO, AZ, NH).
- defend a toss-up race for a seat they now hold (GA).
- play offense to win a Republican seat where there is currently a non-overwhelming D advantage (PA).
- play offense to win a toss-up Republican seat (WI).
- try to defend a seat they now hold but may well lose (NV).
- 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
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
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.