Category Archives: politics

my 2018 election predictions: part deux.

VoteAbout 48 hours from the time I’m writing this, we should have a pretty clear idea of what the House and Senate will look like when they reconvene in January. Will Republicans hold onto both chambers in Washington, or will Democrats gain control of one or both? Before we get to that, a bit of historical perspective is worth a look.

The White House Usually Loses Seats in the Midterm
Traditionally, yes. This is mostly true. Going back to 1982, the party that holds the White House has lost seats in both the House and the Senate in seven of the nine previous midterm elections. The only outliers are 1998 and 2002.

Screen Shot 2018-11-05 at 7.31.11 AM

source: FairVote.org

Why does this happen? Good question. The public can be fickle, I suppose. It’s also true that the party out of the White House has more campaign ammo to unload. That was evident in 2010, when Republicans destroyed Democrats over the Affordable Care Act. Ironically, that same set of laws is coming into play again in this midterm election; only this time, Republicans are getting beaten over it. Seems people who were once against it are now for it.

Like I said…fickle.

Voter Turnout is Much Lower in the Midterm Elections
Historically speaking, voter turnout in midterm elections is always lower than in presidential elections. For example, 60.1 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2016 election. The 2014 mid-term election? 36.7 percent, which was a sharp decline from previous mid-terms. The highest mid-term voter turnout in modern times was 48.7 percent in 1966. Since 1982, however, turnout has cracked 40 percent only four times.

Voter Turnout

source: FairVote.org

What to Expect Tomorrow
Turnout is anticipated to be high. Already we’ve seen high turnout for early voting around the country. Here in my home state of Nevada, for example, 40 percent of registered voters have already gone to the polls. That’s a massive increase over 2014, which barely cracked 25 percent.

My prediction: national voter turnout will be somewhere around 45 percent. That’s purely a hunch. Even with all the hyperbole and rhetoric around this being “the most important election of our lives,” some people simply choose to not vote.

High Voter Turnout = Democratic Party Wins
Though that’s been true in the past, I’m not so sure it’ll be a clean sweep tomorrow. Yes, Democrats are predicted to win enough seats (they only need 25) to reclaim the majority in the House of Representatives, but the Senate is another story entirely. That seems odd, considering Republicans are clinging to a 51-49 majority, but several factors favor their Senate races (we’ll get to that later).

For now, here’s how you’ll be able to tell if Democrats are truly leading the turnout: winning in Trump districts. If Democrats are competing and winning in districts and states that Trump won in 2016, then Democrats have momentum. We’re seeing many signs of Republicans in trouble in the House as well as gubernatorial races, but not the Senate. Again, we’ll get to that.

Before We Get Into it…
Here’s what I expect overall tomorrow: Democrats will win back the House, but not the Senate. In fact, don’t be surprised if it ends up Republicans gain a Senate seat. There. That’s the overall prediction. Now then, let’s look a little bit deeper at some races.

The House of Representatives
House Of Representatives Allows Media Rare View Of House ChamberAll 435 seats in the House are on the line tomorrow. You already knew that. There are far, far too many races out there and there’s no need to handicap them all. A handful of races, however, could be bellwether elections that may predict the intensity of the so-called “blue wave.” In fact, BallotPedia has a list of several key battleground House races on its website. Spoiler alert: most of these seats are currently held by Republicans.

As mentioned previously, the party that controls the White House traditionally loses in the mid-terms. Some degradation of Republican power is predicted.

Current House

Here are the House races I’m highlighting to watch tomorrow:
California 48th: Dana Rohrbacher (R-incumbent) vs. Harley Rouda (D)
Rohrbacher’s been in that seat since Christ was a corporal (as my dad used to say). True, California is a deep, blue state. But Orange County is a traditional Republican stronghold with Rohrbacher representing it for 30 years now. Why is this a fight right now? Ol’ Dana’s been the subject of some potentially naughty dealings with Russians of late. That hasn’t helped. Will it be enough to unseat him? We’ll see.
PREDICTION: ROHRBACHER STAYS

California 49th: Mike Levin (D) vs. Diane Harkey (R)
Republican incumbent Darrell Issa is stepping down after nine terms in office.
PREDICTION: LEVIN FLIPS 49 BLUE

Indiana 6th: Greg Pence (R) vs. Jeannine Lee Lake (D)
Yes, Pence is part of that Pence family. He’s the arrogant, lazy, entitled brother to the dimwit vice president. Yes, I called him a dimwit because he is a dimwit. Greg Pence is going to win this race going away. He has zero political experience and is running a campaign in name only. He refuses to debate his challenger. He refuses to make appearances. He’s running a lazy campaign because he’s a lazy, lazy man who doesn’t deserve to win. But he will win. And voters who pull the lever for him should be embarrassed they did so. Greg Pence represents everything that is wrong with politics. Everything. This is why I sometimes despise my former home state.
PREDICTION: PENCE WINS. PENCE SUCKS. IN-6 SUCKS

Michigan 8th: Mike Bishop (R-incumbent) vs. Elissa Slotkin (D)
Just looking at this district makes you want to scream for impartial re-districting. It looks conveniently drawn. Just sayin’. Though Bishop’s only held the seat for two terms, MI-8 has been a red district for 18 years. Until now.
PREDICTION: ELISSA SLOTKIN WINS

New York 14th: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) vs. Anthony Pappas (R)
This is a solid blue district that Ocasio-Cortez is likely to win in a landslide. That’s not the story. The story is the fact that she primaried Democratic incumbent Joseph Crowley by running to his left and grabbing more than 56 percent of the vote. Ocasio-Cortez is poised to become a darling of the left and (I’m guessing) a favorite target of Fox News because she uses the evil ‘s’ word to describe herself. That’s democratic socialist, in case you wondered. At 29 years old, I expect Ocasio-Cortez to be the far left’s favorite voice in Washington.
PREDICTION: DUH!

Utah 4th: Mia Love (R-incumbent) vs. Ben McAdams
An interesting battle between a pair of potential darlings of their respective parties. Mia Love made headlines four years ago when she won this seat because she’s a young, African-American, conservative woman who toes the party line. Her challenger is the current mayor of Salt Lake City and considered a moderate. Personally, I know nothing about this race, other than polls have it tied or McAdams leading. Keep an eye on this one.
PREDICTION: NO LOVE FOR MIA; McADAMS WINS

Senate Chamber.jpgThe U.S. Senate
This is a tough map for Democrats. They’ve got to defend 23 of the 35 seats up for election tomorrow. And they need to flip a net total of two seats to gain the majority. Not so easy, considering 17 of those seats (nine of which are held by Democrats) are in states Trump won in 2016. This is why Democrats have never been confident about their chances.

Senate Breakdown.pngRealistically, about five or six of these races are tight. And Democrats would need them all to break their way to win the majority. Chances of that happening? About 1/7, according to FiveThirtyEight.com. And I agree with them. But who knows. Perhaps Democrats thread the needle just so and produce their magical unicorn. I’m not betting on that, but there are a handful of races worth watching tomorrow. These will likely determine if the Senate goes red or blue.

NORTH DAKOTA: Heidi Heitkamp (D-incumbent) vs. Kevin Cramer (R)
Heidi’s in deep, deep trouble. Polling shows Cramer’s lead has widened over the past month. Unless something crazy happens—and, really, how often does something crazy happen in North freakin’ Dakota?—Heitkamp is likely one-and-done as a senator.
PREDICTION: CRAMER

TEXAS: Ted Cruz (R-incumbent) vs. Beto O’Rourke (D)
This has been an intriguing race to watch. Cruz, for the record, is a slimy, sweaty, chinless weasel. He’s a first-term senator that even his fellow Republican senators don’t like. But he’s a national brand (and Donald Trump’s latest lapdog). O’Rourke has become a national brand, too. Young, popular, hip, pulls in crowds of young people…sound familiar? Yeah, don’t your hopes up. Obama was smart enough to be in Illinois. O’Rourke is running to unseat a deep red senator in a deep red state. Unless all the polling data in Texas is wrong—which I don’t expect—Cruz will win tomorrow.
PREDICTION: SIX MORE YEARS OF THE SWEATY, CHINLESS WEASEL

INDIANA: Joe Donnelly (D-incumbent) vs. Mike Braun(R)
Indiana Democrats are something like el chupacabra. You hear about them, but rarely see one in person. Donnelly is a Democrat. An Indiana Democrat, so he’s really not all that liberal. But that doesn’t seem to matter anymore in the Hoosier State of Mind. Outside of two or three counties, Democrats don’t fare well in Indiana. But I think those two or three counties will come through for Donnelly tomorrow. Why? I have no idea. Hope, I guess.
PREDICTION: DONNELLY

NEVADA: Dean Heller (R-incumbent) vs. Jacky Rosen (D)
This is one the Democrats need if they want to flip the Senate. Rosen is in her first (and only) term as a House rep. Heller is clinging for dear life in a state that seems to be going from red to purple. This race is truly neck-and-neck. Being as how I canvassed for Jacky Rosen, I will not make a prediction; just advise you to watch this one.
PREDICTION: YOU DECIDE

ARIZONA: Martha McSally (R) vs. Kyrsten Sinema (D)
This is the first real chance in a long time Democrats have at an Arizona Senate seat. Republican Jeff Flake (who lives up to his last name, if you ask me) is stepping down. Again, this is a race Democrats need. Sinema’s been leading most of the way in polls, but McSally’s narrowed the gap in recent days. I’m predicting a shocker here.
PREDICTION: SINEMA

MISSOURI: Clair McCaskill (D-incumbent) vs. Josh Hawley (R)
This one has Democrats genuinely nervous. McCaskill’s vying for a third term in a state that hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1996…but did elect Democrat Jay Nixon for governor in 2008 and 2012 (thanks, Obama!). Two problems for McCaskill this time, though. 1: Trump destroyed Clinton in 2016; and 2: she doesn’t have a moron like Todd Akin to run against this time. Hawley is a young Republican whom I’m sure has designs on something greater than the Senate. This could be his steppingstone.
PREDICTION: TOO CLOSE TO CALL

There you have it, kids. Now get out there and vote!

Alice Elected

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under analysis, opinion, politics, Uncategorized

my 2018 election predictions: part i

VoteI was going to try and pull a Steve Kornacki and put together a highly-detailed, well researched analysis/prediction of Tuesday’s midterm election. I was going to do that, but then I decided to pull back and focus more on the 10,000-foot view of it all.

I’ll start with a quick look at some hotly-contested gubernatorial races around the country. There are a handful of truly interesting ones that I’m sure you’ve heard about on the news. I’m also going to continue my tradition of making predictions…because my election-night predictions have always been stellar, right? Hey, I nailed 2012! 2016? Not so much, but I’ll redeem myself with some magic this week.

Before I start, let me preface this by saying none of these predictions are endorsements. I’m not that influential and I know it. But I like to follow politics for the horse race of it all. With that in mind, here goes…

The Gubernatorial Races to Watch
There are a few interesting ones to watch: Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. Yes. Many of those are Midwest states that were once thought of as an impenetrable “blue wall” in presidential elections. But all these states have one thing in common: all their governors are Republicans. One interesting wrinkle, though: only two (Iowa and Wisconsin) have incumbents seeking re-election. The rest are up for grabs. Will any of them change hands on election night?

Florida: Ron DeSantis (R) vs. Andrew Gillum (D)
This one has gotten ugly…reeeeeeaaaalllllly ugly! DeSantis is a Trump disciple. Gillum is a young (39 years old) mayor of Tallahassee. The politics of race and race-baiting has come to the fore in this election. Will it make a difference to Floridians? Not sure if that’ll be the tipping point, but I’m guessing there will be change in the Sunshine State.
PREDICTION
Headshot_Gillum
GILLUM

Georgia: Brian Kemp (R) vs. Stacey Abrams (D)
Who would’ve ever thought deep red Georgia would be in play? Well, it is. Along with the national attention it’s attracted, this race has also led to Will Ferrell and Oprah freakin’ Winfrey knocking on doors, canvassing for Abrams. Will she win? I think she’ll make it a close race, but Georgia isn’t ready to turn blue just yet.
PREDICTION
Headshot_Kemp
KEMP

Iowa: Kim Reynolds (R-incumbent) vs. Fred Hubbell (D)
I haven’t followed this race at all. Iowa is a fickle state, though. They’re sometimes red, sometimes blue. This might be the year of blue corn. I’m tossing a coin on this one, honestly.
PREDICTION
Headshot_Hubbell
HUBBELL

Kansas: Kris Kobach (R) vs. Laura Kelly (D)
Kris Kobach is a slimy character. He really is. But Kansas hasn’t elected a Democratic governor since 2006. You’d think, after the sheer and utter disaster of the Sam Brownback Reign of Stupidity that Kansas would say, “hey…maybe we should try the other guys this time.” Wrong. They won’t.
PREDICTION
Headshot_Kobach
KOBACH

Michigan: Bill Schuette (R) vs. Gretchen Whitmer (D)
I have vivid memories from my Michigan youth of Bill Schuette’s campaign commercials back in the 80s. “Bill Schuette on duty.” It was very clever and very smart because it made a rhyme out of his name; made an otherwise hard-to-pronounce name into a brand. Smart. Very smart. Currently serving as Michigan’s attorney general, Schuette’s in a bit of hot water of his own right now (though I don’t recall all the particulars). Aside from that baggage, Michigan has been wont to flip back and forth on governors (though I’m still shocked they re-elected Snyder in the first place). Anyway, Whitmer seems to have a commanding lead right now. Another element, I imagine, is Flint’s water crisis. That can’t be helping any Michigan Republicans just now.
PREDICTION
Headshot_Whitmer
WHITMER

Nevada: Adam Laxalt (R) vs. Steve Sisolak (D)
My home state. Nevada is a purple state. While Clark County is a stronghold for Democrats, it’s not a runaway train. Yeah, Dems lead in Vegas and the surrounding areas, but Republicans hold their own. Outside Clark County, the vast majority of Nevada is rural and red, which offsets the Clark County Democrats. That’s why Nevada went blue in 2016, but outgoing GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval won re-election in 2014 in a landslide. And while Dems hold three of the state’s four congressional seats, the senate is split (and Democrat Kathleen Cortez-Masto eeked out a victory in 2016). Like I said, purple. This race is truly a toss-up. Full disclosure: I’ve been out knocking on doors on behalf of Nevada Democrats this election season. My hope: Sisolak wins. But I will not make a prediction on this race. Just as Kirk Herbstreit will not give a prediction on a game he’s calling, I shall do the same. The bottom line: voter turnout.
PREDICTION
Question Mark
?

Ohio: Mike DeWine (R) vs. Richard Cordray (D)
I’m a little surprised this is such a tight race. Republican incumbent John Kasich seems like a popular guy (although his performance in the presidential primaries didn’t show that). Kasich left a good legacy behind, so I have no idea what’s going on here. My gut tells me Ohio stays red, but in a tight one.
PREDICTION
Headshot_DeWine
DeWINE

Wisconsin: Scott Walker (R-incumbent) vs. Tony Evers (D)
Democrats have been screwing up in Wisconsin for the better part of a decade. Walker rode in on the 2010 red wave and summarily went to war against unions. He’s a weasel, if you ask me. But Democrats screwed the pooch by forcing a recall election in 2012 that was confusing, messy and lacked a message. Walker survived that and won re-election in 2014. Though Walker’s benefited from liberal voter apathy in his previous elections, he may not be so lucky this time. One can hope. Weasel.
PREDICTION
Headshot_Evers
EVERS

Coming soon…part ii: predictions on key House and Senate races. Stay tuned.

Truman Waving "Dewey Defeats Truman" Headline

Leave a comment

Filed under analysis, opinion, politics, Uncategorized

election 2018: the battle for texas.

O'Rourke vs WeaselOf all the battles currently taking place among the 35 Senate seats up for grabs on Nov. 6, it’s the Battle for Texas that’s grabbed the most national headlines. Republican incumbent Ted Cruz is running for re-election against the national liberal heartthrob, Beto O’Rourke. Challenger O’Rourke hauled in more than $38 million from July – September, more than triple Cruz’s meager $12 million.

Despite all the attention, all the money and all the love from national liberals, Real Clear Politics has O’Rourke trailing anywhere from 5 – 9 percentage points behind Cruz. Surprised? Don’t be. No Democrat has won a senate election in Texas since 1988. With the exception of the city of Austin and Willie Nelson, Texas is deep, deep red.

Now, normally, I trust what the polls tell me. Yes, even in 2016, when the national polls were accurate (they were). The only reason I wonder if the current polls are tracking correctly is because O’Rourke is pulling MASSIVE numbers at his rallies. He is igniting audiences all across Texas unlike most politicians. In some small way, it’s highly reminiscent of Obama’s 2008 campaign and, yes, Trump’s 2016 run. If elections were won and lost on enthusiasm alone, O’Rourke would clearly have this one in the bag. But that’s not how it works. Looks can be deceiving.

Remember all the electricity and excitement around Bernie Sanders in 2016? He didn’t lose his primary bid because of rigged elections as many opined (without merit). In many cases, he lost because he ran a national campaign strategy without motivating enough people to register to vote for him when it counted. After all, Sanders was trying to appeal to voters who reject party labels. That’s a tough needle to thread when winning requires voters to declare a party when voting in a primary or caucus.

O’Rourke doesn’t have those same problems, though. This is not the primary. It’s the real deal. And it would appear the Cruz-O’Rourke Battle Royale has cheesed up the voters. The Houston Chronicle reported last month the Lone Star State’s voter rolls are up to 15.6 million people, a 1.6 million increase over the 2014 mid-term elections. And then there’s this:

“That includes nearly a 400,000-person increase since March, election records show. To put that number in perspective, from 2002 to 2014, the state added just over 100,000 voters a year, on average.”

That’s why I wonder if the tracking polls are missing something. It’s not as though Texas Republicans ever have trouble turning out the vote. Cruz won his seat comfortably in 2012 with more than 56 percent of the vote. He defeated Paul Sadler by more than 1.2 million votes. Of course, 2012 was a presidential election year and more than 7.5 million people voted in that particular senate race. By contrast, Texas Republican John Cornyn defeated Democrat David Alameel in 2014 (midterm) by a similar margin, but fewer than 4.5 million Texans voted in that election. How many voters will turn out three weeks from today?

Perhaps past is prologue here, though. Are there enough Democratic Party voters in Texas to unseat Ted Cruz? Better question: will they all vote? After all, midterm elections rarely turn out the vote like general elections. And Democratic voters are known to skip elections, unlike Republicans.

For O’Rourke to prove the polls are wrong, he would probably need to garner most of those 1.6 million new voters; a feat that is not likely. Perhaps it’s my own wishful thinking that refuses to concede just yet, but I’m hoping Beto O’Rourke can shock the world on Nov. 6, though the odds are long and time is running out.

Leave a comment

Filed under analysis, opinion, politics, Uncategorized

the nightmare scenario.

Just finished watching all seven seasons of The West Wing, so that’s probably why I’m in a politico state of mind just now. I’m also out canvassing for candidates ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections, so there’s that, too. Yeah, this is the first time I’ve ever actually done any real work on a political campaign.

Anyway, it got me to thinking about the 2020 presidential election. We have no idea who the Democrats will run two years from now, but I’m betting this is the most basic starting point for any deep strategery for either political party.

Screen Shot 2018-09-03 at 10.31.05 PM

It takes 270 electoral votes to win a presidential election. According to this map, 152 are up for grabs. Who decided these 152 are undecided? Me. These are the states where neither candidate received at least 50 percent of the popular vote. We already knew the razor thin margins in upper Midwest states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but they’re hardly alone. And they’re all reason for concern for both Democrats and Republicans heading into 2020.

Nobody has a clue how these states are going to play out in two years. After all, did anyone honestly believe in 2006 that Indiana would turn blue in 2008? A lot can and likely will happen between now and then. If my view of these 152 toss-up electoral votes holds true, there’s one nightmare scenario that could play out on Tuesday, Nov. 3:

Screen Shot 2018-09-03 at 10.16.46 PM

That’s right. A tie. If that happens, The Nightmare Scenario is unlocked and the presidency and vice presidency are both left to Congress to decide the winners. Think about that for a moment.

Sure, it might be a million-to-one shot that the voting plays out this way. But do you really want to leave your vote to chance like this? That’s why it’s important you vote in the upcoming mid-term election on Tuesday, Nov. 6.

Are you registered to vote yet? Click here to find out.

Leave a comment

Filed under opinion, politics, Uncategorized

if i were the white house communications director for a day.

KevMooch.jpg

Yes, that is my giant, jack-o-lantern-like cranium perched atop Anthony Scaramucci’s tiny, Lilliputian-like body. And yes, it’s bad PhotoShop. Sorry. My graphic designer sucks.

Presidents have to wear many hats. Outside of the actual duties of the job, as laid out by the constitution, they also have to sometimes serve as moral leaders, mourners in chief and wise, empathetic “dad” to the American public. The good ones know how to give voice to our anxiety, our pride, our pain and our anger. Where Ronald Reagan was masterful at communicating to the American public with sincerity, our current president—who burns through communications directors the way Spinal Tap burns through drummers—is the exact opposite.

Because I’m a communications hack by day, I’ve been viewing the post-Charlottesville events unfold through my public relations prism. Bottom line: this president and this White House couldn’t have botched it more if they tried. If I were the White House communications director for a day (which is about how long they usually last), I have my own thoughts on how I would’ve advised this president on what to say in response to Charlottesville.

Let me break it down for you in parts.

Part I: The Initial Statement
This is a delicate matter. In times of national crisis and/or tragedy, the nation looks to the president for reassurance and validation. Trump blew it. He absolutely blew it. You don’t tweet at an event like what we witness last weekend. That should never be the president’s first reaction.

Instead, the president must deliver a statement that conveys empathy, condolences and a sharp rebuke against Nazis. In the pantheon of political no-brainers, opposing Nazis is about as easy as it gets; or so we thought.

Anyway, if I were the White House Communications Director, I would’ve advised the president to deliver a statement that goes something like this:

[BEGIN]
My fellow Americans.

You are all aware by now of the awful tragedy that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia over the weekend. Like you, I am appalled, saddened and angered by the violence and tragic loss of three lives. The awful events of this weekend were set in motion by a gathering of hate groups with long histories of violence in this nation. These racist organizations took to a college campus to foment fear, hatred and to spread their racist ideology.

Let me be clear: these hate groups are an abomination to our American values and our American way of life. Nazis, white nationalists and racism have no place in civilized society. In no uncertain terms, you are not welcome here. I am instructing the Justice Department to conduct a full and thorough investigation of this weekend’s tragic events. I am also instructing the Department of Homeland Security to regard these hate groups as terrorist organizations that must be eradicated.

Our constitution avails all Americans the right to free speech, but it does not avail rights to hate groups to spread their pernicious ideology of hatred.

What cannot be lost in all this is the loss of human life today. We mourn for Heather Heyer, a bright young woman who felt her true purpose in life was to spread a message of love and hope. We also mourn for Virginia state troopers Lt. H. Jay Cullen and Pilot Berk Bates who tragically died in a helicopter crash while monitoring the protests. I offer my deepest condolences to the families of these three victims.

Throughout the history of our great nation, we have encountered civil unrest too often as a result of racism. While I understand and appreciate the passion and dedication of those who speak out against racism in all its forms, I implore you to not resort to meeting violence with violence. We must appeal to our better angels and spread a message of peace, inclusion and togetherness. Answering violence from this awful scourge with violence will only dampen our efforts to achieve a more perfect union.

I encourage you to continue to speak out, to not allow racism to take root, but to do so peacefully.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.” I call upon each of you today to carry Dr. King’s message forward and continue to spread love throughout your communities. This is the only true way—the American way—to stamp out this threat to our great society once and for all.

May God bless you, may God bless our fallen victims and their families, and may God bless these United States of America.
[END]

I know it’s not perfect, but it’s a first (and only) draft. Either way, you get the point. You offer empathy. You offer condolences. You tell the Nazis they are not welcome. You let the counter-protestors know you’re with them, but you ask for calm and nonviolent means to achieve their goals. You’re knocking it all out in 500 words or fewer.

That’s what a president does. You don’t step in a bear trap. And, by bear trap, I mean the false equivalence of “both sides.” No. Wrong. You condemn violence, but you do not lump counter-protestors in with racists. If you do that, you’re essentially validating the racists’ ideology.

A statement like this inoculates him from falling into a combative, disturbing and horrifying press conference where he gets into a push-and-shove over Confederate statues. Which leads me to…

Part II: The Great Statue Debate
Simply put: PUNT!

I say that because this president doesn’t share my views on the matter. But even if he did, I would advise against taking a hard position on it. Doing so would undermine and unravel the above statement that calls for unity and nonviolence against hate groups.

The goal is to keep the president aligned with the larger issues and to not get pulled into quicksand over hunks of bronze.

No, I’m not trivializing people’s feelings on the statues; but the president needs to focus attention on those about as much as he does the paintjob on Air Force jets.

Let the pundit class deal with the statues.

I would let the press secretary (eeeeeek!) say something like: “The president understands that passion runs deep on these statues in the communities. Therefore, the communities should decide for themselves how to address the issue. The president remains focused on addressing and eliminating future threats from racist hate groups.”

Also, what not to do: equate two Founding Fathers to Confederate generals. That does you no good at all.

Part III: When in Doubt, Denounce the Nazis
If you wish to be the president of all 50 states, don’t fall into the false equivalence trap. Don’t do the bidding of cable news hacks and Infowars. Just stay away from it. We aren’t talking about the ACLU vs. the Christian Coalition. We aren’t talking about Planned Parenthood vs. Focus on the Family. We’re talking about Nazis. NAZIS! No politician will lose points by denouncing Nazis. But the moment you start lumping other groups in with Nazis—and let’s be clear, NO OTHER GROUPS COMPARE!—you once again validate the racists. Simply put, don’t do it!

Of course, all this is predicated upon the belief that the president will be a rational, pragmatic, empathic, clearheaded and focused leader.

Your mileage may vary.

Leave a comment

Filed under analysis, opinion, politics

voter fraud in nevada? put away your torches & pitchforks, turbo.

The SimpsonsReports came out last night that the Nevada Secretary of State’s office is investigating possible voter fraud in the 2016 general election. Though few specifics were released, Sec. of State Barabara Cegavske alluded to non-citizens voting . Where did they vote? How many illegal votes were cast? She wouldn’t say.

The SoS’s office is looking to the Nevada Dept. of Motor Vehicles for its practice of disseminating voter registration materials as a possible link. The DMV responded with a feigned, “who….me???” expression.

Here is the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s take on the investigation:
Nevada investigation targets alleged voter fraud in 2016 election

Also from KLAS-TV 8 News Now:
UPDATE: DMV responds to illegal voting investigation

Before this investigation becomes politicized and polarized, before Rachel Maddow puts us all to sleep with a 20-minute, antiseptic, high-minded, snoozy, professorial lecture, before the monkeys at Fox & Friends start flinging their feces about the studio in excitement, let me just say:

Calm. Down.

Put away your torches and pitchforks. Take a deep breath, settle in and let the process play out. Right now, we know nothing. This investigation doesn’t play into anyone’s narrative yet. Should voter fraud be uncovered, it still doesn’t play into anyone’s narrative.

Historically speaking, in-person voter fraud has been decidedly minimal. It is not the scourge it’s been made out to be by certain media outlets. This 2014 headline on his 2014 headline on The Washington Post’s Wonkblog should keep James O’Keefes and Oliver Stones of the world at bay (it won’t, but I like to dream):

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billon ballots cast

That works out to 0.000000031 percent. I don’t even know how to say that. Is that 31-quadrillionth of a percent?

Sure, that study has nothing to do with the 2016 election, but it does give us an indication of just on infrequently this sort of thing occurs. It also illustrates that in-person voter fraud is not a conspiracy.

As for the investigation in Nevada, Cegavske’s statement with more questions than answers. Do you have credible reports of fraudulent ballots being cast? If so, how many? Is there direct linkage between the ballots in question and the DMV? Or a specific DMV location/employee? What events took place to lead your office to open an investigation?

Her statement to the Las Vegas Review-Journal was decidedly short on details.

“Based on new information we have recently uncovered, we have initiated an investigation into illegal votes cast in the last general election…Our office has been clear; we will investigate any allegation of election law violations that may jeopardize the integrity of Nevada’s voting process.”

Okay. Great. We can all go home now.

That statement says absolutely nothing that would merit anyone thinking it validates their beliefs, one way or the other.

Until the Nevada Secretary of State’s office answers these questions—and I sincerely hope local and regional media ask these questions—there is no there there. We’ll just have to wait and see.

And yes, I’m keenly aware I just turned into Rachel Maddow. At least I’m not acting like an agitated monkey though, right?

242e304d9db88ff0763d03104f50f167

Leave a comment

Filed under analysis, opinion, politics

the election 2016 hangover: where do democrats go now?

MV5BMjA0Njg4MzQyNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjAyNzkxMzE@._V1_.jpg

Yes, the Democrats got a rude awakening last Tuesday and probably spent the rest of the week searching for answers at the bottom of a tequila bottle. Sure, party leadership is probably coming off a bit of a bender right now. I can dig it. Losing to Donald Trump last week is a bitter pill to swallow, so get it all out of your system, Democrats, The Hangover (the movie) style.

Once you get your head back on straight, come to terms with this reality: Trump’s victory/your loss was a symptom of a larger problem festering within the Democratic Party at every level: lack of strategy, lack of message, lack of listening, lack of grassroots network. And it bit you in the ass. Again. The real question isn’t, “Why did we lose?” It’s, “When will you learn?!”

Rust Belt Red
If watching the entire Rust Belt go red on Election Night shocked DNC and state party leadership, they all should be fired. They’ve taken for granted the blue collar, middle class in these states for so long without actually competing for their interests that it results in more than just losing the presidency. Democrats have lost the Midwest at every level. As it stands, Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature in:

  • Indiana
  • Michigan
  • Ohio
  • Pennsylvania
  • Wisconsin

On top of that Republican governors sit atop the state government in all those states, but Pennsylvania (watch your six, Tom Wolf).

President Barack Obama’s popularity in the Midwest overshadowed the reality that Democrats have been steadily losing ground in the Midwest for years. No longer can they blame anyone but themselves.

The issues that plagued the Clinton campaign magnified the deepening divide among liberals and progressives who believe the party has gotten too cozy with Wall Street, with corporate donors and with centrist policy at the expense of core liberal values that once defined the Democratic Party.

True, unions may endorse Democratic candidates, but many of their members voted for Trump. We can say all day they were duped (they were), but who can blame them? National Democrats stopped paying attention to them. Voters went with the only candidate who showed interest. While Michigan Democrats were pleading with the Clinton camp to take the threat seriously, the DNC waved at them from afar.

When people feel they only have one side empathizing with them, guess who they support?

“You’re Fired!”
My only hope coming out of this election cycle is the DNC cleans house. Same goes for state party leadership throughout the Midwest; particularly in Indiana. Why Indiana? Because I lived there for 25 years and have watched the Indiana Democratic Party become a farce. All that’s missing from their efforts is Yakety Sax playing the background. In fact, I’d probably trust Boots Randolph more than any of the current state party leaders at this point.

With that in mind, Indiana Democratic Party, you are dead to me. DEAD. I may live on the other side of the country now, but I still get the occasional call from INDems for donations or support. At this point, kindly stop calling me. You will never get another dime out of me until you get serious and quit ceding three-quarters of the state to Republicans.

Who’s the Boss?
As for the DNC, a lot of talk about who will lead the party into a brave, new chapter is abound. We’ve heard names like Howard Dean (the past), Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison (the present) and South Carolina State Party Chair Jaime Harrison (the future). Honestly, all three are solid choices, but I have a better person in mind.

f8cd0ecae63b47e68fc87ababad92e2f.jpgTheo Epstein.

You think I’m joking? I’m being absolutely serious here. I have no idea about Epstein’s passion for politics (he donated to the Clinton campaign), but there’s no questioning his passion for winning. And there’s especially no questioning his bona fides. He took two “cursed” baseball franchises and turned them into world championship powerhouses after decades of futility, close calls and heartbreak.

Whatever Epstein knows about baseball, I bet he could apply that to politics and win.

Given my doubts he would leave Major League Baseball for the soul-crushing nature of national politics, I suppose Democrats can at least hope party leadership looks back at 2016 and listens to the message of the people, and it’s a pretty simple one:

Move to the left.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, Uncategorized