Flury of state polls: Close, but still no path for Trump

A quick list:

Wisconsin, Marquette (gold standard) Clinton +6
Almost certainly in Clinton’s column
PA: CNN +4, Mommouth +4, Susquehanna +2 (GOP pollster), Quin +5
Closer than ’12, again can’t see Trump winning
AZ: CNN Trump +5,Emerson T +4 not a surprise, slipping away
NV; CNN Trump +6,contradicts some EV reads
FL, CNN Clinton +2, Quin Cl +1obviously a Trump must win.
NC, SUSA, Trump +7, probably an oulier. Quin CL +3

OH, Quin Trump +5
VA, Emerson CL+4, after WAPO yesterday had it +5

And then there is CO: Emerson CL +3

On these numbers the fight is in:
FL
NC
CO
NV

If Trump wins them all he wins, period.  

So once again, in a close election the tipping point state is likely to be Colorado.

The battleground has shrunk, mostly to Clinton’s advantage.

I had an old friend for the LGBT wars tell me she knew we were going to win, but how we were winning and the margin was breaking her heart.

And I agree.

Look What Trump Inspires

Mississippi is burning again. A historic black church in Greenville was set ablaze last night. The arsonist spray-painted “Vote Trump” on an outside wall. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign has cancelled scheduled events in Iowa after a Trump supporter ambushed and killed two Des Moines police officers. On October 14th, he was asked to leave a high school football game because he was waving a Confederate Flag at black fans during the national anthem. He even explained himself:

nationalanthem

His neighbors say that he put a Trump/Pence sign in his front yard shortly after the confrontation at the game.

His daughter says that “He was also a loving father grandfather and the greatest man I know. He was very very sick mentally. Evil succumbed him and he made the up worst mistake. Now he will have to live with that for the rest of his life. But I will never turn my back on this man.”

No doubt he is suffering from mental health problems. But, without being incited by right-wing campaign rhetoric, he wouldn’t have brought a Confederate Flag to a football game to protest kneeling during the national anthem, gone home and put up a Trump sign, and then ambushed and killed two police officers.

It’s ironic that he killed the very people whose honor he set out to protect, but who can explain mental illness?

Were the Mississippi church burners also mentally ill? I suppose that’s a legal term of art, right?

Weak-minded people filled with rage is what I call them. They are being led by a man who wants to be our president.

When Power Shifts on the Court

During Richard Nixon’s first term in office he placed three Justices on the Supreme Court: Warren Burger (as Chief) in 1969, and Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist in 1972. That effectively ended the liberal majority on the Court and it has remained an (increasingly) conservative Court ever since. There are many ways in which this has mattered. For example, in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty as then imposed in the states was unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court banned the death penalty in their state in the time between the oral argument in Furman and the issuance of the decision. The combined result was an effective moratorium on the death penalty that lasted until 1976 when the more Nixonian-flavored Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia that the death penalty could be imposed provided that the process met certain standards. California’s voters used the initiative process to immediately overrule their Supreme Court and reinstate the death penalty but it did not actually carry out any executions until 1992.

This example demonstrates two things. The first is that it’s possible to eliminate the death penalty in this country and that we may be closer to accomplishing that many people suppose. The second is that even overturned or superseded Court decisions can have long-lasting consequences, both good and bad.

The Nixonian Court, in a series of rulings (most notably Buckley v. Valeo), gutted the campaign finance efforts of legislatures all across the country by defining money as speech. There have many other noteworthy cases since 1972, including the watering down of Roe v. Wade that occurred with Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the infamous Citizens United ruling, and the more recent gutting of the preemptive enforcement mechanisms of the Voting Rights Act.

But all the action hasn’t been on the court. In 1987, the FCC (with all members appointed by either Nixon or Reagan) did away with the Fairness Doctrine. This opened the door for Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the erosion of the public interest requirements for broadcast news.

In all of these cases, it took years to see how the rulings would turn out. The death penalty would make a comeback in some states and not in others, while remaining on the books if rarely used by the federal government. It would never become rationally applied or overcome the objections of Justices Brennan and Marshall that it was cruel and unusual in practice. Abortion rights would be whittled away in many states. Every effort to regulate political money would come to grief leading to a Congress that spends half it’s life on the phone begging for money and a Democratic Party that had to keep labor at arm’s length in order to finance itself. The media became polarized and frivolous and primarily profit-driven, losing any sense that they have obligations to the public.

Yet, these things can be unwound, at least to a degree, in the same way that they became problems. It starts with a liberal majority on the Supreme Court that will take a look at the death penalty again, that will revisit whether money is really speech, that will slap down voter suppression efforts and aggressively defend reproductive rights.

That majority will come soon, provided that Scalia’s seat is filled by a liberal judge. It will grow if Justice Kennedy retires as many expect. It will grow again if Clarence Thomas decides that it’s no fun being a silent dissenter in a caucus of three.

Just as Nixon remade the Court in his first term in office, Hillary Clinton could easily do the same thing, leaving it with as much as a 7-2 liberal majority for years to come, even if she loses in 2020.

And I’ve only scratched the surface of how this could matter. Want criminal justice reform and an end to solitary confinement? Want to draw brighter Church/State lines than what we’ve gotten with blurry rulings like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?

Previous judicial efforts to lead our country toward progress created a political backlash, but the new Generation X and Millennial generation are ready to digest this kind of change.

And that’s precisely why the Republicans broke all norms and precedent in refusing to confirm Merrick Garland and are promising to block any new Supreme Court appointments if Clinton is elected. They came damn close to getting a 5-4 majority for overturning Roe v. Wade but the wrong Supreme Court Justice died and now things are set to tilt sharply in the opposite direction.

It’s going to matter, and the Republicans seem to understand this far better than the Democrats.

Don’t Blame the Apathetic Left

I understand that Brian Beutler is exhorting Democrats to get out and vote. I understand the argument he is making. But it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me to blame low-propensity Democrats for whatever problems Hillary Clinton is supposed to be experiencing. I think the problem is that it’s wrong to think about these voters as “Democrats” in the normal sense of that word. People who don’t vote regularly aren’t really party members. They are just people who exist who (sort of) have opinions that they only sporadically express in any meaningful way.

If you took the entire universe of people who were eligible to register to vote and cast a ballot in 2010 and 2014 but neglected to do so, that universe would be skewed very heavily to the left for the simple reason that apathy runs strongest among the young, the transient, and the underclass. The most regular voters are senior citizens, and people who own homes and have assets are more likely to be registered where they live and to make a habit out of voting in off year elections. The demographics of the Democratic base ensure that apathy will run higher with them than with Republicans.

But it’s a little misleading to think about these marginal voters as the base. They’re the people who don’t know who the vice-president is, who couldn’t tell Watergate from Whitewater, who never read political news and don’t know the difference between Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity. Most of them probably don’t even know where they stand on the issues until they realize where their friends stand.

A subset of these folks gets activated during a presidential election, but a lot of them are hardly aware that there’s an election coming up in a week and could not possibly care less about the result. If they spent five minutes thinking about it and you compelled them to vote, most of them would vote for either Clinton or a third party candidate. But they’re not Democrats.

The only difference between a presidential year and a midterm year is that more of them are self-activated in a presidential year and more of them are contacted and persuaded to participate in a presidential year.

If you want more of them to vote in a midterm cycle, you can raise and spend more money on voter contact, but you’ll never get anything near a presidential cycle turnout. To match Republican turnout in midterm elections, you have to eat into their base. It’s that simple. No wants to admit this, but it really is that simple.

This wasn’t always the case, but it’s the case now where the Democrats have huge advantages with low-propensity groups, especially young voters. You can attract young voters, as Obama did, and you can craft policies to excite them, but young people will always be the least politically active age-cohort of the electorate. If you rely on them in midterms, you’re going to lose.

There are obviously other reasons why Democrats struggle to win a majority in the House of Representatives regardless of the cycle, but the makeup of their base is fundamentally unsolvable by messaging or charisma or money. Perhaps the only thing that holds any promise is good old-fashioned grassroots organizing.

The problem isn’t marginal Democrats not voting but reliable Democrats not doing enough work. They don’t want to eat their peas, so they’ll hold their nose and vote and spend the rest of their time being critical and sarcastic on their social media feeds. They’re the only people who can knock the doors, make the phone calls, and organize the underclass, but they’re busy complaining. Do they think that’s attractive? Do they think that they’re helping to get out the vote?

The too-cool-for-school crowd is the face of the progressive left and it’s not much of an invitation for the politically disaffected.

A lot of Clinton’s problems are of her own making, and she should own them, not point fingers at folks who couldn’t really give a shit either way. But if you’re going to blame anyone for there being too little Democratic power in Congress to fight back against crap like what the FBI is pulling, then you’ve got to look at the people who are reliable voters but shitty allies. And if you tell them that their base isn’t ever going to be good enough in midterm elections, they’ll call you a neoliberal sellout and pretend like they’re waiting for a virtuous revolution to get off their asses.

What the problem really amounts to is that people mistake what a political party really is. It’s the people, not the politicians. If you wait around for the perfect politician, if you’ll only work for the candidate of your choice, then your party isn’t going to change and isn’t going to succeed where it has failed before. Don’t wait for some politician to convince people to vote. Go convince them yourself.

And if you haven’t tried to convince them, don’t go running to blame the people who weren’t convinced.

Midweek Cafe and Lounge Vol. 7

So you say you want a revolution?

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be
All right, all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We’re doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don’t you know it’s gonna be
All right, all right, all right
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know it’s gonna be
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right

Timely as ever. Consider it a friendly or not so friendly reminder, depending on your perspective.

BREAKING: Podesta to Mills: "Dump all those emails"

Hours after The New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton might have violated federal records requirements by using her private server…

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-departm
ent-raises-flags.html

… John Podesta sent an email to her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:57 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote:

On another matter….and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails so better to do so sooner than later

http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/41841

Well, it’s all probably quite innocent.

EDIT 1:

It has been pointed out to me elsewhere that, in this context, “dump” usually means “hand over en masse” rather than “destroy”.

However, in this case, when the time came, far from handing over “all” the emails, Clinton took considerable pains to permanently destroy tens of thousands of them.

EDIT 2:

Six days later, Podesta wanted to “zap Lanny [Davis] out of our universe” for suggesting that Hillary commit to an independent review of the whole email database. Podesta told Mook that he “can’t believe [Davis] committed her to a private review of her hard drive on TV.”* That sounds more like bury it until it stops moving, perhaps necessitated after getting more of the actual facts on the e-mail server in between the 2nd and the 8th. …

If Podesta intended on using full disclosure for scandal triage, the problem was that Hillary didn’t actually follow through. Part of the reason for this is that she had already short-sheeted State in December, a fact that Podesta may not have known on the evening of March 2nd. She had only turned over half of the e-mails, and only on 55,000 pieces of paper, keeping the rest as “private” and deleting them later in the month — in defiance of a Congressional order to preserve all records. (Learning about that might have changed Podesta’s mind on full disclosure between March 2nd and 8th, too.) Hillary and her legal team then refused to turn over the electronic files or hardware over to State or Congress for months, only finally acquiescing to the FBI when it became clear that they might come with a warrant.

Thanks to these moves, the story kept moving forward drip by drip over the following year as the FBI and State pored over the e-mails. Hampered by Hillary’s actions, State couldn’t clear up the few dozen outstanding FOIA demands in court proceedings, the latest of which came out late yesterday. And thanks to the Clintonian impulse to stonewall first, last, and always, the investigation has come back to life thanks to the discovery of a device not disclosed by Huma Abedin and Team Hillary to the FBI. This is precisely the outcome that Podesta’s suggestion was designed to avoid.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/01/podesta-mills-going-dump-e-mails/

* http://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/41556

The Real Comey Effect

Back on October 12th while Donald Trump was staggering from the fallout surrounding the Access Hollywood tape, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Ben Ray Luján circulated a memo he had solicited from a man named Evan Coren. According to the memo, Evan Coren “served 7.5 years on the National Security Council staff” and “has 20 years of experience working in Democratic politics and non-partisan municipal politics.” He also has experience as a campaign manager.

Coren had taken a look at all 435 House races with an eye for finding gems in the rough. The DCCC was already committed to 43 Red-to-Blue candidates and seven more “emerging” candidates. Coren’s job was to identify additional seats that could fall in an especially bad wave election, as then seemed much more possible than the polls indicate is likely today.

His approach wasn’t anything special. He looked at Republican representatives who were either low on money or simply not spending any money on media and ads, or both, and then did a quick survey of how the districts had voted in the 2008 and 2012 elections. This was a potentially flawed analysis because the districts were redrawn between the 2008 and 2012 elections, and it’s not clear to me if he adjusted his numbers to reflect that. Either way, though, it provided a framework for a strategy he recommended to the DCCC.

Essentially, he wanted to replicate “what the Republicans did to us in 2010” and catch a lot of them napping by dumping one million dollars (each) into a couple dozen races that no one thought were competitive. The money was to be spent on “media buys, web ads, social media ads, Spotify/streaming services ads, and (energizing) GOTV volunteers.”

One example he gave was in the Houston suburbs where Rep. John Culberson is taking a challenge from James Cargas. Here was his justification for selecting this district (emphasis in original).

Notes: This suburban Houston district is the type of district where Trump’s collapse with suburban women will have the biggest impact. The district is 31.5% Latino, 12.2% African American, 9.6% Asian and 1.7% Two or more races. Trump should be toxic in this district and with outside support James Cargas can win. Add to this Culberson’s extremely low Cash on Hand and this should be a top target for outside spending.

In other words, it’s both a minority-majority district and a district filled with white suburban women who are appalled by Donald Trump’s behavior and attitude towards women. In addition, he realized that despite sitting on the normally lucrative House Appropriations Committee, for some reason Culberson had “only $132,574 Cash on Hand at end of July 2016.” He appeared to be a model of complacency, which could be understood considering that Texas’s Seventh District voted 40% Obama, 59% McCain in 2008 and 39% Obama, 60% Romney in 2012. Although Mr. Coren didn’t mention it, Culberson also pulled a relatively modest 57% in a three-way primary in March, indicating that nearly half of his own Republican base isn’t all that enthused about his performance in office.

Now, I don’t know what the DCCC did with this memo and this advice. Looking at this morning’s Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, I see that Early voting numbers in Texas continue to smash records.

So far, more than 2.6 million voters in the state’s 15 largest counties — 27 percent of registered Texans — cast their ballots in the first seven days of early voting, creating such a rush that many poll workers quickly ran out of the coveted “I voted” stickers.

And there are still several days left to vote early, not to mention Election Day itself.

“This year especially, early voting is a marriage of convenience and exasperation,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. “Voters are ready for the long election season to be over and for many the prospect of having it done early allows them to put the 2016 election in their rear view mirror.”

Four years ago, 1.87 million Texans, 21.6 percent, had voted at this point. Eight years ago, 1.77 million voters, 20.9 percent, had weighed in, state records show.

Rottinghaus said there’s no surprise that turn out is up, since the state had a record 15.1 million Texans register to vote this year…

…In the first seven days of early voting, turnout was high statewide in major metropolitan areas, with Harris (Houston), Dallas and Tarrant counties topping the list, according to the most recent records of in-person and mail-in ballot turnout from the Texas Secretary of State’s Office.

In the Houston area, “residents cast more ballots in the first four days of early voting than five states did in the entire 2012 presidential election. Locally, the number of ballots cast over those days was 45 percent higher than the same period four years ago.” The Seventh District “includes several upscale areas of western Houston, wealthy enclaves of Houston, one incorporated suburb, large areas of unincorporated suburbs, and the heavily Democratic Neartown area.” It, of course, matters which parts of Harris County are voting in record numbers, but it’s clear that previous turnout models are unlikely to reflect the actual turnout this time around.

Trump has skewed the map, alienating and mobilizing Latinos, turning off suburban women, and actuating previously apathetic supporters. There’s no telling whether Culberson was vulnerable back on October 12th when this memo was circulated, or if he’s still vulnerable today. But there are many districts in this same rough category where a Trump collapse coupled with a late surprise investment might have netted the Democrats some seats.

If James Comey’s decision to inject himself into this race is going to change anything, it’s less likely to hurt Hillary Clinton than it is to save a guy like Culberson.

And that, maybe, was the point.

NFL Should Stick to Sunday Afternoon Football

I love American football. I was a late bloomer and too small to play it in high school, but I played in flag leagues until I was thirty. Flag league football might sound tame, but taking tackling out of the equation has to be weighed against wearing no helmets or pads. As someone who primarily played linebacker and defensive end, playing football was three hours of bone-crunching hits against other, frequently larger, human beings. My older brother played until he was forty. Shortly before he died last year he questioned whether all the concussions he’d sustained had contributed to the depression that plagued him beginning shortly after he “retired.” Until he mentioned it, the thought hadn’t occurred to me. After his death, his speculation began to plague me.

My wife is adamant that my six year-old son not play the game. He doesn’t accept her reasoning, insisting that he somehow will avoid getting concussions. He’s too young to play in any case, but I feel the pull of both of their arguments. I know the joy of football, and I also know the risks.

As awareness has grown about brain injuries, more and more parents and even football players are keeping their kids away from the game. I imagine it’s taking some toll on how many people even watch football on television, and it’s probably a factor in the bad ratings the NFL is getting this year.

Yet, I have another explanation. For me, professional football is something that happens at 1pm and 4pm on Sunday afternoons. I have never liked it when my New York Giants are scheduled on Monday nights. I like Thursday and Sunday nights even less. The NFL is now airing games at 9:30 in the morning on Sunday because they’re sending teams to London, England to play. In theory, this lets us see more games, but I don’t want to watch that much football and, even if I did, my wife has a tolerance level that can accommodate a six-hour stretch on Sunday afternoon and not much beyond that. I know she is not alone.

There’s a feel to a pro football game on an autumn Sunday afternoon. There’s an element of nostalgia to it. You can remember spending a Sunday afternoon with your Dad watching Joe Theismann and Phil Simms square off. Trying to watch football on Thursday night is like having Christmas on Dec. 21st. Maybe that’s the only time your family can get together to open presents, but it’s not the same.

To me, at least, Sunday afternoon is a key part of the NFL’s brand, and the league has watered it down so much that it has begun to lose it’s grip on that time slot in my life.

There are other factors, like more awareness of domestic violence committed by players. Perhaps the league has a few too many teams which has watered down the talent (at least, at quarterback). Speaking of quarterbacks, it matters that Peyton Manning retired and Tom Brady was suspended to begin the season. Yes, it matters that the referees are calling more holding and pass interference penalties than ever, not to mention calls for excessive celebration.

All of that could explain why the ratings are down for pro football but not for the World Series or the NBA.

But, for me, it’s the fact that a third of the games are on at a time when I’m not emotionally invested in or satisfied by watching football.