Thanks for being upfront with your predictions and recognizing you were wrong (in a great way). More pundits should follow your lead, it would lead to a much healthier discourse.
Sucks that Johnson looks like he will squeak out a victory. But ecstatic that WI seems to have avoided the state government super majority and the veto is intact. Can we get an extra emphasis on ending gerrymandering the next time we have the trifecta? It's killing us in Wisconsin and it clearly shows in the House.
I wish someone could explain to me why the Democrats cleared the field for Mandela Barnes to face the very vulnerable Ron Johnson. He always struck me as such a weak candidate. Was the rest of the Democratic field in the primary really that terrible?
I posed this question in a thread a couple days ago and never got a good answer. I was likewise baffled at the time. To be fair, Barnes had a sizable lead over the other candidates [1], so even if they hadn't dropped, he probably still would have won. Still, Larsy was trending up, so it wasn't a sure thing. (And WI has a history of electing Democrats connected to the Bucks ---- see Herb Kohl.)
So a further question is why Barnes was so far ahead. It may just be a case of progressives backing progressives without considering the overall electorate. If so, ugh. That said, it's not like the alternatives had a lot going for them either. I wish that Ron Kind had decided to run.
To be honest, most of the big democratic candidates seemed kind of childish:
“Let me get this straight,” said Irene Lin, campaign manager for Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson, another Democratic candidate for Senate. “One candidate took an illegal property tax deduction; another didn’t pay any state taxes for two years; and now we learn the lieutenant governor didn’t bother to file income taxes.” [1]
"Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes stormed out of an interview with FOX6 News on Wednesday, June 19 after being asked about his unpaid property taxes. Barnes called stories about his delinquent tax bill ridiculous." [2]
Nelson seemed like the least shitshow. My take is that he was too far to the left, but he somehow keeps getting reelected in a red part of WI, so maybe he knows something I don't.
I wonder if the DNC or the progressives are learning the right lessons here as well. Rubio/Kemp/DeSanctis/Johnson races have a common theme. As Matt's been saying for a while, it's probably strategically more sound to tag closer to the middle, but look at all the news saying how this is GOP's loss or whatever. They still took the house, Biden's still stuck at 42. This woke labelling really works with the electorate, fairly or not.
In the context of losing Wisconsin by 1 point money (and what you do with it) is/could be definitely everything lol. Barnes and the Dems were significantly outspent on the air in September.
Who's to say they couldn't have found themselves another 26000 voters with better/different spending?
Also suggesting that Barnes and McGrath were in even remotely similar situations is ludicrous lol.
Matt was really good in emphasizing on Twitter and the chat how the unilateral disarmament by the Democrats in this regard may very well cost them the House. The good government part of me doesn't like it, but someone in the Election Day thread mentioned the possibility of large Democratic controlled states pulling a 2003 Texas redistricting plan of their own, and they absolutely have to consider it.
Ohio's redistricting has had me pissed off for two years now.
The courts here ruled FIVE TIMES that Republicans had gerrymandered their maps and violated the anti-gerrymandering rule that the voters approved in 2014, and ordered them to draw new maps. But because Republicans repeatedly slow-walked that process, missing due dates only to submit illegally gerrymandered maps again, they ran out the clock and got to temporarily put their illegal maps into effect for two years, at which point they'll have to be passed again. The one Republican justice on the Ohio courts who sided with the Democrats to give them the majority was term-limited as of this year, so now she's been replaced by a Republican justice who, in two years, will assuredly OK the illegal maps next time they go to court.
They win. There were- and will be- no consequences to flagrantly violating the law, the court, and the will of the voters. It infuriates me every time I think about it and makes me want to leave this state. We did pretty well though, all things considered (I'm bummed about Tim Ryan, but OH-1 flipped! Goodbye Chabot!) but if this is how well we did with the deck stacked against us, we should have done even better.
I think the "legislatures just ignoring compliance with law" is a much bigger deal then we realize. The biggest focus is obviously certifying elections (and wouldn't be surprised if there are some shenanigans in the PA or AZ legislatures). But the Ohio one is especially dangerous. I'm thinking too about too about a place like MO that passed $15 minimum wage and legislature for awhile just ignored it (looks like it's finally happening but it's taking much longer than it should).
One thing this whole Trump nightmare has highlighted to me is that if you have the means or legal ability, you don't actually have to win court cases to get your way. You just need to gum up the works to such a degree that you basically win anyway. See Trump with his taxes. I honestly think it's the secret sauce to his ability to stay out of jail. Our courts are so dysfunctional, if you have the money, you can appeal, appeal again and just delay outcomes for so long that people give up (or just accept derisory settlements). I think the Ohio example is a scary indication that this "lesson" can applied in all sorts of situations.
In Seattle, we have a bike trail that's been on hold for 20 years because a few business owners along the route with deep pockets have managed to tie the project up endlessly in court. Every few years, a judge issues a ruling against them that's supposed to be final, and they always manage to find a "what about this" technicality to start the hearing process all over again and hold the project up for another few years.
We effectively have a policy that allows anyone willing to spend a few million dollars a year on lawyers to delay any bike trail they don't like indefinitely, without needing to actually win a single legal argument. Meanwhile, the city's taxpayers have already spent far more money on lawyers fighting this than the actual construction cost. It is very frustrating.
I would love to see NY state gerrymander our national congressional districts and have truly representative state-level districts. Best of both worlds for good governance and national fairness
The last parting gift of Andrew Cuomo. The state judges who "smacked down" the gerrymander were appointed by Cuomo in conjunction with a pretty gross alliance with the GOP members of the state legislature (the scandals and his general personality sort of covered up the fact that he was garbage on the merits as a governor).
The real problem, I think was the voters who approved the anti-gerrymandering amendment to the state constitution in the first place.
By taking the moral high ground, Democrats have effectively made suckers of themselves, by forcing their party to fight redistricting battles with one hand tied behind their back. Republicans, on the other hand, they never vote for stuff like this because they don't care about the moral high ground. The red states will just gerrymander with impunity.
The good news though, is that the tossup NY districts Democrats lost there are still very winnable districts, and could easily flip back in 2024 or 2026 under different electoral circumstances.
Little disclosure. I'm married to someone who has worked both in Long Island politics and NY politics and has a decent amount of inside info about local and state governments here. The "slimy and unscrupulous" vibe is underselling it.
The supreme court race in WI will really decide that one, I think, if Democrats can eke out what should be a winnable race. But of course in the longer term Gerrymandering delenda est.
Matt notes that because the Republicans firmly control Florida they could pass "reasonable" abortion legislation (though many equally Republican states have not followed the same path).
If any of our Florida experts can weigh in, I'd like to know if you think DeSantis will reopen the abortion issue and pursue more restrictive legislation now. How will abortion play in a Trump-DeSantis battle? The base can't be happy with the 15 week period allowing abortion -- you know, permitting almost 95% of abortions -- and Trump can attack him on that, with his winning, er, trump card of "three Supreme Court justices."
I'm no expert, but this Florida voter thinks there is zero chance DeSantis goes to that issue again. To the extent Trump has any policy view at all (which I think is very little), we all know Trump is pro-abortion. Abortion isn't a motivating force for his supporters -- an extreme dislike of the Progressive wing of the Democratic party is their motivating force.
Herschel Walker is very decidedly "pro abortion" and has come out in favor of full abortion bans. It's said a lot but needs to be emphasized; people like Trump or Walker or other Americans of means will find ways to get an abortion. They most certainly did prior to Roe and will do so again if there is a national abortion ban. Point is, plenty of GOP politicians will come out for banning of all abortions knowing that they or someone they know will still find a way to get it if needed.
As much grip as Trump has on the GOP, I think you're underestimating the pressure him (or DeSantis) would have from the base to run on a national abortion ban. It's basically the numero uno issue of the Christian conservative base. It's like health care for the Democrats in 2020. Every candidate had to come out with some sort of plan to continue to expand health care access. You didn't need to sign on to M4A, but to not have anything to say on the topic would have been politically toxic.
I don't think the "Trump is pro-abortion" argument carries any weight whatsoever with Republicans. If any dare bring it up, all he has to do is raise three fingers and point to the Supreme Court.
Whether or not abortion is a motivating force for his supporters, it sure as heck is for lots and lots of Republican primary voters.
I'm way out of my league trying to predict or advise campaign strategy. But I won't let that stop me!
I think DeSantis should ignore Trump and his inevitable childish insults and run a campaign relentlessly focused on his performance in Florida over the past 4 years. Let others make the comparisons, but keep his talking points to Florida's economy and COVID experience. Run a primary campaign against the Democratic record and not against Trump. His conservative / bonafides are well-established in Republican circles already.
I agree. I think he should try rope-a-dope, and let Trump flail. The more the crazy wing loses, the weaker Trump looks. I think he took a beating this week.
John, I think that would be a great strategy on Earth 2.0 with a totally different Republican primary voter base. On Earth 1.0 where Republican primary voters are more like the audience at WWE events, they'll be salivating to watch a knockdown drag-out fight where the candidate with the best insults and the one who doesn't stagger and fall at the most vicious attacks will be the one left standing at the end.
I think DeSantis's best angle might be "pandemic life in Florida mostly kept on as normal, while the US as a whole (under Trump's leadership) was chaos"
Whether or not any of that is really true or really up to either leader.
DeSantis's problem is that he is totally without charisma and Trump, to our nation's woe, has plenty. In such a race, records won't matter (except possibly abortion, where DeSantis is vulnerable).
If I were DeSantis, I would throw caution to the wind and adopt the Lord Nelson dictum: "Never mind the maneuvers, just go straight at them." DeSantis should say "Trump is a doddering old fool who forces unelectable sycophants on our party, and I'm a smarter version of Trump, so it's time to put this old fart out to pasture." Who knows, maybe that show of testosterone against the Trump God-King might actually work!
I wonder if there's space for a sacrificial hatchet-man to lob the first volley here. Let DeSantis appear to be above the fray and focused on the future rather than stupid 2020 shouting. Of course you run the risk of being starved of media attention, because we know what drives clicks.
An ideal candidate might be a non-fat Chris Christie.
DeSantis needs campaign against Trump like an underdog takes on a juggernaut in a boxing match or a football game: hit Trump hard and fast early, letting Trump know this will be long, brutal fight and DeSantis isn't messing around.
This just isn't true. Florida's age-adjusted deaths from COVID (and all-cause mortality if you are one of those who doubt the reported numbers) are in the top half of the country. Not exceptional, but not bad either. Meanwhile, our quality of life during the pandemic was much better and the economy has performed exceptionally well. And we continue to pick up population from other states.
I don’t think COVID discourse is relevant anymore. I think when most people hear about COVID now they just stop listening and want to move on. For this reason, I don’t think this will be a salient topic for Ds or Rs in 2024.
I thought the Theil wing was all about undermining democracy because voters tend to divert money to themselves in the form of domestic spending programs (thereby reducing the wealth of people like him, and interfering with the invisible hand). Are you sure you're not thinking of the Steve Bannon wing?
I'm as glad as anyone that the kookiest wing of the GOP has had a bad night. But I think you're being naive if you think more kooks won't start showing up to Congress (there are already way more kooks than in 2011 which is why I'm scared to death of the debt ceiling). Most House districts are uncompetitive. Which means an R candidate has much more to lose from a Primary then general. Expect to see a lot more MTG types winning primaries and generals (Even if you lose some voters, you will by 15% instead of say 25%). Also, without Dobbs, seems likely the lunatics who ran in NH and AZ would have won (know AZ is now down counting votes, but seems to be leaning Kelly's direction).
Also, seems Trump will announce his candidacy very soon (I suspect that Ross Douthat column today bigging up Ron DeSantis is going to age like a rotting banana). As Matt pointed out, Trumpism without Trump is a real liability, but there does seem to be a small but significant number of working-class voters who will be motivated to vote by Trump himself. If anything, he has a stronger case as to why GOP needs him in 2024. As long as Trump is a viable political candidate, the lunatic wing of the GOP is ascendent by virtue of the fact that Trump himself is nuts or very possibly senile (that John Swan interview where he talks about passing a basic cognitive test still begs the question...why was he given a basic cognitive test?)
I think it will be a little entertaining to watch Cruz and Vance and Hawley posture to be the most populist anti-elitist members who are also really proud of their elite credentials. Of the three I find Vance the least nauseating but they all turn my stomach.
Probably not many will agree with me on this, but, I actually find Cruz the least nauseating of those three. He's so awkward and cringe it's almost awe-inducing, which perhaps makes him a bit less scary to me. I doubt he gets near the White House. Vance speaks the MAGA language more convincingly (I mean, he more or less wrote one of MAGA's foundational texts, didn't he?), and I suspect is a greater danger to the Republic; Fifty Yard Dash Hawley is simply beneath contempt.
Agree that he is pathetic and unlikely to get near the presidency, but any respect I might have ever been able to muster was crushed for good when he didn't pivot on the electors on Jan 6 after the Capitol was breached but instead stayed in a pissing war with Hawley and I feel contempt for them both because they both know better and choose this path.
I strongly dislike Vance but I do think that, if the cynical MAGAs-of-convenience cynically sidle back toward (what used to be) the mainstream Republican party, that would be a very good thing for everyone.
It now looks like Boebert is going to eke out a win, unfortunately. But, maybe with the race this close, Democrats will pour some money into it in 2024, and perhaps take her out then.
I am thrilled with the outcome of the election. It was a repudiation of the Trump wing of the Republican Party and a win for regular Republicans. Seeing DeSantis, Rubio, Kemp and Abbot win with ease while the wackos -- Masters, Oz, Lake, Mastriano, et al -- lost badly is an encouraging sign. Trump's recent comments about DeSantis had either no effect or a positive effect -- DeSantis won by 20 points and improved on his performance 4 years ago.
It also reduces the chance of a Trump comeback. The GOP doesn't have to be as afraid of him as they have been. I've long held that he only won because the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016. She is the only candidate he could be beaten.
I’m more DeSantis-curious after seeing this result, because obviously with those margins he’s succeeding at least partially by persuasion. Still will vote Dem in 2024 and don’t love the gratuitous triggering of libs, but it’s encouraging he is ok with winning soft Dems and doesn’t hate 50% of the country (just 30% or so? Not ideal but better than Trump and probably no worse than the Warren wing of the Democratic Party)
Yeah, I wouldn't vote for him (I might consider it if Dems lose their shit and nominate someone like Bernie or Warren or AOC in '24, but I don't think that will happen), but DeSantis seems like a relatively normal Republican with very strong political instincts (though he's lacking in charisma). I'm sure he'd do lots of things I don't like, but I don't think a DeSantis White House would be the end of the world, and I am often irritated by progressives who act like it would be.
Matt sort of sidled up to this point, but I think the narrative that the Democratic Party of Florida is a huge disaster isn’t really the correct lens to view the political situation through; instead, it’s more a case of the GOP is in charge, they’re running the state well, why would the voters kick them out?
It's a fun time to see various interest groups take victory laps and/or assign blame without a whole lot of evidence either way, but I think this election shows the whole "LOCAL POLITICS ARE DEAD, EVERYTHING IS NATIONAL!!1!!1" narrative has been proven to be a bit overblown. We've got a lot of results driven by local/regional issues and beliefs!
As I (a random big city normcore lib) see it, the following things are objectively true:
- The appetite for Trumpist candidates is limited to the most conservative districts in America, and Republicans need a better plan for swing districts. As someone who was involuntarily subjected to completely unhinged ads from Hung Cao on the local sports radio station, this is a good thing.
- In the areas where crime is a tangible concern, it hurt dems / progressives. It probably cost them 2-3 seats in NY, and the pro-criminal candidates are losing in San Francisco.
- Crime as a general specter / vibes issue in other places flopped.
- Illegal immigration as a swing voter issue flopped.
- Dems running as centrists in conservative places did exceedingly well. Dems would do well to embrace Laura Kelly / Jared Golden / Sharice Davids thought when defending majorities.
- Seriously its weird we don't hear more in the national press about the dems crushing fundamentals in the heartland. I'd like to hear more about their secret sauce!
- I think Biden's leadership on pro labor issues has been dramatically underated in important industrial states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Dems should talk about labor victories more!
- This Republican led house with a razor thin majority trying to corral all the kooks and weirdos is going to be genuinely hysterical.
Dems didn't do well universally across the heartland, the Iowa Democratic Party had a disastrous election beyond the GOP's wildest dreams. 40-year Democratic incumbents who were considered unbeatable, and often run uncontested, lost the AG and treasurer races, and it looks like the state auditor will barely hold on against an opponent who got no GOP support (the GOP's preferred candidate lost the primary).
A good post, but i'll continue to take issue with "In the areas where crime is a tangible concern" line of thinking. I agree with the idea that Democrats ignoring or not doing enough about the very real crime rise in places like SF and NYC is a problem. But it is objectively, statistically not true that crime is worse in NYC or SF. As has been pointed out many times NYC is actually still a relatively safe city.
I mean wow, talk about a clear unimpeachable example of the power of right-wing media to drive narratives even among people who don't imbibe much right-wing media.
As a DC resident, where we're on pace for 200+ murders for the 3rd consecutive year after getting as low as 88 back in 2012. I'm exhausted by leading progressives trying to tell me crime is a racist republican fever dream. Car Jackings are up something like 400% in DC over the last few years and yet progressive leaders steadfastly pretend that this isn't happening, and in cities with similar issues, failing to address the issues will hurt dem electeds (not in DC, obviously).
NYC is extremely safe comparatively, as is SF, but it doesn't mean crime hasn't gotten worse there, which people notice and feel. Robberies are up 31% YoY in 2022 in NYC. Felony assaults are up 15%. SF is a little different because its property crime and the visceral effects of the city's refusal to address homelessness rather than violent crime, but both cities definitely feel more lawless than they did a decade ago.
Telling me that crime is worse in Oklahoma doesn't make me feel any better, nor does it register with suburbanites who saw someone jerking off on a subway platform the last time they went to a Mets game.
I do NOT think crime is a racist fever dream. But keeping prospective on an actual problem is much more likely to result in policies that actually address the problem. Or more accurately address the problem in a way to be least damaging to society.
I'll give another example to show where I'm coming from on the crime issue. Deficits matter again as Matt has noted. There is an actual case that small tax increases and small cuts to spending have some validity. However, there are voices out there saying that deficits (and the debt) are so unimaginably huge and are going to drive us to bankruptcy and therefore require giant cuts to medicate, Medicaid and social security based on the idea we are somehow going bankrupt. The former from Matt seems reasonable and true. The latter is an overreaction that would lead to an unimaginably damaging policy outcome based on said overreaction.
I'm not sure what to make of that NYC data, but that article still states that a) crime went up 7.5% in 2021 and b) minor crime (which still matters IMO) is up 13% this year. So even if the 37% figure is overblown or not trustworthy, I think it stands to reason that crime is increasing in NYC, and probably to a substantial extent.
It is true that NYC remains relatively safe; I think the crime surge of the past 2-3 years has brought the crime rate back to mid-2000s levels. Hardly the bad old days. But I think there is a difference between evaluating crime from a personal point of view and from a public policy point of view. If someone asked me "should I be afraid to go to NYC now?" I'd say no, you shouldn't be afraid, that is completely ridiculous. It's even still pretty safe to walk around most of the city late at night (I walked around NYC late at night all the time in the mid-2000s and it was fine). But that doesn't mean that the crime increase isn't real or noticeable, or that it hasn't had a meaningful negative impact on quality-of-life in the city.
I am opposed to fearmongering about crime, as I am opposed to fearmongering about all sorts of other that are kinda abstract, but scary (covid, terrorism, mass shootings). But - like covid, terrorism, and mass shootings - that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it seriously. And I do think there is a tendency on the left to dismiss the idea that crime should be a concern at all.
Edit: After reading some of your other comments, I suspect we mostly agree on this. I'll leave my comment here for others who are following along.
You’re right to note the difference between how we view crime from a public policy point of view vs how people personally view crime Point well taken. I do think though that how people personally view crime is influenced by things like…the Democratic mayor of NYC making wildly exaggerated statements about crime. I’m not expecting any objective reporting from NYPost or Fox but the mayor? Ugh!
I do want to highlight the terrorism reference as I think it’s relevant. I should state up front that 9/11 happened my freshman year of college. It’s not a stretch to say 9/11, war on terror and war in Iraq are foundational aspects of my politics. My point is I saw our country make a horrendous miscalculation and blunder into a war, in part as overreaction to a very real tragedy. Not sure you’ll find very many people who disagree with the idea that taking out Taliban and hunting for and taking out Bin Laden was a good thing (staying to try to prop up a wildly corrupt government on the other hand was almost certainly a mistake. Biden recognized this apparently as early as 2010 if reports are to be believed). But Afghanistan was not enough. Hunting for Bin Laden was not enough. We had to make the world safe for democracy. Or more likely. Afghanistan didn’t satisfy our need for vengeance nearly enough. (Always thought Team America got at a lot more fundamental truths about what drove the war on terror and invasion of Iraq than hundreds if not thousands of think pieces). So we blundered into a “dumb war” as a wise man predicted in 2003. This reacting to a very real and horrid crime and then overreacting to said crime and blundering into terrible policy is something I’d like to avoid*.
* Ironically enough, John Kerry was likely a 100% right when he said in 04 that terrorism needs to be thought of as a law enforcement issue and not a military one. And he was hammered for it. Ironic as he as his fundamental point was a call for more funding of law enforcement. calling essentially for more law enforcement.
Looks like you and I are around the same age - I was a senior in high school when 9/11 happened, and all of that stuff was foundational to me, too. In some ways, I'm still an aughts-era liberal.
I'll add that growing up on Staten Island, 9/11 had a *big* impact on the community; everyone (including me) knew someone who died in the attacks, and you would still see "Never Forget 9/11" decals on cars as late as 2006 or 2007.
And yeah. All of that was a mistake. It even seemed that way to me at the time, and I was kid! And I was a kid who actually knew people who were deeply affected by it - it was not some distant tragedy to me. I distinctly remember John Kerry saying that in 2004 and thinking he was right.
When I was younger, I thought someday the hyperbole would subside. Now that I'm on the brink of middle-age, I realize that hyperbole is the way of things in politics (and the left has taken it up, too!) and I try to adjust my expectations accordingly, and mostly tune it out.
That crime is even worse some place else is not any compensation to voters who know their city has got significantly more dangerous and unpleasant to live in. Trying to flannel that they have worse crime in another place, so, what? Count your lucky stars? Is the kind of thinking that hurts Dems.
Trends matter, so NYC voters should be concerned with crime. But I'd actually argue that right-wing media still matters in the sense that suburban voters in red states don't think their (objectively quite dangerous) cities are any worse than NYC. It's just that the specific right-wing media problem here is its unwillingness to report on anything that would reflect negatively on the GOP, rather than its accurate-ish scaremongering on urban crime in blue states.
Democrats should fix this by funding the police and then bragging that their cities are safer than red state equivalents because they funded their police (NYPD is super well funded compared to most/all red state city PDs, for example!).
I suspect the word "crime" also serves for many voters as a stand-in for a sense of decay and disunity and unease that is maybe best represented by the visibly-homeless.
See his trip to Moscow in 2017. It will never not baffle me that Democrats didn't run ads showing that large portions of the GOP spent July 4th in Moscow wining and dining with Putin (including RonJon). I'm one of the many Dems who hopes to reclaim the Patriotism mantle. Both for moral and political reasons. Talk about a perfect way to make inroads.
Some are saying Luria (Dem incumbent) lost in Virginia to the R challenger because she served on the Jan. 6 committee and was vocal about accountability for the insurrection. So MAGA may still be relevant in some swing districts.
I think Luria was in trouble no matter what, but she drew easily the most "serious" or "normal" challenger in Virginia compared to Cao or Vega. She might have very well lost to a MAGA loon, but had they replicated Kiggans in the Nova Exurbs, they pick up at least one and maybe two seats. This isn't to say Kiggans is good (she's not), or moderate (she's not), but she at least tried to be vague about her extremism instead or running expressly as a loon like Cao and Vega did.
RonJon seemed liked he want to play this election on hard mode. He could have just hit on crime and inflation and won easily. Instead he proposed all sorts of major changes to entitlements and went partial qAnon.
Dems provide better governance in the heartland? MI GOP is a mess vs Whitmer being mostly competent, same is true in MN. The PA Democratic Party knows that fracking and economy are good. Private sector labor being more important in those states probably helps with all these, since private sector unions mostly want the same things (economy etc) as normal voters. NY is a mess with greedy public sector unions and even nominally private unions here leech off excessive public spending on infrastructure etc.
Couldn't agree more about labor (and agree with "Jim_Ed" that Biden bigging up his pro labor record is a good strategy).
It's funny, I think one of the perhaps unintended consequences of GOP's victory squashing private sector unions is that it helped them in another way by making Public sector Unions the only unions of consequence. I'm pretty pro private sector unions but pretty anti public sector unions. And I think I'm safe in saying I'm the left of your typical median voter on most issues, so the fact that I'm pretty anti-public sector union says something. FDR identified the perverse incentives of public sector unions almost a hundred years ago. So result is both that public sector unions become a big factor in making public services work which benefits the Party that says government can't do anything. It also damages reputations of unions in general.
I think this line of thinking is becoming more popular amongst center left types. I work in construction and hire union labor any chance I can because their quality of workmanship and skill is miles better than your typical non-union shop, but I loathe public sector unions.
I'd love to see opinion polling on some public sector unions. I'd guess that police unions are deeply unpopular for obvious reasons, but I'm curious about how some of the completely unhinged responses to COVID from the bigger teachers unions affected their popularity.
I suspect the police union is quite possibly the union with the MOST support in America. As Matt has pointed out, cops are pretty popular (and more so post 2020 crime rise), even among Democrats. The anti-cop crowd is smaller than you think but loud on Twitter.
It's funny, my preferred policy outcome for police is more funding, cops, beat cops. In exchange for smaller pensions and reduced union power. I suspect that last one would be the hardest lift.
Oh, have meant to say this for awhile. So much of the problem with police is actually more a problem with the criminal justice system and specifically courts. A genuinely big problem is lack of capacity of our justice system to process cases. It's how Trump has been able to skirt the law. But on a more basic level, the time it takes for regular people to get cases heard is a huge problem. It's why you have people just waiting in Rikers for months (ending cash bail wouldn't be as big a deal if people could actually get their cases adjudicated). Also, criminal justice system creates real perverse incentives for prosecutors. I know a lot of the focus has been on SF and Philadelphia and whether those prosecutors have been too liberal. But the movement to get more liberal prosecutors elected was spurred by some really egregious practices in DAs offices across the country
You raise a good point on the popularity of police unions as a reflexive counterpart to "BACK TEH BLUE!" conservatives. Though some interesting mental hurdles that need to be jumped through. Are police unions good because cops are good, or are they bad because unions are bad? Are small town sheriffs and rural police represented by unions, or do they only exist for cops in the larger towns full of liberals, and how does that effect their popularity?
I would guess firefighters are probably the unions with the highest approval ratings. There's plenty there to take grievance with if you peek behind the curtain - overstuffed budgets, wildly inefficient work practices, demands for monstrously large apparatus that are detrimental to urban fire fighting, etc etc, but it would be political suicide for any elected to try to take on the guys who run into burning buildings.
Re: Criminal Justice - I fully agree with your points here for the most part. I think cash bail is an obscene system and that the notion that you're less of a danger on bond so long as you can afford it is complete lunacy. The problem with bail reform is that reformers tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the theory of "ending bail will mean not holding people accused of minor crimes in jail" turns into the practice of "people with multiple convictions on serious charges aren't held in jail". DC eliminated cash bail decades ago, but currently it's not terribly uncommon for people accused of murder to be released on supervision back into the community, which is totally, completely indefensible. There's nothing the NY Post loves more than a perp walk of some guy arrested for murder or rape with a subhed of "Scumbag with 28 prior arrests nabbed for horrible crime!" It seems like this would be a pretty easy problem to solve - release people booked for minor crimes, detain people with serious charges! - and yet, it keeps happening over and over again, which is pure chum for the Lee Zeldin types. It's a complete own goal by reformers and as we've seen, its starting to generate some tangible backlash that will be bad for fixing problems in the criminal justice system.
Yeah I think there is a deliberate conflation of "ending cash bail" = "anyone arrested can just be let go no matter the circumstances". In theory DAs offices and judges have tons of discretion still to deny bail. Ending cash bail just means that if a judge grants bail, you still need the financial wherewithal to pay. An "easy" solution is a rule that says multiple offenses = bail cannot be granted. I know the CA "three strikes" law gets (rightly) criticized for locking up people to extreme sentences for minor infractions. But there's a world of difference between "three strikes = 20 years in prison" and "three strikes = denied bail".
Not just the primary, The MIGOP had an absolute clown car set of actual candidates.
Tudor Dixon is a nobody who had done nothing to be remotely qualified to run for governor. She was also an absurdist anti abortion zealot.
Matt DePerno was fired from his law firm for committing fraud; so of course he's a natural choice for AG.
Kristina Karamo, whose profession is "podcaster", was an even more absurdist anti abortion zealot and a hardcore 2020 election truther. Totally the person you want in charge of elections. She earnestly beleives in demonic possession and thinks it can be transmitted sexually. She said these words out loud in an interview.
Yup, the attack ads pretty well wrote themselves.
Michigan also flipped the state legislature, both chambers, for the 1st time in 40 years. Thank you non partisan redistricting Commission.
Come to Michigan folks, the water's great and the weather keeps getting better 😁
"I think Biden's leadership on pro labor issues has been dramatically underrated in important industrial states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Dems should talk about labor victories more!"
I do hope that's right, and it's definitely an angle worth exploring. Unfortunately we've now had 2–3 generations of Democratic elites raised on total blindness to class issues, so I wouldn't hold my breath to wait for them to even raise the *question*
It's kinda nice when candidate quality and policy quality matter. If I were Republicans, I'd try to be more center boring. In many particular cases, Dems should lean into that even more too. Things, especially boring ones, will get done.
They should take a careful look at North Carolina, a 50/50 state where Republicans did well and even the Trump-backed candidates were normies. Ted Budd won by 3-4 points by basically running the Biden play; he mostly kept his mouth shut, said normal, boring things and turned in an uneventful debate performance. Trump-backed Bo Hines gave a totally normal concession speech. The Republican that beat Madison Cawthorn in the primary basically ran on being boring and won the general handily. And they flipped the Supreme Court by making the very boring, normal argument that the court overreached on a couple of issues, for example, forcing the legislature to spend money it didn't appropriate.
Retroactively, too, such that laws passed by subsequent legislatures might be invalidated because the legislature was not legitimate, which is mind-boggling.
What I wonder about is the counter-factual; had the message instead been something like "we need Trump judges in there to Stop the Steal", would the election gone the other way?
Great line, but I don’t think that Trump and DeSantis were literally killed for refusing to wed the daughter of Dark Brandon so it doesn’t quite fit. (It’s quite possible that we are haunted by the zombie Donald Stoneheart for a few years though.)
Or perhaps more simply, the Republicans were not massacred nor has the strategic lay of the land dramatically shifted. "Red wedding" would have worked if Dems would have increased their majority in the house by say 20 seats and gotten to 60 Senators. That would have been the same kind of shock and awe game changer coming out of left field.
I'd like to comment on the GOP overperformance in NY as I suspect once all the votes are counted, the area of the country where GOP will have overperformed the most will be Long Island. As I live in Nassau County Long Island, I feel like I can give some "on the ground" observations that help explain why (Caveat. These are anecdotes and my own observations. I'm the first person to trash these New York Times trips to Trump country that talk to an old man in a diner in rural America who somehow is the "voice" of real America. Or worse, when they speak to an "average joe" citizen, and it turns out this "average joe" is leader of a political activist group. Nonetheless, given we now have solid election results, I think some of my observations may have value).
The number one thing to keep in mind about Long Island is that it's the original "white flight" suburb. Look up the history of Levittown (the first modern planned community). More than northern NJ, Westchester or Fairfield County, Long Island is the place where white residents have moved to in order to "get away" from big bad New York City. Yes, to a certain degree, this describes all NYC suburbs (heck all suburbs). But I've lived in CT and have family in NJ and can't begin to tell you how much that vibe is stronger in Long Island. When I moved to Nassau County in 2010, it wasn't just that it was striking that I met person after person who had never been to NYC outside of a school field trip but would say it with a point of pride. Typical answer would be "why would I ever go to NYC. Such a dirty gross place" (again this is at a time when crime was rapidly falling).
What does this all have to do with GOP overperformance in Long Island? There is not a region or place in America more primed for a "crime is out of control" and specifically a "crime in NYC is out of control" then Long Island. It's a catnip political message. Almost every Zeldin add I saw was security cam footage of assaults and thefts...disproportionately in the NYC subway.
Given there will also likely be general overperformance of GOP in NY, I think it's worth pointing out that a big factor is not just focus on crime, but the disproportionate amount of coverage crime in NYC gets in media and cable news. A person voting in Oklahoma may watch and see all these reports of "NYC crime is out of control" and get shake they're in alarm. But that same person may also ultimately decide this shouldn't have any bearing on their vote for Governor (I'm using Oklahoma as my example because of that moment in the Oklahoma governor debate when the D candidate brought up that Oklahoma was actually wildly more dangerous than NYC and it seems as though Stitt genuinely didn't believe it). But if you live in NY, crime in NYC seems much more relevant. Even if you live in Buffalo, a voter will (correctly note) that the governor has at least some control or say in what crime is like in NYC.
Lastly on the crime question. I can't begin to tell you how terrible it is that Mayor Adams seems to be determined to boost the worst Fox News stereotypes of NYC crime is and how this likely factored into the results. Two things can be true, crime (And perhaps more perinatally visible homelessness) are up and crime is still much lower than it was in the 90s. When Mayor Adams says crime is worse than it's ever been even when he was a beat cop, it's just such a wildly irresponsible thing for him to say. Especially as his city is relies on tourism and people coming for the leisure options for tax revenue (something that will be more important with WFH).
Again, definitely anecdote and observations of just one person. Happy to amend once real voting data comes out and someone like David Shorr can give us more expert data analysis. But thought it worth sharing.
To be fair to the Long Island contingent, while "The Adams administration is a clown show" is an understatement, sometimes it feels like exit really *is* the only option from NYC because beyond the close quarters exposure to crime and disorder itself, there's also a large and vocal contingent seemingly intent on making things actively worse rather than merely incompetently mismanaged -- and that's saying something when the scale of mismanagement includes things like "De Blasio's Wife whom nobody voted for manages to put eight-hundred fifty million dollars down the drain with no accountability."
ETA: Also, NYC actually is, objectively, a filthy place.
I can't emphasize enough that the Long Island contingent I speak of not only don't go to NYC but had parents who didn't either. The "fleeing" from NYC that happened is the same story as everywhere in the country; people moving to areas where they can rent or own more space due to WFH and general feeling "cooped up" during the pandemic. Look at rents in NYC. As Matt has noted over and over again, people "fleeing NYC" are doing so overwhelmingly because "the rent's too damn high" (as an aside, one of the few SCOTUS decisions I might agree with will be to do away with rent stabilization and rent control. Although I worry that someone like Alito will write an opinion that will go well beyond rent control/stabilization seeing as how his goal seems clear to me to reinstate the Lochner ere jurisprudence).
As far as NYC being objectively filthy...if you want to have a discussion about the ridiculousness of how trash pick up is done (including leaving trash on the curbs), happy to have that conversation. Because it's objectively ridiculous and a huge part of the reason NYC is filthier than it needs to be.
Just wanted to say that as someone born and raised on the South Shore (very recently left) this comment is spot on from my experience, so that at least makes two anecdotes!
Florida becoming deep red also tracks with what I've witnessed. I strangely know a lot of people from back home who have moved down there in the past few years, and they are almost exclusively people who would post conservative Facebook/Instagram posts.
Suspect you live (or lived) very close to where I currently live in Lynbrook (though I've lived all over Nassau County). I think you may agree with me that in Long Island, non-Jewish white men over the age 40 are some of the most Trumpy people in the entire country. I go back to a comment I once heard (and have repeated on this forum) that the best way to think of anything Trump says is to preface everything he says with "Donny from Queens, you're on the air". Years and years of listening to too much WFAN actually gave me some decent insight that Long Island suburbs would have more Trump fans than someone who doesn't live here might expect.
I grew up in Staten Island, which is very very similar to Nassau County, and I very quickly grokked that Trump was basically one of those guys but with a multimillion-dollar inheritance and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Basically, take your average preternaturally angry blue-collar, 50-something-year-old white guy in the NYC suburbs, give him no reason to ever tone it down and a compulsive need to always be the center of attention and, voila, Trump.
I am from Georgia. My dad is racist to the point of owning a prized “Run Jessie Run” T-shirt depicting white men chasing Jessie Jackson in an old timey pickup truck.
I have never lived anywhere more racist than the south shore of Long Island.
Unfortunately tracks. This chart (https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status/1553024034362626048) was so instructive and why I've pushed back on the large number of posters on this forum who post about crime and specifically about crime in NYC.
Have a sneaking suspicion that news stories about crime will start fall precipitously over the coming weeks.
I’ll preface this comment by saying I’m glad there is more police presence on the subway and some actual attempts to deal with a very real rise in “disorder” on the subway. But saying that, there is a lot reason to be skeptical of the crime stats we’re seeing.
Aside from the box-watching nuts in Arizona over the last few weeks, has there been any real reporting of bad polling place shenanigans? After a decent amount of hand-wringing about pollworker safety, we had an utterly and completely normal night at my ward. No need to frown at the odd MAGA-hat electioneering troll, not a single rejected absentee.
80% as many ballots cast as total names in the poll book (i.e., pre-registered voters), which I thought was pretty neat.
AFAICT, a substantial part of the progressive movement these days is literally that cartoon with the journalist begging, "Someone please shoot up the 'Joker' movie," but with "a polling place in a majority minority precinct," substituted for "'Joker' movie."
In my county in rural/exurban Minnesota we had a couple of MAGA trolls but that’s it, and no rejections. All the Democrats were shocked that there wasn’t a flood of Republican challengers looking for “fraud.”
It can both be true that the Republicans underperformed *and* that they will capture both the House and the Senate. I'd like to think that they would be chastened by their relatively poor performance and not overreach but that seems to go against their ethos and, sad to say as a loyal Democrat, it would be counter to what my party did after such a "chastening" underperformance. You know, way way back in 2020 when they expected to do much better though still squeaked to control of both houses only to then decide that Biden should be FDR and their party had a mandate to pass huge, transformative legislation.
If they do squeak through, I expect the Republicans to do no less.
Those things can be both true, but they won't actually notice the underperformance unless the Dems keep the Senate, because people use results oriented thinking and learn the wrong lessons a lot.
It's why the Republican party came away from 2016 thinking that Trumpism was a good thing. To this day it still amazes me that the GOP went into 2015 or so thinking that they had extremely good chances to win in 2016, and the Dems probably cleared the field for Hilary despite her flaws because they frankly didn't think they were going to win anyway.
Then a year later everyone is convinced that Hilary will win in a landslide, and when Trump wins he is celebrated as some political genius who found a way to an unlikely victory. Ignoring the fact that the whole reason the victory was unlikely in the first place was because he is a moronic nutjob!
So instead of "This Trump fiasco robbed us of a landslide victory and a mandate", the GOP learned "Trumpism is the key to the future because he won!"
This was also incredibly good news for 2024. First, the likelihood of Republicans being able to overturn a Biden win went way, way down due to political factors and who actually won/lost elections. Second, the economy will most likely look even better in Nov 2024, even if there is a small recession in 2023. Third, the incumbent president almost always does significantly better than their midterm result. And fourth, this sets up a potentially much more bruising primary battle between Desantis and Trump. I can't image Trump losing a primary campaign without at least torpedoing the next presidential election if not inflicting even more damage on Republican election hopes. I believe that before the Republicans can get the benefit of getting him off the ballot, they are going to have to pay a huge revenge penalty in one election cycle to purge him from control of the party.
Curious if Dems double down on boosting Rs they view as politically weak due to their support for insurrection. Shapiro trounced Mastriano in PA Gov race and Michigan Dems picked up Peter Meier’s seat now that they’ve beaten John Gibbs who primaried him.
Will be interesting to see a full accounting of that strategy.
If you combine this with Trump continuing to endorse clowns that win in the primaries, I will remain very curious to see if the GOP in some states just junks primaries altogether.
That might be good for depolarization. Virginia Rs won governor race by the establishment picking Youngkin in a convention. He’s still quite conservative but not the crazy conservative the Republican Virginia electorate was flirting with nominating.
Maybe the best news of the night. It's great to throw that back at all the pearl-clutchers (mostly "moderate" Republicans) who thought it the World's Greatest Crime to indulge in these brass knuckle tactics. Yay Democrats!
Oh absolutely, Barletta was one of the fake electors for PA. Another R running, Charlie Gerow, hosted the fake elector strategy meetings in his lobby office. Jake Corman aided and abetted the 2020 election investigation by funding it as Senate President Pro Tem. Bill McSwain made a concerted effort to kiss up trump on election denial before Barr slapped him down.
I was an election commissioner Tuesday in a deep red precinct in a red state. Turnout was unusually high. There was a constant stream of voters throughout the day. At times, the line was out the door. I went to bed thinking I had witnessed the day democracy died. A big turnout had to be a Republican wave; there weren't enough Democratic voters in the precinct to make a trickle.
Turns out I was right about my precinct (the Republication Senator won 91% of the vote) but thank-the-lord, I was wrong about the country. What I learned was the importance of getting out the vote. A voter would ask if his/her family members had voted, and if they hadn't, sure enough they were at the polls in an hour. Many voters carried a flyer that looked like ballot recommendations. Others came with notes. The vibe was of a united community on a mission to win. How many of these voters could have been persuaded to switch their votes? Not many. Dems can only outvote them with local networks as determined to win as the one I saw yesterday.
My biggest take-away from this: Nate Silver needs to permanently retire his "enhanced" model. It's extremely clear now that it's just a case of him fudging the numbers by throwing in variables until the results start to line up with his gut. As a result, it is worse than worthless. He has turned into the kind of yard-sign-counting hack pundit that he created 538 to counter back in 2008.
I think 538's set of models is best consumed in parallel, with the expectation that the deluxe prediction might pick up on instantaneous events that polls are fundamentally unsuited to detect.
i.e., right after Dobbs, "Our poll-based ratings say X, but there is reason to think these numbers will swing in Y direction as we collect more data over the next few weeks"
I believe that's what he says, and I trust him to tell the truth, but unless you can actually look at the code you never truly know. This bothers some of my mathematician friends. Doesn't bother me as much--it's how he pays the bills.
Adding additional variables to your model without rigor (particularly when some of those variables are things like "Expert Predictions" that are partially informed by the output of the model) is, in fact, fudging the numbers.
That's not what I would call fudging at all, unless Nate is going in and tweaking the weights after running the model each time until he likes the outcome, which I highly, highly doubt.
The deluxe model never made sense to me even though I've heard Nate explain it 20 different times. So your whole thing was trusting the polls and not the pundits, but you added some pundits back into the polls and call it better? huh?
I think for House races that actually makes sense. House districts are famously oddly shaped, so it’s very difficult to even target a poll at the registered voters in a specific district. Pollsters sometimes do, but the political scientist forecasters (and these aren’t “pundits” in the TV talking head sense!) do try to make an effort to know the critical districts well.
He has noted repeatedly that the "deluxe" model has done "marginally" better over time. Not sure if that still holds after this election but I doubt it will change things dramatically. As 538 keep saying, every election is a single "event" and you can't make radical conclusions based on single events. So far all the 538 models seemed fine, as were the polls.
I didn't check results last night or first thing this morning, opting instead for the gym last night and the latest episode of Andor this morning. I fully expected a catastrophe as well, and instead performed some version of that viral Kombucha girl video whilst eating my breakfast. Was happy to see what I saw while enjoying an english muffin.
Great post. I think the media over-reports Trump and MAGA for ratings. Distracts us from the obvious. Kari Lake is a prime example. She may still win, but we were led to believe it was going to be a blowout and the press hounded here with questions about running for president.
Same for good Democrats in strong red states. Beto and Ryan got a lot of press but didn’t really have a chance from the beginning.
Thanks for being upfront with your predictions and recognizing you were wrong (in a great way). More pundits should follow your lead, it would lead to a much healthier discourse.
Sucks that Johnson looks like he will squeak out a victory. But ecstatic that WI seems to have avoided the state government super majority and the veto is intact. Can we get an extra emphasis on ending gerrymandering the next time we have the trifecta? It's killing us in Wisconsin and it clearly shows in the House.
I wish someone could explain to me why the Democrats cleared the field for Mandela Barnes to face the very vulnerable Ron Johnson. He always struck me as such a weak candidate. Was the rest of the Democratic field in the primary really that terrible?
I posed this question in a thread a couple days ago and never got a good answer. I was likewise baffled at the time. To be fair, Barnes had a sizable lead over the other candidates [1], so even if they hadn't dropped, he probably still would have won. Still, Larsy was trending up, so it wasn't a sure thing. (And WI has a history of electing Democrats connected to the Bucks ---- see Herb Kohl.)
So a further question is why Barnes was so far ahead. It may just be a case of progressives backing progressives without considering the overall electorate. If so, ugh. That said, it's not like the alternatives had a lot going for them either. I wish that Ron Kind had decided to run.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Wisconsin#Polling
To be honest, most of the big democratic candidates seemed kind of childish:
“Let me get this straight,” said Irene Lin, campaign manager for Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson, another Democratic candidate for Senate. “One candidate took an illegal property tax deduction; another didn’t pay any state taxes for two years; and now we learn the lieutenant governor didn’t bother to file income taxes.” [1]
"Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes stormed out of an interview with FOX6 News on Wednesday, June 19 after being asked about his unpaid property taxes. Barnes called stories about his delinquent tax bill ridiculous." [2]
See also [3].
[1]https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-elections-milwaukee-senate-elections-72125713bfdc295bd3cc80b74462b66d
[2] https://www.fox6now.com/news/lt-gov-mandela-barnes-walks-out-on-interview-after-unpaid-property-tax-question
[3] https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/17/mandela-barnes-says-check-mail-pay-delinquent-property-taxes/1482122001/
Nelson seemed like the least shitshow. My take is that he was too far to the left, but he somehow keeps getting reelected in a red part of WI, so maybe he knows something I don't.
I wonder if the DNC or the progressives are learning the right lessons here as well. Rubio/Kemp/DeSanctis/Johnson races have a common theme. As Matt's been saying for a while, it's probably strategically more sound to tag closer to the middle, but look at all the news saying how this is GOP's loss or whatever. They still took the house, Biden's still stuck at 42. This woke labelling really works with the electorate, fairly or not.
The issue is that they cleared the field and then didn't back him financially lol.
In the context of losing Wisconsin by 1 point money (and what you do with it) is/could be definitely everything lol. Barnes and the Dems were significantly outspent on the air in September.
Who's to say they couldn't have found themselves another 26000 voters with better/different spending?
Also suggesting that Barnes and McGrath were in even remotely similar situations is ludicrous lol.
Matt was really good in emphasizing on Twitter and the chat how the unilateral disarmament by the Democrats in this regard may very well cost them the House. The good government part of me doesn't like it, but someone in the Election Day thread mentioned the possibility of large Democratic controlled states pulling a 2003 Texas redistricting plan of their own, and they absolutely have to consider it.
Ohio's redistricting has had me pissed off for two years now.
The courts here ruled FIVE TIMES that Republicans had gerrymandered their maps and violated the anti-gerrymandering rule that the voters approved in 2014, and ordered them to draw new maps. But because Republicans repeatedly slow-walked that process, missing due dates only to submit illegally gerrymandered maps again, they ran out the clock and got to temporarily put their illegal maps into effect for two years, at which point they'll have to be passed again. The one Republican justice on the Ohio courts who sided with the Democrats to give them the majority was term-limited as of this year, so now she's been replaced by a Republican justice who, in two years, will assuredly OK the illegal maps next time they go to court.
They win. There were- and will be- no consequences to flagrantly violating the law, the court, and the will of the voters. It infuriates me every time I think about it and makes me want to leave this state. We did pretty well though, all things considered (I'm bummed about Tim Ryan, but OH-1 flipped! Goodbye Chabot!) but if this is how well we did with the deck stacked against us, we should have done even better.
I think the "legislatures just ignoring compliance with law" is a much bigger deal then we realize. The biggest focus is obviously certifying elections (and wouldn't be surprised if there are some shenanigans in the PA or AZ legislatures). But the Ohio one is especially dangerous. I'm thinking too about too about a place like MO that passed $15 minimum wage and legislature for awhile just ignored it (looks like it's finally happening but it's taking much longer than it should).
One thing this whole Trump nightmare has highlighted to me is that if you have the means or legal ability, you don't actually have to win court cases to get your way. You just need to gum up the works to such a degree that you basically win anyway. See Trump with his taxes. I honestly think it's the secret sauce to his ability to stay out of jail. Our courts are so dysfunctional, if you have the money, you can appeal, appeal again and just delay outcomes for so long that people give up (or just accept derisory settlements). I think the Ohio example is a scary indication that this "lesson" can applied in all sorts of situations.
It's not just presidents and legislatures.
In Seattle, we have a bike trail that's been on hold for 20 years because a few business owners along the route with deep pockets have managed to tie the project up endlessly in court. Every few years, a judge issues a ruling against them that's supposed to be final, and they always manage to find a "what about this" technicality to start the hearing process all over again and hold the project up for another few years.
We effectively have a policy that allows anyone willing to spend a few million dollars a year on lawyers to delay any bike trail they don't like indefinitely, without needing to actually win a single legal argument. Meanwhile, the city's taxpayers have already spent far more money on lawyers fighting this than the actual construction cost. It is very frustrating.
I would love to see NY state gerrymander our national congressional districts and have truly representative state-level districts. Best of both worlds for good governance and national fairness
The last parting gift of Andrew Cuomo. The state judges who "smacked down" the gerrymander were appointed by Cuomo in conjunction with a pretty gross alliance with the GOP members of the state legislature (the scandals and his general personality sort of covered up the fact that he was garbage on the merits as a governor).
The real problem, I think was the voters who approved the anti-gerrymandering amendment to the state constitution in the first place.
By taking the moral high ground, Democrats have effectively made suckers of themselves, by forcing their party to fight redistricting battles with one hand tied behind their back. Republicans, on the other hand, they never vote for stuff like this because they don't care about the moral high ground. The red states will just gerrymander with impunity.
The good news though, is that the tossup NY districts Democrats lost there are still very winnable districts, and could easily flip back in 2024 or 2026 under different electoral circumstances.
Little disclosure. I'm married to someone who has worked both in Long Island politics and NY politics and has a decent amount of inside info about local and state governments here. The "slimy and unscrupulous" vibe is underselling it.
The supreme court race in WI will really decide that one, I think, if Democrats can eke out what should be a winnable race. But of course in the longer term Gerrymandering delenda est.
Helluva night, bring on the Trump v Desantis fight next year. Bringing the popcorn.
If Boebert ends up losing I think we’ve seen the beginning of the end of the q wing.
Matt notes that because the Republicans firmly control Florida they could pass "reasonable" abortion legislation (though many equally Republican states have not followed the same path).
If any of our Florida experts can weigh in, I'd like to know if you think DeSantis will reopen the abortion issue and pursue more restrictive legislation now. How will abortion play in a Trump-DeSantis battle? The base can't be happy with the 15 week period allowing abortion -- you know, permitting almost 95% of abortions -- and Trump can attack him on that, with his winning, er, trump card of "three Supreme Court justices."
I'm no expert, but this Florida voter thinks there is zero chance DeSantis goes to that issue again. To the extent Trump has any policy view at all (which I think is very little), we all know Trump is pro-abortion. Abortion isn't a motivating force for his supporters -- an extreme dislike of the Progressive wing of the Democratic party is their motivating force.
Herschel Walker is very decidedly "pro abortion" and has come out in favor of full abortion bans. It's said a lot but needs to be emphasized; people like Trump or Walker or other Americans of means will find ways to get an abortion. They most certainly did prior to Roe and will do so again if there is a national abortion ban. Point is, plenty of GOP politicians will come out for banning of all abortions knowing that they or someone they know will still find a way to get it if needed.
As much grip as Trump has on the GOP, I think you're underestimating the pressure him (or DeSantis) would have from the base to run on a national abortion ban. It's basically the numero uno issue of the Christian conservative base. It's like health care for the Democrats in 2020. Every candidate had to come out with some sort of plan to continue to expand health care access. You didn't need to sign on to M4A, but to not have anything to say on the topic would have been politically toxic.
I don't think the "Trump is pro-abortion" argument carries any weight whatsoever with Republicans. If any dare bring it up, all he has to do is raise three fingers and point to the Supreme Court.
Whether or not abortion is a motivating force for his supporters, it sure as heck is for lots and lots of Republican primary voters.
I'm way out of my league trying to predict or advise campaign strategy. But I won't let that stop me!
I think DeSantis should ignore Trump and his inevitable childish insults and run a campaign relentlessly focused on his performance in Florida over the past 4 years. Let others make the comparisons, but keep his talking points to Florida's economy and COVID experience. Run a primary campaign against the Democratic record and not against Trump. His conservative / bonafides are well-established in Republican circles already.
I agree. I think he should try rope-a-dope, and let Trump flail. The more the crazy wing loses, the weaker Trump looks. I think he took a beating this week.
John, I think that would be a great strategy on Earth 2.0 with a totally different Republican primary voter base. On Earth 1.0 where Republican primary voters are more like the audience at WWE events, they'll be salivating to watch a knockdown drag-out fight where the candidate with the best insults and the one who doesn't stagger and fall at the most vicious attacks will be the one left standing at the end.
I think DeSantis's best angle might be "pandemic life in Florida mostly kept on as normal, while the US as a whole (under Trump's leadership) was chaos"
Whether or not any of that is really true or really up to either leader.
DeSantis's problem is that he is totally without charisma and Trump, to our nation's woe, has plenty. In such a race, records won't matter (except possibly abortion, where DeSantis is vulnerable).
If I were DeSantis, I would throw caution to the wind and adopt the Lord Nelson dictum: "Never mind the maneuvers, just go straight at them." DeSantis should say "Trump is a doddering old fool who forces unelectable sycophants on our party, and I'm a smarter version of Trump, so it's time to put this old fart out to pasture." Who knows, maybe that show of testosterone against the Trump God-King might actually work!
I wonder if there's space for a sacrificial hatchet-man to lob the first volley here. Let DeSantis appear to be above the fray and focused on the future rather than stupid 2020 shouting. Of course you run the risk of being starved of media attention, because we know what drives clicks.
An ideal candidate might be a non-fat Chris Christie.
DeSantis needs campaign against Trump like an underdog takes on a juggernaut in a boxing match or a football game: hit Trump hard and fast early, letting Trump know this will be long, brutal fight and DeSantis isn't messing around.
This just isn't true. Florida's age-adjusted deaths from COVID (and all-cause mortality if you are one of those who doubt the reported numbers) are in the top half of the country. Not exceptional, but not bad either. Meanwhile, our quality of life during the pandemic was much better and the economy has performed exceptionally well. And we continue to pick up population from other states.
I don’t think COVID discourse is relevant anymore. I think when most people hear about COVID now they just stop listening and want to move on. For this reason, I don’t think this will be a salient topic for Ds or Rs in 2024.
My hope is that this is ineffective because covid will be so far in the rearviewmirror that no one will care about it in politics anymore.
I don't see it. Apart from Operation Warp Speed (and is *that* a vulnerability for Trump?) what angle of attack on Trump would DeSantis have?
In a primary? "Couldn't control CDC/Fauci"
So what used to be considered a normal Republican!
I thought the Theil wing was all about undermining democracy because voters tend to divert money to themselves in the form of domestic spending programs (thereby reducing the wealth of people like him, and interfering with the invisible hand). Are you sure you're not thinking of the Steve Bannon wing?
I'm as glad as anyone that the kookiest wing of the GOP has had a bad night. But I think you're being naive if you think more kooks won't start showing up to Congress (there are already way more kooks than in 2011 which is why I'm scared to death of the debt ceiling). Most House districts are uncompetitive. Which means an R candidate has much more to lose from a Primary then general. Expect to see a lot more MTG types winning primaries and generals (Even if you lose some voters, you will by 15% instead of say 25%). Also, without Dobbs, seems likely the lunatics who ran in NH and AZ would have won (know AZ is now down counting votes, but seems to be leaning Kelly's direction).
Also, seems Trump will announce his candidacy very soon (I suspect that Ross Douthat column today bigging up Ron DeSantis is going to age like a rotting banana). As Matt pointed out, Trumpism without Trump is a real liability, but there does seem to be a small but significant number of working-class voters who will be motivated to vote by Trump himself. If anything, he has a stronger case as to why GOP needs him in 2024. As long as Trump is a viable political candidate, the lunatic wing of the GOP is ascendent by virtue of the fact that Trump himself is nuts or very possibly senile (that John Swan interview where he talks about passing a basic cognitive test still begs the question...why was he given a basic cognitive test?)
As of 6:30 pm EST, Boebart is at 49.99%, down by 62 votes. Insane.
Just to clarify, it's not confirmed that Boebert has lost.
Unfortunately Vance didn't go down with them, but hey, at least you get to keep commenting this week!
I think it will be a little entertaining to watch Cruz and Vance and Hawley posture to be the most populist anti-elitist members who are also really proud of their elite credentials. Of the three I find Vance the least nauseating but they all turn my stomach.
Probably not many will agree with me on this, but, I actually find Cruz the least nauseating of those three. He's so awkward and cringe it's almost awe-inducing, which perhaps makes him a bit less scary to me. I doubt he gets near the White House. Vance speaks the MAGA language more convincingly (I mean, he more or less wrote one of MAGA's foundational texts, didn't he?), and I suspect is a greater danger to the Republic; Fifty Yard Dash Hawley is simply beneath contempt.
Agree that he is pathetic and unlikely to get near the presidency, but any respect I might have ever been able to muster was crushed for good when he didn't pivot on the electors on Jan 6 after the Capitol was breached but instead stayed in a pissing war with Hawley and I feel contempt for them both because they both know better and choose this path.
“Putin curious Rs.” That’s a phrase deserving wider recognition
Not all of them. Rand Paul easily won, I think.
He's an opportunist, If sanity becomes popular he'll be sane with he best of them.
Unfortunately, Vance gets 6 years to walk away from MAGA and become something else, as the winds change.
I strongly dislike Vance but I do think that, if the cynical MAGAs-of-convenience cynically sidle back toward (what used to be) the mainstream Republican party, that would be a very good thing for everyone.
If he could just revert back to what he was 6 years ago, I'd be (almost) ok with it.
They are America's worst fanfiction community. Surely there are other fanfic communities eager to rise up and take their place?
They had years of warning this time; if they couldn't "secure" the elections by now, that's on them!
counting is still happening and senate control (technically also House control) still up in the air DO NOT JINX IT !
It now looks like Boebert is going to eke out a win, unfortunately. But, maybe with the race this close, Democrats will pour some money into it in 2024, and perhaps take her out then.
I am thrilled with the outcome of the election. It was a repudiation of the Trump wing of the Republican Party and a win for regular Republicans. Seeing DeSantis, Rubio, Kemp and Abbot win with ease while the wackos -- Masters, Oz, Lake, Mastriano, et al -- lost badly is an encouraging sign. Trump's recent comments about DeSantis had either no effect or a positive effect -- DeSantis won by 20 points and improved on his performance 4 years ago.
It also reduces the chance of a Trump comeback. The GOP doesn't have to be as afraid of him as they have been. I've long held that he only won because the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016. She is the only candidate he could be beaten.
I’m more DeSantis-curious after seeing this result, because obviously with those margins he’s succeeding at least partially by persuasion. Still will vote Dem in 2024 and don’t love the gratuitous triggering of libs, but it’s encouraging he is ok with winning soft Dems and doesn’t hate 50% of the country (just 30% or so? Not ideal but better than Trump and probably no worse than the Warren wing of the Democratic Party)
Yeah, I wouldn't vote for him (I might consider it if Dems lose their shit and nominate someone like Bernie or Warren or AOC in '24, but I don't think that will happen), but DeSantis seems like a relatively normal Republican with very strong political instincts (though he's lacking in charisma). I'm sure he'd do lots of things I don't like, but I don't think a DeSantis White House would be the end of the world, and I am often irritated by progressives who act like it would be.
Matt sort of sidled up to this point, but I think the narrative that the Democratic Party of Florida is a huge disaster isn’t really the correct lens to view the political situation through; instead, it’s more a case of the GOP is in charge, they’re running the state well, why would the voters kick them out?
It's a fun time to see various interest groups take victory laps and/or assign blame without a whole lot of evidence either way, but I think this election shows the whole "LOCAL POLITICS ARE DEAD, EVERYTHING IS NATIONAL!!1!!1" narrative has been proven to be a bit overblown. We've got a lot of results driven by local/regional issues and beliefs!
As I (a random big city normcore lib) see it, the following things are objectively true:
- The appetite for Trumpist candidates is limited to the most conservative districts in America, and Republicans need a better plan for swing districts. As someone who was involuntarily subjected to completely unhinged ads from Hung Cao on the local sports radio station, this is a good thing.
- In the areas where crime is a tangible concern, it hurt dems / progressives. It probably cost them 2-3 seats in NY, and the pro-criminal candidates are losing in San Francisco.
- Crime as a general specter / vibes issue in other places flopped.
- Illegal immigration as a swing voter issue flopped.
- Dems running as centrists in conservative places did exceedingly well. Dems would do well to embrace Laura Kelly / Jared Golden / Sharice Davids thought when defending majorities.
- Seriously its weird we don't hear more in the national press about the dems crushing fundamentals in the heartland. I'd like to hear more about their secret sauce!
- I think Biden's leadership on pro labor issues has been dramatically underated in important industrial states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Dems should talk about labor victories more!
- This Republican led house with a razor thin majority trying to corral all the kooks and weirdos is going to be genuinely hysterical.
Dems didn't do well universally across the heartland, the Iowa Democratic Party had a disastrous election beyond the GOP's wildest dreams. 40-year Democratic incumbents who were considered unbeatable, and often run uncontested, lost the AG and treasurer races, and it looks like the state auditor will barely hold on against an opponent who got no GOP support (the GOP's preferred candidate lost the primary).
A good post, but i'll continue to take issue with "In the areas where crime is a tangible concern" line of thinking. I agree with the idea that Democrats ignoring or not doing enough about the very real crime rise in places like SF and NYC is a problem. But it is objectively, statistically not true that crime is worse in NYC or SF. As has been pointed out many times NYC is actually still a relatively safe city.
I mean wow, talk about a clear unimpeachable example of the power of right-wing media to drive narratives even among people who don't imbibe much right-wing media.
As a DC resident, where we're on pace for 200+ murders for the 3rd consecutive year after getting as low as 88 back in 2012. I'm exhausted by leading progressives trying to tell me crime is a racist republican fever dream. Car Jackings are up something like 400% in DC over the last few years and yet progressive leaders steadfastly pretend that this isn't happening, and in cities with similar issues, failing to address the issues will hurt dem electeds (not in DC, obviously).
NYC is extremely safe comparatively, as is SF, but it doesn't mean crime hasn't gotten worse there, which people notice and feel. Robberies are up 31% YoY in 2022 in NYC. Felony assaults are up 15%. SF is a little different because its property crime and the visceral effects of the city's refusal to address homelessness rather than violent crime, but both cities definitely feel more lawless than they did a decade ago.
Telling me that crime is worse in Oklahoma doesn't make me feel any better, nor does it register with suburbanites who saw someone jerking off on a subway platform the last time they went to a Mets game.
I do NOT think crime is a racist fever dream. But keeping prospective on an actual problem is much more likely to result in policies that actually address the problem. Or more accurately address the problem in a way to be least damaging to society.
I'll give another example to show where I'm coming from on the crime issue. Deficits matter again as Matt has noted. There is an actual case that small tax increases and small cuts to spending have some validity. However, there are voices out there saying that deficits (and the debt) are so unimaginably huge and are going to drive us to bankruptcy and therefore require giant cuts to medicate, Medicaid and social security based on the idea we are somehow going bankrupt. The former from Matt seems reasonable and true. The latter is an overreaction that would lead to an unimaginably damaging policy outcome based on said overreaction.
Also, it should really be pointed out that data about crime in NYC seems literally unbelievable. Don't believe me, please read. https://jabberwocking.com/the-crime-surge-in-new-york-city-is-beyond-belief-literally/
I'm not sure what to make of that NYC data, but that article still states that a) crime went up 7.5% in 2021 and b) minor crime (which still matters IMO) is up 13% this year. So even if the 37% figure is overblown or not trustworthy, I think it stands to reason that crime is increasing in NYC, and probably to a substantial extent.
It is true that NYC remains relatively safe; I think the crime surge of the past 2-3 years has brought the crime rate back to mid-2000s levels. Hardly the bad old days. But I think there is a difference between evaluating crime from a personal point of view and from a public policy point of view. If someone asked me "should I be afraid to go to NYC now?" I'd say no, you shouldn't be afraid, that is completely ridiculous. It's even still pretty safe to walk around most of the city late at night (I walked around NYC late at night all the time in the mid-2000s and it was fine). But that doesn't mean that the crime increase isn't real or noticeable, or that it hasn't had a meaningful negative impact on quality-of-life in the city.
I am opposed to fearmongering about crime, as I am opposed to fearmongering about all sorts of other that are kinda abstract, but scary (covid, terrorism, mass shootings). But - like covid, terrorism, and mass shootings - that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it seriously. And I do think there is a tendency on the left to dismiss the idea that crime should be a concern at all.
Edit: After reading some of your other comments, I suspect we mostly agree on this. I'll leave my comment here for others who are following along.
You’re right to note the difference between how we view crime from a public policy point of view vs how people personally view crime Point well taken. I do think though that how people personally view crime is influenced by things like…the Democratic mayor of NYC making wildly exaggerated statements about crime. I’m not expecting any objective reporting from NYPost or Fox but the mayor? Ugh!
I do want to highlight the terrorism reference as I think it’s relevant. I should state up front that 9/11 happened my freshman year of college. It’s not a stretch to say 9/11, war on terror and war in Iraq are foundational aspects of my politics. My point is I saw our country make a horrendous miscalculation and blunder into a war, in part as overreaction to a very real tragedy. Not sure you’ll find very many people who disagree with the idea that taking out Taliban and hunting for and taking out Bin Laden was a good thing (staying to try to prop up a wildly corrupt government on the other hand was almost certainly a mistake. Biden recognized this apparently as early as 2010 if reports are to be believed). But Afghanistan was not enough. Hunting for Bin Laden was not enough. We had to make the world safe for democracy. Or more likely. Afghanistan didn’t satisfy our need for vengeance nearly enough. (Always thought Team America got at a lot more fundamental truths about what drove the war on terror and invasion of Iraq than hundreds if not thousands of think pieces). So we blundered into a “dumb war” as a wise man predicted in 2003. This reacting to a very real and horrid crime and then overreacting to said crime and blundering into terrible policy is something I’d like to avoid*.
* Ironically enough, John Kerry was likely a 100% right when he said in 04 that terrorism needs to be thought of as a law enforcement issue and not a military one. And he was hammered for it. Ironic as he as his fundamental point was a call for more funding of law enforcement. calling essentially for more law enforcement.
Looks like you and I are around the same age - I was a senior in high school when 9/11 happened, and all of that stuff was foundational to me, too. In some ways, I'm still an aughts-era liberal.
I'll add that growing up on Staten Island, 9/11 had a *big* impact on the community; everyone (including me) knew someone who died in the attacks, and you would still see "Never Forget 9/11" decals on cars as late as 2006 or 2007.
And yeah. All of that was a mistake. It even seemed that way to me at the time, and I was kid! And I was a kid who actually knew people who were deeply affected by it - it was not some distant tragedy to me. I distinctly remember John Kerry saying that in 2004 and thinking he was right.
When I was younger, I thought someday the hyperbole would subside. Now that I'm on the brink of middle-age, I realize that hyperbole is the way of things in politics (and the left has taken it up, too!) and I try to adjust my expectations accordingly, and mostly tune it out.
That crime is even worse some place else is not any compensation to voters who know their city has got significantly more dangerous and unpleasant to live in. Trying to flannel that they have worse crime in another place, so, what? Count your lucky stars? Is the kind of thinking that hurts Dems.
I half agree with both of these comments.
Trends matter, so NYC voters should be concerned with crime. But I'd actually argue that right-wing media still matters in the sense that suburban voters in red states don't think their (objectively quite dangerous) cities are any worse than NYC. It's just that the specific right-wing media problem here is its unwillingness to report on anything that would reflect negatively on the GOP, rather than its accurate-ish scaremongering on urban crime in blue states.
Democrats should fix this by funding the police and then bragging that their cities are safer than red state equivalents because they funded their police (NYPD is super well funded compared to most/all red state city PDs, for example!).
I suspect the word "crime" also serves for many voters as a stand-in for a sense of decay and disunity and unease that is maybe best represented by the visibly-homeless.
Yes, I've been using "urban disorder" rather than "crime."
The looting matters more to voters than the shootings, if the shootings are happening in poor neighborhoods they don't live in.
Bingo. You actually expressed my own sentiments a lot better than I did.
Telling voters that their concerns are misplaced or misguided is, at best, done with extraordinary nuance if your goal is to actually win elections.
I do think crime vibes are almost wholly responsible for keeping RonJohn in the Senate.
I think it was 538 who pointed out even CNN rated a claim that Barnes was for defunding the police as basically true.
RonJohn has zero familiarity with the word "embarrassment."
See his trip to Moscow in 2017. It will never not baffle me that Democrats didn't run ads showing that large portions of the GOP spent July 4th in Moscow wining and dining with Putin (including RonJon). I'm one of the many Dems who hopes to reclaim the Patriotism mantle. Both for moral and political reasons. Talk about a perfect way to make inroads.
Yep. A lot of Wisconsin voters consume Chicago media, too, which adds fuel to the fire.
What Chicago media are Wisconsinites consuming? This is news to me as someone who lived there for almost 20 years.
Some are saying Luria (Dem incumbent) lost in Virginia to the R challenger because she served on the Jan. 6 committee and was vocal about accountability for the insurrection. So MAGA may still be relevant in some swing districts.
I think Luria was in trouble no matter what, but she drew easily the most "serious" or "normal" challenger in Virginia compared to Cao or Vega. She might have very well lost to a MAGA loon, but had they replicated Kiggans in the Nova Exurbs, they pick up at least one and maybe two seats. This isn't to say Kiggans is good (she's not), or moderate (she's not), but she at least tried to be vague about her extremism instead or running expressly as a loon like Cao and Vega did.
RonJon seemed liked he want to play this election on hard mode. He could have just hit on crime and inflation and won easily. Instead he proposed all sorts of major changes to entitlements and went partial qAnon.
Agree on all. As to your point about illegal immigration: I wonder if the issue has just lost salience after years and years of kvetching about it?
Yeah I think voters probably realize that re illegal immigration, it simply makes not an iota of difference who happens to be in charge.
Dems provide better governance in the heartland? MI GOP is a mess vs Whitmer being mostly competent, same is true in MN. The PA Democratic Party knows that fracking and economy are good. Private sector labor being more important in those states probably helps with all these, since private sector unions mostly want the same things (economy etc) as normal voters. NY is a mess with greedy public sector unions and even nominally private unions here leech off excessive public spending on infrastructure etc.
Couldn't agree more about labor (and agree with "Jim_Ed" that Biden bigging up his pro labor record is a good strategy).
It's funny, I think one of the perhaps unintended consequences of GOP's victory squashing private sector unions is that it helped them in another way by making Public sector Unions the only unions of consequence. I'm pretty pro private sector unions but pretty anti public sector unions. And I think I'm safe in saying I'm the left of your typical median voter on most issues, so the fact that I'm pretty anti-public sector union says something. FDR identified the perverse incentives of public sector unions almost a hundred years ago. So result is both that public sector unions become a big factor in making public services work which benefits the Party that says government can't do anything. It also damages reputations of unions in general.
I think this line of thinking is becoming more popular amongst center left types. I work in construction and hire union labor any chance I can because their quality of workmanship and skill is miles better than your typical non-union shop, but I loathe public sector unions.
I'd love to see opinion polling on some public sector unions. I'd guess that police unions are deeply unpopular for obvious reasons, but I'm curious about how some of the completely unhinged responses to COVID from the bigger teachers unions affected their popularity.
I suspect the police union is quite possibly the union with the MOST support in America. As Matt has pointed out, cops are pretty popular (and more so post 2020 crime rise), even among Democrats. The anti-cop crowd is smaller than you think but loud on Twitter.
It's funny, my preferred policy outcome for police is more funding, cops, beat cops. In exchange for smaller pensions and reduced union power. I suspect that last one would be the hardest lift.
Oh, have meant to say this for awhile. So much of the problem with police is actually more a problem with the criminal justice system and specifically courts. A genuinely big problem is lack of capacity of our justice system to process cases. It's how Trump has been able to skirt the law. But on a more basic level, the time it takes for regular people to get cases heard is a huge problem. It's why you have people just waiting in Rikers for months (ending cash bail wouldn't be as big a deal if people could actually get their cases adjudicated). Also, criminal justice system creates real perverse incentives for prosecutors. I know a lot of the focus has been on SF and Philadelphia and whether those prosecutors have been too liberal. But the movement to get more liberal prosecutors elected was spurred by some really egregious practices in DAs offices across the country
You raise a good point on the popularity of police unions as a reflexive counterpart to "BACK TEH BLUE!" conservatives. Though some interesting mental hurdles that need to be jumped through. Are police unions good because cops are good, or are they bad because unions are bad? Are small town sheriffs and rural police represented by unions, or do they only exist for cops in the larger towns full of liberals, and how does that effect their popularity?
I would guess firefighters are probably the unions with the highest approval ratings. There's plenty there to take grievance with if you peek behind the curtain - overstuffed budgets, wildly inefficient work practices, demands for monstrously large apparatus that are detrimental to urban fire fighting, etc etc, but it would be political suicide for any elected to try to take on the guys who run into burning buildings.
Re: Criminal Justice - I fully agree with your points here for the most part. I think cash bail is an obscene system and that the notion that you're less of a danger on bond so long as you can afford it is complete lunacy. The problem with bail reform is that reformers tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the theory of "ending bail will mean not holding people accused of minor crimes in jail" turns into the practice of "people with multiple convictions on serious charges aren't held in jail". DC eliminated cash bail decades ago, but currently it's not terribly uncommon for people accused of murder to be released on supervision back into the community, which is totally, completely indefensible. There's nothing the NY Post loves more than a perp walk of some guy arrested for murder or rape with a subhed of "Scumbag with 28 prior arrests nabbed for horrible crime!" It seems like this would be a pretty easy problem to solve - release people booked for minor crimes, detain people with serious charges! - and yet, it keeps happening over and over again, which is pure chum for the Lee Zeldin types. It's a complete own goal by reformers and as we've seen, its starting to generate some tangible backlash that will be bad for fixing problems in the criminal justice system.
Yeah I think there is a deliberate conflation of "ending cash bail" = "anyone arrested can just be let go no matter the circumstances". In theory DAs offices and judges have tons of discretion still to deny bail. Ending cash bail just means that if a judge grants bail, you still need the financial wherewithal to pay. An "easy" solution is a rule that says multiple offenses = bail cannot be granted. I know the CA "three strikes" law gets (rightly) criticized for locking up people to extreme sentences for minor infractions. But there's a world of difference between "three strikes = 20 years in prison" and "three strikes = denied bail".
Not just the primary, The MIGOP had an absolute clown car set of actual candidates.
Tudor Dixon is a nobody who had done nothing to be remotely qualified to run for governor. She was also an absurdist anti abortion zealot.
Matt DePerno was fired from his law firm for committing fraud; so of course he's a natural choice for AG.
Kristina Karamo, whose profession is "podcaster", was an even more absurdist anti abortion zealot and a hardcore 2020 election truther. Totally the person you want in charge of elections. She earnestly beleives in demonic possession and thinks it can be transmitted sexually. She said these words out loud in an interview.
Yup, the attack ads pretty well wrote themselves.
Michigan also flipped the state legislature, both chambers, for the 1st time in 40 years. Thank you non partisan redistricting Commission.
Come to Michigan folks, the water's great and the weather keeps getting better 😁
"I think Biden's leadership on pro labor issues has been dramatically underrated in important industrial states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Dems should talk about labor victories more!"
I do hope that's right, and it's definitely an angle worth exploring. Unfortunately we've now had 2–3 generations of Democratic elites raised on total blindness to class issues, so I wouldn't hold my breath to wait for them to even raise the *question*
It's kinda nice when candidate quality and policy quality matter. If I were Republicans, I'd try to be more center boring. In many particular cases, Dems should lean into that even more too. Things, especially boring ones, will get done.
They should take a careful look at North Carolina, a 50/50 state where Republicans did well and even the Trump-backed candidates were normies. Ted Budd won by 3-4 points by basically running the Biden play; he mostly kept his mouth shut, said normal, boring things and turned in an uneventful debate performance. Trump-backed Bo Hines gave a totally normal concession speech. The Republican that beat Madison Cawthorn in the primary basically ran on being boring and won the general handily. And they flipped the Supreme Court by making the very boring, normal argument that the court overreached on a couple of issues, for example, forcing the legislature to spend money it didn't appropriate.
And declaring constitutional amendments unconstitutional. That's just arrogance beyond comprehension.
Retroactively, too, such that laws passed by subsequent legislatures might be invalidated because the legislature was not legitimate, which is mind-boggling.
What I wonder about is the counter-factual; had the message instead been something like "we need Trump judges in there to Stop the Steal", would the election gone the other way?
Ben Shapiro had my favorite tweet of the night “Red wave to Red wedding”.
Great line, but I don’t think that Trump and DeSantis were literally killed for refusing to wed the daughter of Dark Brandon so it doesn’t quite fit. (It’s quite possible that we are haunted by the zombie Donald Stoneheart for a few years though.)
Or perhaps more simply, the Republicans were not massacred nor has the strategic lay of the land dramatically shifted. "Red wedding" would have worked if Dems would have increased their majority in the house by say 20 seats and gotten to 60 Senators. That would have been the same kind of shock and awe game changer coming out of left field.
My favorite of the night was this: https://twitter.com/Ammathor/status/1590223553995366402 - Though you have to see the tweet it was replying to (and its date) for it to really hit.
One of those times where that "worst person you know" meme would be appropriate to use here.
I also like "the red wave is looking more like a small toxic spill.” https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/the-knives-are-already-out
I'd like to comment on the GOP overperformance in NY as I suspect once all the votes are counted, the area of the country where GOP will have overperformed the most will be Long Island. As I live in Nassau County Long Island, I feel like I can give some "on the ground" observations that help explain why (Caveat. These are anecdotes and my own observations. I'm the first person to trash these New York Times trips to Trump country that talk to an old man in a diner in rural America who somehow is the "voice" of real America. Or worse, when they speak to an "average joe" citizen, and it turns out this "average joe" is leader of a political activist group. Nonetheless, given we now have solid election results, I think some of my observations may have value).
The number one thing to keep in mind about Long Island is that it's the original "white flight" suburb. Look up the history of Levittown (the first modern planned community). More than northern NJ, Westchester or Fairfield County, Long Island is the place where white residents have moved to in order to "get away" from big bad New York City. Yes, to a certain degree, this describes all NYC suburbs (heck all suburbs). But I've lived in CT and have family in NJ and can't begin to tell you how much that vibe is stronger in Long Island. When I moved to Nassau County in 2010, it wasn't just that it was striking that I met person after person who had never been to NYC outside of a school field trip but would say it with a point of pride. Typical answer would be "why would I ever go to NYC. Such a dirty gross place" (again this is at a time when crime was rapidly falling).
What does this all have to do with GOP overperformance in Long Island? There is not a region or place in America more primed for a "crime is out of control" and specifically a "crime in NYC is out of control" then Long Island. It's a catnip political message. Almost every Zeldin add I saw was security cam footage of assaults and thefts...disproportionately in the NYC subway.
Given there will also likely be general overperformance of GOP in NY, I think it's worth pointing out that a big factor is not just focus on crime, but the disproportionate amount of coverage crime in NYC gets in media and cable news. A person voting in Oklahoma may watch and see all these reports of "NYC crime is out of control" and get shake they're in alarm. But that same person may also ultimately decide this shouldn't have any bearing on their vote for Governor (I'm using Oklahoma as my example because of that moment in the Oklahoma governor debate when the D candidate brought up that Oklahoma was actually wildly more dangerous than NYC and it seems as though Stitt genuinely didn't believe it). But if you live in NY, crime in NYC seems much more relevant. Even if you live in Buffalo, a voter will (correctly note) that the governor has at least some control or say in what crime is like in NYC.
Lastly on the crime question. I can't begin to tell you how terrible it is that Mayor Adams seems to be determined to boost the worst Fox News stereotypes of NYC crime is and how this likely factored into the results. Two things can be true, crime (And perhaps more perinatally visible homelessness) are up and crime is still much lower than it was in the 90s. When Mayor Adams says crime is worse than it's ever been even when he was a beat cop, it's just such a wildly irresponsible thing for him to say. Especially as his city is relies on tourism and people coming for the leisure options for tax revenue (something that will be more important with WFH).
Again, definitely anecdote and observations of just one person. Happy to amend once real voting data comes out and someone like David Shorr can give us more expert data analysis. But thought it worth sharing.
To be fair to the Long Island contingent, while "The Adams administration is a clown show" is an understatement, sometimes it feels like exit really *is* the only option from NYC because beyond the close quarters exposure to crime and disorder itself, there's also a large and vocal contingent seemingly intent on making things actively worse rather than merely incompetently mismanaged -- and that's saying something when the scale of mismanagement includes things like "De Blasio's Wife whom nobody voted for manages to put eight-hundred fifty million dollars down the drain with no accountability."
ETA: Also, NYC actually is, objectively, a filthy place.
I can't emphasize enough that the Long Island contingent I speak of not only don't go to NYC but had parents who didn't either. The "fleeing" from NYC that happened is the same story as everywhere in the country; people moving to areas where they can rent or own more space due to WFH and general feeling "cooped up" during the pandemic. Look at rents in NYC. As Matt has noted over and over again, people "fleeing NYC" are doing so overwhelmingly because "the rent's too damn high" (as an aside, one of the few SCOTUS decisions I might agree with will be to do away with rent stabilization and rent control. Although I worry that someone like Alito will write an opinion that will go well beyond rent control/stabilization seeing as how his goal seems clear to me to reinstate the Lochner ere jurisprudence).
As far as NYC being objectively filthy...if you want to have a discussion about the ridiculousness of how trash pick up is done (including leaving trash on the curbs), happy to have that conversation. Because it's objectively ridiculous and a huge part of the reason NYC is filthier than it needs to be.
long island is just as mismanaged and corrupt as nyc
Can’t begin to tell you how true this is.
Just wanted to say that as someone born and raised on the South Shore (very recently left) this comment is spot on from my experience, so that at least makes two anecdotes!
Florida becoming deep red also tracks with what I've witnessed. I strangely know a lot of people from back home who have moved down there in the past few years, and they are almost exclusively people who would post conservative Facebook/Instagram posts.
Suspect you live (or lived) very close to where I currently live in Lynbrook (though I've lived all over Nassau County). I think you may agree with me that in Long Island, non-Jewish white men over the age 40 are some of the most Trumpy people in the entire country. I go back to a comment I once heard (and have repeated on this forum) that the best way to think of anything Trump says is to preface everything he says with "Donny from Queens, you're on the air". Years and years of listening to too much WFAN actually gave me some decent insight that Long Island suburbs would have more Trump fans than someone who doesn't live here might expect.
I grew up in Staten Island, which is very very similar to Nassau County, and I very quickly grokked that Trump was basically one of those guys but with a multimillion-dollar inheritance and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Basically, take your average preternaturally angry blue-collar, 50-something-year-old white guy in the NYC suburbs, give him no reason to ever tone it down and a compulsive need to always be the center of attention and, voila, Trump.
I am from Georgia. My dad is racist to the point of owning a prized “Run Jessie Run” T-shirt depicting white men chasing Jessie Jackson in an old timey pickup truck.
I have never lived anywhere more racist than the south shore of Long Island.
i remember reading this fun story back in the summer lol
https://www.thecity.nyc/economy/2022/7/6/23197456/tourists-back-nyc-fear-crime-day-trippers-hotels-restaurants?_amp=true
Unfortunately tracks. This chart (https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status/1553024034362626048) was so instructive and why I've pushed back on the large number of posters on this forum who post about crime and specifically about crime in NYC.
Have a sneaking suspicion that news stories about crime will start fall precipitously over the coming weeks.
Per this Nov. 4th Bloomberg article, felonies in the subway are at about 2019 prepandemic levels in total while ridership is only about 65%. That’s a roughly 50% per-capita increase in crime on top of the already dehumanizing experience of riding the subway. The crime issues definitely aren’t wholly illusory. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-04/is-it-safe-to-ride-the-new-york-city-subway-after-a-surge-of-more-police
I’ll preface this comment by saying I’m glad there is more police presence on the subway and some actual attempts to deal with a very real rise in “disorder” on the subway. But saying that, there is a lot reason to be skeptical of the crime stats we’re seeing.
https://jabberwocking.com/violent-crime-is-under-control-in-big-cities-with-one-big-exception/
Huh. Well that’s a headscratcher.
Aside from the box-watching nuts in Arizona over the last few weeks, has there been any real reporting of bad polling place shenanigans? After a decent amount of hand-wringing about pollworker safety, we had an utterly and completely normal night at my ward. No need to frown at the odd MAGA-hat electioneering troll, not a single rejected absentee.
80% as many ballots cast as total names in the poll book (i.e., pre-registered voters), which I thought was pretty neat.
AFAICT, a substantial part of the progressive movement these days is literally that cartoon with the journalist begging, "Someone please shoot up the 'Joker' movie," but with "a polling place in a majority minority precinct," substituted for "'Joker' movie."
In my county in rural/exurban Minnesota we had a couple of MAGA trolls but that’s it, and no rejections. All the Democrats were shocked that there wasn’t a flood of Republican challengers looking for “fraud.”
It can both be true that the Republicans underperformed *and* that they will capture both the House and the Senate. I'd like to think that they would be chastened by their relatively poor performance and not overreach but that seems to go against their ethos and, sad to say as a loyal Democrat, it would be counter to what my party did after such a "chastening" underperformance. You know, way way back in 2020 when they expected to do much better though still squeaked to control of both houses only to then decide that Biden should be FDR and their party had a mandate to pass huge, transformative legislation.
If they do squeak through, I expect the Republicans to do no less.
Those things can be both true, but they won't actually notice the underperformance unless the Dems keep the Senate, because people use results oriented thinking and learn the wrong lessons a lot.
It's why the Republican party came away from 2016 thinking that Trumpism was a good thing. To this day it still amazes me that the GOP went into 2015 or so thinking that they had extremely good chances to win in 2016, and the Dems probably cleared the field for Hilary despite her flaws because they frankly didn't think they were going to win anyway.
Then a year later everyone is convinced that Hilary will win in a landslide, and when Trump wins he is celebrated as some political genius who found a way to an unlikely victory. Ignoring the fact that the whole reason the victory was unlikely in the first place was because he is a moronic nutjob!
So instead of "This Trump fiasco robbed us of a landslide victory and a mandate", the GOP learned "Trumpism is the key to the future because he won!"
This was also incredibly good news for 2024. First, the likelihood of Republicans being able to overturn a Biden win went way, way down due to political factors and who actually won/lost elections. Second, the economy will most likely look even better in Nov 2024, even if there is a small recession in 2023. Third, the incumbent president almost always does significantly better than their midterm result. And fourth, this sets up a potentially much more bruising primary battle between Desantis and Trump. I can't image Trump losing a primary campaign without at least torpedoing the next presidential election if not inflicting even more damage on Republican election hopes. I believe that before the Republicans can get the benefit of getting him off the ballot, they are going to have to pay a huge revenge penalty in one election cycle to purge him from control of the party.
And fifth, winning more Senate seats now would make a potential (probable) Senate wipeout with a very difficult map in 2024 less damaging overall.
Curious if Dems double down on boosting Rs they view as politically weak due to their support for insurrection. Shapiro trounced Mastriano in PA Gov race and Michigan Dems picked up Peter Meier’s seat now that they’ve beaten John Gibbs who primaried him.
Will be interesting to see a full accounting of that strategy.
If you combine this with Trump continuing to endorse clowns that win in the primaries, I will remain very curious to see if the GOP in some states just junks primaries altogether.
That might be good for depolarization. Virginia Rs won governor race by the establishment picking Youngkin in a convention. He’s still quite conservative but not the crazy conservative the Republican Virginia electorate was flirting with nominating.
They won't but they should. The primary system is broken.
Maybe the best news of the night. It's great to throw that back at all the pearl-clutchers (mostly "moderate" Republicans) who thought it the World's Greatest Crime to indulge in these brass knuckle tactics. Yay Democrats!
Oh absolutely, Barletta was one of the fake electors for PA. Another R running, Charlie Gerow, hosted the fake elector strategy meetings in his lobby office. Jake Corman aided and abetted the 2020 election investigation by funding it as Senate President Pro Tem. Bill McSwain made a concerted effort to kiss up trump on election denial before Barr slapped him down.
Whole field was a bunch of kooks.
I was an election commissioner Tuesday in a deep red precinct in a red state. Turnout was unusually high. There was a constant stream of voters throughout the day. At times, the line was out the door. I went to bed thinking I had witnessed the day democracy died. A big turnout had to be a Republican wave; there weren't enough Democratic voters in the precinct to make a trickle.
Turns out I was right about my precinct (the Republication Senator won 91% of the vote) but thank-the-lord, I was wrong about the country. What I learned was the importance of getting out the vote. A voter would ask if his/her family members had voted, and if they hadn't, sure enough they were at the polls in an hour. Many voters carried a flyer that looked like ballot recommendations. Others came with notes. The vibe was of a united community on a mission to win. How many of these voters could have been persuaded to switch their votes? Not many. Dems can only outvote them with local networks as determined to win as the one I saw yesterday.
My biggest take-away from this: Nate Silver needs to permanently retire his "enhanced" model. It's extremely clear now that it's just a case of him fudging the numbers by throwing in variables until the results start to line up with his gut. As a result, it is worse than worthless. He has turned into the kind of yard-sign-counting hack pundit that he created 538 to counter back in 2008.
I thought that the “Deluxe” model just adds the other predictions like Sabato and the like, not any of his own factors, right?
The best arg is that *Experts* are just looking at the same data as the rest of us and therefore have no real value-add. Thus light > deluxe
Personally though, I think Nate Silver has actually done a great job. And believe him that adding expert ratings helps a little.
edit: swapped light and deluxe
I think 538's set of models is best consumed in parallel, with the expectation that the deluxe prediction might pick up on instantaneous events that polls are fundamentally unsuited to detect.
i.e., right after Dobbs, "Our poll-based ratings say X, but there is reason to think these numbers will swing in Y direction as we collect more data over the next few weeks"
I believe that's what he says, and I trust him to tell the truth, but unless you can actually look at the code you never truly know. This bothers some of my mathematician friends. Doesn't bother me as much--it's how he pays the bills.
Nate Cohn is the best Nate
I maintain a performance-weighted Nate average to make sure that I don't over-focus on the predictions of any specific Nate. I call it FiveThirtyNate.
Honestly I like both Nates, Cohn has the highest Nate rating but Silver's Nate rating is still quite good.
He absolutely does not fudge the numbers.
Adding additional variables to your model without rigor (particularly when some of those variables are things like "Expert Predictions" that are partially informed by the output of the model) is, in fact, fudging the numbers.
You seem to be implying there are more differences, but to be clear, the only difference in the deluxe model is the addition of expert forecasts.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/methodology/how-fivethirtyeights-house-and-senate-models-work/
That's not what I would call fudging at all, unless Nate is going in and tweaking the weights after running the model each time until he likes the outcome, which I highly, highly doubt.
This is similar to the fishing expedition/garden of forking paths issue in data analysis for social science studies.
The deluxe model never made sense to me even though I've heard Nate explain it 20 different times. So your whole thing was trusting the polls and not the pundits, but you added some pundits back into the polls and call it better? huh?
I think for House races that actually makes sense. House districts are famously oddly shaped, so it’s very difficult to even target a poll at the registered voters in a specific district. Pollsters sometimes do, but the political scientist forecasters (and these aren’t “pundits” in the TV talking head sense!) do try to make an effort to know the critical districts well.
He has noted repeatedly that the "deluxe" model has done "marginally" better over time. Not sure if that still holds after this election but I doubt it will change things dramatically. As 538 keep saying, every election is a single "event" and you can't make radical conclusions based on single events. So far all the 538 models seemed fine, as were the polls.
We should start just start serially reviewing his numbers to to see what his errors are.
Yeah, but prediction markets are also like the yard-sign pundits who also happen to be degenerate gamblers.
I didn't check results last night or first thing this morning, opting instead for the gym last night and the latest episode of Andor this morning. I fully expected a catastrophe as well, and instead performed some version of that viral Kombucha girl video whilst eating my breakfast. Was happy to see what I saw while enjoying an english muffin.
I, also expecting catastrophe, actually waited to see the hed on this post! Am only just learning of this now!
I desperately hope (despite long experience) that Dems don't learn the wrong lessons, but I'm seriously relieved.
By the way, here's a headline to an opinion column I'd like to read from MY or anyone at the NYT:
"Maybe Nothing's the Matter with Kansas. Democrat Laura Kelly Likely Wins a Second Term."
Great post. I think the media over-reports Trump and MAGA for ratings. Distracts us from the obvious. Kari Lake is a prime example. She may still win, but we were led to believe it was going to be a blowout and the press hounded here with questions about running for president.
Same for good Democrats in strong red states. Beto and Ryan got a lot of press but didn’t really have a chance from the beginning.