We spend a lot of time thinking about the race for President that we forget about the other major race going on in the legislative branch. While the House likely won't change hands, the Senate is in real danger of flipping from Republican control to Democratic control. I want to take a look at why that is, break it down a bit, and make a prediction about 2018.
First of all, Senate seats are up for re-election every six years. The current balance is 44 Democrats, 54 Republicans. Maine Sen. Angus King and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders call themselves independents, but they both caucus with Democrats, so consider Democrats at 46. Also, because of the presidential election, the "tie-breaker" vote could change hands: If Clinton wins, Democrats only need to change 4 seats to swing the Senate; if not, Democrats must aim for 5.
In short, the Senate could flip this year because there are more Republican seats up for grabs and it coincides with a presidential election. Presidential elections tend to draw more voters, especially from people who may not know their senator, but sure as heck know who's running for President. Because of that, some tight races may get more down-ballot attention, especially in opposite-color states or swing states.
So what do I mean by "more Republican seats up for grabs?" Literally that. Before we get into the analysis, Democrats will have a 36:30 seat advantage. There are 34 Senate races to be determined this year, and Republicans occupy 24 of those seats. Further, several of those Republican-held seats are in "blue states" or swing states. The color of a few races are already decided: Two open seats in Maryland and California only have Democrats remaining. Further, if you add in the seats widely considered safe or likely (I use a consensus from major political science-inclined poll aggregators: Larry J. Sabato of the University of Virginia, Real Clear Politics, Cook Political Report, and 538.com when available), you have at least 12 safe GOP seats (including Okla. Sen. James Lankford and Kan. Sen. Jerry Moran) and 9 safe Democrat seats. So now we're at 45 Democrats and 42 Republicans; 13 seats remain, and Democrats need 5 to flip the Senate. I've got them in three categories: Pretty Obvious, Leaning/Trending, or No Clue.
Pretty Obvious
Georgia Incumbent Sen. Johnny Isakson has a clear lead. He's on the scale between "leans GOP" and "safe GOP" according to the aggregators. No poll shows him in trouble. Looks like it'll stay red.
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley is also considered "lean GOP" or "likely GOP." Polls show him up by 7-10 percent. He looks safe.
Wisconsin is the first change. Ron Johnson (R) beat Russ Feingold (D) six years ago. Now, it's pretty clear Feingold will take back his seat. Feigned is up by double digits in all the polls, and two of the three consider it a "lean Dem" seat. Democrats +1
Illinois is another possible/probable change. Republican Sen. Mark Kirk is close, but he's trailed in most of the polls so far to Dem. Tammy Duckworth. She's a woman and a Democrat in a year in which Illinois is going to vote a woman Democrat for President. Two of the three have this flipping already. This is the most likely to be in the below category, though. Democrats +1
Arizona Sen. John McCain is one of the longest-sitting senators. However, Arizona is suddenly a swing state, since Trump is disliked by the Hispanic community. McCain looked in trouble in several polls just before the conventions, but the most recent polls show a comfortable lead. It'd be a shocker if this changed hands.
Leaning
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt has lead in every poll that I've seen, which is good. But always by low to mid single digits, which is bad. He's very unpopular in the state (one had him at 31% approval), and most of his recent leads in the polls have been within the margin of error. If Clinton somehow wins Missouri, the down-ballot effect might help boost Democrat challenger Jason Kander. Lean GOP; no change
Indiana is an interesting race. Former Democrat Sen. Evan Bayh said he wasn't running again in 2010, which allowed GOP Sen. Dan Coats to pick up the seat. Now it's the opposite: Coats isn't running, and Bayh wants his seat back. While Indiana will likely go red in November, Bayh has a high single-digit lead in the few polls there have been. Lean Democrat; Democrats +1
Ohio looked like a potential pick-up for Democrats, but I don't think so. Republican Sen. Rob Portman has led in every poll against Democrat Ted Strickland taken since July 4. More recent polls show a widening gap in the mid-high single digits. Lean GOP; no change
Florida is close and considered a toss-up by everyone. But a closer look at the polls show it's not. Marco Rubio has led every poll against Democrat Patrick Murphy since mid-June. The size of that lead is a matter of debate. That Rubio has a lead is not. Lean GOP; no change
No Clue
Nevada Dem. and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is retiring. His seat is hotly contested. Nevada is a toss-up on the presidential election. Polls show it's anyone's game between the name recognition of Joe Heck (R) and Reid's hand-picked successor, Catherine Cortez Masto. A slight edge to Heck, probably, but not by much. If Heck, +1 GOP. If Cortez Masto, no change
New Hampshire will probably be determined by the way it votes for president. It is leaning Democrat, and Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan is running against incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Ayotte is trying to walk a tightrope by saying she's voting for Trump, but not endorsing him. The few polls there are show a slight edge for Hassan, but not big enough to say for sure. If Hassan, +1 Democrat. If Ayotte, no change
North Carolina is another that may be determined by the presidential vote. It's a toss-up state on the presidential level. Incumbent GOP Sen. Richard Burr has a fight on his hands with Democrat Deborah Ross. Most polls show a 3-5 point advantage for Burr, but a few reputable polls show her with a small lead. I think Burr has a very slight edge. If Burr, no change. If Ross, +1 Democrat.
Pennsylvania is a close race. Incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Toomey looks to be in trouble. There haven't been many recent (last two weeks) polls, but Democratic challenger Katie McGinty had a slight lead in almost all the recent polls. The state is likely voting for Clinton, so McGinty may get a down-ballot boost. McGinty has a slight edge. If McGinty, +1 Democrat. If Toomey, no change.
Bottom line: Democrats look likely to pick up three seats. If you split the "No Clue" seats, you get one more seat for Democrats, giving them 50 — and the majority if Clinton wins the presidency.
One more issue is that even if the Democrats win the Senate majority in 2016, I predict they lose it in 2018. I'm making that prediction already! Why? The same math that works against the GOP this cycle works against Democrats in 2018, as well as the mid-term backlash against a potential Democrat president (Clinton). There are 33 seats up in 2018, and only eight of them are sitting Republicans (two are independents that caucus as Democrats). Further, five Democrat seats are in red states (ND, MO, WV, MT, IN). A few closer looks I've seen indicate 12 "toss-ups," and 10 of those are sitting Democrats.
Election update
I haven't seen enough strong indications from poll data to move any states from red to blue, or blue to red, or toss-up to anything. Missouri is definitely a toss-up state. It appears either Clinton's post-convention bounce is ending or Trump's new advisors have kept him from saying anything really crazy lately.
There's one other thing I wanted to note here, because it required some explanation. By my count, Clinton's got 272 electoral college votes in the bag, despite having states that account for 273 electoral college votes. Why the disparity? Maine and Nebraska both divide electoral college votes by district. Nebraska is red, Maine is blue. But Nebraska has a district (Omaha and suburbs) and Maine has a district (Bangor, but not Portland or Augusta) that are considered toss-ups this year. Although Maine will likely go blue, the second district is not yet secured. The opposite is true for Nebraska.
Summary Judgments
It was probably pushed to the world page, or maybe in the "other headlines," but Colombia reaching a peace deal with FARC is a big deal. The ongoing civil war with FARC meant that there were two Colombias, effectively. A peaceful one in which the drug problem had dropped dramatically, and another that was communism-at-gunpoint, in which drugs were still a big industry. This ends a 50-year conflict. I think we need to celebrate when countries are no longer at war. • • • Clinton has (surprisingly) not called Donald Trump a bigot in public. But Trump has called her a bigot multiple times lately. John Oliver said it best recently: "Because Trump hasn't said one crazy thing; he's said thousands of crazy things, each of which blunts the effect of the others. It's the bed of nails principle. If you step on one nail, it hurts you. If you step on a thousand nails, no single one stands out and you're fine." • • • The Flying Butt left skid marks. Make your own jokes about this story. • • • It's an absolute shame that the Chicago White Sox will now be playing in.... UGH.... Guaranteed Rate Field. That is probably the new worst stadium name in all of pro sports. • • • The kids are 2 now. I'm having a lot of feels. Roland's been very cuddly during storms, also giving me more feels. The party for them is this weekend, so lots of feels to be had. • • • I have identified a race to sign up for in October. Now I just need to run more often, since Roland's bad sleep of late has meant I am less likely to wake up early and run.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Positively Thinking Positive
I asked for what you'd like to see here, and a reader (Grandma) asked that I write about the good points each made. It's hard to compare when candidates don't stick to the same topics. Except they sort of did recently, as they both talked economic policy during a speech last week. This is about as "apples to apples" as we get, since they were also both made in Detroit. So this week, I'm going to talk positively about what each said in their big economic policy speech.
Donald Trump
He talks about how "Our roads and bridges fell into disrepair." I very much agree with this. Infrastructure has taken short shrift for a long time. We built an amazing highway system, but have not reinvested in it. Infrastructure can be what takes us to the next level as a country, but we have to do "boring" things, like build roads and airports and commuter railroads. I'm a big infrastructure wonk, and Note: I'm ignoring the latter half of his sentence ("yet we resettled millions of refugees at taxpayer expense" for being both a) false on the "millions" part and b) not how budgets work). Think positive, Andrew! Positive!
He also talks about reducing income tax. In theory, this is a good point on the macro level. Yay! Fewer taxes! (In practice, this is often terrible. See: Sam Brownback and Kansas.) He also talks about reducing "special interest loopholes," which is probably a good idea. These are both great ideas in theory but potentially difficult when actually in practice. But in theory: Good ideas!
Tax simplification is a good idea. I'm for the idea of making it easier. Otherwise, we're buttressing a financial services industry that has become more and more assembly line in nature. The tax system should be easy enough for anyone to file their own taxes. He gives some specifics on the number of tax brackets and the exact number for each. Good details to have, honestly.
He has a plan to allow parents to fully deduct the "average cost of childcare spending" from their taxes. I don't know what he means by "average cost," but that sounds like a nice idea. I'm already paying a lot in childcare, I don't want to be taxed on that as "income," too.
He mentions reforming the Veterans Health Administration, which is sorely needed. Devil's in the details, but there are simple fixes that are possible and overdue.
Hillary Clinton
She spends a lot of time early talking about what America does right as an economy. This is one of things that makes you go, "Oh, yeah. America is awesome." We have the best schools in the world, we have the best tech companies, etc.
She also talks about modernizing infrastructure, so points there. She goes a few steps further: expand affordable housing, repair schools and repair failing water systems (like the nearby Flint). She also wants to connect everyone to broadband Internet by 2020. I think that's ambitious, but it's a good goal. She also has the goal of a resilient, clean energy power grid. Its subtext is jobs: Building power plants, building wind and solar energy systems, etc. all will create the need for jobs.
She has an idea for an infrastructure bank to serve as seed money for private sector investment. I like that idea. Sometimes a little push is all it takes to get over the edge, and this would incentivize private companies to create jobs. I like it. Her "Make it in America" partnership calls for $10 billion in supporting American manufacturing and scientific research. Those are seemingly unrelated, but pushing scientific research and manufacturing are kind of bulletproof.
Perhaps the thing that hit home most for me is her call for tax credits, training, paid apprenticeships and more that emphasize the trades. She calls for a national campaign to dignify skill straining, and I think it's right: not everyone needs to go to college. A welder can make more than a journalist, but one requires a degree and the other requires a certification. This was a big push that I was fully behind as an editor in Pittsburg: Provide training for skills/trades, which are good jobs with good money. But we have to prepare people for those fields and promote them.
She makes mention of an "exit tax" for companies looking to move overseas, requiring corporations that outsource jobs to pay back tax breaks, and the Buffett Rule -- multi-millionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. These are all good, specific ideas.
Finally, she talks about making quality, affordable childcare available and limiting the costs to a percentage of family income. Equal pay for equal work. Paid family leave. Those (especially the latter two) should be priorities for every legislator and candidate. *Note: She says that the Trump childcare-would-be-tax-free plan would help the rich more, and I don't know enough about it to say if that's true.
Other Thoughts
The things that I didn't hear are about the changing economy. You know why coal companies aren't doing so hot? Because we discovered natural gas is cleaner and cheaper. It's not because of regulations. You know why manufacturing has declined? It's because we have new and better machinery and technologies that lower the demand for American labor and American products (Also, other countries are catching up). These are tidal shifts, and no amount of promises or platitudes will change those. Candidates need to be addressing these shifts and talk about how to move forward rather than tell people what they want to hear, and that is a complaint for me about both candidates.
Both candidates seem to imply that free trade is bad. I'd like to hear some proof from either rather than spout things like "trade agreements kill jobs!" It's also kind of weird in general to imagine that either would continue to detest free trade once they become president. Trump would say something like "Those deals were bad, but this deal is good," while Clinton would say that the deals strengthen our relationships with allies without harming American workers. In short, I want to hear WHY free trade is bad and what makes a good deal.
Two more things, one good and one bad for Hillary (she had more specific policies in her speech):
First, while free college is a fun idea Hillary threw out, I think it goes too far. That's not to say college should be as expensive as it is now: We've shifted the burden for funding college away from a 70:30 state:student ratio to closer to 30:70, that can mean college is either for those who can afford it or those who are willing to go into mountains of debt. I think a middle road exists. Let's see if we can lower the cost burden of college and reduce the interest rates on student loans to reasonable standards, but still have students be accountable and have some buy-in to their education. I am, however, OK with free community college or skills/trade courses. That would incentivize skills/trade courses.
The good thing for Hillary is her idea for a public option for Obamacare. This is one of two pieces (expanded Medicare nationwide as the other) that the Affordable Care Act needs to be successful. The public option helps defend against companies like Aetna throwing their weight around, it provides a minimum acceptable coverage, and — by the nature of being a crappy public option — incentivizes people to get better health care through their work or on their own. If you don't like Obamacare (I have friends who hate it, even as they... rely on it for their insurance), then I'd love to see what you'd like to do instead. I've yet to hear someone say HOW they'd replace Obamacare beyond broad goals.
Race Review
I'm pretty slow to move a state out of the toss-up category, but I'm ready to do that with New Hampshire. They've had four polls since the conventions, and all show a nearly 10-point lead or high single digit lead for Hillary Clinton. So I'm moving New Hampshire blue. Why is that significant? Because by my tracking, that puts Clinton over 270 electoral college votes. That would make her the next President, even if she loses all the toss-up states.
I'm also moving both Georgia and Missouri out of red state category and into toss-up. They've both had several polls in the low single digits since the convention. This is backed up by evidence in polls, but also anecdotally: I've seen a bunch of commercials for Hillary/anti-Trump on local TV. The Clinton campaign wouldn't be buying those expensive ads if they didn't think they had a chance at making a difference. Toss-up states: Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, Iowa, Georgia, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina. States close to moving in one direction or the other: South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida.
Goodbye, Gawker — Sort Of
Let me be as frank as possible: I was wrong. Gawker will not survive their lost lawsuit against Hulk Hogan. While I think they had a strong legal case for appeal, the fallout from the original trial (read: bankruptcy) caused them to put the company up for auction. Although they had a buyer lined up, that buyer was outbid. Univision (!) purchased Gawker Media's assets and staff.
They'll keep the popular sites Deadspin, Jezebel, Gizmodo, Kotaku, Jalopnik, Lifehacker, et al. However, it was announced that the main site, Gawker.com, would be shuttered as of next week. Gawker played with fire. They got burned. Univision was able to control the burning by saving what still had value.
Summary Judgments
An Olympic story that caught my eye: We should be talking more about South African runner Wayde Van Niekerk. He just set a new world record in the 400m run (one lap around the track) at 43.03, beating Michael Johnson's record by .15 seconds. He's the only man in history to have a 100m dash under 10 seconds (9.8), a 200m run under 20 seconds, and a 400m run under 44 seconds. It's pretty incredible, and he's a person most Americans have never heard of. • • • I saw an interesting mathematics idea this week: Take any number and, if it's even, divide it by 2. If it's odd, multiply by 3 and add one. If you keep doing this, the number will eventually get to 1. But mathematicians a) aren't sure if this is true and b) can't seem to find any observable patterns. But it's simple enough that anyone can understand it yet complex enough that professionals can spend their entire lives working on it, yet not be able to unlock it. It's called the Collatz Conjecture. • • • This is an incredible picture. If you are not moved, you have no heart. • • • This was an interesting read by Vox's Ezra Klein on why the press is harsh on Donald Trump. • • • This is exactly why I hate voter ID restrictions and limits on voting. North Carolina GOP legislators sought data about how black people vote in the state, then proposed restrictions on those methods (early voting, voter IDs, etc.). Their move was thrown out by a court for targeting a minority population — which often votes Democratic. And now the NC GOP is trying to make early voting as inconvenient as possible and "make party line changes to early voting." It's sickening. • • • Roland and Evie are going to get their first haircut this weekend. After two years, it's long enough to make someone think we had two girls. • • • Evie can count to 11! And probably 13! But she skips 5, for some unknown reason. • • • I've been running more lately. But I also want to play Pokemon Go while I run for game reasons. This has meant my running gets interrupted by 10-15 seconds of walking. I HAVE NO REGRETS.
Donald Trump
He talks about how "Our roads and bridges fell into disrepair." I very much agree with this. Infrastructure has taken short shrift for a long time. We built an amazing highway system, but have not reinvested in it. Infrastructure can be what takes us to the next level as a country, but we have to do "boring" things, like build roads and airports and commuter railroads. I'm a big infrastructure wonk, and Note: I'm ignoring the latter half of his sentence ("yet we resettled millions of refugees at taxpayer expense" for being both a) false on the "millions" part and b) not how budgets work). Think positive, Andrew! Positive!
He also talks about reducing income tax. In theory, this is a good point on the macro level. Yay! Fewer taxes! (In practice, this is often terrible. See: Sam Brownback and Kansas.) He also talks about reducing "special interest loopholes," which is probably a good idea. These are both great ideas in theory but potentially difficult when actually in practice. But in theory: Good ideas!
Tax simplification is a good idea. I'm for the idea of making it easier. Otherwise, we're buttressing a financial services industry that has become more and more assembly line in nature. The tax system should be easy enough for anyone to file their own taxes. He gives some specifics on the number of tax brackets and the exact number for each. Good details to have, honestly.
He has a plan to allow parents to fully deduct the "average cost of childcare spending" from their taxes. I don't know what he means by "average cost," but that sounds like a nice idea. I'm already paying a lot in childcare, I don't want to be taxed on that as "income," too.
He mentions reforming the Veterans Health Administration, which is sorely needed. Devil's in the details, but there are simple fixes that are possible and overdue.
Hillary Clinton
She spends a lot of time early talking about what America does right as an economy. This is one of things that makes you go, "Oh, yeah. America is awesome." We have the best schools in the world, we have the best tech companies, etc.
She also talks about modernizing infrastructure, so points there. She goes a few steps further: expand affordable housing, repair schools and repair failing water systems (like the nearby Flint). She also wants to connect everyone to broadband Internet by 2020. I think that's ambitious, but it's a good goal. She also has the goal of a resilient, clean energy power grid. Its subtext is jobs: Building power plants, building wind and solar energy systems, etc. all will create the need for jobs.
She has an idea for an infrastructure bank to serve as seed money for private sector investment. I like that idea. Sometimes a little push is all it takes to get over the edge, and this would incentivize private companies to create jobs. I like it. Her "Make it in America" partnership calls for $10 billion in supporting American manufacturing and scientific research. Those are seemingly unrelated, but pushing scientific research and manufacturing are kind of bulletproof.
Perhaps the thing that hit home most for me is her call for tax credits, training, paid apprenticeships and more that emphasize the trades. She calls for a national campaign to dignify skill straining, and I think it's right: not everyone needs to go to college. A welder can make more than a journalist, but one requires a degree and the other requires a certification. This was a big push that I was fully behind as an editor in Pittsburg: Provide training for skills/trades, which are good jobs with good money. But we have to prepare people for those fields and promote them.
She makes mention of an "exit tax" for companies looking to move overseas, requiring corporations that outsource jobs to pay back tax breaks, and the Buffett Rule -- multi-millionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. These are all good, specific ideas.
Finally, she talks about making quality, affordable childcare available and limiting the costs to a percentage of family income. Equal pay for equal work. Paid family leave. Those (especially the latter two) should be priorities for every legislator and candidate. *Note: She says that the Trump childcare-would-be-tax-free plan would help the rich more, and I don't know enough about it to say if that's true.
Other Thoughts
The things that I didn't hear are about the changing economy. You know why coal companies aren't doing so hot? Because we discovered natural gas is cleaner and cheaper. It's not because of regulations. You know why manufacturing has declined? It's because we have new and better machinery and technologies that lower the demand for American labor and American products (Also, other countries are catching up). These are tidal shifts, and no amount of promises or platitudes will change those. Candidates need to be addressing these shifts and talk about how to move forward rather than tell people what they want to hear, and that is a complaint for me about both candidates.
Both candidates seem to imply that free trade is bad. I'd like to hear some proof from either rather than spout things like "trade agreements kill jobs!" It's also kind of weird in general to imagine that either would continue to detest free trade once they become president. Trump would say something like "Those deals were bad, but this deal is good," while Clinton would say that the deals strengthen our relationships with allies without harming American workers. In short, I want to hear WHY free trade is bad and what makes a good deal.
Two more things, one good and one bad for Hillary (she had more specific policies in her speech):
First, while free college is a fun idea Hillary threw out, I think it goes too far. That's not to say college should be as expensive as it is now: We've shifted the burden for funding college away from a 70:30 state:student ratio to closer to 30:70, that can mean college is either for those who can afford it or those who are willing to go into mountains of debt. I think a middle road exists. Let's see if we can lower the cost burden of college and reduce the interest rates on student loans to reasonable standards, but still have students be accountable and have some buy-in to their education. I am, however, OK with free community college or skills/trade courses. That would incentivize skills/trade courses.
The good thing for Hillary is her idea for a public option for Obamacare. This is one of two pieces (expanded Medicare nationwide as the other) that the Affordable Care Act needs to be successful. The public option helps defend against companies like Aetna throwing their weight around, it provides a minimum acceptable coverage, and — by the nature of being a crappy public option — incentivizes people to get better health care through their work or on their own. If you don't like Obamacare (I have friends who hate it, even as they... rely on it for their insurance), then I'd love to see what you'd like to do instead. I've yet to hear someone say HOW they'd replace Obamacare beyond broad goals.
Race Review
I'm pretty slow to move a state out of the toss-up category, but I'm ready to do that with New Hampshire. They've had four polls since the conventions, and all show a nearly 10-point lead or high single digit lead for Hillary Clinton. So I'm moving New Hampshire blue. Why is that significant? Because by my tracking, that puts Clinton over 270 electoral college votes. That would make her the next President, even if she loses all the toss-up states.
I'm also moving both Georgia and Missouri out of red state category and into toss-up. They've both had several polls in the low single digits since the convention. This is backed up by evidence in polls, but also anecdotally: I've seen a bunch of commercials for Hillary/anti-Trump on local TV. The Clinton campaign wouldn't be buying those expensive ads if they didn't think they had a chance at making a difference. Toss-up states: Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, Iowa, Georgia, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina. States close to moving in one direction or the other: South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida.
Goodbye, Gawker — Sort Of
Let me be as frank as possible: I was wrong. Gawker will not survive their lost lawsuit against Hulk Hogan. While I think they had a strong legal case for appeal, the fallout from the original trial (read: bankruptcy) caused them to put the company up for auction. Although they had a buyer lined up, that buyer was outbid. Univision (!) purchased Gawker Media's assets and staff.
They'll keep the popular sites Deadspin, Jezebel, Gizmodo, Kotaku, Jalopnik, Lifehacker, et al. However, it was announced that the main site, Gawker.com, would be shuttered as of next week. Gawker played with fire. They got burned. Univision was able to control the burning by saving what still had value.
Summary Judgments
An Olympic story that caught my eye: We should be talking more about South African runner Wayde Van Niekerk. He just set a new world record in the 400m run (one lap around the track) at 43.03, beating Michael Johnson's record by .15 seconds. He's the only man in history to have a 100m dash under 10 seconds (9.8), a 200m run under 20 seconds, and a 400m run under 44 seconds. It's pretty incredible, and he's a person most Americans have never heard of. • • • I saw an interesting mathematics idea this week: Take any number and, if it's even, divide it by 2. If it's odd, multiply by 3 and add one. If you keep doing this, the number will eventually get to 1. But mathematicians a) aren't sure if this is true and b) can't seem to find any observable patterns. But it's simple enough that anyone can understand it yet complex enough that professionals can spend their entire lives working on it, yet not be able to unlock it. It's called the Collatz Conjecture. • • • This is an incredible picture. If you are not moved, you have no heart. • • • This was an interesting read by Vox's Ezra Klein on why the press is harsh on Donald Trump. • • • This is exactly why I hate voter ID restrictions and limits on voting. North Carolina GOP legislators sought data about how black people vote in the state, then proposed restrictions on those methods (early voting, voter IDs, etc.). Their move was thrown out by a court for targeting a minority population — which often votes Democratic. And now the NC GOP is trying to make early voting as inconvenient as possible and "make party line changes to early voting." It's sickening. • • • Roland and Evie are going to get their first haircut this weekend. After two years, it's long enough to make someone think we had two girls. • • • Evie can count to 11! And probably 13! But she skips 5, for some unknown reason. • • • I've been running more lately. But I also want to play Pokemon Go while I run for game reasons. This has meant my running gets interrupted by 10-15 seconds of walking. I HAVE NO REGRETS.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Race Reset: Trump Can't Stop Trumping Trump
I'm getting sick of writing about Donald Trump. I wish others (CNN, I'm looking at you) would be, too. As of 1:30 p.m., four of their eight top stories mentioned Trump, while two of three of the "carousel" items mentioned Trump. Trump does X. People react to Trump. Trump reacts to other people's reactions. It reminds me of a Simpsons reference: "Whenever Poochie's not on screen, all the other characters should be asking, 'Where's Poochie?'".
For a long time, Donald Trump has said he can be presidential. In effect, that he has an off switch that he can do at any time. But what the last month has done for a lot of people that he either doesn't have an off switch or will never flick it on. And while I could go in depth on a lot of statements he's made, I want to focus on his most recent because of just how much he is the problem to his own campaign.
In a recent address, he said that maybe Second Amendment folks could do something to keep Clinton from picking Supreme Court justices. His actual words are among the most vague in the world, though: "Maybe there is." His defenders want people to understand it in context, but that's a mixed bag. The sentence before sets up a hypothetical of "If she gets to pick," meaning it's post-election. The sentence after the "Maybe there is" line continues the hypothetical with "that will be a horrible day." So it's almost assuredly that the "Maybe there is" belongs in the post-election hypothetical, but what that insinuates goes unsaid. It's very much in the vein of "There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her... wherever:" Because it's so vague, you can make your own interpretations of what he means. He didn't say what people think he said.
Going back to the "maybe": A spokesperson called it a joke (like, maybe, asking Russia to hack her emails?), but Trump pointedly hasn't — if he does, then he's admitting the insinuation of assassination and that he was joking about that. He can't do that. Instead, he later said that people jump to the wrong conclusions. But that's the problem, isn't it? If the best case scenario is that he doesn't use specific enough language to prevent people from assuming the worst, that's a problem. So here is a conversation I've had lately: Does Trump know what he's saying/insinuating or not? If you say yes, then Trump is as evil and calculating as anyone in American political history. If you say no, then he's reckless and stupid for not understanding the impact of the words he makes as he runs for a position in which every word makes an impact. Is it better to be smart and evil or reckless and dumb?
And yet, here we are. Here we are with three months until the election and he still has close to 3/8 of voters planning to vote in his favor. If he was Mitt Romney, I think he's making a go of this. I think if he were Generic Republican X, he'd be in a tighter race, perhaps even leading. And that's because...
Clinton's Comments
... Hillary Clinton is making mistakes, too.
More emails show that her State Department had more connections to the Clinton Foundation than we knew. (My opinion: They're not the most damning. The first is: "This donor asked to connect with the Lebanon ambassador." A rich guy would likely connect to the ambassador with or without the Clinton Foundation's help, let's be honest. The second was "This guy needs a job. Got any?" And the response was "Yeah, we can probably find a place for him." I think that's more common than we want to admit.) Anyway, whether you agree with me or find me to be painting Clinton with too rosy a brush, it's an opening.
Further, Clinton held a quasi-press conference last Friday! She never holds open press conferences because she says she's more comfortable in one-on-one settings. Sidetrack: Surprisingly, I'm OK with that as an ex-journalist. It's unusual, but ultimately a person is in control of when and how they engage the media. There's no law saying a candidate has to have open press conferences X number of times. She can have as much or as little direct interaction with the media that she wants. It makes reporters mad, because a) most good reporters want more access/more transparency/just "more" in general and b) some reporters want the attention that comes with your question being the one that "stumps" the candidate or prompts an unforced error. The call for more press conferences is effectively media corps whining.
Anyway, in the quasi-conference, which was really just a few open questions from a minority journalism organization, she fell into the trap of repeating a debunked line about FBI Director Comey and her emails -- that she was "truthful". She should have known what she was saying was merely spin, and it came off pretty quickly like she was just grasping at straws. BUT! I think this was actually wisely timed by her campaign. The statements were made on a Friday (best day of the week to say something stupid, as I've explained before), but more notably on the day of the Opening Ceremonies — no matter what she said, it was going to be overshadowed by the Olympics. If you're going to try the high-wire act, it's best to do it with a safety net.
She's not polished; she's not a great campaigner like Barack Obama or her husband. She's had a lot of errors that a better opponent could capitalize on. But she looks great when she has smart/popular politicians support her, when she has an opponent who can't get out of his own way, and when the GOP isn't all the way behind Trump.
So What?
Bernie Sanders lost because he couldn't convince minorities to vote for him. Donald Trump could be doing worse than that! According to a series of polls, Donald Trump is not only lagging behind Hillary Clinton among African-Americans, he's trailing Libertarian Gary Johnson. Not only is he lagging Gary Johnson, he's also polling behind Green Party candidate Jill Stein! He's fourth among black voters! He's effectively ceded a sizable minority.
Honest question I heard from a friend: Is Trump, by being odious but saying he's pro-life, more of a detriment to the pro-life cause? Further, if many people are willing to support any candidate that says they're pro-life, no matter how wild/reckless/disastrous, does that make the concerns and honest opinions of the pro-lifers easier to write off by the general public? In effect, if pro-lifers are willing to support even a guy like Trump, how do they retain their moral authority? I don't know how to answer that, and am curious to what you all think, because I thought it was a great question.
Summary Judgments
ALL HAIL HYPNOTOAD. *clap* . . . *clap* . . . *clap* • • • Do you have any questions you want to ask a former journalist or for someone who likes politics and history? I'd love to do an "Ask Me Anything" style column sometime. I love researching questions like last week's Third Party History. • • • Sad sports journalism news: The death of John Saunders, who brought a lot of gravitas to ESPN. • • • The kids moved up to the 2-year-old group at day care, and it's been rough at home over that period. They're adjusting, so I know it won't be this way forever, but it's still been a tough week at home. • • • Roland saw a picture on the wall at day care and said, "Daddy!" It was a picture of Jesus. Insert your joke here while I beam and laugh. • • • I'm running again. I've been running 1.25 miles lately until I can feel comfortable with it. Unfortunately, the cross country kids run the same path around the same time, so I feel woefully out of shape by comparison.
For a long time, Donald Trump has said he can be presidential. In effect, that he has an off switch that he can do at any time. But what the last month has done for a lot of people that he either doesn't have an off switch or will never flick it on. And while I could go in depth on a lot of statements he's made, I want to focus on his most recent because of just how much he is the problem to his own campaign.
In a recent address, he said that maybe Second Amendment folks could do something to keep Clinton from picking Supreme Court justices. His actual words are among the most vague in the world, though: "Maybe there is." His defenders want people to understand it in context, but that's a mixed bag. The sentence before sets up a hypothetical of "If she gets to pick," meaning it's post-election. The sentence after the "Maybe there is" line continues the hypothetical with "that will be a horrible day." So it's almost assuredly that the "Maybe there is" belongs in the post-election hypothetical, but what that insinuates goes unsaid. It's very much in the vein of "There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her... wherever:" Because it's so vague, you can make your own interpretations of what he means. He didn't say what people think he said.
Going back to the "maybe": A spokesperson called it a joke (like, maybe, asking Russia to hack her emails?), but Trump pointedly hasn't — if he does, then he's admitting the insinuation of assassination and that he was joking about that. He can't do that. Instead, he later said that people jump to the wrong conclusions. But that's the problem, isn't it? If the best case scenario is that he doesn't use specific enough language to prevent people from assuming the worst, that's a problem. So here is a conversation I've had lately: Does Trump know what he's saying/insinuating or not? If you say yes, then Trump is as evil and calculating as anyone in American political history. If you say no, then he's reckless and stupid for not understanding the impact of the words he makes as he runs for a position in which every word makes an impact. Is it better to be smart and evil or reckless and dumb?
And yet, here we are. Here we are with three months until the election and he still has close to 3/8 of voters planning to vote in his favor. If he was Mitt Romney, I think he's making a go of this. I think if he were Generic Republican X, he'd be in a tighter race, perhaps even leading. And that's because...
Clinton's Comments
... Hillary Clinton is making mistakes, too.
More emails show that her State Department had more connections to the Clinton Foundation than we knew. (My opinion: They're not the most damning. The first is: "This donor asked to connect with the Lebanon ambassador." A rich guy would likely connect to the ambassador with or without the Clinton Foundation's help, let's be honest. The second was "This guy needs a job. Got any?" And the response was "Yeah, we can probably find a place for him." I think that's more common than we want to admit.) Anyway, whether you agree with me or find me to be painting Clinton with too rosy a brush, it's an opening.
Further, Clinton held a quasi-press conference last Friday! She never holds open press conferences because she says she's more comfortable in one-on-one settings. Sidetrack: Surprisingly, I'm OK with that as an ex-journalist. It's unusual, but ultimately a person is in control of when and how they engage the media. There's no law saying a candidate has to have open press conferences X number of times. She can have as much or as little direct interaction with the media that she wants. It makes reporters mad, because a) most good reporters want more access/more transparency/just "more" in general and b) some reporters want the attention that comes with your question being the one that "stumps" the candidate or prompts an unforced error. The call for more press conferences is effectively media corps whining.
Anyway, in the quasi-conference, which was really just a few open questions from a minority journalism organization, she fell into the trap of repeating a debunked line about FBI Director Comey and her emails -- that she was "truthful". She should have known what she was saying was merely spin, and it came off pretty quickly like she was just grasping at straws. BUT! I think this was actually wisely timed by her campaign. The statements were made on a Friday (best day of the week to say something stupid, as I've explained before), but more notably on the day of the Opening Ceremonies — no matter what she said, it was going to be overshadowed by the Olympics. If you're going to try the high-wire act, it's best to do it with a safety net.
She's not polished; she's not a great campaigner like Barack Obama or her husband. She's had a lot of errors that a better opponent could capitalize on. But she looks great when she has smart/popular politicians support her, when she has an opponent who can't get out of his own way, and when the GOP isn't all the way behind Trump.
So What?
Bernie Sanders lost because he couldn't convince minorities to vote for him. Donald Trump could be doing worse than that! According to a series of polls, Donald Trump is not only lagging behind Hillary Clinton among African-Americans, he's trailing Libertarian Gary Johnson. Not only is he lagging Gary Johnson, he's also polling behind Green Party candidate Jill Stein! He's fourth among black voters! He's effectively ceded a sizable minority.
Honest question I heard from a friend: Is Trump, by being odious but saying he's pro-life, more of a detriment to the pro-life cause? Further, if many people are willing to support any candidate that says they're pro-life, no matter how wild/reckless/disastrous, does that make the concerns and honest opinions of the pro-lifers easier to write off by the general public? In effect, if pro-lifers are willing to support even a guy like Trump, how do they retain their moral authority? I don't know how to answer that, and am curious to what you all think, because I thought it was a great question.
Summary Judgments
ALL HAIL HYPNOTOAD. *clap* . . . *clap* . . . *clap* • • • Do you have any questions you want to ask a former journalist or for someone who likes politics and history? I'd love to do an "Ask Me Anything" style column sometime. I love researching questions like last week's Third Party History. • • • Sad sports journalism news: The death of John Saunders, who brought a lot of gravitas to ESPN. • • • The kids moved up to the 2-year-old group at day care, and it's been rough at home over that period. They're adjusting, so I know it won't be this way forever, but it's still been a tough week at home. • • • Roland saw a picture on the wall at day care and said, "Daddy!" It was a picture of Jesus. Insert your joke here while I beam and laugh. • • • I'm running again. I've been running 1.25 miles lately until I can feel comfortable with it. Unfortunately, the cross country kids run the same path around the same time, so I feel woefully out of shape by comparison.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
Hitting Reset, and a History of Third Parties in America
kWhile we take an Olympics break from the true craziness of the election, I wanted to take a look at third parties in America. I was planning to start from the birth of the nation, but that'd be a lot of words focusing on things that happened before the Civil War. So let's start post-Civil War, when the Republicans and Democrats were established.
The first election in 1868 had practically no third party. I found 46 votes for "other." Nationwide. The next election was weird, though. The Republicans had a split: the "radicals" voting for incumbent President Grant while the "liberal Republicans" nominated newspaper publisher Horace Greeley. The Democrats were so desperate to beat Grant that they joined in and endorsed Greeley, too. It didn't matter. Greeley lost in a landslide, then died 24 days later before the electoral college counted... so he technically never got a single electoral college vote. The Liberal Republican movement died almost immediately, too. Through the 1888 election, single-issue parties would pop up: Prohibition Party, the Greenback Party (wishing for paper money), the Anti-Monopoly Party, the Union Labor Party and more. The Greenback Party did best in 1880, when they got nearly 3.3 percent of the vote.
It wasn't until 1892 when the first real third party evolved, largely from the ashes of many of the parties above. That third party was technically called the People's Party, but we know them better as the Populists. They actually won five (mostly Western) states (!) behind their nominee, James Weaver. They won 8.5 percent of the vote and 22 electoral college votes, which is a good showing for a third party. The Populists threw in with Democrat William Jennings Bryan for the next two elections (and a third in 1908), but since you've never had to learn "President Jennings Bryan" in class, you know how that ended. The best of the third parties was the Socialists, who would do a little better in 1904, almost reaching 3 percent behind famed Socialist Eugene Debs before falling back a little in 1908.
The next big year for third parties was 1912, and it is probably the best a third party has ever done. The third party in question was Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive (aka "Bull Moose") Party. It was truly a split of the Republican Party, and that cost them in the election. Roosevelt won six states (mostly north and west) and Republican William Howard Taft won two (the odd duo of Utah and Vermont), each with support in the mid-20 percents. That allowed Democrat Woodrow Wilson to coast to victory with a plurality — only 41.8 percent support, but won 40 states. Of note: Eugene Debs reached new heights during the peak of Socialism, netting 6 percent of the vote.
The third parties then collapsed. The best was the Socialists. Socialist Allan Benson at 3.2 percent on a platform of "We should take a national vote before we go to war." The next election, Eugene Debs was back and won 3.4 percent of the vote despite being in jail for encouraging draft dodging. In 1924, the Democrats split and the liberal wing joined up with the Progressives to some success. Their candidate, Robert La Follette, won his home state of Wisconsin and its 13 electoral college votes! He even got 16.6 percent of the vote, but even if the Democrats had been united, it wouldn't have mattered: incumbent Republican President Calvin Coolidge took 54 percent of the vote.
There wasn't a third party presence in 1928, and in 1932 the Socialists their standard 2-4 percent. In 1936, the Union Party nearly got 2 percent, but they didn't exist by the next election. There really weren't any third parties of note in the 1940 or 1944 elections. But by 1948, the first election post-FDR, the Democrats weren't as united. They split over civil rights, with Truman for it and S. Car. Gov. Strom Thurmond against. Thurmond would be the pick for the States' Rights Party, commonly called the Dixiecrats. He won four states, all in the South, but only took 2.4 percent of the vote. In fact, another third party, the Progressive/American Labor Party, also took 2.2 percent but won neither states nor electoral votes.
There were no third parties of note from 1952-1964, and then racists made a return in 1968. They weren't really a split from an existing party, but the American Independent Party was essentially the Dixiecrats reborn. They pushed George Wallace as their candidate. Wallace won five Deep South states (Ark., La., Ala., Miss., Ga., and one faithless elector from North Carolina) and 13.5 percent of the vote, robbing from Democrat Hubert Humphrey and handing the race to Republican Richard Nixon. A third party effectively gave us Nixon, who won by about 1 percent. In 1972, the American Independent Party took only 1.4 percent. Historical footnote: This was the first election of the Libertarian Party, and they won one electoral vote! It was because an electoral college voter who was pledged to Nixon voted instead for Libertarian John Hospers. Hospers's VP candidate was Tonie Nathan, who's the first female to receive an electoral college vote for either president or vice president. And I bet you've never heard of her.
There were no surprise third parties in 1976, but 1980 was a bit interesting. Frustrated about losing to Ronald Reagan, John Anderson split off some of the GOP vote by running as an independent. He got 6.6 percent of the vote, but no electoral college votes. One final note from this election: The Libertarian candidates got just over 1 percent, and just under 1 million votes. Their VP candidate was David Koch. Koch? YES, ONE OF THE KOCH BROTHERS (!). There weren't any notable third parties in the 1984 or 1988 elections, but one faithless elector decided to protest the electoral college in general by swapping her VP/Presidential picks. The Libertarians, under Ron Paul, saw their support cut in half.
Alright, we're at the first election I remember! In 1992, Ross Perot was the major third party candidate, running as an independent. In polls in June, he was leading the race over Bush and Clinton! But then he weirdly dropped out of the race for a weeks around July/August before coming back in. That damaged his credibility, but by popular vote, he did even better than the Dixiecrats, taking nearly 19 percent and about 19.7 million votes. He won no states and no electoral votes, though. In order to be on the ballot in some states, Perot created the Reform Party and eventually ran again in 1996, dropping to 8.4 percent support and about 8 million votes. In 2000, Ralph Nader won 2.4 percent (and, some say, cost Al Gore the election) for the fledgling Green Party. There was one faithless elector who voted for John Edwards in 2004, but no third party has had a significant impact. In fact, a third party hasn't broken 1 percent of the vote since Ralph Nader. Gary Johnson won 0.99 percent of the vote last election.
As you look back at the last 150 years of third party votes, they are either a) single-issue groups b) driven by an audacious personality or c) racist. Best-case scenario was finishing second (Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party), while worst-case scenario was inadvertently helping to elect Nixon.
Opinion time: That's why I'm skeptical of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein and others. Third parties have been fairly insignificant politically. It's one thing to not wish to support either party's candidate, but this is the President of the United States. If you can't imagine a person as President, don't vote for it.
Election Update
With the conventions over, it's clear that Hillary Clinton got not just a polls bump, but a big bump. From what I've seen, she's back to where she was in the polls in May/June, before the FBI Director announced no investigation while also denouncing her actions. Her polling has been consistently above Trump (who has had a particularly bad week, which I've decided to skip over) by at least 4-5 percent, if not nearing double digits in some polls. In my electoral college map, I've slowly been filling in the color of states that look clinched or have voted consistently one way over the last few decades. I have seven "toss-ups" left: Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Florida and Iowa (Most consider Pennsylvania and Virginia toss-ups, but Pa. hasn't voted Republican since 1988 and Virginia's polls have been consistent for a decent Clinton lead). What's notable is that by that calculation, Clinton only needs to win one of those seven toss-ups to win the presidency. She's at 269 electoral votes, and needs 270.
I've been really frustrated/anxious/whatever this month because of all the political things that have happened. Which is why this story from Gawker Media was very helpful. I needed it. • • • One more thing I couldn't figure out where to put in the third party write-up earlier: Roseanne Barr took nearly 62,000 votes in the last election under the "Peace and Freedom Party" banner. • • • America isn't the only one considering a female leader. The U.K. has Theresa May and now Tokyo has Yuriko Koike. But those have already been chosen... the U.S.A. still hasn't actually elected a female president. I heard someone say that the "woman barrier" could have been broken a long time ago. But there's a difference between "could have" and "did." A black baseball player could have played in the major leagues long before Jackie Robinson. But until Jackie Robinson, no one had. • • • A friend of mine posted a story written by someone younger than me (I'm getting old!) about how evangelicals are losing our generation. I probably agree with it more than I disagree, and even my disagreements are largely around the margins. However, I fear that the article will be interpreted by older generations as "millennial whining" — which only furthers the rift between generations. • • • There's a rare flower that only grows on a 20-acre island in a river in Illinois. It's the only place in the world it grows. The Kankakee Mallow (I interned at Kankakee's paper back in 2006) was thought to be extinct even 2-3 years ago, but now there are more than 1,000 plants thanks to conservation efforts. Check out this cute little video about it. • • • The kids have been happy, but whiny lately. They'll turn 2 in a few weeks, which is weirding me out. They're getting so big! • • • I've started running again, but have no real plan yet. I'm planning to run another 5K in October, I think.
The first election in 1868 had practically no third party. I found 46 votes for "other." Nationwide. The next election was weird, though. The Republicans had a split: the "radicals" voting for incumbent President Grant while the "liberal Republicans" nominated newspaper publisher Horace Greeley. The Democrats were so desperate to beat Grant that they joined in and endorsed Greeley, too. It didn't matter. Greeley lost in a landslide, then died 24 days later before the electoral college counted... so he technically never got a single electoral college vote. The Liberal Republican movement died almost immediately, too. Through the 1888 election, single-issue parties would pop up: Prohibition Party, the Greenback Party (wishing for paper money), the Anti-Monopoly Party, the Union Labor Party and more. The Greenback Party did best in 1880, when they got nearly 3.3 percent of the vote.
It wasn't until 1892 when the first real third party evolved, largely from the ashes of many of the parties above. That third party was technically called the People's Party, but we know them better as the Populists. They actually won five (mostly Western) states (!) behind their nominee, James Weaver. They won 8.5 percent of the vote and 22 electoral college votes, which is a good showing for a third party. The Populists threw in with Democrat William Jennings Bryan for the next two elections (and a third in 1908), but since you've never had to learn "President Jennings Bryan" in class, you know how that ended. The best of the third parties was the Socialists, who would do a little better in 1904, almost reaching 3 percent behind famed Socialist Eugene Debs before falling back a little in 1908.
The next big year for third parties was 1912, and it is probably the best a third party has ever done. The third party in question was Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive (aka "Bull Moose") Party. It was truly a split of the Republican Party, and that cost them in the election. Roosevelt won six states (mostly north and west) and Republican William Howard Taft won two (the odd duo of Utah and Vermont), each with support in the mid-20 percents. That allowed Democrat Woodrow Wilson to coast to victory with a plurality — only 41.8 percent support, but won 40 states. Of note: Eugene Debs reached new heights during the peak of Socialism, netting 6 percent of the vote.
The third parties then collapsed. The best was the Socialists. Socialist Allan Benson at 3.2 percent on a platform of "We should take a national vote before we go to war." The next election, Eugene Debs was back and won 3.4 percent of the vote despite being in jail for encouraging draft dodging. In 1924, the Democrats split and the liberal wing joined up with the Progressives to some success. Their candidate, Robert La Follette, won his home state of Wisconsin and its 13 electoral college votes! He even got 16.6 percent of the vote, but even if the Democrats had been united, it wouldn't have mattered: incumbent Republican President Calvin Coolidge took 54 percent of the vote.
There wasn't a third party presence in 1928, and in 1932 the Socialists their standard 2-4 percent. In 1936, the Union Party nearly got 2 percent, but they didn't exist by the next election. There really weren't any third parties of note in the 1940 or 1944 elections. But by 1948, the first election post-FDR, the Democrats weren't as united. They split over civil rights, with Truman for it and S. Car. Gov. Strom Thurmond against. Thurmond would be the pick for the States' Rights Party, commonly called the Dixiecrats. He won four states, all in the South, but only took 2.4 percent of the vote. In fact, another third party, the Progressive/American Labor Party, also took 2.2 percent but won neither states nor electoral votes.
There were no third parties of note from 1952-1964, and then racists made a return in 1968. They weren't really a split from an existing party, but the American Independent Party was essentially the Dixiecrats reborn. They pushed George Wallace as their candidate. Wallace won five Deep South states (Ark., La., Ala., Miss., Ga., and one faithless elector from North Carolina) and 13.5 percent of the vote, robbing from Democrat Hubert Humphrey and handing the race to Republican Richard Nixon. A third party effectively gave us Nixon, who won by about 1 percent. In 1972, the American Independent Party took only 1.4 percent. Historical footnote: This was the first election of the Libertarian Party, and they won one electoral vote! It was because an electoral college voter who was pledged to Nixon voted instead for Libertarian John Hospers. Hospers's VP candidate was Tonie Nathan, who's the first female to receive an electoral college vote for either president or vice president. And I bet you've never heard of her.
There were no surprise third parties in 1976, but 1980 was a bit interesting. Frustrated about losing to Ronald Reagan, John Anderson split off some of the GOP vote by running as an independent. He got 6.6 percent of the vote, but no electoral college votes. One final note from this election: The Libertarian candidates got just over 1 percent, and just under 1 million votes. Their VP candidate was David Koch. Koch? YES, ONE OF THE KOCH BROTHERS (!). There weren't any notable third parties in the 1984 or 1988 elections, but one faithless elector decided to protest the electoral college in general by swapping her VP/Presidential picks. The Libertarians, under Ron Paul, saw their support cut in half.
Alright, we're at the first election I remember! In 1992, Ross Perot was the major third party candidate, running as an independent. In polls in June, he was leading the race over Bush and Clinton! But then he weirdly dropped out of the race for a weeks around July/August before coming back in. That damaged his credibility, but by popular vote, he did even better than the Dixiecrats, taking nearly 19 percent and about 19.7 million votes. He won no states and no electoral votes, though. In order to be on the ballot in some states, Perot created the Reform Party and eventually ran again in 1996, dropping to 8.4 percent support and about 8 million votes. In 2000, Ralph Nader won 2.4 percent (and, some say, cost Al Gore the election) for the fledgling Green Party. There was one faithless elector who voted for John Edwards in 2004, but no third party has had a significant impact. In fact, a third party hasn't broken 1 percent of the vote since Ralph Nader. Gary Johnson won 0.99 percent of the vote last election.
As you look back at the last 150 years of third party votes, they are either a) single-issue groups b) driven by an audacious personality or c) racist. Best-case scenario was finishing second (Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party), while worst-case scenario was inadvertently helping to elect Nixon.
Opinion time: That's why I'm skeptical of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein and others. Third parties have been fairly insignificant politically. It's one thing to not wish to support either party's candidate, but this is the President of the United States. If you can't imagine a person as President, don't vote for it.
Election Update
With the conventions over, it's clear that Hillary Clinton got not just a polls bump, but a big bump. From what I've seen, she's back to where she was in the polls in May/June, before the FBI Director announced no investigation while also denouncing her actions. Her polling has been consistently above Trump (who has had a particularly bad week, which I've decided to skip over) by at least 4-5 percent, if not nearing double digits in some polls. In my electoral college map, I've slowly been filling in the color of states that look clinched or have voted consistently one way over the last few decades. I have seven "toss-ups" left: Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Florida and Iowa (Most consider Pennsylvania and Virginia toss-ups, but Pa. hasn't voted Republican since 1988 and Virginia's polls have been consistent for a decent Clinton lead). What's notable is that by that calculation, Clinton only needs to win one of those seven toss-ups to win the presidency. She's at 269 electoral votes, and needs 270.
Summary Judgments
I've been really frustrated/anxious/whatever this month because of all the political things that have happened. Which is why this story from Gawker Media was very helpful. I needed it. • • • One more thing I couldn't figure out where to put in the third party write-up earlier: Roseanne Barr took nearly 62,000 votes in the last election under the "Peace and Freedom Party" banner. • • • America isn't the only one considering a female leader. The U.K. has Theresa May and now Tokyo has Yuriko Koike. But those have already been chosen... the U.S.A. still hasn't actually elected a female president. I heard someone say that the "woman barrier" could have been broken a long time ago. But there's a difference between "could have" and "did." A black baseball player could have played in the major leagues long before Jackie Robinson. But until Jackie Robinson, no one had. • • • A friend of mine posted a story written by someone younger than me (I'm getting old!) about how evangelicals are losing our generation. I probably agree with it more than I disagree, and even my disagreements are largely around the margins. However, I fear that the article will be interpreted by older generations as "millennial whining" — which only furthers the rift between generations. • • • There's a rare flower that only grows on a 20-acre island in a river in Illinois. It's the only place in the world it grows. The Kankakee Mallow (I interned at Kankakee's paper back in 2006) was thought to be extinct even 2-3 years ago, but now there are more than 1,000 plants thanks to conservation efforts. Check out this cute little video about it. • • • The kids have been happy, but whiny lately. They'll turn 2 in a few weeks, which is weirding me out. They're getting so big! • • • I've started running again, but have no real plan yet. I'm planning to run another 5K in October, I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)