But it was also a message for the Trump supporters of the country to stand up and say "2016 wasn't a fluke-and we're here for the duration." While the Democrats did well enough to win the House, it was definitely on the more conservative (small "c") side in terms of gains, and the Republicans did well enough to gain what likely will be a 4-seat net in the Senate (we'll get to why that's "likely" in a few minutes). Donald Trump's last minute strategy, much like in 2016 when he focused in his final days on Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota (and stunned the planet by winning three of those states) worked once again; he abandoned the House, focusing entirely on ruby-red states with Senate contests where he won by a large margin in 2016, and in the end nearly took all of them. It's hard to tell who was smiling more last night, but Nancy Pelosi & Mitch McConnell both had to be happy, though it's unclear at this point which one will get the last laugh. Below I share seven of my major takeaways from last night, as well as my biggest "happiness/heartbreak/surprise" of the night.
 |
| Speaker (once and future?) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) |
You can say a lot of things about President Trump, but it's been clear in the past two years that his administration has needed a parent of some sorts. The constant claims that he's going to fire Robert Mueller, the inappropriate behaviors of his administration (Ryan Zinke, Scott Pruitt, and Ben Carson all come to mind, but there are dozens of figures in his administration who would normally have been brought before a congressional hearing by this point in the past)...these have been serious problems. However, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have largely shielded these figures from such scrutiny, and Democrats (in the minority) appeared helpless in the face of such decisions because the Republicans were in the majority.
That is no longer the case, and while Democrats seemed reluctant to put "holding Trump accountable" at the center of their campaign, it's clear after last night that that's what Democrats need to do. Looking at the results, it wasn't in areas of the country where the healthcare message worked (that was a smart cover, but my interpretation is that that didn't resonate well, otherwise we'd be looking at a closer Senate this morning), but in very Clinton-friendly areas of the country. Though we don't have the final totals, almost all of the districts picked up by Democrats last night were in Clinton districts, and of the ones that weren't only two weren't in Obama '12 districts. That shows to me that the decision to expand the map from 2016 didn't work, and instead they just made certain parts of the country a lot bluer (Cory Gardner and Susan Collins have to be quaking in their boots after last night). If that's the case, those blue areas threw out longtime incumbents like Pete Sessions, Erik Paulsen, and Mike Coffman not necessarily because they were no longer well-liked, but because they wanted someone, anyone to beat Trump. If Democrats don't get that message quickly, they're going to have a rough two years as they're going to have a frustrated Democratic base combined with a largely unmovable Republican opposition.
 |
| Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) |
Nancy Pelosi last night earned her spot as leader. It's still unclear how many seats she'll have won, but Pelosi's healthcare focus worked well enough to win the House (even though I ultimately think it may have netted 2-3 seats at most & mostly it was Democrats falling in line in the era of Trump), but she's earned a spot at the table, and should get a third term as Speaker. I think Democrats after last night need to replace Hoyer & Clyburn, and quickly (so that they have clear successors to Pelosi), and I was a little bit flummoxed/upset by Pelosi talking about "bipartisanship" already when this was clearly a "war room" sort of election result, but she's the best person to take on Trump for the final two years of his first-term, and got enough House seats last night to have earned a spot at the table. If Democrats throw her out, they need someone better or stronger than Cheri Bustos or Tim Ryan, and no one is the clear heir apparent.
I'm going to say something that needs saying here, though, though no one is likely going to make it a headline (perhaps because he's a man, perhaps because he's very press friendly, I'm not sure): Chuck Schumer needs to be replaced. Schumer took over as minority leader just two years ago, and no one should hold him accountable to the Democrats getting dealt some rough cards last night. But he was the obvious incoming leader in 2016, and let Democratic seats in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, and North Carolina all slip through his fingers (Democrats only scored two pickups that night), and this year he watched as Democrats lost (what appears to be) five incumbents, and let (what appears to be) two very winnable pickup seats in Arizona & Texas disappear from under him. It's clear that Schumer is still operating in an old DC, playing a game where he thinks he can beat Mitch McConnell rather than have to destroy him, and at this point it's worth noting that a more agile-and-modern Democrat (Patty Murray seems the best option, but Jeff Merkley, Kamala Harris, or Amy Klobuchar are all theoretically possible) is needed for the Senate Democrats, someone whose geography & ineffectiveness as an actual leader aren't in question. This is particularly important because...
 |
| Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), one of 5 Democratic senators to lose last night |
It should never be forgotten, though most younger pundits will, that for most of the mid-20th Century, Republicans taking over the Senate was essentially an unthinkable thing. From 1933 through 1981, the Republicans only held the majority in the US Senate for a total of four years: from 1947-49 (as a reaction to the unpopularity of President Truman) and from 1953-55 (thanks to the landslide victory of President Eisenhower). During this time, they did hold the White House for a number of years (Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford all serving for 16 total years), but the Senate map was impossible for the GOP to get past-there were, mathematically, too many states that wouldn't give them a chance. Even in cycles where the Democrats would do poorly, geography was an insurance policy.
Last night, we witnessed an entrenchment of the GOP in their bases that should scare the tar out of Democrats. It is probable that, unless something unusual happens with the final count in Arizona and Florida (or the Mississippi recount), that the Republicans will have netted three seats, watching four incumbents lose reelection on the Democratic side: Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Bill Nelson, and Joe Donnelly. Democrats will have also lost very promising challenges from Kyrsten Sinema and Beto O'Rourke, with only Jacky Rosen successful in taking a Republican Senate seat. The problem for the Democrats is, however, that the only states in general last night that gave them (statewide) much of a homecoming that didn't in 2016 were Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Yes, they won seats in Ohio & West Virginia, but with slimmer-than-expected majorities and with extremely popular incumbents (facing middling Republicans). Put John Kasich & Evan Jenkins in those races, and you'd likely have seen two more Democratic senators go down. Ohio threw aside a very promising challenge from a Democrat who led in most polls for governor-the same can be said for Iowa, Florida, and Georgia. This should be the petrifying thing for Democrats, that the math doesn't lend itself well to them ever getting back the Senate unless they can figure out a way to break more states.
That's because, assuming that that the final math on the Senate ends up being 55-45 (the likeliest end result), if you assume that the best options for Democrats are MI/PA/WI plus every state that Hillary Clinton won (based on last night, the only states that feel Democratic-friendly or Democratic-curious in a real way), that's only 23 states, or 46 senators...not enough for the Democrats to ever get a majority in the Senate. We live in an era where, after last night, only eight states will have senators of opposite parties, and it's quite probable in 2020 that that list goes down to four. As a result there aren't enough senators like Manchin, Brown, Tester, and Alabama's Doug Jones to make up that slack, because they're the only Democratic senators after last night who represent states that aren't in that coalition.
Yes, the Democrats have prime options going forward. Cory Gardner, in 2020, seems an obvious target for defeat, and it's probable that Susan Collins may revisit her attitude toward reelection considering what happened to Pete Sessions last night. But Democrats now need at least five, if not six, seats in 2020 (and they're going to have to drag Doug Jones across the finish line, which seems an odious task considering what happened to McCaskill, Donnelly, et al last night). The fact that they couldn't break through with candidates in Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, and Texas this year, a year that should be better for the Democrats than 2020, shows that the Democrats may be in a similar situation to the Republicans for decades, and it's why I think Schumer has to step aside-you need new leadership and fast before it becomes too late, and Schumer is too old/established to change his ways at this point.
 |
| Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas |
In many ways last night feels like a spot where you're watching a movie and someone makes it out of a chase, but they're injured so badly they're not going to make it to the end of the movie (I described last night as "disappointing, but not a disaster," and that's pretty much true). Because in addition to the Senate, the Supreme Court likely got lost for a generation last night. That's because, after the retirement of Justice Kennedy and the death of Justice Scalia, there is only one clear Supreme Court justice on the Republican side who is vulnerable to retirement, and I can't fathom a situation where Clarence Thomas doesn't end up retiring in the next two years.
Thomas has been the source of retirement rumors for years and years, and has never really seemed interested in the job. A source of ire for many in the political community still, Thomas's position on the Court probably would have become similar to that enjoyed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg & Stephen Breyer's now-his political base praying that he doesn't leave the Court until they can replace him with someone of a similar political background. Headed into the final two years of President Trump's term, it seems certain that that will happen.
With Thomas replaced, there's no obvious course-of-action for the Democrats to gain back the Supreme Court for thirty years. Theoretically, in the best case scenario, Ginsburg & Breyer hang on long enough to be replaced by a Democrat, but that still leaves five relatively healthy conservative men on the Court. People have surprise health issues all the time (discussing "winning" the Supreme Court is morbid, so I will put in the obvious caveat "no one wishes any harm to anyone" since that's obviously the case), but it's more likely that the Republicans, now entrenched in the Senate, just pull another Merrick Garland for when RBG or Breyer retire/die, and take the seat that way, knowing that even if a Democrat is president, they won't be forever, and unless the Democrats get better at the Senate, Republicans probably will be.
 |
| President Donald Trump (R-NY) |
I'm guessing I'll get a lot of questions today, but none more than "what does this mean for 2020?" Well, I'll tell you-it means that Donald Trump is probably going to win reelection in 2020.
The reason for this is that if you do the math on the electoral college, Trump didn't lose that much last night. As I said above, the Democrats found the code to win Hillary Clinton-districts by large margins across the country, ousting incumbents like Barbara Comstock & Erik Paulsen by double digits. However, Donald Trump doesn't need Hillary Clinton districts to win reelection-he lost them in 2016 and did just fine. And there appeared to be no indication that the Republican Party, which by definition is Trump these days, was punished for the past two years from Trump's behavior.
I cannot stress how badly I had counted on the Democrats winning the governorships in states like Florida, Iowa, and Ohio last night, because it would have indicated a unique vulnerability to Trump in states that the Democrats had kept most of the Obama 2012 states in play. Combined with potential in places like Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina, we'd have a wide open field for a Democratic nominee to be able to get to 270. That's not the case, though. Time after time last night, the Democrats lost these states; sometimes it was by small margins, but they were all losses. The only Trump states that the Democrats clearly proved that 2016 was a fluke for the Republicans (or at least proved they are very much in play for their eventual nominee) were Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Now, it has to be said that these three states would be enough for the Democrats. Had Hillary Clinton won these states in 2016, we'd be having a very different Election Day today, but we'd be doing it with a Democratic president (had Democrats won the same states for Senate races in 2016, we'd also have a Democratic majority in the Supreme Court and Senate right now). But she has no room for error in this situation-she's only at 278 electoral votes in this circumstance. Essentially we'd view this as winning an inside straight, and we're relying on states that are notoriously swingy with no room for error. As a result, you see why Donald Trump is the heavy favorite to win in two years, unless Republicans start punishing him if the economy goes south.
 |
| Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) |
Here's my thoughts, then, on how they can win in 2020 even if they're the underdogs after last night-they have to first acknowledge that the most important thing about a Democratic nominee in 2020 is that they are able to win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. That is the most important thing for 2020, and if someone can't do it, they should be disqualified immediately. Dreams of a blue Texas, Georgia, or Arizona are great, and they can target those states, but if you come to the table as a candidate who makes the path-of-least-resistance impossible, you're out as a nominee, no matter how great you are at making speeches.
This means that candidates that are easy to brand as "coastal elites" need to step aside. Sorry, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, but you didn't prove last night that you can win here (I still think they'd make decent running mates, however, for ticket balance). Bernie Sanders is too old and too liberal to do well in rural areas, and despite your love for them, Beto O'Rourke & Andrew Gillum both just lost elections so they need to win a race before we start giving them the keys to the Ferrari. Mayors are going to heighten the rural/urban divide (and, at least for the electoral college, Democrats can't win that divide if they exacerbate it, so Mitch Landrieu & Mike Bloomberg should also be tossed aside).
So, you may ask, who does that leave? Only a couple of candidates, quite frankly, which is why I think the "grow up" comment here is harsh, but needed-we have too many pipe dream candidates, and not enough reality based ones. John Hickenlooper, current governor of Colorado, makes a decent candidate, for example. He's progressive, but still from a swing state, and a governor so he doesn't come with DC stigma. The same could be said for Terry McAuliffe, though McAuliffe feels too easy to link to the Clintons (though his tenure in Virginia is very impressive, so I wouldn't entirely count him out). Gov. Steve Bullock is intriguing, but probably too conservative to make it through a primary. Sen. Sherrod Brown is a really good candidate, and though he won a tight race last night, it's probable that he'd have won a better margin to the north and east. He seems disinclined to actually run, and it has to be noted he comes with a Senate seat loss (and as I pointed out above, we can't just give away Senate seats anymore), but he'd be a good candidate.
Joe Biden & Oprah Winfrey both come with some intrigue that cannot be denied. Biden would arguably be the best candidate to pick up those three seats and hold the rest of the map, even though his age and foot-in-mouth-syndrome shouldn't be dismissed. I will admit that Biden to me was more "a wish" as a nominee, but after last night, I think he's in my Top 3 now simply because he'd win, even if it'd only be for a term. Winfrey also goes up in my estimation-though she wasn't a great surrogate in Georgia, she's perhaps the only politician who could reframe the map and reframe the debate around how Trump is discussed by the public. I wouldn't dismiss her out-of-hand.
But it's actually pretty clear after last night who the nominee should be. There's only one candidate who is young, has obvious appeal in rural communities, could hold the Midwest while being progressive enough to make it through a primary, and is a strong enough counter to Donald Trump that she could best him at a game he is very good at, and that's Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Looking at the county-level maps for Klobuchar, she crushed in rural counties that even Tina Smith & Tim Walz (both doing very well last night), didn't take. She's liberal without being alienating, and she's a prosecutor who has done well in going after Trump. Plus, she's clearly interested in the job, and thanks to Walz winning we wouldn't have to worry about holding her Senate seat if she won. I had been reluctant to get on this train since I am a Minnesotan & it feels like nepotism, but it needs to be said-Klobuchar is, on-paper (and maybe in reality) the best, and perhaps only, candidate who has a clear path to beating Donald Trump in 2020. I hope Democrats acknowledge that and start taking her seriously.
 |
| Vice President Al Gore & Sec. Hillary Clinton, two people the country chose but weren't allowed to get as POTUS |
While the Democrats last night won the popular vote, possibly by as high as 8-percent when California & Washington eventually get to actually counting all of their ballots, it has to be said we still live in a country where we have a minority-rule problem of Republicans holding more power than the majority of the country wanted them to hold. The Democrats, even if you make concessions for California (since the past two contests were between two Democrats, making the margin for them considerably higher), have received more votes for their Senate candidates of the people that will be in office come January...but they will be in the minority. This is not an isolated incident-it is, in fact, a pattern of the country wanting a Democrat in charge, but getting a Republican because the rules are stacked against them.
Forget, for a second, that many election laws disproportionately target minority voters, and that the actions of someone like Brian Kemp border on full-on dictatorship. Voter purges, voter ID laws, and the banning of felons from voting in elections has made it harder for people to vote across the country. But looking at just the raw numbers, the Democrats still should be in a much better position than they are. The Democrats have won the national popular vote every election save one since 1992, but were twice denied the White House due to the electoral college (a fate that has befallen no Republicans in American history): Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Despite having only 45 seats to the Republicans 55, the Democrats actually represent almost 13 million more Americans in the Senate than the Republicans do. As a result of this, the last two Supreme Court nominees were actually appointed by senators who represented the minority of the country (this is a fact trotted out for Brett Kavanaugh because a majority of the country didn't want him appointed, but it's just as true of Neil Gorsuch). Every single Supreme Court nominee appointed by a Republican save for Clarence Thomas was appointed by a man who lost the popular vote when he assumed the Oval Office (a fact that's not true of any Democratic appointment). Of the thirteen senators or senators-elect that were elected with less than 50% of the vote, eight are Republicans and only five are Democrats, and that latter number is inflated by Nevada's weird "None of the Above" rule (where you vote, but vote for no one), as without it it's probable that Cortez Masto & Rosen would have gotten majorities. With RCV as an option, it's also possible that Democrats would have the majority in the Senate even with their population disadvantages.
And then there's the House, the best, most consistent example of Republicans getting an advantage over the Democrats. Twice in the past 25 years (1996 and 2012) the majority of the country voted for Democrats to the US House but the Republicans still maintained the majority thanks to gerrymandering (both of districts and of states); this hasn't happened to the GOP since World War II. And while we're still waiting on the popular vote for 2018, if you look at the 435 seats in the House and multiply them by the Democrats' percentage of the popular vote, the party received less than their fare share of the vote in all but two of the last seven elections (2006 & 2008), while the Republicans received more than their fair share of the vote in every single one of those elections (third parties always get screwed). If you take the House elections from 2010-2016, Democrats averaged a deficit of 10 seats compared to their share of the vote, while Republicans averaged a surplus of 24 seats compared to their share of the vote.
That's horrible-the Republicans regularly get more power with less actual votes, and the problem here is-I can't think of ways that Republicans are actually disenfranchised in the reverse. Yes, gerrymandering obviously cuts both ways (Maryland's maps look like spaghetti), but other than that, there is no systemic, continual way in which Republicans are disenfranchised in a similar way to Democrats, and it's actually getting worse. The House numbers were much closer from 2000-2008 (though Democrats consistently under-performed relative to the Republicans), and we're looking at 2020 with Donald Trump being the favorite to win the White House, but almost certain to lose the popular vote again. A democracy cannot function, or call itself a proper democracy, if it consistently ignores the will of the people, and that's pretty much what we're coming to at this point. Unless there are major reforms or Democrats start winning at the same margins, we're going to have an existential crisis over what we call American government-is it representative, or is it simply "representative as long as the Republicans win." Countries with governments like that historically struggle.
 |
| Rep-Elect Joe Cunningham (D-SC) |
Favorite Win: I screamed and danced when Laura Kelly beat Kris Kobach. Kobach's position on the Trump task force made him arguably the scariest potential governor, and it's a relief for Kansas to have some sane leadership after the Brownback years.
Runner-Up: I've watched Scott Walker win three unbearably tight races through the years-to finally see him lose after so many close calls was pretty fulfilling.
Toughest Loss: I can't even talk about it yet, but knowing that Claire McCaskill won't be a senator anymore breaks my heart. One of my personal heroes, the best member of Congress in my opinion, and a damned fine public servant getting replaced by a guy who repeatedly lied about his fight for pre-existing conditions, in a word, sucks.
Runner-Up: Considering the sort of campaign that he ran, knowing the anti-democratic, racist, and violent ads that he put on television, it's beyond me how Brian Kemp gets to become governor over Stacey Abrams. Also, considering how close he ended up, it's a bit heartbreaking knowing that Beto O'Rourke won't get to realize his potential in the next Congress.
Biggest Upset: I kind of called in my head that Kendra Horn was in a better position than expected in Oklahoma, but what he hell happened on Staten Island?!? After everyone wrote off Max Rose when Donovan won the primary, I had no idea that this would be happening.
Runner-Up: I'm flummoxed how both Gillum and Nelson ended up losing in Florida, but it's Florida, where Democratic dreams go to die. The better question may be what happened in South Carolina-1, a district that Obama lost (twice) and Hillary got shellacked in, and yet Joe Cunningham bested Katie Arrington even after Arrington defeated an incumbent congressman to get that nomination. It's really rare that that happens to the GOP, where they have a challenger win the primary against the incumbent, and lose the general (the Democrats do it more often). Cunningham will go to the top of the DSCC's call list to take on Lindsey Graham in 2020, I would have to imagine now.
No comments:
Post a Comment