About Last Night: Election 2023 Edition
It was a Tuesday election day in parts of America yesterday, which means folks…welcome to Overreaction Wednesday! A tradition, just like any other election day-after. Let’s get to it as to what happened for Election 2023.
In Virginia, via Washington Post
Virginia voters resoundingly rejected Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s costly efforts to take control of the General Assembly in Tuesday’s elections, according to unofficial results — flipping the House of Delegates to Democratic control and preserving a blue majority in the state Senate that can block his conservative agenda and prevent Republicans from tightening limits on access to abortion.
Democrats’ sweeping victories amounted to a sharp setback for Youngkin as he seeks to raise his national profile as a potential last-minute presidential contender and seemed to fit with a national trend that saw Democrats rally around the issue of protecting abortion rights. In Ohio, voters decisively approved a measure to build abortion access protections into the state constitution, and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) won reelection after hammering his Republican opponent for supporting the state’s near-total ban on abortions.
Youngkin had hoped to set a new model for how Republicans everywhere could win on the abortion issue, campaigning on the promise that if voters gave Republicans control over both chambers of the General Assembly, he would pass a ban on abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
Virginia is the only Southern state that hasn’t restricted access to abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Democrats ran hard on raising fears of Republican bans, promising to protect Virginia’s law allowing abortion through the second trimester (about 26 weeks) and in the third trimester if three doctors agree it is necessary.
In Kentucky, via NBC News:
Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky has won re-election, defying the usual political leanings of the red state, NBC News projects.
Beshear defeated GOP state Attorney General Daniel Cameron in an expensive and hard-fought race.
Beshear’s re-election in a state President Joe Biden lost by 26 percentage points in 2020 was due in part to the unique brand he has built in Kentucky, separate from the national party. But the victory is still a welcome sign for Democrats ahead of next year’s presidential race, with recent governor’s elections in Kentucky having previewed presidential victories to come.
In his bid for a second term, Beshear leveraged the popularity he built over the last four years, touting the state’s economic progress and his response to natural disasters, including devastating floods.
“My opponent’s campaign is built on attacks and lies. But you know me, and you know it isn’t true. We’ve been through a lot together, and now we’re building the commonwealth we’ve always dreamed of,” Beshear said directly into the camera in one of his campaign’s closing TV ads.
Beshear and his Democratic allies swamped Republicans on the airwaves, spending around $47 million on ads after the May primary, to Republicans’ $29 million, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact. The candidates’ disparity was especially stark, with Beshear’s campaign spending around $24 million on ads — almost five times more than Cameron’s campaign.
Cameron drained his campaign coffers to win the GOP primary in May, giving Beshear a financial advantage from the start. Beshear and his allies touted his economic record in ads. And in the race’s closing stretch, they focused attacks against Cameron specifically on health care, education and abortion.
In Ohio, via Jeremy P. Kelley at Dayton Daily News:
The simple results of Tuesday’s election are these:
Abortion is legal in Ohio;
Recreational marijuana use has been approved but could be stubbed out before it starts;
Most of the tax levies that sought expensive increases were shot down;
Look closely at your city, township or school district, because many of the people running it will change in January;
It wasn’t a smooth night for local election boards in the Miami Valley.Caveat: Since this is politics, beware of the word “simple” in the first sentence above.
In Mississippi, via AP:
Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves won a second term Tuesday in the conservative state where his party dominates.
Reeves defeated challenger Brandon Presley, who raised more money and made an aggressive push to give Democrats a rare statewide victory in the Deep South.
“Mississippi has momentum, and this is Mississippi’s time,” Reeves told cheering supporters at a party in the Jackson suburb of Flowood, reflecting the main theme of his campaign.
The mood at Presley’s party in Jackson, the capital city, was somber as he said hours after the polls closed: “Tonight’s a setback, but we’re not going to lose hope. … This campaign elevated issues that had to be elevated in Mississippi.”
The race was unusually competitive for this GOP stronghold. But Reeves prevailed with a message focused on job creation, low unemployment and improvements in education. He also cast Presley as a liberal backed by out-of-state donors who were out of step with Mississippi.
In New York, via Spectrum1 News:
All 51 seats in the City Council were up for reelection, and district attorney races were also on the ballot in three boroughs – though a number of races featured candidates who are running unopposed.
Here’s what a recap of what happened during election night.
Republican Kristy Marmorato leads over incumbent in Bronx City Council race
Republican Kristy Marmorato has declared victory for City Council District 13 in the Bronx over incumbent Marjorie Velázquez, but the race has not yet been called by the Associated Press or by Spectrum News NY1.As of 11 p.m., according to the AP, with more than 81% of the expected vote tallied, Marmorato had 52.9% of votes, while Velázquez had 47.1% of votes.
If Marmorato wins, she will become the Bronx’s first Republican Council member since 1983.
The district covers Throggs Neck, Pelham Parkway, Morris Park, Pelham Bay, Pelham Gardens, Schuylerville, Country Club, Locust Point and Westchester Square, including parts of Allerton and Van Nest.
Velázquez took a controversial stand in her district when she backed a zoning change for a residential part of Throggs Neck, which residents argued would change the quiet character of their community.
Other races
All of the other incumbent lawmakers are easily cruising to re-election — including political newcomer, Yusef Salaam, one of the exonerated “Central Park Five,” who was running unopposed for a Harlem City Council seat.For the only borough-wide race, Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz was easily re-elected. Two other district attorneys – Darcel Clark in the Bronx and Michael McMahon on Staten Island – did not have an opponent.
New Yorkers also approved two statewide constitutional amendments – one removing the borrowing limit for school districts in small cities, and the other making it easier to construct or repair sewage facilities by exempting those projects from the overall debt limits that apply to local governments.
Brannan beats Kagan in Brooklyn district
Democrat Justin Brannan is the projected winner in the race for City Council District 47 in Brooklyn, Spectrum News and the Associated Press project.According to the Associated Press, with more than 95% of the expected vote tallied, Brannan had 58.5% of votes, while Republican Ari Kagan had 41.5% of votes.
Redistricting caused the two incumbents to run against one another.
“We ran a serious campaign. I personally knocked on like 3,000 doors,” Brannan said. “There’s no magic. It’s just hard work. Hard work, and I think, obviously, having done the work so that when you’re knocking on people’s doors and talking to them, you’re not introducing yourself for the first time. You’re talking about what you’ve already done and what you want to continue doing.”
The district covers Bay Ridge, Bath Beach, Dyker Heights and parts of Bensonhurst.
Paladino projected winner in rematch with Avella
Republican Vickie Paladino is the projected winner in the race for City Council District 19 in Queens, defeating former City Councilman Tony Avella in a rematch from two years ago, Spectrum News and the Associated Press project.According to the AP, with more than 97% of the expected vote tallied, Paladino had 60.4% of votes, while Avella had 39.6% of votes.
Avella lost to Paladino by fewer than 400 votes in 2021.
“Your voices were heard through the votes that I got today,” Paladino said. “We taught the people that this district that slander will not sell. We taught the people of this district that they can trust me.”
The district covers Auburndale, College Point, Whitestone, Bay Terrace and Beechhurst, as well as parts of Flushing, Bayside and Douglaston–Little Neck.
Zhuang projected to win Council seat in southern Brooklyn
Democrat Susan Zhuang is the projected winner in the race for City Council District 43 in Brooklyn, the Associated Press projects.According to the AP, with more than 95% of the expected vote tallied, Zhuang had 59% of votes, while Republican Ying Tin had 26.3% of votes and Conservative Party candidate Vito LaBella had 14.6%.
The district, which includes parts of Sunset Park, Bensonhurst and Gravesend, was redrawn last year as an Asian-majority district.
The Overton Window is still very firmly shut in Mississippi. I posted this in the Open Mic Thread but I think it bears reposting here:
Running preliminary {Mississippi} numbers – 784,522 people voted for governor, which is roughly 40.86% of registered voters. That’s up from turnout in 2022 which was 32% but way below the 60.4% figure for 2020.
The voting population breaks down as 60.3% White, 37.1% Black and the remainder a number of other minority groups. Gov. Reeves got 51.8% while the Democrat got 46.9%. Last time out, Reeves got 52.1% and former Attorney General Jim Hood got 46.6%. So Democrats moved the needle a very little bit, but considering that every other state-wide republican was reelected, it’s not much.
Were the 16% of black voters who are barred from voting for felony convictions re-enfranchised one wonders what effect that would have on outcomes.Report
The abortion issue seems to remain an albatross for the GOP. That shouldn’t surprise us based on how it polls, but part of me wonders if the end of Roe won’t long term be the end of the pro life movement as a political force. One assumes at some point Republicans will get tired of losing over it, and if that’s the case I think it will show that pro lifers made a huge mistake in putting all of their eggs in the GOP basket. I think a highly underrated aspect of the issue is that the Republican party, in addition to being the anti-tax party, has in many ways also become the anti-healthcare party, writ large. They simply have no policy answers on what is consistently a top 5 issue, except maybe that it should be sacrificed, especially for the poor, wherever possible in the name of tax cuts.
Now, I understand that the pro-life true believers see abortion as a totally separate issue from healthcare generally, but the reality is that they are deeply intertwined. Maybe it would be different if the GOP were trusted stewards of the healthcare system, and actually made efforts to fix the problems with it and help people in the process. If that were the case maybe there would also be openness to some nuance on the subject of abortion. However because it’s the total opposite, and there is no trust, voters have no choice but to approach abortion as completely zero sum, regardless of whatever complex views they may have on terminating a pregnancy. And to be clear I’m not saying that but for GOP positions on healthcare there’d be a popular appetite for maximalist pro-life policy goals (aka total bans). But the lack of seriousness on healthcare may doom even the more moderate proposals like the one suggested in Virginia.Report
Yeah. The end of Roe was misinterpreted by a lot of folks.
“Hurray! It’ll be returned to the states!”, Republicans said.
“Oh no! It’ll be returned to the states!”, Democrats said.
Well… this is what returning it to the states looks like.
Maybe we should return more stuff to the states…Report
I think it may well have been. When it happened I thought maybe the comparisons to Europe might hold up, but it’s increasingly clear that the context is completely different when the major conservative parties are generally trusted to run the healthcare system, and certainly aren’t interested in dismantling it. When it’s like that you can have a 12 or 14 or 16 or whatever week limit, plus liberally construed exceptions. But not when it comes along with a package of attacking access and insurance coverage and everything else.Report
I’m thinking it’ll turn out like Kelo.Report
You need to show some work there Skippy cause this looks nothing like that.Report
Following Kelo, a lot of states got all uppity and passed laws forbidding eminent domain despite knowing that sometimes you need to take someone’s house so you can give the land to a corporation.Report
No state anywhere forbade eminent domain post-Kelo. No state would. There was, pre- and post-Kelo, plenty of room for legislative action to nip and tuck and put various limits on the basic power of eminent domain, and some states did that. Some of those changes may be good ideas, some may not, but I rarely have opinions (or the incentive to do the work to have opinions) on technical aspects of other states’ real property laws.Report
Oh, good. They can still take someone’s house and give the land to corporations, then.Report
If you’ve done the work on the eminent domain laws of the various states, maybe you can say that. I haven’t, and I’m pretty sure you haven’t either.Report
The work that I have done is mostly of the form of seeing the difference between needing land for something like a highway or some other public use and needing land to give it to a private company.
Did you know that there are people who argue that the corporation will be employing people in town and therefore it qualifies as the public good?
I have not done the work beyond that, though.
I do think that the constitution bans what was done in Kelo.
Pity that the Supreme Court disagreed.Report
Well, that certainly advances the discussion.Report
We can go back to saying that the aftermath of Roe will be like the aftermath to Kelo, if you want.
I would probably add a “only more so” to it.Report
I don’t want anything other than to understand what your point is — if you have one. Apparently, you think the aftermath of Roe will be like the aftermath of Kelo. Maybe if you fleshed that out a bit, in plain, straightforward English, we could get somewhere.Report
Density sure won’t. And reading the summaries of Kelo, I still don’t see any viable connection between the two.Report
The best I can figure is that Kelo and Roe more or less said states could do what they want. From which it follows that states will do what they want. And maybe, just maybe, states will do things that piss people off.
Problem is that the tinkering that happened post-Kelo didn’t piss people off. Neither did the non-tinkering in states that kept the status quo. Post-Roe, various states did things, or tried to do things, that pissed people off.
I guess if you squint hard enough, there’s a point there. Not much of one, and maybe not what was intended. But that’s the best I can do.Report
Well, there are some pretty big differences.
For Kelo, I’m pretty sure that the general assumption among the population that was paying attention was something to the effect of “the Supreme Court will definitely rule in favor of the 4th Amendment” and, following the ruling, a bunch of states said “HOLY CRAP” and passed a bunch of laws limiting the state law to somewhere around what they thought the law should have been had the SCotUS not screwed up.
Well, following Roe, the certainty that had been established by the status quo was upended and there was a whole bunch of uncertainty. In that uncertainty, a whole bunch of states tightened down their abortion laws and, following that, a whole bunch of other states loosened their laws back to what it was under Roe (or loosener).
In both situations, the SCotUS ruling the way the SCotUS ruled resulted in a bunch of states saying “WE’VE GOT TO PASS SOME STUFF TO FIX THIS!” and so they did.
But I said that (granted, solely about Roe) at 9:30.Report
first you write
“No state anywhere forbade eminent domain post-Kelo.”
but then you write
” I rarely have opinions (or the incentive to do the work to have opinions) on technical aspects of other states’ real property laws.”
so you didn’t bother to read anything about the subject
but your saggy old paralegal ass sure does have an opinion on it anywayReport
What do you see as problematic here? I know for a fact that no state anywhere forbade eminent domain post-Kelo. That isn’t something I “have an opinion on;” it’s a fact. As for the technicalities of, say, Virginia’s, or Utah’s, or even New York’s law of eminent domain, that is not an area in which I practice and it doesn’t particularly interest me, so I don’t do the work necessary to have opinions. Therefore, I don’t have opinions. Are you suggesting that I should do the work and develop opinions I don’t now have, and have no reason to have, or that I should have opinions without doing the work?Report
I think we may all be surprised by the range of things that this SCOTUS returns to the states over the next 10-15 years.Report
Hurray! Federalism For Real This Time!
WAIT NO NOT LIKE THATReport
Republicans in disarray!
“Now, I understand that the pro-life true believers see abortion as a totally separate issue from healthcare generally, but the reality is that they are deeply intertwined. Maybe it would be different if the GOP were trusted stewards of the healthcare system, and actually made efforts to fix the problems with it and help people in the process”
I think you’ve got it backwards, or maybe crosswise. And, interestingly, I also think this is an example of “Activist Disease” which is usually more common on the left.
‘True Believers’ definitely see it as a Health Care issue, as well as a broad pro-natal/pro-family issues (incluuding jobs, housing, family formation and all the other aspects of ‘life’)
‘Activist Disease’ is the inability to take a win, and pivot to what needs to be done next… instead there’s too much invested in ‘The Message’ that all they can do is double down on the next cause regardless of whether it’s related or a good next step. Repealing Roe was good, it was bad Constitutional Law. But the single minded focus on moving the Line on a ‘Ban by the Week’ is not persuasive given the larger issues that need addressing… but too much spent, too much invested, too many careers are involved to give it up and pivot — better to lose and keep funding than risk changing.
‘Party Identity’ when being Pro-Life just meant signaling Party Identity it didn’t matter what Pro-Life meant other than overturning Roe. Most aren’t ‘True Believers’ and they aren’t interested in the ‘liberalish’ things associated with the ‘True Believers’ so they are keen to make it go away — hence the attempts by various Party leaders to coalesce around 15-weeks plus exceptions.
What’s odd, as was displayed in VA31 is that 15-weeks plus exceptions is being portrayed as (literally in VA31) a Total Ban on abortions. To your point, I reckon, the R’s as a ‘Party ID’ are identified by the ‘Activists’ and so 15-weeks plus Exceptions is not seen as a reliable bet.
So, I agree that R’s are eating it post-Roe, but the irony is that 15-weeks (i.e. abortion on-demand, largely as it is *practiced* today) is losing in the messaging wars as ‘extreme’. VA is 26-weeks plus exceptions (requires Doctors to sign-off after 26 weeks). That’s the delta 26 to 15. The number of Abortions that would be restricted by 26 to 15? Approximately 0.
On the other hand, I totally agree that the Republican party is a complete shambles on this and other issues, so I’m not particularly invested in their success/failure… Abortion as a policy issue is no longer about Roe/Judges, but about Health Care, Housing, Family Formation, Capturing Productivity Gains for Workers, etc… it’s not a supply-side issue, but a demand-side issue.Report
Also in VA, HotWiveExperience lost by 3%.Report
I saw that. While flashing a badge worked for Russet Perry…Report
That’s disappointing.Report
I can see the Activist Disease component of it, and I agree it’s more common with what I have seen referred to as ‘The Groups’ on the left. However I still think there’s an inherent tension between trying to have what might be called the socially moderate to conservative Pro Family Constituency in the same vehicle as the Capitalist and/or Economic Libertarian Constituency, especially when the former has the voters but the latter does the financing. That’s what I mean when I say that maybe the conservative Pro Family Constituency made an error by so thoroughly closing off its options. Either way someone was going to get burned and go figure it looks to me like it’s going to be the people with the values instead of the people with the money.Report
Well, that’s a conversation I’ve been having for over 25-yrs at this point… The Money faction was always driving the bus. But that’s a big part of what I mean by Party ID. Money wanted the votes, but not the policies it would take to make the position viable Post Roe. Money wants 15-Week consensus to be a thing… I would never call it a Socially Moderate Pro-Life position though. Socially Moderate Pro-Abortion? Sure.Report
Well yea, if somehow the nationwide norm became 15 weeks with the standard exceptions it would be a defeat for the pro life side far more total and profound than Roe ever was. But (and I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you even if we come down on different sides of this) it illustrates how the issue turns into a binary not just for the motivated on each side but even for even people with the mushiest views on the subject.Report
I think people discount the natural alliance between social and economic conservatives. Economic cons tend to recognize that liberal social behaviour increases the demand for government support. Both count on American founding principles and tradition. Both have noticed that their strongest support (both regional and personal) come from each other.Report
Translation – women having sex outside of marriage want the government to approve birth control, provide it at no cost via health insurance and support a woman’s right to an abortion. If women would just close their legs all this would be fine.Report
Eh I dunno that I agree. I don’t want to go totally anecdotal here but I’m a working guy with a wife and kids and my social circle consists of mostly other working married people with kids. Other than the fact that a few of the marriages are same sex and both spouses have no choice but to work we are all basically living pretty traditional lifestyles. Economic conservatives have no answers when it comes to the things everyone complains about, which are primarily related to costs of housing, healthcare, and education. Some token temporary tax cut for the middle to upper middle class stapled onto the back of a cut for millionaires doesn’t really address any of our challenges. Then conservatives fret about why people aren’t getting married as much, or the marriages aren’t lasting, and about falling below replacement fertility rates, etc. Which isn’t to say that team Blue doesn’t also have some issues with this stuff but they are at least in radio contact with the reality of the issues, they just also have some serious problems with focus and consistency.Report
AMEN! this diversion into is he electable or isn’t he being but one of many recent examples.Report
Clarification:
“Economic cons tend to recognize that liberal social behaviour increases the demand for government support.”
By an increase in demand for government support, I didn’t mean political demand or voting patterns. I meant an increase in hardship without some kind of aid. As for the lifestyle you’re describing, I think we can both agree that that’s not liberal social behaviour.Report
The only “liberal social behavior” that can fit this is irresponsible sexual behavior which produces unwanted children.
Smoking marijuana doesn’t seem to produce hardship, and easily available contraception actually reduces hardship and the need for government support.
Not to mention that same sex marriages produce mostly tasteful decor, women with sensible shoes and affluent DINKs who improve the neighborhood property values.Report
As I noted above:
Report
Whether it’s liberal social behavior or not I don’t know but I think it’s productive to put that aside to talk about real economic interests. Now, I don’t want to make the mistake of projecting my/my social groups interests as the interests of everyone. Not everyone is providing for an upwardly mobile middle class family. However I think what I’m about to say applies to working parents with families across the board and across class.
Say Trump wins re-election with a trifecta. One assumes the main thing they will do is a budget busting tax cut. Unlike in his last term, the effect of that will almost certainly be massively inflationary. Even if they do succeed in tempering inflation with big cuts to social security and/or Medicare, the result of that is either (i) putting working families in a place where they have paid into something for years, maybe decades, but will not get the benefit of it should they need it in the future, or (ii) in the unlikely event they actually put some of the pain on existing beneficiaries, raises the possibility that me or people like me will have to step in with financial assistance to our aging parents, on already tight budgets. And that’s not even getting into what the fed will likely have to do with interest rates in such an environment, which makes it harder to move if you need to, harder to take out loans on education for kids if needed, harder on everything. And these stressers are only more acute the further down the economic ladder one goes.
I understand that is not really what people mean when they say economic conservatism, but I think it is fair to say in practice that is what economic conservatism amounts to. So put aside the issue of people who for whatever series of reasons and circumstances are on some kind of public assistance. Why should the middle class support that kind of outcome?Report
Economic conservatism right now is like the one guy in the band who gets almost as high as the others but can still form sentences. If Trump gets a trifecta, total federal spending would go up $2 trillion per year, mostly in Social Security, in a deal with the Democrats, with the Republicans getting a $900,000 cut in the Department of Education in exchange.
Actual economic conservatism is “first do no harm”. Housing, we’re kind of stuck because of inflation at the low end of the labor market. Health care and education costs are both being driven by the one guy in the club with near-unlimited credit who’s making it rain. You want to hold down those costs, you need to get him under control. Or you could literally take away his debt limit and see if the dancers will convince him to be more frugal.Report
If economic conservatism is all bout doing no harm, then why ahs the GOP cut taxes for 40 plus years, doing real economic harm?
Translation – we are now paying people more, but rent is growing faster then wages and we have to protect rent growth and thus profit at all costs.
Translation – Biden is responsible for private sector medical care cost growth, even though the GOP failed to pass a single piece of legislation reining in medical costs when the held all the cards. Plus the ACA’s expansion of medicaid the lower end of the economic spectrum means I have to pay for people’s care when I don’t deem them worthy.
translation – I don’t believe that welching on our debt would have any economic impacts to me, so I don’t mind if we completely break government instead of taxing ourselves to provide the services we want.Report
You can “translate” my meaning as incorrectly as you want to, but that last two were both wrong and insulting. I didn’t say anything about welching on debt, and I wasn’t describing it, nor was I talking about tax policy, nor was I being selfish about the impact of a debt default (because I wasn’t talking about debt default). The compulsive debt-raisers on the left and right are the selfish ones to the extent that they even think about consequences.Report
When you don’t use names and highlight specific laws an policies its often hard to get people to interpret you as you wish to be interpreted.Report
How about if I don’t say anything explicitly selfish, you don’t make up a scenario where I’m motivated by selfishness? Or just in general if you’re not sure what I meant, and you’re interested in a conversation, you don’t write fanfic? You could say, maybe, “Pinky, you said that health care and education costs are skyrocketing. Am I right to think your policy would be to destroy the national credit, or am I misreading it?”Report
Maybe that’s what happens. I think my prediction, which I’m not sure is optimistic or pessimistic, is that no deal is done at all.
But thinking about it more, my last comment was probably the wrong way to tee up some of these concerns. A better way might be to take Will’s post about his medical scare. That’s a situation where you’ve got someone who is insured, living responsibly, and yet a bad decision on which facility to go to in the midst of an acute medical crisis could be financially ruinous. What’s the economically conservative position on something like that? That the middle class just needs to tolerate that risk? I’m not saying it is, but I can’t think of any proposals.Report
Health care is a Gordian knot. I hadn’t read Will’s article, because I don’t think anyone debates health care realistically – I did read it just now, and I’m glad he’s doing well. No discussion about health care is possible until we identify what aspect of it we’re really talking about. Preventative, emergency, and chronic are different beasts. Basic versus top-end is always sensitive and always changing.
My first policy prescription for nearly anything is tort reform. In the medical field, a lot of the costs are due to unnecessary tests and treatments that are motivated by fear of lawsuit. More broadly, look for anywhere that the actual thing or the rules around it create perverse incentives. We need to separate insurance from employers. One thing I don’t know, nobody does yet, is the role of urgent care facilities. Do they address a real need , or a need that was created by perverse incentives? The guarantee of treatment at the ER is a huge cost, no matter how hard we try to hide it from ourselves, and it encourages people to treat them as a primary care facility. Figure that out and see if it makes sense. Each problem, don’t try to fix it, try to figure out what causes it and change that.Report
Both count on American founding principles and tradition
Milton Friedman enters the chat…
Businesses don’t have “principles” they have interests, the primary one being the maximization of shareholder revenue.
THIS is the textbook “economic conservatism” which we mostly call libertarianism.
The ACTUAL political movement which uses “economic conservatism” as a slogan is not interested in Friedmanesque theory but in using the interlocking political and economic systems to enshrine a cultural dominance of “traditions”.Report
A lot of stuff–including the alliance between libertarians and social conservatives–worked extremely well when you were looking to unite a political movement (and ultimately, the nation as a whole) against Communism.
It suppressed the suspicion social conservatives felt about the disruptive and atomizing nature of laissez-faire capitalism because, sure, it may disrupt the social order, but much less than the Cultural Revolution did.
But if the alternative is, I dunno, sectoral bargaining and single-payer healthcare, a lot of that natural suspicion disappears. We’re left with the argument that we need to get rid of welfare states to keep poor people from sliding into “social deviance”, but, well, it doesn’t seem to have worked terribly well, and the social conservative definition of social deviance is so incredibly stupid that it also needs the Red Menace to look good by comparison.Report
The only person I can think of that truly and sincerely believes in a free market and free trade as absolutes is former OT writer and commentator Jason Kuznicki. And he was basically a non-profit worker.
No one really believes in the free market generally.
Also, this is where the United States needs more Marxist analysis. We basically have no concept of the petit bourgeois in our political analysis. They get coded as blue-collar types/Reagan Democrats by too friendly media. Anyone in Europe could tell you that the petit bourgeois are the most reactionary of all classes. Even more than plutocrats.
I would also argue that the petit bourgeois are the real movers and shakers in the GOP. MTG, Gaetz, Palin, etc. are centrally the petit bourgeois.Report
There’s also a perfectly reasonable path where a form of small-c social conservatism sort of saves itself by adapting to meeting the needs of the people whose values it wants to preserve and taking an assimilationist approach to those outside of traditional, Anglo-Saxon Protestant America as long as they follow a basic social rubric. Of course that is not what they have chosen.Report
Most people go into business because they want to make money rather than make some principled stand on something.Report
So, I agree that R’s are eating it post-Roe, but the irony is that 15-weeks (i.e. abortion on-demand, largely as it is *practiced* today) is losing in the messaging wars as ‘extreme’. VA is 26-weeks plus exceptions (requires Doctors to sign-off after 26 weeks). That’s the delta 26 to 15. The number of Abortions that would be restricted by 26 to 15? Approximately 0
You are answering your our comment one paragraph above, when you say “15-weeks plus Exceptions is not seen as a reliable bet.” It is not seen as a reliable bet because since the very first day Republicans have made it clear that those exceptions would be interprepeted in the most restrictive way possible.
Had Governors, legislators, district attorneys, etc., in those 15 or 6 weeks jurisdictions made claer from the beginning that every-single-borderline case should be interpreted as yes, an abortion is allowed in this case, or any case where doctors believe it’s necessary, then, you are right, we would have been in Europe’s territory.
But from the message has been so far: “Are you dying?” If not, then you do not need an abortion, and to have one will make your doctors -and you- criminally liable.
Only when the Texas, Florida, Georgia, etc. Attorney Generals publish guidance that indeed, the exceptions will be construed at least as liberally as in Europe, will people agree with shorter “abortion at will” windows. But so far, there are too many examples of “There will be exceptions, but this one is not an exception” cases.
As it’s said in these comboxes frequently, look at what they do, not what they say.Report
Yes, I’m answering my comment… that’s my comment.
Focusing on ‘Bans’ isn’t the next step… and that’s ironic precisely because ‘Consensus based Bans’ would be 15-weeks plus exceptions.Report
The people who think abortion should be outlawed are the same people who think “why won’t anyone think of the poor hedge fund billionaires?”Report
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4280399-new-speakers-views-on-abortion-lgbtq-issues-gop/Report
To break a snarky one-line butterfly on the wheel, the anti-abortion activists who drive the movement tend to really not give a shit about anything but abortion, and poor hedge fund billionaires don’t care about whether abortion is outlawed because why would they?
They’re billionaires!Report
Its going to take a while to sort through the results, but it does seem that abortion and the culture war over LGBTQ seems to be working to motivate Dem turnout and attract moderates.
The dilemma for Republicans is that some of their leaders like Youngkin grasp this and want to at least appear to be willing to compromise on the issue, but the muscle of the party activists Just. Can’t. Shut. Up about about abortion and drag queens.Report
Youngkin is just as fanatical as the others.Report
Abortion, abrotion, abortion. The Democrats ran on access to birth control and abortion. The Republicans ran on “crime” and transphobia. Abortion rights won the day easily. Many Moms for Liberty School Board types lost easily yesterday.
But our political press will not take this seriously generally because “Smashmortion? It’s is vote-getter? That’s unpossible!!”Report
One thing I’ve been wondering about is how conversations among women are going. Like, when moms get together at the park, or over coffee at work and chat, how many times has there been a story about Mary Schmoe, who had a problem pregnancy but her doctors couldn’t do anything for fear of violating the law? Or some other mom who needed a certain medication but couldn’t get it?
These sorts of stories are in my experience deeply searing and powerful because they are real time horrors, and spread through the personal networks of relationships like wildfire. They can’t be washed away with slick campaign ads.
We political types have seen these stories in the media, but for every one that makes the news, how many happen and don’t? And how many prominent columnists or Substack writers are women of childbearing age in red states?
I do think that the prominent voices in our political dialogue tend to miss this.Report
The “Moms for Liberty” types won in my local school district, unfortunately.Report
So my question is: Did they win for the first time, or were they reelected?
I have a theory that they are electable until they succeed in doing what they want, at which point everyone realizes what happened and shows up to vote them out.Report
These two were first-time winners, replacing two more “liberal” board members. This result makes the school board 100% right-leaning.Report
Sounds very plausibleReport
Several years back a conservative slate gained control of the Jefferson County school board, up I-25 a ways from Fish. About six months into their term they started demanding changes in some of the AP course curricula. The College Board refused, the school board prepared to drop the courses. A group of parents filed recall paperwork and collected the necessary signatures in less than a week. They set up outside the public libraries. At the one near where I lived, there were hundreds of people in line waiting to sign.Report
I’m not sure the lesson here is what you guys are taking from it. I think it’s fair to take for granted that many of the curriculum issues have been to at least some degree overstated in right wing media. But they aren’t totally made up, and the combination of those and more importantly the level of rampant ass showing that public schools and teachers unions did during covid has done pretty serious damage to public education, which will likely only be made worse by predictable conservative backlashes.
The take away really needs to be that public schools need to always prioritize serving the median taxpayer. Not the teachers. Not the special interests. Not the activists. Not even the ‘marginalized’ whatever ones conception of who that is. Once they lose sight of that the risk of death spiral or total hollowing out is very real.Report
Yeah. The picture that the wacky media painted of Oregon’s decision to lower standards did a good job of not pointing out that Oregon is tied for the highest standards in the country when it comes to high school graduation.
If they lower standards, they’ll get more kids to graduate.
Without changing anything else.
Which is very easily painted in a negative light. Some say unfairly easy.Report
At least in my example, the services AP classes provide are possibly improved college acceptance and free college credits. To do that, the curriculum is set to be acceptable to the colleges. It was a large well-to-do suburban district. Those might not be important services to the median taxpayer in the state*, but certainly were to the median voter in the district.
* In this state, a bit over half of funding for K-12 education comes from the state. In some of the poor rural districts, as much as 80% of the funding comes from the state rather than local taxes. This is problematic when talking about the “median taxpayer”.Report
They are, in fact, totally made up. And are not ‘curriculum issues’ in any meaningful sense. A curriculum is a course of study, the general framework of things students are taught and tested on.
A curriculum is not disallowing queer students to exist as themselves, t is not removing books about queer people from the library, it is not even banning mentions that queer people exist, either as part of general discussion or even incidentally as part of lesson.
Those were the thing that _actually_ were attacked by Republicans, not anything to do with a ‘curriculum’.
Weird.
I always thought public schools should serve _students_.Report
Sorry.Report
John Fetterman comes out swinging for Joe Brandon: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8e2f38f0e153ba8296db364b34c274bc338c31d6bce293e8f41c26a26610754d.pngReport
One of the MANY reasons why I contend the Democratic Party is not seen as fighters is that they don’t take their victories and smash them over the heads of anyone repeatedly. Like Obama pulled us out of the Great Recession but isn’t known for that. Or Biden has driven the post-Covid economy very well but his press people and proxies aren’t hammering the news about it. Thankfully Fetterman is not cut from that same cloth.Report
Work horses are worth a hell of a lot more than show horses. Biden is a work horse. He also does tout his accomplishments but the media likes to report on the crazy things Trump did one minute ago,Report
Democratic victories are rarely satisfying for Leftist activists, who feel (with some justification, but a less than 20 or 30 years ago) that they will inevitably lose any intra-party battles to set policy when Democrats govern.Report
Democrats are prone to downplaying victories, and selecting party leaders who come off a dry academicians. Chuck Schumer as a case in point. Mike Johnson has more charisma then he does. And whenever Jaybird says “well, you have to understand . . . ” or any of its analogues, I always read it in Schumer’s slow pedantic cadence. Frankly I think the Party would get a little more respect from the leftist activist camp is they acted defensive and proud of their accomplishments once in a while.Report
Awfully good night for the Dems. Nice to return to the country to this.Now I just have to keep chanting to myself “Polls this far out from the election are basically noise.Polls this far out from the election are basically noise.”Report
A lot of people have mentioned the abortion thing, and Chip mentioned the transphobia, but I think it’s worth repeating what I said over on the Open Mic:
Remember when I said ‘A lot of political commentators in general, and even people here, seem to have accepted the Republican’s framing that transphobia against trans kids and anti-gay laws aimed at schools are winning positions…without quite noticing we’ve not actually run such positions through elections? Just because Republicans think they are winning issues doesn’t mean they _are_.’
Well, we ran it though an election last night. And it turns out that, as far as anyone can tell, anti-queer operates exactly like anti-abortion:
It is pretty good for, in a blank slate universe, getting elected. There is a significant minority that loves that position and will show up and vote for you.
The problem is, if you ever actually pass those laws, if they go into effect and everyone sees and hears the obvious results that were obviously going to happen to queer children and did, everyone else is horrified and votes against you.
In addition to the top races last night, which had this as one of many issues, there were a lot of school board elections that was almost exclusively about this, where anti-queer groups like Moms-4-Liberty had taken over school boards. And they almost entirely got roundly slapped down. It’s pretty easy for people like that to get into office, no one pays attention to school board elections, but the second you start making national news because you’re banning teachers from using student’s pronouns or demanding they out gay students, you are abruptly unelected.
It never was a winning issue.
Sadly, I have heard that Colorado Springs Woodland Park school board has remained under wackjob control, but…um, just FYI, Colorado Springs went full wackjob a while ago, with Dominionist religious fanaticism that infest that areas. But that wasn’t just queer issues, but weird ‘American Birthright’ stuff and, again, that entire part of the map has sorta fallen off into religious fanaticism lunacy in general.
And they managed to retain control by their candidates by less than 100 votes. And the attempt to expand into the rest of Colorado didn’t work. So…not great that there is still _one_ school district like that, but doesn’t really show anti-queer stuff as a winning issue.Report
I don’t think it was ever intended to be, beyond gerrymandered Congressional Districts and public temper tantrums. These things are signals about in group vs. out group and they only become issues if Democrats choose to contest them (where the GOP looses elections over them). They are also misdirection to draw voters away from the GOP’s utter failures in the economic policy areas their own bases cares about.Report
Yeah, I somewhat get why Republicans were doing then. (Which is destroying their own future for short term gains, something they have done consistently for decades.)
My complaint was really that basically all political pundits not only fell for those misdirects, but pretended anti-queer-kid stuff would be the next anti-abortion position now that anti-abortion laws had failed to work anymore and were even somewhat toxic, and…the pundits were (ironically) right, but had somehow failed to notice what exactly that meant. Because there was no Roe v Wade stopping those laws from going into effect. So, instant backlash.
Republicans taking a firm anti-queer-kids position in 202x was horrifically stupid and has done irreparable harm to their reputation with an entire demographics group forever.
As I have pointed out before here, thanks to the Democrats being incredibly slow on gay marriage, and then the court deciding it, the Republicans didn’t end up looking super-bad on queer issues back in, say, 2015. They arguable were only about ten years behind Democrats, and could have recovered as memories faded, they could have ended up courting LGBTQ+ people later…but not anymore. People _fled their homes_ to _protect their children_ from being taken by the government, makes a bit of a scar on the community.
And the pundits should have known this! They should have pointed it out, instead of pretending this was a clever plan of Republicans. But, as Saul points out, political pundits are white straight people who are often complete morons WRT anyone else, and didn’t bother to notice what literally every queer activist was screaming from the rooftop.Report
White, heterosexual dudes are over represented in political reporting and punditry circles. The women in the field, often but not always, are generally sympathetic to their colleagues view on what is and what is not a serious subject. A lot of them have always dismissed abortion and contraceptive access as serious issues because they are not business/stonks stuff.Report
The Federalist has a take, that “marijuana coattails” brought out the yoot vote:
Single-issue voters don’t usually care to show up on odd election years but marijuana historically brings people to the polls in masses. Republicans who want to protect their states should be wary of any push, especially from the left, to use the “cannabis coattails” to goad voters into making a rash decision about enshrining abortion up until birth in the state constitution.
Leftists who wanted Issue 1 in Ohio to get extra attention even in an off-year were more than happy to welcome a ballot measure about weed as Issue 2 because it brought more publicity, money, and young voters to the voting booth. Their efforts were rewarded with high turnout.
But of course, the implications of this assertion were studiously ignored.Report
The Times has come out with its can’t be wrong post:
“Tuesday Was Great for Democrats. It Doesn’t Change the Outlook for 2024.
A pattern continued with success in low-turnout elections, which favors highly engaged voters. Presidential years tend to be different.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/upshot/biden-election-results-2024.htmlReport
I’m fairly certain they were once very sure TFG wouldn’t get elected the first time either.Report
He won through a freak electoral college victory, not popularity and Biden received vastly more votes than Trump in 2020. The fact that 2022 was a red trickle instead of a red wave should concern Republicans. The Times/Sienna poll was conducted with 600 voters in six swing states and on landlines. They also admitted to over sampling Republicans. In short, I have my doubts. I might be wrong but I don’t think Tuesday’s results and the insistence on “Biden’s in trouble” match.Report
I don’t think they do either – I do think the Times (like a great many outlets) couldn’t admit they were wrong about 2016, and so can’t bring themselves to admit to seeing what you and I clearly see. This ia about legacy media culture.Report