The WPA was passed to try to regulate Presidential war powers claimed since the first undeclared war in 1798. It authorizes any war the President desires for a period of sixty days, with the hope that after sixty days the President would be nice enough to ask.
The last several days I've not been so sure. We've got talk about secession. I just listened to James Carville on CSPAN calling for Democrats to pull out their bayonets in response to a question about preferential voting systems, and VOX ran an interview with a law professor who explained the purpose of the Electoral College as if he was Justice 'fishin' Taney.
Obama has a job approval rating of 57%, so in a specific sense, how Obama was treated is fairly irrelevant. I think the question is whether there was ever anything that could be considered "Obamaism"?
Hey, I think I drove through that town this summer. I think its going to map as part of Appalachia, writing off West Virginia, writes off Southeastern Ohio. But the highway I drove-on is kind of that double-edged sword of infrastructure improvement. Upgrading the two-lane highway to an expressway probably seemed convenient to the town at the time, but it brought Columbus less than an hour away, where a wider range of services and retail would eventually close local businesses.
How that reads to me is that there is a group of 2012 Romney supporters in Milwaukee who Clinton was able to lure away, but unfortunately they don't have driver's licenses. That doesn't seem the most plausible scenario, particularly in light of what happened elsewhere in the country: Hillary Clinton's Urban Turnout Problem
The thing I haven't figured out though is how could it be that both the votes were suppressed and Clinton got approximately the same percentage of the vote in Milwaukee County as Obama did in 2012? The simplest possibility I think is that 60,000 fewer people voted in Milwaukee County in 2016 than in 2012 because they found the choices less attractive and it wasn't on a partisan basis.
Or the 2005 French European Union referendum. Except when the French rejected the referendum, it had a leftward cast of "fear" of losing government jobs, and "anger" at the hollowing out of French institutions. Over the weekend, I finished reading Robert and Isabella Tomb's book on the British-French rivalry, and the root similarities btw/ 2005 and Brexit and the Trump phenomena were patent.
I agree w/ this, but it overlooks the main point of evidence. We had a lot of non-Presidential state elections in the North in which neither Trump, nor Clinton, were running and the Republicans swept, in some places Republicans won counties that had not voted for a Republican since Herbert Hoover. There are a lot of paths going forward, but the current path appears to be a Democratic route in two years, when neither Trump or Clinton are on the ballot, a lot of vulnerable Senate races will be in play, and turnout will be down.
R3: I think what those electoral maps of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are simply showing are two things:
1) Suburban Republicans did not come-out to vote for Trump as they would for a conventional Republican, some probably voted for Clinton or a third-party, but not to the extent she wished. And they voted for the Republican Senator.
2) "Rural" Democratic areas either increased their vote for Republicans, or switched.
a) In places like Scranton and Green Bay, previously large Democratic party advantages were lost and became toss-ups. Here, "rural" means medium-sized cities outside of the largest 100 or so metropolitan areas.
b) Also the last Democratic truly-rural bastion outside of New England -- the driftless area of Illinois/Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota switched. White ethnics (Norwegian, Czech, Danish, Polish, Swedish, and Swiss) live in this area, and made even Minnesota a battleground state.
I think group 1 reverts in a non-Trump environment, and group 2 is undetermined. If there is no reversion or conversion of group 2, then outside of Illinois, the Midwest becomes red.
Certainly agree its possible that any realignment could have other effects outside the Midwest, and they be related, as African-Americans are leaving Chicago and other major Northern cities for the South, Atlanta in particular.
The Midwest already had the highest rates of health insurance coverage in the country before the ACA, outside of Massachusetts, although Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa statistically had similar rates of coverage with Massachusetts. Link to 2008 US Census report. The benefits of the ACA mainly went to places along the Southern border with high rates of uninsured, and places with high insurance rates were more likely to complain about the disruptions.
If history is any guide (Andrew Jackson), the only way the Democrats can extinguish themselves would be to redefine themselves as an anti-Trump party, and slowly lose coherence.
The red flag though is whether this election was a realigning election in the Midwest. There were a lot of Senate races in the Midwest, and I believe in each of them the Republican candidate for Senate outperformed Trump, whether or not they outperformed their Democratic opponent, which more often than not they did. The Minnesota legislature became Republican, the Republicans picked up seats in the Illinois state legislature and are aiming to take at least one house in the next off-year election. Personally think the Democrats need a more populist appeal in the Midwest, but perhaps they think they'll do better in the South going forward.
So by this reasoning Trump had difficulty with the most conservative elements of the Republican Party in the primaries, particularly those religious-identifiers, and therefore Trump was bound to have trouble in the general election.
Trust and collaboration issues are frequently discussed on the right. Today Tyler Cowen referenced this as one if his favored theories of why Trump might win:
6. As Robert D. Putnam suggested, ethnic diversity can lower the quality of governance, and this is one step along that path toward greater fractiousness. This may blend into racism, but much of it is simply “fear of being in the losing coalition.” The common claim that the electorate is more polarized than before fits into this. You might try Ezra Klein’s podcast with Arlie Hochschild.
Perhaps the window of what is possible has broadened a lot since yesterday, but 2018 is a vulnerable Senate year for Democrats, they have nine Senators running for re-election in Republican states. I can certainly see overreach here, but also vulnerable Democrats still losing in 2018, or even becoming reliable Republican votes in the interim. I think we have four years of this, whatever this means.
Mark Halperin saying don't worry about the exit polls, they aren't that good anymore. That always used to bother me -- do these talking heads know something? And do they actually know what they think they know?
Generally, it appears that turnout is lower when a Veep is trying to run for the President's "third term." Turnout dropped for Truman in '48 (*), Humphrey in '68, Bush in '88, and Gore in '00. I'm somewhat surprised since these can be important transitional elections.
Low turnout means high-voter disgust or indifference to the top of the ticket, which can be offset by fear. If turnout is below 52% tomorrow, I think the story is that a lot of people were turned off by the election and by both candidates; perhaps someone will look into cracks in the Obama coalition, particularly among African-Americans, or whether Republicans in red states stayed at home.
I think Adams' victory on the first vote in the House was so sudden and stunning that it immobilized violent opposition. In the 1800 election runoff btw/ Jefferson and Burr, violent mob action was forming while the House kept voting, and states were calling out their militias to challenge the outcome. I think if the 1824 election had taken place over multiple days with multiple rounds of voting, there would have been a similar response. But Jackson himself calling for military action? I think he would have seen himself as inheriting the role of Aaron Burr.
On “Cancel the Midterms”
The WPA was passed to try to regulate Presidential war powers claimed since the first undeclared war in 1798. It authorizes any war the President desires for a period of sixty days, with the hope that after sixty days the President would be nice enough to ask.
On “Linky Friday #193: Creatures in Crime”
The last several days I've not been so sure. We've got talk about secession. I just listened to James Carville on CSPAN calling for Democrats to pull out their bayonets in response to a question about preferential voting systems, and VOX ran an interview with a law professor who explained the purpose of the Electoral College as if he was Justice 'fishin' Taney.
On “On Reversing the Tide”
Obama has a job approval rating of 57%, so in a specific sense, how Obama was treated is fairly irrelevant. I think the question is whether there was ever anything that could be considered "Obamaism"?
On “Linky Friday #193: Creatures in Crime”
You do mean no shooting, right?
"
Agreed.
On “On Reversing the Tide”
Hey, I think I drove through that town this summer. I think its going to map as part of Appalachia, writing off West Virginia, writes off Southeastern Ohio. But the highway I drove-on is kind of that double-edged sword of infrastructure improvement. Upgrading the two-lane highway to an expressway probably seemed convenient to the town at the time, but it brought Columbus less than an hour away, where a wider range of services and retail would eventually close local businesses.
"
How that reads to me is that there is a group of 2012 Romney supporters in Milwaukee who Clinton was able to lure away, but unfortunately they don't have driver's licenses. That doesn't seem the most plausible scenario, particularly in light of what happened elsewhere in the country: Hillary Clinton's Urban Turnout Problem
"
The thing I haven't figured out though is how could it be that both the votes were suppressed and Clinton got approximately the same percentage of the vote in Milwaukee County as Obama did in 2012? The simplest possibility I think is that 60,000 fewer people voted in Milwaukee County in 2016 than in 2012 because they found the choices less attractive and it wasn't on a partisan basis.
"
Or the 2005 French European Union referendum. Except when the French rejected the referendum, it had a leftward cast of "fear" of losing government jobs, and "anger" at the hollowing out of French institutions. Over the weekend, I finished reading Robert and Isabella Tomb's book on the British-French rivalry, and the root similarities btw/ 2005 and Brexit and the Trump phenomena were patent.
"
I agree w/ this, but it overlooks the main point of evidence. We had a lot of non-Presidential state elections in the North in which neither Trump, nor Clinton, were running and the Republicans swept, in some places Republicans won counties that had not voted for a Republican since Herbert Hoover. There are a lot of paths going forward, but the current path appears to be a Democratic route in two years, when neither Trump or Clinton are on the ballot, a lot of vulnerable Senate races will be in play, and turnout will be down.
On “Linky Second Tuesday After The First Monday In November”
R3: I think what those electoral maps of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are simply showing are two things:
1) Suburban Republicans did not come-out to vote for Trump as they would for a conventional Republican, some probably voted for Clinton or a third-party, but not to the extent she wished. And they voted for the Republican Senator.
2) "Rural" Democratic areas either increased their vote for Republicans, or switched.
a) In places like Scranton and Green Bay, previously large Democratic party advantages were lost and became toss-ups. Here, "rural" means medium-sized cities outside of the largest 100 or so metropolitan areas.
b) Also the last Democratic truly-rural bastion outside of New England -- the driftless area of Illinois/Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota switched. White ethnics (Norwegian, Czech, Danish, Polish, Swedish, and Swiss) live in this area, and made even Minnesota a battleground state.
I think group 1 reverts in a non-Trump environment, and group 2 is undetermined. If there is no reversion or conversion of group 2, then outside of Illinois, the Midwest becomes red.
On “Jason Kuznicki — Becoming a Democrat”
Is this a popular Illinois former pol who was unable to get out the vote in past offyear elections?
On “A One Party Nation”
Certainly agree its possible that any realignment could have other effects outside the Midwest, and they be related, as African-Americans are leaving Chicago and other major Northern cities for the South, Atlanta in particular.
"
The Midwest already had the highest rates of health insurance coverage in the country before the ACA, outside of Massachusetts, although Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa statistically had similar rates of coverage with Massachusetts. Link to 2008 US Census report. The benefits of the ACA mainly went to places along the Southern border with high rates of uninsured, and places with high insurance rates were more likely to complain about the disruptions.
"
If history is any guide (Andrew Jackson), the only way the Democrats can extinguish themselves would be to redefine themselves as an anti-Trump party, and slowly lose coherence.
The red flag though is whether this election was a realigning election in the Midwest. There were a lot of Senate races in the Midwest, and I believe in each of them the Republican candidate for Senate outperformed Trump, whether or not they outperformed their Democratic opponent, which more often than not they did. The Minnesota legislature became Republican, the Republicans picked up seats in the Illinois state legislature and are aiming to take at least one house in the next off-year election. Personally think the Democrats need a more populist appeal in the Midwest, but perhaps they think they'll do better in the South going forward.
On “Stephen Bush: Would Bernie Sanders have done better against Donald Trump?”
So by this reasoning Trump had difficulty with the most conservative elements of the Republican Party in the primaries, particularly those religious-identifiers, and therefore Trump was bound to have trouble in the general election.
On “The Scorecard”
Trust and collaboration issues are frequently discussed on the right. Today Tyler Cowen referenced this as one if his favored theories of why Trump might win:
On “So. That Happened.”
Perhaps the window of what is possible has broadened a lot since yesterday, but 2018 is a vulnerable Senate year for Democrats, they have nine Senators running for re-election in Republican states. I can certainly see overreach here, but also vulnerable Democrats still losing in 2018, or even becoming reliable Republican votes in the interim. I think we have four years of this, whatever this means.
On “Linky First Tuesday After The First Monday Of November”
Mark Halperin saying don't worry about the exit polls, they aren't that good anymore. That always used to bother me -- do these talking heads know something? And do they actually know what they think they know?
"
Another possibility, turnout is higher in "battleground states" so if more states appear to be contested, the turnout should be higher.
"
You're frightening me, sir.
"
Then fear is the great motivator.
Generally, it appears that turnout is lower when a Veep is trying to run for the President's "third term." Turnout dropped for Truman in '48 (*), Humphrey in '68, Bush in '88, and Gore in '00. I'm somewhat surprised since these can be important transitional elections.
(*) or "fifth term"
"
Low turnout means high-voter disgust or indifference to the top of the ticket, which can be offset by fear. If turnout is below 52% tomorrow, I think the story is that a lot of people were turned off by the election and by both candidates; perhaps someone will look into cracks in the Obama coalition, particularly among African-Americans, or whether Republicans in red states stayed at home.
On “On Accepting The Results – Or Not”
I think Adams' victory on the first vote in the House was so sudden and stunning that it immobilized violent opposition. In the 1800 election runoff btw/ Jefferson and Burr, violent mob action was forming while the House kept voting, and states were calling out their militias to challenge the outcome. I think if the 1824 election had taken place over multiple days with multiple rounds of voting, there would have been a similar response. But Jackson himself calling for military action? I think he would have seen himself as inheriting the role of Aaron Burr.
"
"it could withstand being led by a literal fascist."
Since you embrace the term, I must quote the venerable google definition of "literally":
The word "literal" is literally being abused here and turned into a sad-faced auto-antonym.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.