Tuesday night's excitement has passed. A brief restatement of the results (for those coming in late). I'll list four in broad brush terms, then I'll focus for a bit on the fourth.
1. The Republicans have retained control of the Senate. Generally speaking the seat turnarounds that the Dems thought in their giddiest moments they might get, they did not get. They did not, for example, topple Ted Cruz. That photo is of Cruz opponent, Beto O'Rourke (D), whose 15 minutes may now have passed.
2. The Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives. This likely means that Nancy Pelosi will be back as Speaker (though that is not a certainty). What is certain is that the new management of the House will change the dynamics considerably over the next two years, although any impact it might have upon such matters as judicial confirmations will have to be indirect. There was a fair amount of moaning before the vote about how the national Dem Party had failed to come up with a consistent message other than being anti-Trump. In retrospect, they did have a consistent message, though. It was, "protection for those with preexisting medical conditions." And it worked for them. Or for enough of them.
3. The night included the results of a number of fascinating ballot questions around the country. A notable example: in Arizona voters rejected though Nevada voters approved a new law that creates a 50% renewable energy standard for those state's electric utilities (prop 127 in Arizona, Question 6 in Nevada).
4. It is difficult to find a theme for a discussion of all the Governor's races in the country. I'll only mention one, then. Janet Mills (D) won in her campaign to become that state's Governor. This gives me a theme for my final remark.
Opioid-abuse was the central issue of the campaign, as Mills had made it the central issue of her period as AG.
You might ask: is it odd that a Democrat is running, and winning, with drug abuse as a major issue? Isn't that one of those cultural/wedge issues that have worked for Republicans?
The fact is that the current frenzy, about the abuse of prescription drugs, is one in the Democratic comfort zone because they can see it as "nasty corporations preying on the little guy," rather than as "The Man enforces conformity from adherents of an alternative lifestyle."
Mills as state AG had brought lawsuits against drug manufacturers, claiming that they had marketed products as non-addictive that, in fact, were not.
As candidate for Governor, she spoke passionately about supporting a therapeutic response for the addicts, and "addressing the stigma associated with substance abuse disorder." Her hapless
opponent, Shawn Moody (R), tried to co-opt the issue but made a hash of it, speaking like a technocrat, "We must evaluate our recovery centers by implementing a 'Dashboard' consisting of not less than five and not more than 10 key matrices that will allow us to measure results and share best practices across the recovery community."
Pro tip for politicians. If you are going to try to co-opt somebody else's issue: try not to talk like that!
Replying to your numbered points:
ReplyDelete1. Beto O'Rourke's 15 minutes of fame may not have passed. I've seen talk about his being the Democratic nominee for President in 2020 at both Slate (I can't find the link) and here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/midterms-2018/beto-orourke-ted-cruz-texas-midterms-election-2020-senate-trump-white-house-president-running-a8621266.html. I've never heard him speak, but, if he has charisma, the Democrats are in desperate need of him.
2. How will the Democrats in the House have even an indirect effect on judicial nominations?
2 (again). I don't know why being anti-Trump would not have been enough, and why the Democrats were not more anti-Trump. His kidnapping of asylum seekers' children is horrifying.
3. Another important ballot question was Florida's giving the right to vote to 1.5 million ex-felons, almost all of whom will probably vote Democratic. That's enough to give the Democrats Florida's Electoral College vote in 2020 and ensure that they win the presidency. Denying the vote to ex-felons was (I suspect) a Jim Crow law, and it's great to have it gone. I also think that people should not lose their right to vote while they are in prison. I see no connection between being in prison and voting; prisoners may care about climate change, immigration, health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, and all the other issues that non-imprisoned people care about.
4. I have nothing to say except to let your other readers know that the state in question was Maine. (I had to google to find out.)
Even if denial of the right to vote to people in prison was not implemented to discriminate on the basis of race, it certainly has that effect. This is because, proportionately, more black and Hispanic people are in prison than whites, and it is not because, proportionately, they commit more crimes. The NAACP reports that "African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites."
DeleteI agree.
DeleteHenry,
ReplyDeleteWe don't have much disagreement here.
1) I've heard that too, but it is difficult to believe. With the midterms over, the first-rung candidates on the Dem side will be more and more explicit about their own intentions, and talk of Beto will fade.
2) Possible indirect effects if they could force some bargaining. For example, suppose all the incumbent Justices including RBG remain in office until January 2020. Then, though, she does retire in time to get some well-earned late-life respite. Of course the Repubs aren't going to feel constrained by their so-called Biden Rule as such. BUT if there is at the time something the Trumpets want that requires House approval, the Dems can call that approval in return for an agreement by key Republican Senators that they will keep the newly vacant seat open -- turning the Biden Rule into a real thing after all.
2 (again) -- It is a general political/psychological principle that the side that defines itself simply as "anti" will lose. They have to be "pro" something on behalf of which they are against the other thing. In favor of the benefits of peaceful and mutual cooperative trade, thus against wars, and 'trade wars' too. For example. The Dems I think could have fallen into the trap of being only anti, and they successfully evaded it.
3) I agree.
4) I shouldn't have left that little detail out but, hey, I'm glad you were sufficiently curious to have recourse to Google.