Wednesday, November 07, 2018
Notes On The Mid-Terms
1) It is quite normal for Congress to change hands in mid-term elections. Generally speaking, the electorate prefers that Congress be oppositional to the executive. A party that has the Executive, Senate and House will soon not have all three. So to me some of the results were not unexpected. I'm old enough to remember when Republicans, under Newt Gingrich thought they had the "infinity stones" to rule in perpetuity. 2) I also expected, in the increasing partisanship of the electorate that the House would see more changes than the Senate. House districts are gerrymandered by law in order to create "super majorities" on either political grounds or on racial grounds. So we have in some cases persons who lost their races because their districts were redrawn in a manner that stripped them of their "usual" supporters. That said, the rapidly changing demographics of the country is going to be seen on the district level first and then flow upwards. This is inevitable. Getting back to partisanship as the de-platforming wars continue where people's livelihoods will be dependent upon whether an employer can stomach negative press and tweetstorms, persons with views, lifestyles that are not supported will move to other places more conducive to their views. 3) The increase in R Senators is not too surprising. After the Kavanaugh hearing, the public got a good look at the Senate and I think that moved some/many undecided voters. Like Trump or not, seeing a person's reputation dragged through the mud in the vicious way it was done and realizing it could be you or your loved one, could not have sat well with people who are not consumed with "orange man bad". This also puts the spotlight on Ginsberg. Now that Republicans do not need any Democrats to approve the next Supreme Court judge, should Ginsberg pass before 2020 at the least, The Supreme Court goes very conservative for a very long time. No doubt this is why Trump has called the results a big win. Also, Senators benefit from being statewide decisions. Unless you have a huge metropolis like NYC, the voters in urban districts can be balanced out by those in suburban and rural districts. In places like NY State, not so much. Basically, for statewide office all you need to do is win NYC and the rest of the state doesn't matter. 4) Abrams and Gillum are bigger winners than Republicans may realize. The Democrats have a long term vision that the Republicans either do not understand or are unwilling to counter. They are not called the stupid party for no reason. The Democrats plan is and has been Power Through Population Replacement. The first meaningful and deadly shot was the 1965 immigration act. The second deadly venom was the immigration amnesty that Reagan signed in the 1980s. Aside from the whole "cheap labour for big business" thing, the game was this: New immigrants, aside from Cubans, lean Democratic by large margins. Their children, not wanting to betray their parents and heritage will likely continue that leaning. So you have a time "bomb" of 18 years. The next deadly venom was non-enforcement of immigration law. This in combination with a misapplication of the 14th Amendment meant that you had an "unpredicted" number of new citizens being born to people seeking to protect themselves from being deported by becoming a parent of said citizen. More 18 year fuses. The next deadly venom was control of the education system. This indoctrinated white students into thinking that they are racists and the receivers of unearned benefits of being white. Slowly but surely this attitude went from Universities on down. The effect of this was to split the ever shrinking white population into two groups: Good (guilt-ridden) and Bad (not-guilt ridden). When combined; dwindling white population, growing non-white population, split white population, The Democratic time bombs have been going off. They need not win *this* election or *that* election. What each election allows them to do is gauge the rate of change in the target areas. Neither Gillum nor Abrams could have even made it past primaries in the America of even 40 years ago. And that is not based on race. That is based on stated policies. What changed was that the demographics of GA and FL have changed (This is Hilea!) to the extent that such persons *and* policy positions are acceptable. Recall that an article about Abrams flatly said that white voters were essentially not something she was even concerned with. It was the "Black Girl Magic" of the growing non-white population that would carry her into office. And lets be clear from the results: It nearly happened. The only reason she is not governor-elect at this very moment (she has not conceded as of this writing) is because the time bomb has not gone off yet. It will. Gillum was and is similarly situated. If anything his views were to the left of Abrams. No way his positions would have flown in Florida of even 2000. But again, the only reason why he is not governor-elect is that the time bomb has not gone off. It will. And really, we don't even have to take Race into consideration with these analyses. Look at Texas. How did Beto do so well? Again, his positions would not have flown in even year 2000 Texas. Again the demographic time bomb hasn't quite gone off but it will. Republicans as a national and eventually statewide party is a dead man walking. They are on the "Green Mile" and they don't even know it. The future of the Republican party is on display in California. Why is this a bad thing? One party rule is not good for democracy. Not at all. There needs to be principled opposition in every government. You cannot have "checks and balances" when all those involved agree on the same things. A dictatorship of The Party is no less a threat than the dictatorship of one person.