Back in 2015 I responded to a post by David Chung advocating straight ticket voting, the backbone of power politics. The victory of Trump and many GOP Congressional members has been attributed to stray Republicans returning to the party ticket, and while it’s not the only factor in their recovery, it’s an important factor, and resulted in many upsets. It”s a little depressing to see my points from that prior post starting to be fulfilled, starting right at the top.

Competency: As we’re seeing in the various nominations so far, demonstrated competency is not a component of most of the Administration’s picks; rather, it’s demonstrated loyalty. This lack of interest in competency, in turn, reflects on the Administration itself, in particular its methods. But, as Seashsells on The Daily Kos points out, the incompetence may have already been demonstrated on a more concrete level: the damaging weather in Georgia:

THIS is what American Carnage means. Just as FEMA failed to get help to NOLA after Katrina, so Trump and his team have dropped the ball after tornado storms ripped through the SouthEast this past Saturday and Sunday. There are 20 people dead and communities devastated with some areas looking like what many call a war zone. Officials are begging Trump to send help TWO-THREE DAYS after the tornado storms. Make sure you spread this story. Trump supporters need to see what voting for incompetent, anti-government Republicans gets them.

Positions are prizes: Magnifying the Bush Administration, it seems like nearly all the nominees are being handed awards for their donations and/or work. DeVos, Tillerson, Price. Even Haley, although in this case it’s not a reward to Haley, who didn’t support Trump, but for her Lt. Governor, Henry McMaster, an early Trump supporter. But now they have their cracker jack prizes for the money they donated – but what do we get out of them?

Reduction in public debate: While the volume of public clamor has increased, it’s not at all clear to me that public, productive debates on national policy are taking place. Perhaps I’m missing them. Or perhaps, as word comes down the chain of command that Trump has decided thus and so, the ideological faithful leap into line – no matter what they privately think. And this lack of debate means that the voices of those afflicted by the decisions are not effectively heard by those on top – by those who demand and expect absolute loyalty. For example, at the bottom are Iowa farmers and the TPP, as reported by The Des Moines Register:

President Donald Trump’s decision to jettison the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal and renegotiate U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico could lead to a trade war that could put Iowa in the cross-hairs, worried state leaders told the Register on Monday.

Agriculture and manufacturing, two industries that help form the foundation of Iowa’s economy, would be among the first casualties because of Iowa’s heavy dependence on exports.

For the party faithful, here’s a chilling comment:

“I would hope that President Trump wouldn’t take action that could start a trade war, given that it would damage the very people who helped put him in office,” said Dermot Hayes, an Iowa State University agricultural economist. “But that’s just a hope.”

I worry that the failure to hold Trump to a high standard by Iowa farmers is going to substantially hurt not only our Iowa farmers, but everyone else.

Selecting Party planks: Given the amorphous cipher that is President Trump, his actual position on many issues remains quite questionable, rendering this assertion of mine a little dubious. You don’t think he’s a cipher? Consider this report on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, from TPM:

During a joint press conference on Friday at the White House, British Prime Minister Theresa May seemed to go out of her way to box in President Donald Trump on his backing for NATO, declaring that he had told her in their private meeting that he will support the decades-old alliance “100 percent.” …

May’s portrayal of Trump’s comments on NATO diverge from his public statements on the alliance.

The strength of a democracy can be perceived as a weakness – the failure to speak in a single voice. For those who are in economic distress, for those who don’t tolerate dissent and multiple opinions and think they need certainty, it can seem as if the nation is adrift in a fog of voices. But it’s that respectful clamor, the opinions of many people, which bring us the political and moral strength that has made us a world leader. As we learn to use this tool called the Web, learn to discern false news from true news, lie from fact, we should improve our utilization of those opinions. At one time, the gatekeepers of the broadcast networks helped keep debate quality high; today we’re learning how attain that quality, as we gradually marginalize dubious sources such as foreign teenagers and its American equivalent, Breitbart News.

In order to understand the fallacy of team politics and its implementation, straight ticket voting, one must come to a certain realization: team politics is an instrumentality independent of the quality of the policies it enables and enforces. Once this concept of straight ticket voting gains acceptance and is used, it can be used for anything.

Repeat it with me, folks: Anything.

Such as a highly damaging trade war, because the leadership doesn’t understand the processes and limitations of international trade.

The concept of team politics, without context, is a profound abdication of responsibility. I shan’t deny limited applicability, such as against today’s GOP, which appears to be a highly competent marketing machine, and not much else. But once committed to voting for a straight ticket, there is no more judgment to make, and if one or more of the members of the ticket are bloody fools, or sociopaths – well, straight ticket voting is not a defense, not a rationale. You are still responsible if that ticket you voted for leads you into bedlam.

One final point. I worry that other parties will see what appears to be success for the GOP, and try to follow suit, holding out the siren song of straight ticket voting. As they do so, we should see the power mongers, the sociopaths, the leaders with no qualifications start to climb the ladder towards the top of the hierarchy. That’s a sign of pathology. Watch for it. Otherwise, we’ll have another generation of Hasterts, Livingstones, and Gingrichs, deLays and Lotts – and Trumps. People to whom the rules didn’t apply as they reached for power.

And got it.

The opposite of straight ticket voting is an embodiment of one of the most important, yet under discussed, American qualities: that of doubt. The realization that our answers to governance are contingent, tentative, and never definitive and final. We put forward solutions, but if they fail then we write them off and try again, much as FDR reportedly did – and Governor Brownback fails to do, fixed as he is on ideological purity and not effectuality.

Broken ticket voting recognizes that no one party has all the answers.

Democratic icon Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner in Economics) recently gave his view of the upcoming Presidential election:

In any case, there has never been a time in American history when the alleged personal traits of candidates mattered less. As we head into 2016, each party is quite unified on major policy issues — and these unified positions are very far from each other. The huge, substantive gulf between the parties will be reflected in the policy positions of whomever they nominate, and will almost surely be reflected in the actual policies adopted by whoever wins.

He goes on to enumerate certain issues and how the Democratic and Republican nominees will pledge to handle the issue – regardless of the name of the nominee.  If you are a Democrat, you will handle it this way; if you are a Republican, you will handle it that way.  This reasoning can be extended to support the idea of power politics, which is basically “student-body left”, blasting all opposition out of the way without regard, without discussion (with the opposition or within your own organization).

xaxnar @ The Daily Kos explicates:

We are a divided nation because there is a real battle for what kind of country this is going to be – and defeat is not an option. Sitting this one out, or holding out for ideological purity is not an option either. Republicans may be batshit insane, and wrong on every issue – but they keep winning because they all point their guns in the same direction. Democratic disunity (See Pierce here) and a Quixotic fixation on candidates who are not running or can’t possibly win is a luxury that advances no agenda.

Over on the other side, Iowa GOP State Central Committee member David Chung has some similar thoughts:

I hear it every election year from friends and family, “I look at the issues and candidates and always vote for the best person regardless of party.” Sometimes, it is said matter-of-factly, sometimes it is said condescendingly but it is always said sincerely.

The implication is that only the naive or uninformed vote straight ticket. Nothing could be further from the truth. In nearly every election, I have had the opportunity to talk to my party’s candidate for every office from county supervisor to president. Typically I know where they stand on all of the issues I care about.

I hear this from both liberals and conservatives. Many of my conservative friends say that the lesser of two evils is still evil. I am sometimes asked whether I support principle over party or party over principle.

I am sure that I will be accused by some of being an unprincipled party shill. But let me state it as clearly as I possibly can:

Politics is a team sport, and it is precisely because I support principles over party, that I vote a straight Republican ticket every time.

So on the surface, both sides seem to make good arguments for closing your eyes, putting your shoulder to the wheel, and pushing in rhythm to the drummer at the prow of the ship.  But with a little work I can come up with some questions that may throw some sand in the gears.

1. Is that really all there is to politics, the assemblage of political positions?  Whatever happened to competency, the knowledge of how to manage a bureaucracy, or even your own office staff?  The sport of watching the latest scandal coming out of Washington, or for that matter the local political hellhole, may be quite entertaining – I’ll admit to it! – but the dark side of these scandals is opportunities lost.  If some boob is hired by your ideological god and fouls up, then what good was that ideology you were praising?  Looking at the competencies of our candidates may be nearly as important as the ideologies.
2. Power politics reduces the seats up for grabs to simple prizes.  Look, if all you have to do is win the nomination and then be assured of your seat, then any power-mongering sociopath, and I mean that with nary a grin on my face, will be clambering up the pile to get that nomination, and all he has to do is convince the powers-that-be that he will lick their fingers as necessary.  Winning the nomination may or may not be a chore, but most sociopaths can fake being human long enough to get that nomination – ask a psychologist if you doubt it.
3. Power politics reduces the public debate necessary to our nation’s maturity.  True, we have debates today, but how often are those public debates truly useful?  As the political parties become more hierarchically structured, with less dissent tolerated, we also have a greater chance of taking positions that are incorrect because that’s the word coming down from on high.  We’re seeing this right now with such topics as climate change, Iran, ObamaCare, and just about any judicial nominee coming down the pike of either party.  On the left there are fewer examples, as the Democrats & assorted leftists tend to be a more raucous crowd, but single payer systems / socialized health care sometimes pop up as something sacred.  Both sides seem to be inclined to inflate the military budget at any opportunity, so I tend to see that as another example we could do without.  So we can say positions predicated on ideology, rather than reality, come to the fore.  How can we tell?  Conspiracy theories are a sure sign — “a few thousand climate change scientists are conspiring to deprive us of our free market rights!”  That’s a good sign.
4. Power politics and the manner in which we select planks is a toxic combination.  The folks who take the time to go to caucuses, contribute to political discussions, and in general get involved also tend to be the those most zealous partisans, and those with the more extreme positions.  It’s really a matter of human nature colliding with democracy; those of us who’d rather go bowling on Friday night tend to be more moderate and focused on the here and now, while the zealots become fixated on their vision and become convinced of the holiness of their position.  For an example, here is David Chung again:
   

   I am a Republican, I vote a straight Republican ticket—because I believe that it is the best chance in today’s system to effect the changes that I believe are crucial to our nation.

The wars of power politics may have already started as the Democrats seem to be making some real progress against an icon of the Republicans – Rush Limbaugh has been losing audience of late as radio stations drop his show due to advertiser pressure brought about by boycotts.  I have no use for Rush, he seems to be a beautiful voice married to a lust for money and power; but this does look like a metaphorical assassination to me.

So what’s to be done?  There’s a doozy.  In fact, the best thing to do make may be to sit back and wait for the blood bath – metaphorical, of course – to happen.  I expect that at some point the Republican ship will run into the rocks of reality and be forced to reform some of its positions.  I hope it’s nothing violent; instead, the realization that the Party is shrinking, as we may be seeing here, may be enough to cause the party to reform itself, throwing the more fringe types out on their ears.  If we’re unlucky, we may have to suffer through a heatwave that kills a significant number of us.

But don’t lose hope, not all conservatives are “batshit insane” (apologies to Xaxnar, above).  As noted here, the conservative PM of Australia, Tony Abbot, has apparently about-faced on his climate change denial – possibly due to the multiple natural disasters that have rained down on his country over the last few years.

[EDIT:1/2/2017 fixed typo]

I see the Republican Party continues to tear itself apart with the advent of what might be considered a traditional power play in a very non-traditional environment:

The influential network associated with billionaire Charles Koch will throw its money and influence behind former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley in the Republican presidential primary, the group announced Tuesday.

The decision could dramatically reshape the Republican field – roughly seven weeks before the Iowa caucuses – as Americans for Prosperity Action deploys its vast resources and standing army of conservative activists on behalf of the former South Carolina governor.

The endorsement marks the latest sign that powerful Republican donors are coalescing behind the candidacy of the former US ambassador to the United Nations. She has seen prominent figures join her campaign in recent weeks, particularly after South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott exited the race. [CNN/Politics]

The problem here is that the Republican Party, which had been based on a Party loyalty so strong that it rendered questions of experience and competency tragically meaningless, is grappling with the ultimate in selfishness and self-absorption, which is symbolized by former President Trump, and becoming more and more the norm as old members of the Party leave or die out, to be replaced by far right extremists.

I’ve talked about this before, but it’s worth reiterating: the inability to compromise, the arrogance that drives these new members and faux-leaders, effectively makes the Party into a collection of mini-Parties, centered around principles of dubious worth, personalities, grudges, and other ephemera ill-suited to a mature approach to politics and, more importantly, governance. Bitter internecine primary fights result in partisan voters reluctant to vote for the Republican who opposed their Republican.

Into this pit of magma is driving the Koch Network, a traditional power house built on the riches of oil-drilling. While long-time political analysts apparently are seeing this as a potential game-changer, the real power in conservative circles has transitioned to the “base,” the collection of voters who prefer the former President and his brutal proposals to the more knowledgeable and nuanced ideas of his fellow Republican would-be candidates for the job of President, such as DeSantis, Haley, Hutchinson, Scott, and others. It’s worth mentioning that I may slightly overstate the case. Add in the unknown assistance rendered by foreign adversaries backing the most incompetent President in modern times, and the Koch Network faces a formidable mountain to climb.

In the base’s eyes the former President retains his magic, and so far there’s little to suggest a mass retreat in his support can be brought about by anything, although it’s hard to say how many voters, in dribs and drabs, have opened their eyes and seen; the blunders of the Democrats also complicates matters. Given Trump’s frantic protection of his taxes, it may be revelations concerning his alleged riches are his weak point, but that’s not entirely clear.

But I expect the Koch Network support of Not you, Trump! to be yet another big fizzle. It will enrage the former President even more, as his immaturity won’t permit him to graciously defeat and then use Koch’s powers to enhance his campaign; it’ll be necessary to destroy the Koch Network, and humiliate all the major players, thus neutering them not only for themselves, but as useful representatives of Trump himself. Voters won’t trust them. Worse yet, Charles Koch and his late brother are/were billionaires, a status that Trump deeply desires and has claimed without evidence. His antipathy towards Koch and those they back will be strong.

This feels like another part of the Big Rip afflicting the mislead GOP.

A horrible thought, eh? Presidential election politics already?

But it’s true, the ambitious are already in play. Governor DeSantis (R-FL) and Trump have been working at it for months, as seen in the governor surreptitiously flipping positions on vaccines, and the former President following up his entry into the race announcement with <strangled laughter> his announcement that he will sell NFTs of pictures of his head on various muscled bodies.

I kid you not. Maybe it’s the joke that Philip Kennicott thinks it to be:

Another name mentioned nationally is Governor Youngkin (R) of Virginia, the man who led the upset of the Democrats in Virginia in 2021. In the following 2022 election, he chose to compete with the former President in the endorsement arena, and it didn’t go well:

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) defended his record in only five of the 15 GOP gubernatorial candidates he campaigned with winning their races in the midterm elections last month.

“We picked hard races, races where the states were set up a bit like Virginia, where Joe Biden had won by 10 points, and we went to work to try to flip those states,” he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum in an interview.

Youngkin said Republican candidates’ performances showed that their message “carries,” but unseating an incumbent is difficult.

In the midterms, Republicans were only successful in defeating one Democratic incumbent governor, Steve Sisolak in Nevada. GOP nominees failed to win races in key states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. [The Hill]

A brave, even smart thing to do, but while it may seem like your message got through despite losing, it’s important not to fool one’s self: the Republican message is primarily anti-Democrat, followed by hollow echoing of the religious tenets of lower taxes and less regulation will lead to prosperity, unless you’re Trump, in which case it’s whine whine whine about the 2020 election.

The truth of the matter is that the last three national elections, which are 2018, 2020, and 2022, the Democratic performance has exceeded expectations, and the Republicans have failed to meet expectations. In the 2022 election the Republicans predicted a gain of sixty seats in the House, and gained … nine. Worse yet, the Democrats gained a seat in the Senate. Republican expectations of retaining the Pennsylvania Senate seat while flipping Senate seats in Nevada, Washington, New Hampshire, and a few other States ended in bitter disappointment, often by large margins. Even consolation was bitter as victory margins in several traditional strongholds didn’t match their historical norms. For example, Senator Grassley of Iowa once again won reelection, but fell far short of his average victory margin of 33 points.^[1]

Youngkin’s endorsements didn’t work out? He might want to consider it an important lesson. He simply doesn’t have enough influence to lift underdog candidates to victory, meaning his national reach is not forceful. On the other hand, Virginia governors are term-limited at one term, meaning he can only serve non-consecutive terms. Maybe he needs a hobby.

But conservative leaders are apparently appraising their movement and have decided some careful management of the herd base is necessary, starting by tossing the former President out on his ear, while assuring everyone that No, there’s nothing really wrong with the conservative movement. Erick Erickson chose the Start with unhappy truths and finish with a fantasy approach to this challenge:

We now have the USA Today and the Wall Street Journal polling — both, I would note, were pretty reliable in 2022. Those outlets and their pollsters suggest most Republicans are ready to move on from Trump. From USA Today:

By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump’s policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.

Over the past two years, and really after the midterms, callers to my radio show have also begun to move on.

The consensus is that people want Trump policies, but they are not sure he is the best standard bearer moving forward.

People genuinely do appreciate what President Trump did for the country. They appreciate his fight. They appreciate his judicial picks. They appreciate his robust defense of the United States worldwide and his tough stance with China, Iran, and others.

But, as he notes in his graph on the right here, the MAGA conservatives have no intention of moving on from Trump. The red arrow is the day he posted an anti-Trump screed to his paying subscribers only, and the graph shows the impact on his paying subscriber base.

Up to here, Erickson’s putting the best spin he can on a bad situation, and if he chooses to ignore some gaping chasms, such as the SBC debacle, the abortion disaster, the precarious problem of GOP leadership in the House, and a number of other conundrum, well, self-delusion can be its own punishment.

But this is the sort of thing I’d classify an outright lie:

The media is going to elevate the loud voices of NeverTrump and OnlyTrump. To stay relevant, any good candidate will be defined as the second coming of Trump by NeverTrump, and a weak-kneed establishment sell-out hack by OnlyTrump. Both need Trump to stay relevant.

The upside for the GOP and the nation is that neither do. The Republican Party has a very deep bench of talent. While the midterms were not what we wanted.[sic?] The future is bright.

My bold, and follow that with No, it’s not. The future, that is, for the GOP. Oh, I could be wrong. Maybe all the good future candidates aren’t yet apparent. But the lesson from this election, and the January 6th Insurrection fallout, is that if your leadership is McCarthy, McConnell, Cruz, Hawley, Gaetz, Greene, Madison Cawthorn, Boebert, Ralph Norman, and other folks who, in some cases, managed to put safe Republican seats at risk, well, you don’t have enough intelligent people to fill the seats you’re winning. Gohmert, Gosar, Biggs? No, no, and no. Here is CO-3, Rep Boebert’s seat, results:

And Erickson knows this. From a different post:

It is official. Republicans have taken back the House of Representatives. They gathered yesterday to announce their first official act: an investigation into Hunter Biden.

Dumbasses.

What a bunch of idiots. The American people just rejected the GOP “own the libs” strategy. They signaled they’d love to have responsible adult Republicans in charge. In fact, from NEW YORK STATE !!!! to Arizona, voters elected Republicans who ran on local issues tied to the economy and crime.

I think it's clear that the GOP suffers from a poison at its very heart. Senator Goldwater (R-CO) knew it 60 years ago. It manifests as blind arrogance, as team politics, as an adherence to political positions as if they're religious mantra. This all leads to deeply substandard candidates being elected, repelling the independents who are often key to winning elections.

The question isn't really about the GOP, is it? No. It's about the Democrats. Are they swirling down their own vortex?

¹ I think Grassley was fortunate to win at all, and my friends to the south have committed a major foul by nominating and then electing him again, given his recent history of mendacity and/or dementia.

A day or two ago in my Senate Campaign Updates I noted the shocking survey from A+ rated Selzer & Co showing 89 year old Senator Grassley (R-IA) with only a three point lead over challenger Vice-Admiral Mike Franken (D) in his reelection race. Today, I see David Byler of WaPo doesn’t think Grassley needs to be worrying:

In math, there’s a procedure called the “sanity check” in which, essentially, you zoom out and see whether the calculations you’re doing align with your common sense.

We can do a similar gut check on the Iowa race by looking at polls from races in other states.

In national House polls, the parties are roughly evenly matched. The FiveThirtyEight aggregate has Democrats leading Republicans by less than a point, and the RealClearPolitics average has the GOP barely ahead. In Senate polls, the picture is similar: The same purple states that were competitive in 2022 are competitive again.

But there’s an even better sanity check available here, a race wherein the same pollster and almost certainly the same polled citizens are tested in a different way. That’s the Iowa Governor’s race. Let’s take Byler’s assumption that Iowa is reliably conservative, an assumption that is itself somewhat dubious. If true, then we should assume that a flawed Selzer survey should show similar results.

Does it?

No. Incumbent Governor Reynolds, another Republican, has a 17 point lead.

This suggests that the survey has a very good chance of properly representing the political makeup of Iowa. Byler tried to justify his position by gesturing to other states, to other parts of the country, but that approach to political analysis is flawed, because politics is local, local, local. Yes, polarization has gotten worse, but politics is often focused, quite properly, on the particular. Flawed candidates in other parts of the country are thought to be in trouble, and that may be one of the few constants across the country: from Perdue to Loeffler to Walker to Majewski in Ohio, if you’re flawed, inarguably flawed, your constituents may decide to vote for someone else, or no one at all. Indeed, one might observe that the toxic team politics of the GOP is an attempt to mask off incompetency in favor of blind loyalties.

So don’t count Franken out. The counting of the votes in Iowa may be a nail biting affair; that’s what the survey’s Reynold’s result has to say about the Senate race.

I figure, after Senator Lee’s (R) likely upset in Utah, Senator Grassley is the most likely unexpected disaster.

This is like a spoonful of medicine, isn’t it? Just don’t drool, eh?

• In a surprising, at least to me, result, Fabrizio, Lee & Associates, B/C rated, reports Senator Blumenthal (D) of Connecticut leads challenger Leora Levy (R) by only five points, 49% – 44%. Notable remark from Professor Steven Moore of Wesleyan University: Clearly, the economy is the thing that people care about and it’s the thing they’re noticing. I can’t help but notice that the disruption is a result of the Democrats having to clean up after the Republicans’ blunders in economy management throughout the former President’s single term. Much like they did after both Bush I and Bush II. It should not be a surprise that in addition to Republican incompetence, in the wake of Putin’s War and supply line disruptions caused by the pandemic, inflation is up. I might point out that the job situation is currently excellent, if you’re a worker and not an employer.
• Another surprise for me: The Des Moines Register poll shows Senator Grassley (R) of Iowa, the dude within kissing distance of 90, leads challenger Admiral Franken (ret.) (D), but only by 3 points, 46% – 43%, with a margin of error of ± 3.5 points – technically, a dead heat. By comparison, the poll previous to this, run by A- rated Emerson College last week, gave Senator Grassley a 49% – 38%, 11 point lead. So, does the local rag know more about Iowa than Emerson College? Des Moines Register isn’t even listed on FiveThirtyEight … oh, wait, down here the Des Moines Register says the poll was run by Selzer & Co. Never heard of them. Probably not listed, either … oh, here they are. A+ rated. Sheeeit. Mumble! So what’s going on? Let me speculate:
  

  ---

  In mid-late September, a news story surfaced in which Franken was accused of sexual assault way back in March. Des Moines police refused to file charges, calling the accusation unfounded. The Emerson College poll came a few days after that, and perhaps the news, even with Franken’s denial and the backing of the Des Moines police, led some voters to pick Grassley over Franken.

  ---

  Then the one and only debate between Grassley and Franken was held on October 6th, and the Selzer & Co poll occurred three days later. If Grassley’s performance in the debate was poor, or reminded voters that his positions are not consonant with their positions, then they may have swung back to Franken. Here’s a PolitiFact article fact-checking the debate.

  That’s just guesses, though. Iowa goes back on the Could be an upset list.

• The surprises keep coming: Hill Research, B/C rated, performed a survey in Utah recently and found challenger Evan McMullin (I) leading Senator Lee (R), and in two different metrics. First, if measuring without “leaners,” the lead is 46% – 42%. Second, if “leaners” are added to totals, then the lead is 49% – 43%. A B/C rating is not an A+ rating, so this poll must be taken with a medium sized grain of salt, and the numbers are at variance with other recent polls, including some cited below. However, they are congruent with Senator Lee’s begging Utah colleague Senator Romney (R) to endorse him. Much like Iowa, Utah is on the Could be an upset list.
• Erick Erickson is appalled that Senator Warnock of Georgia doesn’t support the name Braves, as in the Major League Baseball team based in Atlanta, claiming the American Indian tribes do support that use of this American Indian associated term. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, I’ve never heard; I believe they don’t support the “chop” used by fans to be part of the team, so why would they support the use of a name associated with them? But if the tribes do support the use of the name, and the left insists it be changed, then there’s a case to be made for a clear denial of self-agency by the left to the tribes. And that’d be fairly patronizing, no? But, as I said, I don’t know that the tribes have said it’s OK, and I don’t trust Erickson’s word on the matter.
• Enough with the surprises! GOP-aligned Trafalgar gives J. D. Vance (R) a 47.3% – 43.8% lead over Rep Ryan (D) in Ohio, with a margin of error of ± 2.9 points. This is seriously out of step with other polls.
• The Deseret News has published an article on the Utah race between Senator Mike Lee (R), a close Trump ally, and challenger Evan McMullin (I), Democrat-endorsed, which includes this paragraph:
  

  Lee’s internal polling shows him up 18 points, according to his campaign. McMullin’s internal poll shows him ahead by one.

  Someone’s in for a shock come November, but I’m not sure who. The last poll published by Deseret News gave Lee a four point lead, but with a large undecided segment, which arguably favors McMullin. Also, if you’re not a linear reader, then go back up above and see the Utah news about a poll by Hill Research.

That last update, already out of date, was a real mouthful.

On an administrative note, getting this blogging platform to retain paragraph breaks in the midst of “ul” lists is problematic, but I still apologize for extra-long, mixed topic paragraphs. Just because it’s the right thing to do.

aNow that the primaries are half finished and mostly tabulated and decided – for those not paying attention, Rep Cawthorn (R-NC), a member of what I’ll informally call the Young Right-Wing Crazies Caucus, was successfully primaried by state Sen. Chuck Edwards (R-NC), despite a late endorsement from former President Trump – an overview of the upcoming elections to the Senate seems appropriate.

For those just rising from their stone couches, the Senate is split 50-50, with VP Kamala Harris (D) providing the deciding vote when necessary, which is reportedly quite often. The Democrats, who have the advantage of defending only 14 seats to the Republicans’ 21, and of facing a Party from which an attempted insurrection was sparked, and which then failed to condemn it, would in normal times be heavily favored. However, their own missteps may be crippling them.

Let’s start with brief discussions of possible factors, nation-wide, in this election cycle.

Inflation is a favorite topic of right-wing pundits. At 8% or so, it sounds terrible, although I think the Turks would swoon to have such an inflation rate, seeing as their’s is apparently over 70%, although I wonder at interpreting the source article.  On sober assessment, much of inflation, particularly of fossil fuels, is owed to Putin’s War (the invasion of Ukraine by Russia), but often blamed on the Biden Administration.

And don’t be fooled by claims that the United States is “energy independent.” Our fossil fuel companies are, truthfully, international companies hooked into an efficient international transit industry for a fungible product. An impact in one part of the world, such as Europe cutting off Russian oil supplies, will inevitably ripple all through that network. We produce and export more fossil fuel than we import, it’s true, but that doesn’t isolate us from price impacts.

Lack of achievement, traceable to Republican refusal to even permit debate on legislation that is not trivial nor Ukrainian aid, makes it hard for individual Senators to distinguish themselves in the area of achievements. Some, like Senator Cruz (R-TX), have learned how to run their mouths and distinguish themselves that way, but, given the low quality of his analysis and rhetoric, it’s hardly impressive.

The Afghanistan withdrawal, which left thirteen Americans dead, as mandated by former President Trump, may have some impact. While, on analysis, it’s difficult to see how President Biden could have changed his reaction without violating treaties signed by the former President, most Americans saw chaos, rather than an amazingly efficient withdrawal. While Senators had little to nothing to do with the incident, it may impact some contests.

Gun-related homicides, of which the Buffalo, NY, and Uvalde, TX massacres are leading examples, and the weak or, in at least one instance, utterly incoherent Republican responses, may influence voters who are also parents.

The sexual assault scandal of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) may have an effect on the voting patterns of a group that has been conservative for decades. While the evangelical proportion of the electorate has been shrinking for much of that time, they’ve been a potent voting bloc throughout the South.

But will this continue? The revelation that the SBC has been suppressing reports of sexual assaults by member pastors, not been disciplining those pastors effectively, nor reporting them to the police, and not supporting the victims, may shake the evangelicals to their roots. After all, it’s been these same pastors and leaders who’ve led the charge, mostly surreptitiously, but even overtly, against those evil, God-forsaken liberals. The realization that they’ve been mislead in this area may lead to reevaluations in all areas, even including abortion.

Might the bloc fracture and begin evaluating the political leadership potential of liberals? Some evangelicals, while remaining in the sect, may vote Democratic for the first time in their lives.

Political mismanagement by the Democrats tends to have more impact than the same by the Republicans, perhaps because Democrats of the far left are more often advocates for social change in a nation that is probably best described as center-right.

But advocates is a weak word these days. As I’ve noted before, the far left has shown a thread of autocracy in their approach to, ahem, advocacy, perhaps most notably in their utter botch and continued disregard for taking responsibility in the management of the transgender issue. Note that I speak extremely precisely here: I am not addressing the issue of transgenderism itself, but the political management of it. Its sudden appearance in Federal regulations, sans discussion and debate, with an autocratic flare, may be the deciding factor in why the Democrats are not expected to do well this November. If this seems nonsensical, compare to the discussions and debates concerning gay marriage, which began in 1992. Gay marriage was legalized nation-wide in 2015, meaning we had some 23 years of debate and discussion first. Was there equivalent debate of transgender issues? So far as I and others can tell, there was none. And that’s a serious abrogation of the liberal democracy model, which is far more important than most realize.

But other issues come under this heading: the disastrous Defund the police! slogan, since discarded and repudiated by moderate elements of the Democrats, but not all of the far-left; advocacy for Modern Monetary Theory, which, to most folks, including me, sounds like wishful thinking nonsense; ill-advised use of terminology that sounds much like socialism to new immigrant-citizens adverse to socialism, such as Cubans and Venezuelans; and attacks, both rhetorical and real, on historical figures revered by most Americans, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, et al, without regard to historical context and, in some cases, simple historical facts.

I think these all unsettle independent voters who might otherwise be inclined to vote for the Democrats. This, despite the comparison of a thread of autocracy to the Republican Party’s blanket of autocracy.

I calls them as I sees them.

The January 6th Insurrection investigation, which I think is the great wildcard of the election, has had its first television appearance. This gives the independents a chance to learn just what transpired on the eponymous date. If they are paying attention, and don’t treat this as just more entertainment or settling of political grudges, this may change the balance of some races; it’s even possible that a Trump endorsement may go from a much sought after political fob to an anchor hanging from the necks of those who’ve received it.

But that still remains to be seen.

Many of these issues will doom the Democrats to not hold onto a 50-50 split Senate, which VP Harris tips towards the Democrats, or the House of Representatives.

Or so goes the common wisdom.

On the other hand, Senator McConnell, leader of the GOP in the Senate, has to, and does, worry about the quality of the Republican candidates, who tend to be fourth-raters with extremist views, and about the base, who think competency means corrupt, and moderation and humility is not better than arrogance and extremism. Such views do not impress most independents, who are the pivot of the election. Nominating an abortion extremist, or someone with bizarre views on life such as this guy, or a 2^nd Amendment absolutist, will not go over well with independents who are otherwise looking for reasonable alternatives to Democrats.

Is it an opportunity for a new third party? That’s a tough, tough sell, but the presence of Senators Sanders (I-VT) and King (I-ME) in the Senate suggests it’s not impossible for voters to think outside the box. Jennifer Rubin of WaPo thinks the promisingly named Moderate Party has a chance. I could see Evan McMullin and many other former GOP members joining such a party, along with some conservative Democrats. But it’s almost certainly too late for this election cycle.

So with no further ado, here’s my mini-analyses of the 2022 Senate contests.

Index

| Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maryland | Missouri | Nevada | New Hampshire | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | South Carolina | South Dakota | Utah | Vermont | Washington | Wisconsin |

Alabama

Long time member of the Senate Richard Shelby (R) is retiring at the end of the 2022 term, but this is Alabama and hardly seems a pickup opportunity for the Democrats.

Except, this is  the Alabama GOP, the same Alabama GOP that nominated Judge Roy Moore for a special election to fill an empty Senate seat in 2018, and thereby handed that Senate seat to Doug Jones (D), who subsequently lost it to Tommy Tuberville (R), which may be another illustration of the state of the Alabama citizenry.

Primaries have been held, with now-Trump-endorsed Katie Britt and Rep, and former Trump endorsee, Mo Brooks making it to the runoff. Neither seem to have the scandal necessary to gives the Democrats a chance, although Brooks is slightly entangled in the January 6th insurrection imbroglio. Were he to win the runoff, and then the January 6th committee reveal some gross misconduct on his part, it might be enough to make him vulnerable, if GOP voters were to stay away in disgust. If if if, eh?

Among the Democrats, Will Boyd has won the primary overwhelmingly. His electoral experience is confined to losing campaigns, which should come as no surprise in Alabama; otherwise, he appears to be a college denizen, having a number of academic degrees, in engineering as well as theology. Will that be good enough?

Looks for the Republicans to retain this seat, absent a major scandal.

Alaska

Alaska is using an unusual jungle primary from which the top four vote-getters progress to the general election.

But let’s be honest. The incumbent is Senator Lisa Murkowski (R), and this is Murkowski-land, as her father also served as an Alaskan Senator and Governor. The far-right of the Alaska GOP may hate her, they may not endorse her, Trump may see red every time he hears her name, but she won as a write-in candidate in 2010 and could probably do the same again this time around.

The Republicans will retain this seat, as the Democrats are not running a candidate and have endorsed Murkowski, and I don’t think it’s a bizarre ploy. The other Republican candidates are simply far more extreme than the incumbent, and they’d rather see her back in the Senate than one of her competitors. Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) is supporting her in the face of Trump’s campaign to be rid of her.

She’s the favorite.

Arizona

The incumbent Senator Mark Kelly (D), winner of the special election to replace Senator McCain (R) after his death, faces his first traditional election. He has no primary opponents, so he’s been free to campaign against whoever the GOP has in the primaries.

But he suffers from lack of accomplishments, a common affliction in this age of team politics. If he’s done anything in the Senate, it’s escaped my admittedly scanty notice.

But does that leave the door open in purple Arizona? The primary to select his opponent from the GOP has not yet occurred, and to my eye there is no projected winner. State Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a civil engineer with no electoral history by the name of Jim Lamon, and similarly inexperienced, but endorsed by former President Trump’s and financed by billionaire Peter Thiel, Blake Masters are on offer.

Senator Kelly, outside of his political career, had careers as an astronaut and a Navy captain, which may serve him well in this race; his two of his three potential opponents do not seem to have much more to point at than adherence to the former President, and Brnovich is scorned by the same former President.

If Kelly can persuade Arizona independents that he’s not a leftist radical, he should be able to win. Communications is critical for victory.

Arkansas

Senator John Boozman (R) is up for his second reelection, or third term, as Senator from a State that, as of now, has a Federal delegation made up of two Republican Senators and four Republican Representatives. He’s endorsed by former President Trump.

No drama? Wrong.

Primary rival Jake Bequette may be pushing Boozman, and while I’ve found nothing really on his positions, he’s reported to take far-right positions. However, Boozman’s On The Issues summary shows him to the right of Bequette as a far-right extremist himself, and in any case, Boozman prevailed in the May 24th primary.

What does this mean? Given that some GOP voters refuse to vote for primary rivals when their favorite loses, this might give a strong Democrat a chance to take the seat. However, as this article implicitly notes, the Democratic opposition is weak. A possible opportunity for the Democrats, thrown away.

California

Senator Alex Padilla (D), who was appointed to take the place of Senator Harris (D) when the latter won the VP slot of the United States in 2021, is now gunning for outright election. The Republican nominee is Mark Meuser, who advanced via the non-partisan primary, and …

… has criticized California’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and even went so far as to file more than 20 lawsuits against Gov. Gavin Newsom for his emergency restrictions.” [Fox40]

I’ve been unable to find an On The Issues entry for Meuser.

Unless a black swan flies overhead, it’s Padilla all the way, despite his lack of obvious accomplishments during his time in the Senate.

Colorado

Senator Michael Bennet (D) is running for reelection for a second time. In 2016 he gained 50% of the vote, defeating Republican Darryl Glenn by 6+ points. Can he do it again? There’s no obvious reasons why not. He faces no primary opponents, Biden won the state by 13 points, and none of the names in the Republican primary ring a bell, much less strike fear in the hearts of liberals, at least not that I have heard.

That said, American politics is full of upsets and surprises. Both Bennet and Biden need to get on their campaign horses and get the message out.

Connecticut

Senator Richard Bloomenthal Blumenthal (D) will be defending his seat, but not against primary opponents. And how do his Republican opponents look?

The first snapshot of Connecticut’s U.S. Senate race shows Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a two-term Democrat, with leads ranging from 10 points to 16 points in matchups with Republicans Themis Klarides, Peter Lumaj and Leora Levy. [MSN]

Unless something unforeseen occurs, Bloomenthal Blumenthal should be reelected.

Florida

The race in Florida, featuring incumbent Senator Marco Rubio (R) vs, in all likelihood, Rep Val Demings (D), should be one of the hotter races in the Senate this year. The Democratic propaganda line has repeatedly claimed that Demings is ahead or, at least, within striking distance of the two-term, three-term wannabe, incumbent.

And, quite honestly, to my independent ear, Rubio has seemed woefully out of touch, even somewhat incoherent, recently. When the Miami Heat of the NBA included an announcement during the game following the school massacre in Uvalde, TX, urging fans to call on their local and Federal representatives to pass “common-sense gun laws,” Rubio’s response was deeply flawed, for those who cared to soberly think:

The @NBA doesn’t like to talk about the billions they make from a China that enslaves Uyghur Muslims and harvests their organs

But they have no problem politicizing a horrific tragedy in America pic.twitter.com/VUXpOBbw7j

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 26, 2022

Designed to enrage, rather than provoke discussion, Rubio’s attempt to hide behind the stage magician’s magic hand is not impressive to my mind.

But I don’t live in Florida. Concerning Demings, I’ve heard little. Some polls are out, such as this one. It may depend on how well Democrats can turn out the vote.

Georgia

Georgia’s Senatorial race is decidedly one of the most interesting races to analyze. The Democratic incumbent and winner of a special election in 2020, Senator and Rev Raphael Warnock, pastor of the very church at which MLK, Jr. preached, will face recent overwhelming winner of the GOP primary, former NFL star (and Minnesota Viking) Herschel Walker.

First, it’s worth noting that former President Trump is not urging the MAGA crowd not to vote, so that drag on the Republican candidate is not present, unlike when Warnock won the special election to initially fill the seat in 2020.

Warnock has been accused of various ill-doings, none of which seem to stick, so they might be just the usual political mud flinging. He doesn’t appear to have any particular Senatorial accomplishments to which to point, since political polarization brought on by GOP toxic team politics, as well as Senator McConnell’s (R-KY) steadfast insistence of never permitting a debate on most legislation, unless it’s trivial or aid to Ukraine, makes such accomplishments quite the trick to achieve. Still, a man of the cloth should hold some sway over Georgia independents.

Walker has his share of negative reports as a burden as well: accusations of domestic terrorism by an ex-wife, for which Walker claims he’s “accountable;” in his business dealings, he apparently tends to claim more than he actually does, and has been associated with ethically questionable businesses – or even businesses that don’t exist. He’s also acknowledged mental illness, a brave thing to do.

But that’s the past, and many conservative voters will give him a pass for past mistakes. The United States loves a good, redemptive story. So do I. But how about today?

Today, it’s not clear that he’s even functional. His response to the Uvalde, TX school massacre wasn’t evasive, it didn’t cling to the magic of owning a gun, it wasn’t like any other Republican response.

It was utter gibberish, and so was his followup.

And, yet, polls show Warnock and Walker neck and neck, so far as I can make out.

Raw Story has a report from prior to the primary that claimed Georgia GOP officials were terrified that Walker would win the primary, thus dooming their hopes to retake Warnock’s seat. How do they feel now, with Walker unable to meet the challenge of even saying “Prayers and thoughts?” Or will the magic of football dominate in Georgia, as it did in the Alabama election of former coach Tommy Tuberville (R) in 2020?

The general election in Georgia will say a lot as to the seriousness of the electorate.

Hawaii

Democratic Senator Brian Schatz will be running for reelection, having been appointed to his seat in 2012, and winning outright election in 2016 … by 51 points.

There seems little to worry Schatz in his reelection bid.

Idaho

Much like the Hawaii race, incumbent Idaho Senator Mike Crapo (R), recent winner of his primary, seems to have an assured reelection, having won his previous election in 2016 by 39 points.

Illinois

Senator Duckworth (D) will be defending her seat for the first time, having won in 2016 by 15 points, upsetting incumbent Mark Kirk (R). I have not found any excitement in press coverage concerning Senator Duckworth, and she lacks primary opponents, while the Republican collection of candidates do not appear to be remarkable. The primary is June 28, which may clarify the race’s points of interest, or it may simply clarify who Duckworth will be thumping.

Indiana

Deep in Republican land, Senator Todd Young (R) is defending his seat against Mayor Thomas McDermott, Jr. (D). Young won this then-open seat in 2016 by just less than ten points, which may be misleading as he beat the son of a former Senator, Evan Bayh, son of Birch Bayh. Does McDermott have the same name recognition, being the mayor of Hammond, IN, for 18 years? I’ve not found any polls saying so, or measuring the race. The Cook Political Report says Young is outpacing McDermott in fund-raising. And, it’s Indiana.

I figure it’s Young all the way until I hear otherwise.

Iowa

Senator Grassley (R), all 88 years of him, is running for reelection. He was challenged in the primary by State Senator Jim Carlin (R), who seemed optimistic that Grassley is vulnerable, but he failed.

But Carlin may be right. As I’ve noted before, Senator Grassley has sadly devolved into either dementia or just simple mendacity. Iowans, like most American voters, like honesty in their candidates, and if Grassley cannot manage honesty then he may be ousted.

The Democrats surprisingly passed over former Rep Abby Finkenauer (D-IA) to select inexperienced retired Admiral Mike Franken, who does have some experience from working in Senator Ted Kennedy’s (D) office. Perhaps Iowans will respond well to someone with a military background. Grassley is an ally of the former President, so if Trump finds himself in legal trouble, it could reflect poorly on Senator Grassley.

But I sense this is one of those unexpected pickup opportunities that will somehow slip out of the Democrats’ hands.

Kansas

Incumbent Jerry Moran (R) is being primaried by something of an oddity: Joan Farr, who is also running for Senator from the state of Oklahoma.

Yeah, no kidding.

She’s also written a book, How to Run for Office as an Independent Candidate – on very little $$!, so I have to wonder if this is a stunt.

The Kansas primary is on August 2, but I doubt that Kansas is likely to send a Democrat to the Senate unless Moran becomes as electorally repulsive as Kris Kobach (R-KA), who is notorious for losing the 2018 Kansas governor’s race to Democrat and then-State Senator Laura Kelly, thus once again proving Kansans do have a limited appetite for extremist Republicans, having previously rejected, in 2017, then-Governor Brownback’s (R-KA) radical tax reduction plan by replacing his legislative allies with moderate Republicans and Democrats, and then revoking his plan, much to his horror.

Senator Moran’s (R-KS) On The Issues summary.

But by the handiest measure of extremism, Moran’s TrumpScore, he is not particularly extremist. Absent a disastrous scandal, and in view of the fact that Moran won election in 2016 by 30 points, look for Moran to win reelection. His On The Issues summary, though, shows more of an extremist outlook, and is more complete than an arbitrary list of votes.

Still, look for the Democratic challenger to have an uphill climb.

Kentucky

Incumbent Rand Paul (R) won in 2016 by nearly 14 points, and in Republican Kentucky that might be the end of the story.

But if I were a Rand Paul partisan, I might have some concerns.

First, the Democratic nominee is former State Senator Charles Booker, who ran a close second in the Democratic primary in 2020 to challenge Senator McConnell, and is considered a well-known and popular Democrat in Kentucky.

Second, Senator Paul has arguably been acting erratically and against the interests of the United States and Kentucky for years, with his latest cause being the delay of assistance to Ukraine in Putin’s War; indeed, it almost appears that Paul is a Putin partisan. And Americans have little patience with traitors.

Now, it is true that Paul is emblematic of the amateur that is semi-revered in Republican politics. A graduate of Duke Medical School, beginning in 1999 he was certified as an ophthalmologist by an organization of his own creation, the NBO, which was also run by Paul, his wife, and his father-in-law. This sounds very much DIY and brave and all that rot, but is obviously open to fraud. In fact, an unfavorable reading of the cited article suggests a certain petulance on his part.

In any case, a vigorous and insightful campaign by Booker has the potential to yield a surprise for the Democrats. Paul is hardly an impregnable political force. He’s really more of a goof. The question is whether or not Kentuckians realize that.

My money says they don’t.

Louisiana

Deep in Republican land, Senator John Kennedy (R) is popular and appears to not be facing any opponents of stature from either Party. Expect another six years of the smarmy guy from Louisiana.

Maryland

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen’s future is unclear, at least to me. If he were challenged by Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R), at least some polls have suggested he would lose. However, the Republican effort to recruit Hogan to run have failed, leaving behind a bunch of names with which I’ve no familiarity.

Van Hollen, having won in 2016 in an open seat contest by 25 points, has to be the presumptive favorite.

Missouri

Missouri’s Senator Roy Blunt (R) is retiring after this Congress, which puts his seat up for grabs. In normal times, Blunt would be succeeded by another Republican, perhaps one of his staff members.

This isn’t normal times.

As Kansas (governor) and Alabama (senator) have demonstrated in recent years, if the GOP nominates a sufficiently repulsive personality, such as extremist Kris Kobach, or alleged sexual predator Judge Roy Moore, moderate conservative voters will walk away and give the seat to the Democrats. Candidate and former Governor Eric Greitens (R), who was forced to resign for his alleged sins, may fit the profile, as he was accused of sexual assault of a woman, not his wife, who was tied up in his basement at the time. He claimed it was a consensual encounter, but resigned anyways.

And now he’s a leading contender for the GOP nomination.

Past behavior is no guarantee of future behaviors, of course. Missouri voters may be convinced the accusations, which also included campaign finance irregularities, were all a political scam, and vote him into the Senate.

I must say, not being a fan of the other Missouri Senator, Josh Hawley (R), that’d make quite a pair chewing up Senator salary funds.

But if the Democrats can field a strong contender, this may turn into quite a race. The problem is that phrase: strong contender.

The primary is August 2, and it could be quite interesting.

Nevada

Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto is the incumbent and is considered to be in some danger of losing her seat to whoever wins the Republican primary, which recent polls suggest will be Adam Laxalt, a former Nevada Attorney General; the primary is this Tuesday. However, her position with the Latino community appears strong, and general polls suggest a great deal of indecision.

Conventional wisdom has Masto losing, but I suspect, absent the black swan of doom, Masto will win this with surprising ease.

New Hampshire

The incumbent is Democrat and Senator Maggie Hassan. In her 2016 race, she upset incumbent Kelly Ayotte (R) by .14%, a painfully close race. Nor is New Hampshire a traditional Democratic stronghold.

And, finally, opinion is mixed. Crowd Wisdom, which is unfamiliar to me, believes Hassan is well-positioned to win reelection; conservative National Review, in an older article, thinks she’s in trouble. With the primary in September, Hassan’s opponent is undetermined.

We’ll just have to wait to see if the Republicans pick a strong or weak candidate.

But it must be noted in that popular Governor Sununu (R-NH), when asked to run for the Senate, declined the opportunity. Rumor suggests he sees little opportunity in the Senate for accomplishment, which is real pushback on the strategy of Senator McConnell.

This is a gift to the Democrats. Can they capitalize?

New York

Incumbent Senator and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) has been facing the Mountain of GOP intransigence, the Lake of Manchin and Sinema Obtuseness, and the Abyss of Biden clumsiness, but he’s running again anyways. Weaker men would call it a career.

On the other hand, and hand in hand with Speaker of the House Pelosi (D-CA), they defeated former President Trump’s desperate attempts to force the government into bankruptcy. Schumer has a lot of good to point at.

So his path to remain in his seat includes reminding independents of his defeat of the former President, the insuperable obstacles he’s faced as Majority Leader, and what happens if he’s replaced by a Republican. Fortunately, none of his primary or general election opponents seem to have much for name recognition, and New York is generally Democratic for state-wide campaigns. Look for Schumer to retain his seat.

North Carolina

In purplish North Carolina incumbent Richard Burr (R) is vacating his seat after accusations that he may have violated ethics rules concerning stock trades made with privileged information. As the primary has come and gone, we know that the two major party candidates are former State Supreme Court Justice Cheri Beasley (D), who easily won her primary, and Rep Ted Budd (R), who won the GOP nomination in a come from behind overwhelming victory, following endorsement by former President Trump.

Which way to bet? Democrat Beasley definitely has a hill to climb, and the few polls out so far have varying results, from a 2 point mound to an 8 point ugly hill. But there’s still a few months for the campaigns to work their respective magics.

The other two hinges of this race may also be that of current President Biden and former President Trump. If Biden sharpens his message and his performance, independent North Carolina voters may decide to vote for Beasley as a proxy for Biden. If Biden’s Administration continues to struggle with domestic issues and fails to communicate its more-than-solid performance regarding Putin’s War, then North Carolina independents may hold their noses and vote for the Trump-endorsed Budd. Even disaffected voters for the losers of the primary – primarily former Gov Pat McCrory (R) – may vote for Budd.

But if Trump comes out of the January 6th Insurrection hearings that are currently being televised smelling like an arrogant autocrat, independent North Carolina voters may take their fury out on the Republicans by voting for Beasley.

Time will tell.

North Dakota

It’s North Dakota. Have North Dakotans become disaffected with the Republican Party when I wasn’t looking?

No.

It’s incumbent John Hoeven (R) in a walk. Assuming he survives the upcoming primary.

Ohio

Incumbent Rob Portman (R) is retiring from the Senate, and the major parties are putting forth Rep Tim Ryan (D) and J. D. Vance (R), retired Marine, lawyer and author of Hillbilly Elegy.

J. D. Vance’s On The Issues summary.

Vance has not held elective office, but he has worked for Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and state Senator Bob Schuler (R-OH), so he at least knows what’s going on. He won the party primary with merely 31.3% of the GOP vote, so there may be some question as to whether the Josh Mandell partisans, his closest rival with 24.3% of the vote, will be willing to vote for Vance, or if the battle was bitter enough to outrage them. Balancing this is an endorsement, in April, of Vance by former President Trump. However, an endorsee who only won a plurality of the vote does raise some questions about the candidate’s overall popularity with the GOP. Complicating the question is the fact that Vance transitioned from a Never Trumper to a Trump sycophant, suggesting his lust for power influences his judgment, and that he’s a right-wing extremist. The On The Issues summary of his positions, to your right, reinforces that impression.

Rep Ryan (D) is completing his twentieth year as a member of the House of Representatives, albeit for two different Ohio districts. His length of service suggests he knows how to get elected in a reddish state, although gerrymandering may also be at work here. However, he’s more than a bit to the left of moderate, as can be seen to the left.

The only poll I’ve found so far suggests Vance is up by 2 points, which is within the margin of error. In an opinion piece by Jennifer Rubin of WaPo, she quotes Matt Bennett:

Matt Bennett, of the moderate think tank Third Way, explains: “Voters in places like Ohio will have a clear choice in the Senate race: a principled moderate who has eschewed the radicals in his own party and is entirely focused on making life better for the people of the state or a completely phony proto-populist who decided that the only way to win high office as a Republican is to bend the knee to Donald Trump, lie constantly, and focus on culture war tropes and racist nonsense.”

Not exactly a nuanced, neutral view – or Vance is one mighty scumbag.

Look for this to be one of the big battlegrounds of the 2022 Senate cycle.

Oklahoma

The incumbent is James Lankford (R), who won his 2016 race by 43.1 points. He’s being primaried, but the opponents do not appear to be a serious threat, and neither do the Democrats.

It’s Oklahoma. It’ll be Senator Lankford, again, in 12 months, barring a black swan scandal.

But it’s a two-fer! Long-time Senator James Inhofe (R) will retire prior to the end of his current term, on the day that new Senators are sworn in; the special election will be held on November 8, 2022, Election Day.

The parties are putting forth former Rep Kendra Horn (D), who lost to Stephanie Bice (R) in her reelection bid in 2020, and is the default winner in the primary, while there’s a host of GOP candidates awaiting the late June primary balloting, chief among them former EPA Administrator and entrant in the Most Scandals Ever contest Scott Pruitt, and Rep Markwayne Mullin, perhaps best known for his desperate attempts to gain former President Trump’s endorsement. With a TrumpScore of 93%, he may not be sycophantic enough to overcome Pruitt’s service to the former President.

But it’s more than likely that either one of them will beat Horn in highly conservative Oklahoma. Unless the former President does, in fact, fall from grace in the near future.

Oregon

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has had 26 years in the US Senate, and he’s gunning for another six years. In 2016 he won reelection by an overwhelming 23 points. Do have the Republicans have a selection which will appeal to the power-holding independents?

I don’t think so. The winner of the GOP primary is Jo Rae Perkins, who won with only 33% of the primary voters, indicating dissension in the ranks. Her electoral experience consists of running for and failing to win elective office. Most importantly, her On The Issues chart, to the reader’s right, indicates a far-right partisan unlikely to appeal to independents.

Absent the black swan, this is incumbent Wyden’s in a walk.

Pennsylvania

Toomey may not have had the mouth of Senator Cruz, but he’s arguably farther right than the most disliked member of the Senate.

The race for the open seat of retiring far-right Senator Pat Toomey (R) is possibly the most intriguing and damaged competition of the 2022 races for Federal seats, including the House seats. Indeed, it’s damn near a soap opera.

The Republicans opened with a field led by the Trump-endorsed and prominent PA Republican Sean Parnell, who was defeated in 2020 for an open House seat in a Republican-leaning district by moderate Democrat Conor Lamb. Probably due to the endorsement, Parnell’s future looked promising, but on or around Nov 23, 2021, he withdrew from the race entirely after losing custody of his children to his estranged wife after being accused of hurting both wife and children, which he denied.

Mehment Oz’s On The Issues summary.

With a prime member of the PA GOP’s Steel Curtain suddenly out of the running, Dr. Mehmet Oz, also known as TV’s Dr. Oz, a surgeon who dispenses medical advice on television, joined the race a few days later. Does he have a residence in Pennsylvania? He does in a few other States, but not Pennsylvania. He holds dual citizenship with the USA and Turkey, has been accused multiple times, credibly, of dispensing inferior medical advice, as well as flip-flopping on positions. Nor is he a moderate that would appeal to moderates, as his On The Issues summary, to the left, indicates. I do have to wonder how accurate it is, though, as he has no prior elective experience, only statements.

But he’s not the only opportunist, as David McCormick also joined the fray in January of 2022. A Wall Street inhabitant, he also has a military background and served in positions in government.

But wait, there’s more! As the primary date neared, comparative unknown Kathy Barnette, breathing far-right fire, surged in the polls and seemed to be positioning herself to slide by the two leaders, Oz and McCormick, by using her ideological appeal and even a diss of the former President. That latter tactic may have been a mistake.

In the Republican primary showdown, the counts, recounts, and litigation took quite a while to resolve, but Dr. Oz slipped past McCormick by a mere 951 votes in the end. Barnette faded badly, but at least she didn’t start screaming about vote rigging, unlike this defeated candidate in Arizona.

Among the Democrats, the contest counted four entrants in the end, but the real contest was expected to be between the aforementioned Rep Conor Lamb, coming off of one giant-killing in 2020, and Lt. Governor John Fetterman, who, at 6′ 9″ tall, is a credible giant, bald, and covered in tatoos.

But I think anyone who has seen Fetterman on stage or read his responses to Republicans over the years is well aware that he’s a charismatic individual who comes across as authentic, much like Jesse Ventura did during his successful run for the Minnesota Governor’s seat as an independent in 1998.

But there was more drama to come, as Fetterman ended up in the hospital just a few days before May 17, Primary Day in Pennsylvania. Initially reported as a mild stroke, brought on by ignoring medical advice, it turned out to be much more serious. Would that affect the primary?

Oh, it probably did, but Rep Lamb’s giant-killing ways still came to a stop with a surprising 32 point loss to the Lt. Governor.

But will Fetterman’s campaign’s decision to underplay his medical condition affect some voters? Some – maybe many – appreciate knowing medical details of their political representatives – even if FDR had polio and didn’t advertise it. That was an era when medical problems were far more common, and political candidates were expected to persevere and hope the divine would carry them through. That’s not today.

John Fetterman’s On The Issues summary.

Fetterman, unlike Oz, has relatively little to worry about in the scandal department, or at least so far as we know, unless Oz can somehow find a way to attack Fetterman’s support for fracking, a position which will make Democrats deeply uneasy, but will appeal to a certain class of Pennsylvanians. Oz would be wise to forget that target, because Oz will be the target of many unhappy revelations, at least for those who haven’t followed his career. Pennsylvania famously went for Biden by 1.17% in the 2020 Presidential election, and, even more importantly, far-right retiring Senator Toomey won in 2016 by only 1.5 points – against a relative unknown. If the Democrats had a better-known candidate in 2016, Toomey might have spent the last 5.5 years watching from the sidelines. Fetterman may be that candidate.

Fetterman’s health and opacity makes this pick a bit of a wildcard, but I still like Fetterman’s chances. Look for the Democrats to pick up this seat, especially if McCormick’s partisans were embittered losing to Mehmet Oz.

South Carolina

Incumbent Senator Tim Scott (R) is running again. Having won in 2016 by 23 points, and not stepped in any potholes since then, I expect to see Senator Scott in the Senate again a year from now.

South Dakota

Incumbent Senator John Thune (R) is running again. In 2022, he won by 43 points, and there’s little reason to believe the South Dakotan and high ranking Republican leader in the Senate, and who won 73+% of the votes in the GOP primary, won’t be victorious again come this November.

No matter how much the former President hates him.

Utah

In what would otherwise be considered another limp Republican state, incumbent Senator Mike Lee (R) is facing an actual credible challenge, not from the Democrats, but from independent Evan McMullin.

McMullin has not held elective office, but has worked as chief policy director for the House Republican Conference, a credit of, perhaps, dubious worth, given the tremendous mess the GOP has for most policy issues; prior to that, he was a CIA officer. He ran for President in 2016, and in Utah he hoovered up 21.5% of the vote, which I personally think is a marvelous result.

The incumbent, Mike Lee, still faces a primary, which does not appear to be much of a challenge, and then McMullin, who has been extraordinarily endorsed by the Democrats, and Lee will have their go. McMullin is definitely a conservative, but the sort that is a Never Trumper, while Senator Lee is an ally of the former President. Lee has certainly stuck his foot in his mouth a couple of times, exhibiting views that seem sophisticated and insightful, but they were neither, simply convenient to his defense of the former President and the policy positions of the Republicans. By being allegedly deceptive about his role in the January 6th riot, he’s angered his hometown media, namely The Salt Lake Tribune.

It’s Lee, but it’ll be close, close enough that bad news for Trump could see McMullin into the Senate.

Vermont

Democratic incumbent Senator Leahy is retiring at the end of this term, so it’s a free-for-all for this seat. The primary is August 9th. At present, the scant polls suggest Democratic Rep Peter Welch is in a commanding position, but there are still months to go.

But President Biden won Vermont by 35 points. I expect we’ll see a Democrat win this seat.

Washington

Tiffany Smiley’s On The Issues summary.

Long time incumbent Democratic Senator Patty Murray is running again. In 2016, she won by a commanding 18 points, but here in 2022 some sources are trying to talk up a challenge by Tiffany Smiley (R). Smiley’s a moderate, which suggests she may appeal to Washington independent voters, but Murray is a known and presumably comfortable quantity. The sources are, I think, wishful rather than realistic. This poll gives Murray a commanding lead.

Look for Murray to retain her seat.

But I think the real point of interest is that Washington uses a “top-two” primary system. All qualifying candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are listed on the primary ballot, and the top two vote-getters then move on to the general election. This has the potential to remove extremists, conservative and liberal, who are not palatable to the general voter, leaving at least one of the top two to be of a moderate mien; if there is no incumbent, then both may be moderates.

But it depends on a sufficient turnout. If Smiley is, in fact, promoted to the general election, that suggests that the far-right extremists, despite the racket they make, are only a small portion of the general conservative faction of the American electorate.

Wisconsin

Republican incumbent Ron Johnson (R) is running for reelection, and in so doing breaking a vow to only serve two terms. I don’t think that matters much to his partisans, and probably not to the Wisconsin electorate.

But it’s of a piece with the story of Senator Johnson. Over the last two or three years, he’s been slowly descending, in the eyes of this independent, into the depths of dementia or, at best, exceptionally poor judgement. He’s promoted vacuous, false claims of cures for Covid-19, crank conspiracy theories, election-denying attacks on our election system, ridiculous anti-Democrat memes, unjustified diminutions of the effects of what appears to be the imminent overturning of Roe v Wade, and generally seems to have a screw loose.

I’m not kidding. This isn’t vituperation; he is simply that bad.

Will he even survive the primary? There’s a long list of Republicans on the primary ballot, eager to take him down, and that suggests a widespread recognition that the Senator is a liability and not an asset in the US Senate. However, I have not found any polls for Johnson and his intra-party rivals.

Nor have I for the Democrats among themselves.

However, I have found a couple of polls of Johnson vs selected Democrats, namely Lt. Governor and former State Assemblyman Mandela Barnes, who comes out even, and former State Assemblyman Tom Nelson, who comes out with a 4 point advantage.

Johnson won reelection in 2016 by 3+ points, but this time around he has an extra burden to bear: the Wisconsin GOP. They have proven to be a pack of Trump sycophants and extremists, having wasted millions of dollars on recounts and incompetent, even infantile investigations, and demanded Wisconsin Speaker of the House Robin Vos revert the 2020 Presidential election results, which would be illegal, as Vos himself recognized. He was booed for telling the truth. All of these fourth-rater blunders have been well-advertised by an outraged Wisconsin media.

Between that and Johnson’s outright non-mainstream and irrational behaviors, it’s hard to see the independents voting him back to the Senate again. If the Democrats select a reasonably strong candidate and Johnson beats his rivals in the primary, I expect the Democrats to tip this state.

And that’s it. I’m too tired to count, but my impression is that, as one might expect given the imbalance in seats to defend, the Republicans have two-four more seats that may be taken by Democrats (or, in Utah, independent Evan McMullin) than do the Democrats have at risk. Worse yet, it’s hard to pick which Republican is at worst risk, the empty seat in Pennsylvania, Senator Johnson in Wisconsin, or even Senator Grassley in Iowa.

Months to go, scandals to come. I hope you enjoyed my analyses.

Max Boot is deflated by the election results:

That Trump did so well in the election after doing so badly as president is mind-boggling and disturbing. So too is the fact that Republicans seem to have paid little price for allowing him to ride roughshod over the Constitution, lock kids in cages and spread the poison of nativism and racism. Embattled Republican senators such as Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Joni Ernst (Iowa), John Cornyn (Tex.) and Steve Daines (Mont.) seem to have been rewarded rather than punished for their sickening sycophancy toward Trump. After having spent the past four years as Trump’s enforcer and enabler, Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) will remain in office and probably remain majority leader, with the ability to frustrate any agenda that a President Biden would try to enact.

The conclusion is simple if disheartening: Demagoguery and dishonesty work. Trump ran what may be the sleaziest presidential campaign ever — denying the reality of covid-19 while spreading it with his rallies; lying about Biden’s agenda, acuity and ethics; spewing personal abuse and vitriol — and yet he produced a better result than most pollsters and pundits had expected. His dishonesty increased as the election drew near — yet just as in 2016, he won late-deciding voters. [WaPo]

Boot may largely be correct, but I have to wonder how many of those voters are Trumpists, and how many of those voters were, perhaps reluctantly, obeying the GOP dictate: thou shall vote for the Party nominees, no matter how terrible.

Regular readers know that I loathe and despise team politics, as a rule, as destructive to the fabric of the Republic. That rule permits more corrupt and incompetent nominees into the ranks of the elect than just about any other rule of politics of which I can think. A little adherence to the Party religious tenets (anti-abortion, absolutist gun rights, anti-regulation, anti-taxes), a little tap dance, and who gives a shit about the would-be candidate’s character, experience, or competency? For the faithful, adherence to the quasi-religious-tenets immunizes the candidate from incompetency and corruption.

We’ve now experienced the results of that rule, so beneficial for the would-be autocrat.

I’m not really disputing Boot’s right to despondency; the moral failures of those who voted for Trump deserve to be treated with deep concern, especially given the pack of grifters who have personally supported and benefited from Trump for the last four years. But I am saying that the operational nature of the GOP deserves a great deal more inspection than it currently gets, particularly by those who’ll eventually seek to replace the GOP with a responsible conservative party.

I generally don’t pay a lot of attention to The Daily Kos, but I do find their campaign coverage, which includes reports on public polling, interesting, because while the numbers are sometimes their own numbers – through the Civiqs polls – more usually they’re citing other polls, so I feel that I’m getting something from outside of the progressive epistemic bubble, a bubble which is not nearly as water-tight as the right wing bubble, and certainly not as irrational, but is occasionally even more irritating.

But something I see nowhere else is their analysis of campaign ad spending. I may have mentioned this before, but it’s worth noting that they – by whom I mean Kerry Eleveld of the Daily Kos Staff – seem puzzled by the irrational approach that a Trump Campaign Organization, which by all rights should have money coming out of its ears, is spending in these critical weeks:

I haven’t pursued overviews of the various Democratic candidates unless something interesting comes up because most of them just aren’t going to get very far. But Molly Roberts in WaPo brought up some interesting notes concerning candidate and the former Mayor of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg, so I thought I’d look at them in the context of Buttigieg being on top of the polls in Iowa these days.

Over the weekend, Rep Elijah Cummings (D-MD) became the latest target of a Twitter rant by President Trump. Here’s one example:

Rep, Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2019

And drew predictable responses. Here’s Benen’s:

With the stunning hypocrisy of Trump spending so much energy condemning those he perceives as critics of the United States, only to turn around and express his disgust for one of the country’s oldest and largest cities?

With the fact that Trump, once again, has presented himself as being president of the United States, but only the parts he likes?

Perhaps it’s the pattern that hurts the most. In early 2017, on the weekend in which Americans recognize the Martin Luther King Day, Trump condemned Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) – who marched alongside MLK – before going after his congressional district as an area that’s “falling apart” and “crime infested.”

Benen thinks it’s all part of a divisive political strategy:

The Rev. Al Sharpton and Gov Larry Hogan (R-MD) in WaPo:

The Rev. Al Sharpton on Monday lambasted President Trump for his attacks on Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) and the majority-black district he represents, calling Trump’s remarks “bigoted and racist.”

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), in a separate radio interview, said the president’s comments describing Baltimore as a “rodent-infested mess” were “outrageous and inappropriate.” But he stopped short of calling them racist.

But I think this is the red cape, with Trump the matador, the bull the liberals and NeverTrumpers – and his GOP cohort, however, reluctant, the crowd in the stands. This is to say, that red cape with incendiary words on them is meant to distract the potentially highly destructive bulls from actually inflicting any damage.

Listen, folks, all you pounding your keyboards in a frenzy, blood in your eyes and strategies all forgotten (been there, done that): STOP CHASING THE CAPE. Sure, his remarks are outrageous. Maybe devote the first, very short paragraph to a quick denunciation of his remark anytime one comes out.

But then don’t move on, but return! Remember Jennifer Rubin’s observations on Mueller’s testimony?

To spend hours of airtime and write hundreds of print and online reports pontificating about the “optics” of Mueller’s performance — when [Mueller] confirmed that President Trump accepted help from a hostile foreign power and lied about it, that he lied when he claimed exoneration, that he was not completely truthful in written answers, that he could be prosecuted after leaving office and that he misled Americans by calling the investigation a hoax — tells me that we have become untrustworthy guardians of democracy.

There’s substantial evidence that President Trump has committed crimes worthy of impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. Trump wants everyone to be distracted, to chase the latest outrage, rather than return to the substantial wounds, leaking pus, that he’s suffering. Those wounds should be the focus, not his latest gibberish.

And a word to the reporters participating in “Chopper talk,” the rapid-fire Q&A he does in the shadow of Marine One: Every single time one reporter must ask, “Sir, in the face of the evidence Special Counsel Mueller found and reported to the AG, when do you plan to resign from office?”

Just once per session. But every time. Not only will that infuriate him, but it’ll cause that question to echo around the country. Until he can offer up an answer that is neither gibberish nor full of lies, the question should be repeated.

Possibly by a reporter aching to move on to a new assignment, of course.

Does this sound political? Sure it does. But look at it from a free press angle. The free press chases truth, and if it’s not immediately available, they dig after it. The best ones win Pulitzer Prizes^[1]. They are the hounds of democracy, and if someone doesn’t like that, then they need to go back to high school and take Civics again; I have no time for those apologists who will chatter on about it being harassment of the President. Before they can do that, they must address the evidence of his crimes, and that they do not dare do as Mueller and his team appear to have been quite thorough.

That’s why this isn’t political. It’s simply the free press doing its duty. Now it must follow through.

¹ If you think the Pulitzer Prizes for journalism are only handed out to big time newspapers, think again: in 2017 The Storm Lake Times of Iowa took home a prestigious award for editorial writing.

Naturally, everyone and their cousin has an opinion on the recently completed mid-terms. The trick, I think, is to treat it like a traveling email from a conservative friend: read with skepticism. Here’s Ed Rogers in WaPo, who I’ve not read before, but appears to be quite the apologist for Trump:

While Tuesday night was not a complete win for Republicans, there was no blue wave, either. By most measures, Republicans beat the odds of history and nearly everyone’s expectations, while Democrats were left disappointed as the fantasy of Beto O’Rourke, Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams and others winning fizzled. Not one new progressive Democrat was successful bursting onto the scene. It will take a few days to process the meaning of this year’s election returns, but the instant analysis is clear: Democrats may have won the House, but Trump won the election.

As I always say, in politics, what is supposed to happen tends to happen. I predicted in August that the Democrats would take the House but that alone was not enough for most Democrats. As much as this year’s midterms offered an obvious opportunity to rebuke President Trump, little of what the arrogant Democrats and members of the mainstream media expected would happen actually did. So much of what they said turned out to be wrong that it will take a while before the significance becomes clear. And if the 2018 midterms prove anything, it is that Trump is standing strong while Democrats and their allies who thought Trump would have been affirmatively rejected are in fact the ones who have themselves been denied.

Rogers has some problems to overcome if he’s going to convince readers of his thesis (Trump good, Obama bad). For example:

• “Democrats have underperformed in comparison with the historical markers and general expectations of a midterm cycle. The president’s party loses 37 seats in the House on average in midterm elections when his approval is below 50 percent — but Democrats aren’t projected to pick up nearly that many seats.” Sounds convincing, doesn’t it? But out of sight is that tricky devil, numbers shorn of context, and the context in this case is a nation that has been excessively gerrymandered, mostly by the Republicans (Maryland exception duly noted). As this has been getting worse and worse, this average number becomes less and less meaningful. In point of fact, it’d be interesting to see a graph of that average changing over time compared to the amount of gerrymandering occurring. Apples and oranges.
• “Let the message be clear: Voters had a chance to repudiate Trump and they did not.” No? It’s often a mistake that innumerate pundits indulge in, thinking that a binary result is the end of the question. But it’s not. Let’s take a single example which, I believe, represents most legislative seats defended by Republicans this mid-term: Representative Steve King. Representing the deeply conservative western heartland of Iowa, the 4th and, earlier, 5th districts, that state to my south which I visit most years (Sioux City, specifically), he’s been in Congress since 2003, and he won again in the mid-terms. Now, if Rogers’ thesis was impregnable, we’d expect King’s margin of victory to be comfortable, since it has been in the past, with margins ranging from 9 percentage points to 23.3 points in the recent 2016 contest (data from Ballotpedia seems a little fragmentary for the now non-existent District 5). Trump was a big winner in District 4 during the Presidential election, winning the district by 27 points. So how did Representative King do yesterday? Must have been a cakewalk, right?

  According to The Gazette, King barely won 50% of the vote. His margin of victory? 3.3 points. Remember, voters hate members of Congress – except their own. They typically get a break. So how did King suddenly fall apart? By clasping Trump tightly, he damn near sank himself in the lake. Like a number of Trump-endorsed or Trump-loving candidates, from Arrington in South Carolina to McDaniel in Mississippi, that big old Trump stamp on their foreheads was the stamp of doom. King managed to survive it, which I find more than a little puzzling – but, having driven through the district in campaign season, it’s not really surprising. The advertising was suffocatingly for King. (And this is a guy who’s been little more than a rubberstamp, BTW. But I’ll let you do that research.) The toxic power of team politics comes to the fore, I suppose.

  My point is that there are more to numbers than Thug Won, Thag Lost. Rogers should acquaint himself with the numbers behind the numbers, the stories that are flowering all around him – if he’s willing to look at them.

• Rogers is smart enough not to mention the Senate, because this time around the Senate was configured overwhelmingly in the GOP’s favor – which is why I’m mentioning it, for the benefit of the reader who only skims politics.
• In another instance of shorn context, and as Kevin Drum adroitly points out, the Democrats made large gains despite the heavy burden of fighting in an overall good to very good economy. This became a point of some contention, as President Trump proclaimed his holy influence over the stock market every time it jumped, and ran and hid from the big bad thunderstorm every time it tumbled. The Democrats, and some independents such as myself, on the other hand, noted that President Obama handed off a good economy to Trump, and that’s saying more than usual, given the turd that Bush had handed Obama. From there, and noting that Trump’s tax reform of 2017 has done remarkably little except balloon the deficit, it’s not hard to make a credible case that it’s still an Obama-inspired economy. If you’re really set on pursuing this somewhat dubious line of logic, the stock market jumped 2+% the day after mid-terms. Understanding why may require you to stand on your head without recourse to your hands, however.

  Of course, this entire topic deserves its own rant, which I’ve indulged in at least once. But the important point is that we’re asked to accept judgments that sound good, but have been cleverly made bereft of important context.

• “Not one new progressive Democrat was successful bursting onto the scene.” This should be a big red flag concerning Rogers’ willingness to dance with the liars. This only needs one example: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wins NY-14 by 64 percentage points. But she’s not alone, as Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota won confirmation of her progressive agenda surprisingly comfortably, and Ilhan Omar, also of Minnesota, has burst onto the scene with a real shock for those of an anti-Muslim bent. And I’m not even bothering to research the question, I knew about these without a single search (except to get Ocasio-Cortez’s name). There’s probably more.

  But the point is that reality is misrepresented here. A storm came through and knocked over the trees, Rogers, and proclaiming it as nothing more than some showers is a waste of time.

Viewed with as much context as possible, I think the mid-terms have a lot to teach the Republicans, but it’ll be a lesson they can’t stomach: Trump is a metastasizing cancer. In some parts of the body politic, he’s still a rock star. But for others, they’ve recognized he’s a disaster, and they’re trying to find ways to get rid of him.

But perhaps most importantly is this pert little line, slipped in without trumpets nor support:

No liberal will want to admit it, but Trump is an asset to the Republican Party, while President Barack Obama was a disaster for the Democratic Party.

It’s not a misinterpretation, but a deliberate smear. And, most interestingly, it’s not a smear of President Obama, but of what he stands for: the old style of politics. Rogers, as an apparent apologist for Trump, dares not have any truck with the style of politics in which both Parties debate and create solutions to commonly recognized national problems through cooperative effort. This cannot be tolerated because it ruins the narrative that the Democrats are evil and out to wreck the United States. (If you think I hyperbolize, you need to research some of what Trump had to say in the last days of the mid-term campaign.) This is not a new narrative, though, because it starts with Newt Gingrich, and sweeps along to Lott and McConnell and many others.

By attributing doom and disaster to Obama, of which I, as an independent, didn’t notice a whiff, Rogers wants to bury that old style of politics and replace it with the single Party with its manly leader. And Rogers might have even made this work. If only Trump wasn’t such an ineffectual putz, and doomed to become recognized by more and more disaffected former supporters as that.

If you’re a Republican and want to save your Party, start a new one. Or kick Gingrich out, followed by Trump, followed by anyone who protests the first two. Then start listening to officials and former officials such as Warner, Flake, and Lugar. That’s the path back to an honorable political institution.

The appointments planned by Trump continue. Lawfare‘s Christopher Mirasola evaluates the two latest:

[Marine General John] Kelly [for DHS] has spent his entire professional career in the Marines. Until February 2016, General Kelly was the commander of U.S. Southern Command, overseeing military operations in South and Central America. Unlike other regional combatant commands, Southern Command is known for emphasizing “soft power,” and playing a particularly active role in humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and local military training. Before his time at SOUTHCOM, Kelly previously commanded forces in Iraq and was an aid to Defense Secretaries Leon Panetta and Robert Gates. …

General Kelly is likely to face an easy confirmation. Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson told reporters that Kelly “would be an outstanding pick.” Former Obama administration Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also endorsed Kelly, saying that “he has led our women and men in uniform and understands what it takes to keep our nation safe.”

And for ambassador to China?

[Iowa Governor Terry] Branstad has had experience with China, and Chinese President Xi Jinping in particular, over the course of his governorship. He first met Xi in 1985 during Xi’s visit to Iowa as a provincial agricultural official. The pair subsequently reconvened in 2012, when Xi was vice-president of China. …

Branstad’s appointment has been met with expert approval, and he is likely to be easily confirmed. China scholar Bonnie Glaser said that the appointment “means that the Trump team understands that it is important to have an ambassador who has access to Xi Jinping.” Obama administration Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack also commented that Branstad is “tenacious, and trust me, with the Chinese, you need to be tenacious.”

These two seem a little more reasonable than most.

TIME has published an article about a group interview of a collection of Trump supporters.  If you’ve found that phenomenon mystifying then this is fascinating:

A flock of two dozen mad-as-hell supporters of Donald Trump agreed to assemble on Monday night in a political consultant’s office to explain their passion for the Republican frontrunner. Gathered in a corporate-looking room with the shades drawn, they railed against Washington politicians who hire consultants, and sang their admiration for the one presidential candidate who promises to go his own way. …

The Donald devotees sang a contrapuntal tune, simultaneously a dirge to national decline and an ode to Trump. They believed Washington politicians and the Republican party had repeatedly misled them, and that the country is going down the tubes. They looked for relief in Trump. …

“We know his goal is to make America great again,” a woman said. “It’s on his hat. And we see it every time it’s on TV. Everything that he’s doing, there’s no doubt why he’s doing it: it’s to make America great again.”

The focus group watched taped instances on a television of Trump’s apparent misogyny, political flip flops and awe-inspiring braggadocio. They watched the Donald say Rosie O’Donnell has a “fat, ugly face.” They saw that Trump once supported a single-payer health system, and they heard him say, “I will be the greatest jobs president God ever created.” But the group—which included 23 white people, 3 African-Americans and three Hispanics and consisted of a plurality of college-educated, financially comfortably Donald devotees—was undeterred.

Their belief that government has failed them is, perhaps, unsurprising.  I think this may be an unexpected downside of the subtlety of Obama.  He doesn’t always sing his own praises from the rooftops, and sometimes it’s even counterproductive to do so.  But still, being citizens they have to operate on their knowledge base, so if they don’t know something (and it’s a huge country, I don’t necessarily blame them for not knowing), it’s a problem.  As Steve Benen points out,

In reality, border security has reached unprecedented levels, but Trump backers believe the opposite. In reality, there’s ample evidence that America’s global standing is strong and getting stronger, but Trump backers believe the opposite. In reality, President Obama has run circles around Putin’s Russia, but Trump backers believe the opposite.

(h/t Steve Benen @ MaddowBlog)

Steve Benen @ MaddowBlog points to a new column out by GOP pundit Irving Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, suggesting that the GOP field really needs a surprise candidate:

Shouldn’t Republicans be open to doing what Democrats are now considering? That is: Welcoming into the race, even drafting into the race if need be, one or two new and potentially superior candidates? After all, if a new candidate or new candidates didn’t take off, the party would be no worse off, and someone from the current field would prevail. If the October surprise candidate caught fire, it would be all the better for the GOP–whether he ultimately prevailed or forced one of the existing candidates to up his game.

Who could such a mysterious dark horse be? Well, it’s not as if every well-qualified contender is already on the field. Mitch Daniels was probably the most successful Republican governor of recent times, with federal executive experience to boot. Paul Ryan is the intellectual leader of Republicans in the House of Representatives, with national campaign experience. The House also features young but tested leaders like Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy and Mike Pompeo. There is the leading elected representative of the 9/11 generation who has also been a very impressive freshman senator, Tom Cotton. There could be a saner and sounder version of Trump—another businessman who hasn’t held electoral office. And there are distinguished conservative leaders from outside politics; Justice Samuel Alito and General (ret.) Jack Keane come to mind.

Particularly interesting is the suggestion of Justice Alito, and not only for the question of whether or not a sitting SCOTUS justice could also hold the Presidency, but also why would the GOP base be enamored of him?  Trump is leading the polls, but not because of any intellectual flare – he appeals to the xenophobe, he appeals to the voter who wants a dictatorial leader who’ll do this, that, and the other thing – no matter whether it falls within his responsibility.  Subtlety and nuance are not his forté, nor is relevant experience – despite Trump’s claims that it’s all about management.  Despite his education, he does not come off as an intellectual, but as someone with little impulse control, and a base nature.  He’s willing to point his finger of blame at anyone who’s not a member of the GOP base.

Does Justice Alito (Princeton, Yale Law School) really fall into this category?  Indeed, any of his suggestions?  Until he ventures into “another businessman” territory, which his quite vague, he’s mostly mentioning GOPers with domestic experience – just what the base doesn’t want.  He’s talking about people who might use their judgment to come to a conclusion unacceptable to the base.

But let’s take a step out into left field here.  When I’m wearing my software engineer hat, there”s a certain feeling you get when you’re working in a well-designed system.  It doesn’t just meet the specs, have good performance, and scale well, but every time you’re asked to add something to it, it’s easy – there’s no mad hacking, when you find you need an algorithm to do something, it’s there and easy to use, and the whole thing comes together with an ease and a feeling of rightness because certain principles were followed in the base design.  (Let’s not talk about those principles further as they’re not relevant and I couldn’t enumerate them if they were.)

Let’s pull this idea out of the constricted field of software engineering and into real life, of which politics is a pale reflection.  I suggest, with absolutely no embarrassment, that a leading principle of life and politics should be truth, and its ally, honesty.  The interesting application of these principles is the GOP judgment of President Obama, which, to this independent, appears to be deliberately and dishonestly wretched in its assessments.  In virtually all he has done, the current President has performed at the highest levels and adhered to our best traditions.  Certainly, we can nitpick – why didn’t he prosecute the previous Administration for war crimes, for example?  But in the main, he’s been excellent.

But the GOPer, unless his name is Colin Powell, is obligated to condemn as feeble, or incompetent, or any denigrative adjective of his choice, the work of Obama.  Thus are the orders from on-high.

So, how does the matter of good principles interplay with the sordid behavior of the GOPer?  Think about it: can the GOP candidate for anything deviate from the anti-Obama script?  This is team politics, and now we see the dark side of this phenomenon: you can’t deviate, you can’t dispute what’s gone before.  What do you do?

The Iran Deal is the same as sending the Jews to the ovens.

Medicare needs to be rubbed out because no one likes it.

Paul Ryan’s budget devoid of rational mathematics.

The ACA is resulting in wrack and ruin.

The GOP has to walk on the wild side, because any tick of rationality, of agreeing with political opponents on anything substantive, will get you branded a RINO.  Here’s the thing about pig-headed anti-intellectualism – you eventually discover that the dishonesty you’re indulging in forces you to either recant and get kicked out of this big national party where you have coveted influence – or you can go farther afield as your predictions fall afoul reality.  As Benen notes here, now they’re flirting with the madness of slavery.

All because they put party loyalty, party purity, ahead of simple truth and honesty.  The importance of good principles for life is paramount, folks.  The GOP is becoming an object lesson.  How many can learn from it?