Author Archives: Hue White

In Pennsylvania, it appears the Democrats have some hopes of flipping retiring Senator Toomey’s (R-PA) seat:

According to the poll, 46% of likely Pennsylvania voters said they would support Fetterman to represent the state in the Senate, while 37% said they would vote for Oz. Thirteen percent of respondents said they were undecided, while the rest said they would support other candidates. [Fox News]

There’s still time for Fetterman to stumble, but I suspect the guy is too canny. I rate this a likely Democratic pickup.

And then there’s this lady, who did most of her acting through her eyes. My Arts Editor called her “goat’s eyes.”

Pilot X (1937, aka Death In The Air) is a bit of an odd bird. On the one hand, it’s a clumsily constructed murder mystery in which all the killings take place via World War I style planes attacking their victims, also in World War I planes. The group of suspects, except for the tallish dude, are all World War I vets and practically visually indistinguishable from each other, even with two European pilots among them. Nor are they permitted to build sympathetic bonds with the audience, which means we are neither shocked when X’s identity is revealed, nor tragically affected by his murder of his victims. And this idiot doctor telephones someone to tell him he knows the identity of the murder, come quick! Yeah, he didn’t come quick enough. An irritating trope of the genre.

Yet, there are some positive elements. The special effects were surprisingly good for the era, in particular the guy who dies from his cockpit catching fire, an almost upsetting scene. The “stock footage” (according to Wikipedia) is actually fantastically well photographed for the era, including the planes fated to enter their terminal dives. And there was a scene in which time passing and alcohol being consumed was implied by just a few seconds of scene cutaways. However, that nice bit of cinematography was wasted, as I didn’t know who was drinking heavily, and why it mattered.

Most importantly, though, was the acknowledgment of PTSD (not so-named, of course, in a film of this age) being suffered by several of the suspect pilots. While the portrayal was perhaps a trifle hysterical – I recommended to my Arts Editor that one actor get dental work done after all the scenery chewing in response to PTSD – it was a note of reality that the military was, at the time, resistant to embracing.

All that said, I don’t recommend this unless you’re a big fan of those old planes and their crazy looking dogfights. I found the movie more than a little irritating.

Fast fashion:

The term fast fashion refers to a large sector of the fashion industry whose business model relies on cheap and speedy production of low quality clothing, which gets pumped quickly through stores in order to meet the latest and newest trends.

The term was first coined by the New York Times in the early 1990s when Spanish apparel giant Zara arrived in New York, to describe the brand’s mission to take only 15 days for a garment to go from the design stage to being sold in stores. Some of the biggest and most notable fast fashion brands in the world include the likes of UNIQLO, Forever 21 and H&M.

The fast fashion business model involves rapid design, production, distribution and marketing, allowing brands and retailers to pull large quantities of greater product variety and allow consumers to get more style and product differentiation at a low price.

However, a system that relies on such cheap and rapid production only encourages excessive consumption as people are inherently attracted to low priced goods, many of which are slaves to the latest trends. For individual consumers, it is also easier and more economic to snatch up cheap clothing that have short life spans compared to splurging on high quality, long lasting items that will very shortly fall out of popularity. [Earth.org]

That’s a new one on me, but my Arts Editor is knowledgeable. Noted in “Fast fashion is ruining the planet – here’s how to make it sustainable,” Graham Lawton, NewScientist (4 June 2022, paywall):

A FRIEND of mine runs a vintage clothes shop in north London. Every few weeks, she visits a vast warehouse on the edge of the city to rummage through piles of discarded clothing. Most of it is worthless, but if you know what you are looking for, there are diamonds in the rough.

The warehouse has a long history. It was once a clearing house for the low-quality wool scraps called shoddy that were used to make cheap clothing for the masses in Victorian Britain. A century on, little has changed. Nowadays, it is full of modern-day shoddy: low-quality cotton, polyester, viscose and nylon, all in the form of cheap clothing made for the masses around the world. Except that this stuff is going to landfill and incinerators, not being reused.

The items are the products of an industry that, in the past 30 years, has become one of the most successful and also most destructive on the planet. Known as fast fashion, it has filled our wardrobes with cheap and cheerful clothes. But after three decades of remorseless growth, the model is butting up against fundamental environmental limits and there is widespread agreement – even from within the industry – that it is time to hit the brakes.

How about if we just get rid of fast fashion? Just have a negative, noticeable reaction everytime you sight someone wearing fast fashion. You’ll be punched only two or three times, I’m sure.

I must admit to being charmed by the nouning of the word shoddy. Rather like C&H, but different.

From WaPo on public opinions on transgenderism:

Cherisse Villanueva, 34, a pharmacy technician in Honolulu, said she knows more than 10 transgender people and believes society should be accepting of them. “Everybody’s human regardless of how they feel or what they were born with,” she said.

But Villanueva said she does not believe that transgender girls and women should compete against cisgender ones. “Not to be mean, but biologically they’re built like a male, even though they identify as female … so of course they would have the advantage of winning.” Villanueva, a tennis player, added that she is “already intimidated when we play co-ed tennis and there’s a male on the other side.”

Villanueva said she didn’t know how to resolve the question of mental health repercussions for transgender female athletes who are not allowed to compete against other women and girls. “This issue is such a dilemma,” she said. “It’s hard to make it equal.”

That seems both typical and acceptable to me. Resolving such questions is why we have debate and discussion, rather than people running around screaming “bigot!”

This is known as the dead cat flop:

Totally unposed.

Steve Benen is upset that Jim Marchant has won the GOP nomination for Nevada Secretary of State, which is responsible for state elections:

As unhinged conspiracy theorists go, Marchant is not a casual advocate of ridiculous ideas. On the contrary, the Nevadan has been an enthusiastic proponent of discredited nonsense. The report added:

Marchant told NBC News then he would not have certified the 2020 election if he had been the secretary of state. He also said that he wouldn’t rule out, if he was to hold the office in 2024, advocating for an alternate slate of Trump electors if Trump were on the ballot. (Marchant pushed for an alternate slate in 2020.)

If elected, the Republican also intends to eliminate early voting, voting by mail, and all electronic voting machines — not because Nevada has a history of problems in any of these areas, but because Marchant is fully committed to a Trump-inspired vision.

At one point during his statewide primary campaign, Marchant went so far as to argue, “Your vote hasn’t counted for decades. You haven’t elected anybody. The people that are in office have been selected.”

Here’s the thing: if Marchant is elected to his sought-after position, he’ll be under the spotlight. He wants to eliminate voting machines and early voting? Fine. Count the votes by hand, and Nevada can look bad when their results are the last in.

And if the results are in line with polls and previous elections, he gets a stronger reputation as a breathless, hair-on-fire conspiracy theorist.

That’s where things get interesting. These folks come with their own dollop of ego, and in order to protect his ego, Marchant may decide to indulge in what he’s claiming is happening – a bit of corruption.

Of course, this is a tricky business. Corruption is a well-studied phenomenon, and its detection is not an impossible task. Add in the fact that Marchant, through his campaign tactics thus far, has a less-than-stellar reputation. The most successful corrupt people are those with great reputations, typically, with a charismatic – or so I’m told – like Trump a standout exception. Depending on how you define that a nation recognizes a corrupt personality, of course.

So Marchant would then enhance the reputation of Trumpists as a pack of disreputable grifters.

And maybe Marchant discovers “something.” I personally give that a 1% chance of happening, given the surveillance that many institutions apply, but I’ll give it a 1% chance. Then that’ll be interesting, and good for the nation, too.

There’s certainly risk if Marchant wins election, but generally this seems more win-win to me. Especially since he’ll discredit the Trumpists even more.

From the CDC:

One wonders about error bars. The map at the link is interactive, and adds an interactive table.

Significance I leave to the reader.

I just finished reviewing the third televised meeting of the January 6th panel. It’s becoming clear that the Republicans divide into two camps: those who are old-line, intellectual, loyal to the Constitution, and the new Republicans, loyal to the guy who gave them their positions, perhaps believing their own propaganda concerning the ‘evil’ Democrats, and … not particularly bright. Given the statements of and critiquing Professor Eastman, whoever awarded him that doctorate should be ashamed and reverse the conferral, and that appears to be Claremont Graduate School.

But long-term readers should not be unsurprised.

I also observed, in the montage clip of the actual violence at the Capitol, that I think the rioters were quite earnest in their beliefs concerning the theft of the election.

A Baptisia of Hope.

But, and this is important, sincerity is not an excuse. Just as easily resolvable ignorance is generally not considered to be an excuse for committing crimes, an inability to understand and think rationally about the political and legal system we use to keep ourselves in a relatively peaceful and prosperous ways is not optional. It is a duty for Americans. Understanding the philosophical concerns of corruption and its negative impacts on society, the competing concerns of government of Law vs Man, the importance of specialization, and recognizing that ‘common sense’ is rarely applicable when it comes to technical issues concerning, say voting, is, or should be, necessary to an American’s informal education. That is, they should go and seek it out.

These are so important that now people are going to jail because they didn’t pay attention, and did not learn to be rational. They are non-rational actors who allowed themselves to be used, and are now paying, or going to pay, the price: punishment of various and unpleasant sorts.

We can call it a failure of education, but, really, this may be deliberate malpractice by portions of society. We need to find a solution.

The modern mob-boss:

It’d be a cryin’ shame if you were to become a bin liner!

Courtesy my Arts Editor.

And may moss roses smile on your destiny.

Folivore:

In zoology, a folivore is a herbivore that specializes in eating leaves. Mature leaves contain a high proportion of hard-to-digest cellulose, less energy than other types of foods, and often toxic compounds. For this reason, folivorous animals tend to have long digestive tracts and slow metabolisms. Many enlist the help of symbiotic bacteria to release the nutrients in their diet. Additionally, as has been observed in folivorous primates, they exhibit a strong preference for immature leaves, which tend to be easier to masticate, tend to be higher in energy and protein, and lower in fibre and poisons than more mature fibrous leaves. [Wikipedia]

Noted in “The Bizarre Beast with Claws on Its Wings,” Bizarre Beasts:

I love what its chicks do when danger appears, too.

I meant to get to this yesterday, but it appears crypto is beginning to encounter headwinds. Remember my mention of Coinbase’s volume now being dominated by institutional players? They may be entering a time of difficulty:

Crypto exchange Coinbase is laying off 18% of its employees as the digital currency market continues to crumble.

CEO Brian Armstrong said in an open letter Tuesday that the “difficult decision” to lay off about 1,000 employees was made to ensure “we stay healthy during this economic downturn.” The exchange has more than 4,900 employees, according to its website.

Armstrong warned of a looming economic downturn that could extend the latest bear market for crypto.

“We appear to be entering a recession after a 10-plus year economic boom,” Armstrong wrote. “A recession could lead to another crypto winter, and could last for an extended period.” [CNN/Business]

If Coinbase goes under, what does that do to the institutional players? Who gets really hurt?

Speaking of value, has Bitcoin recovered from our last check?

CoinMarketCap

That would be “No“. While it’s not a mad rush to get out of bitcoin, the leading cryptocurrency, there’s also a decided lack of recovery.

And I have to wonder how much of a cascade of damage happens if cryptocurrencies crash badly. Remember NFTs? Their doesn’t seem to be much of an alternative to trading them in crypto, unless you’re going old-fashioned barter.

Which seems quite silly when it comes to computer digital artifacts, doesn’t it?

Front yard peonies are busting out:

Just a bit shy.

My previous correspondent responds:

First, if you’re going to put an age of 28 or so as a minimum to exercise a constitutional right, you’re going to have to make that the age of majority. Personally I agree with you that common sense doesn’t really start to kick in for many people until that age. Ain’t gonna fly though. We probably were wrong to drop it from 21 to 18, but unless you’re willing to undo that, this is a non starter.

I absolutely agree that it’s almost certainly a non-starter. But I do think it’s good to have discussions about “impossible proposals,” as they can lead to important insights, and sometimes “impossible” isn’t.

As to “that the universe of accessible guns to these minors will decrease if the general proposal were to be enacted” that’s also foolish. There are far more firearms in the US than people, and that universe is expanding all the time. Approximately 40 million firearms were purchased in 2020 alone, 28 million in 2019.

But these are fluid facts. Say we pass such a proposal. Tomorrow, yeah, no real effect on the universe of accessible guns. Day after? Day after that? The universe is shrinking. Maybe we cut off the supply of ammunition, too. All of a sudden the universe’s visible edge isn’t 12 billion light years, but just Mars’ orbit.

The point is that saying the problem is just too hard to solve doesn’t make it so. We’e a clever people, aren’t we? The first step, maybe, is to pass the appropriate laws, and then find ways to fulfill the goal.

Riddle me this: If the proliferation of firearms is the root of firearm violence, how come that peaked fully 30 years ago despite there being far more firearms in the US today? We focus on isolated incidents and let emotions rule our decisions rather than intellect. What we are seeing now is the typical knee jerk reaction with myriad proposals that will make no difference in crime or violence, but will impact ordinary citizens with neither criminal history nor criminal intent.

I have a better riddle: why does banning private ownership of automatic weapons work in Europe but won’t work here?

I see my reader’s riddle as a bit of a non-sequitur. Why? Because automatic weapons in the hands of one, or a few, homicidal people are an example of a non-linear system. Put an automatic weapon in the hands of a maniac and do they kill one other person? No. They kill a dozen. Two dozen. Sixty in Las Vegas. Give the Las Vegas dude a .38, or even a few, and let him pepper the crowd, and maybe he gets a half dozen before the cops break the door down and stops him.

Recognizing that one person with an automatic can kill dozens in an hour isn’t being knee-jerk, it’s recognizing a reality and coming up with a response. A debate like this is part of the process. My rejoinder is this: why should a very dangerous weapon, with which tragic mishaps are not unknown, and which has no plausible, appropriate function beyond novelty for the private citizen, be owned by a species of creature known to lose its temper – or worse. There are many things we can and do own that are dangerous, yes, but they also have legitimate functions. For example, the herbicide RoundUp, which I cite because farmers who use it are, or at least were 25 years ago, required to register with BATF. Or get licensed. I’m too lazy to look it up, but I do remember chatting with a farmer about it, and he wasn’t happy. We’re more careful, societally speaking, with RoundUp, a potential ingredient for bombs, than with automatic weapons. And given the Oklahoma City bombing, maybe that’s appropriate. Maybe.

My reader continues:

Also, this piqued my interest: ” … madness of permitting private ownership of weapons of war…” What weapons of war would those be? I’ve thought about it but can’t figure it out. Usually I’m pretty good with puzzles but this one has me stumped.

I cite Admiral James Stavridis (US Navy, Retired):

Just as Bedrock Press was about to close the books on South Dakota’s Senate Race, a member of the Democrats has stepped forth to challenge incumbent Senator Thune (R):

It’s official! I am the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in South Dakota!

One person is not entitled to a U.S. Senate seat for a quarter-century. I will hold Thune accountable for his votes that hurt the middle class.

Can you Like, RT, & Follow to help me get 25k this week?

— Brian Bengs for U.S. Senate (@BrianBengs) June 13, 2022

I can’t say much good about announcing one’s candidacy on one of the crappiest social platforms on the Web, but Ballotpedia confirms the nomination.

And, you know what? There’s one serious question that comes to mind here:

Would former President Trump, who reportedly hates Senator Thune, endorse Bengs? What would the South Dakota GOP base make of that?

I finished viewing yesterday’s second meeting of the January 6th panel earlier today (here’s my reaction to the first). I’ll skip a summary, because my readers should really be watching it themselves, but I will say that the strategy of using the testimony of Republicans, in person and on tape, is effective – if you’re already inclined to agree that the former President was trying to pull a coup.

If you don’t, then it’s more than easy enough to use the RINO approach to rationalize your continued support for the former President. Simply label those testifying as former Republicans and/or traitors to the Republican cause, consign them to the oblivion already containing those lyin’ Democrats, and, there, your feelings are safe from abuse.

The panel is using a very straightforward and almost hammer like approach, putting forward facts, supporting them, and then moving to the next supposition. Again, if you’re not a Trump adherent, it’s very effective and filled with gravitas. But, because it’s testimony and not, say, chunks of undeniable quartz, those who predicate their self-respect on Trump won’t believe it.

The Panel might have used a different approach, although I don’t know what that might be. The problem is that this isn’t an interactive presentation in which the Trumpists can be drawn into a discussion and have their reasoning dissected – and asked how it feels to be a mark.

But I worry that, while this may result in indictments by the DoJ, and maybe even imprisonment, it’ll just leave the Trumpists feeling disenfranchised – rather than more properly taken advantage of by Trump and his cronies.

An update on the sasquatch-eating honeysuckle.

He’s a bit shy.

Reading Erick Erickson’s latest non-subscription post carefully, it’s hard not to see the right-wing pundit camp getting a little desperate, trying to persuade the base to not pay any attention to the big show happening in Washington this week, all while Cheney buries the hatchet right between Trump’s eyes. Erickson’s particular schtick is to appear reasonable, right-wing, and reassuring.

So he says …

1. Don’t use “groomers” for school teachers, but … Follow LibsofTikTok and you’ll see how many young teachers really are trying to groom and indoctrinate kids.
2. Yes, January 6th was a terrible thing. People believed lies and did some terrible things and threatened other terrible things, like hanging VP Pence. BUT … his own base is angry at him. He claims Georgia proves this – with no mention of Herschel Walker. I’ll talk about Pennsylvania later. Implication: they, meaning his readers, must be good for doing better than Trump, who can’t move on from his loss. Because he knows the base is moving on?
3. In fact, the poor quality of Trump’s advisors is sinking him. Don’t mention Trump picks his advisors.
4. But … “only people in the press and Democrats truly do care passionately and obsessively about January 6th.” An undercount, and a handwave – he wants his audience to believe there was never any danger. None! And thus the Republicans are absolved of any sin. Nevermind the irrational decisions coming out of the Republican-controlled SCOTUS of late, of obsessive gerrymandering that’s left the Republicans in charge of 26 of the 50 State legislatures, meaning a disputed Presidential election thrown to the House would be decided in favor of the Republican candidate. Sure, maybe the military steps in, as he claims – and that leaves US, the leading light of democracy, as just another banana republic, the military playing a reluctant political role. We’re down the path of instability … but it’s the Democrats who are hysterical! Really! Because they’re, ah, obsessive! Oh, let’s not talk about guns here, they must be irrelevant as well. Should I be mailing Erickson a flak jacket?
5. A vague claim that Democratic state AGs are refusing to defend lawfully passed acts. What are they? Was it really lawful, or are they blatantly un-constitutional? But it’s those bad old Democrats and liberals, not obeying the law. Surely those conservatives who rushed the Capitol were law-abiding, eh?
6. Yes, it’s sad that “… a man showed up to kill Justice Bret Kavanaugh and most of the major press ignored or buried it.” Except, sadderr to say, that sentence is wrong. He showed up, realized his meds weren’t working, walked away from Kavanaugh’s home and his own weapons, and called for help. The cops came and arrested him without a fuss. How is this an assassination attempt? “A mentally ill man showed up at Justice Bret Kavanaugh’s residence, realized he, the man, was ill, called for help, which was rendered, and nothing happened.” What, you want that splashed across the headlines? I’d be more impressed if he condemned the demonstrations in front of Kavanaugh’s home, which I think is beyond the pale.
7. Along with this is a complaint about “pregnancy centers,” an unfortunate visual no matter how you parse it, being vandalized. I’d sure like to know if right wing press carries reports on Planned Parenthood attacks and protests, or bombings of Islamic community centers, which happened right here in MN – bombing, investigation, arrest, trial, and imprisonment. I’d sure hope the perpetrators of all these get arrested and jailed.
8. Climate change is a hoax or something! Frack! Drill, baby, drill – but don’t mention Biden releasing supplies from the strategic oil reserves, because that’d let the bad guys off the hook. No fair being balanced and fair, or some such slop like that. Biden’s responsible for all of this – not, say, reduced demand due to the pandemic, some plants shutting down for repairs & maintenance, and, uh, what’s that other thing? OH YEAH – P U T I N ‘ S    WAR. With Putin backed by so many Republicans, too! Must be fun! But it’s all about Erickson’s conviction that he knows more about climate science than those goofy scientists, because, oh, look another hand wave.
9. That hand wave is inflation! It’ll be just like Wiemar because it’s just gotta be! Soon we’ll be using wheelbarrows to cart our money to the gas stations to buy that gas!! Yeah?

The sad part is that, yeah, the Democrats do have problems. But just reading Erickson’s responsibility-ducking, keep the audience happy screed reminds me that the Republicans are still doing worse than the liberals, neither side is paying a lot of attention to the liberal democracy model of politics, anything any extremist on either side is thrust aside in the name of racism or God, depending on the make of extremist.

Oh, and that Pennsylvania mention? It’s so good of you to remember:

In Pennsylvania, Trump voters are increasingly angry that Trump endorsed the fringe GOP candidate who is now the GOP gubernatorial nominee when a long-time, loyal Trump congressman was preferable. But that guy, Congressman Barletta, was unwilling to bitterly cling to the stolen election fantasy and chose to campaign about Pennsylvania’s future, not Trump’s past.

I think the rope just broke. Oz was selected as the nominee by the GOP, aka Trump voters. They’re also angry? Now, maybe the McCormick voters are mad, but that’d be at Oz and, perhaps, Barnette, for taking away the votes that might have let the possibly more-electable McCormick win. I actually am not sure if he is more electable.

But I think Erickson’s analysis of the PA GOP is wish fulfillment to distract his audience.

It’s always fun to read carefully.

Jennifer Rubin of WaPo has praise for Rep Cheney (R-WY), vice chair of the committee investigating the January 6th attack hearings, and a plaintive question:

All praise is due to Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who has already earned her place in history. But amid the admiration and praise for her, the question remains: Why is the rest of her party so cowardly? [WaPo]

Long time readers know my answer: The majority of the current crop of Republican elected officials hold their posts for two reasons:

1. Toxic team politics, which specifies thou shalt vote for the Republican candidate, and that candidate will adhere to the specified tenets on abortion, gun control, etc. Republicans fall in line, remember? This obviates the tangible advantages of experience, expertise, and competency, just shout out the Party slogans. And then find a way to differentiate yourself from all the rest. Experience doesn’t count, remember, so go for being more extreme.
2. Trump, Trump, Trump, who brought #1 to life, drew in replacements for those Republicans who left in disgust, animated Independents, and justified an evangelical base to vote for him and his endorsees by being … evil. They point at Cyrus, the great Get Out Of Jail Free card, the card that let’s them love evil. Period.

Repudiate Trump? Most of them are in office because of Trump, even if they predate him.

But this isn’t about personal betrayal of Trump. It’s about repudiating the system that brought them power, and keeps them in power. They may not realize it, but many will be in power until someone even more extreme RINOs them out of power. No, that’s too far in the future. Right now, their taste of power, prestige, and wealth is their heroin, and hell if they’ll stop sucking on it. And if that means hugging Trump’s knees, many of them will do it.

But it’s not Trump, he’s just the guy who figured out how to use the reins; the reins are the existentially awful way of winning elections, by not permitting dissension. Single issue voters and extremist positions have completely done away with the importance of experience, competency, and character in a candidate, because if Trump, or a local reader, points and says she or he is a great person, then they get the vote.

We’re seeing some stirrings of revolt against Trump, but it’s the system that needs to be reformed.

In what may become an ongoing addendum to the Georgia Senate contest, Herschel Walker’s past is now being mined for miscues, and apparently the lode is quite rich:

No, not Miller. Antoine-Augustin Parmentier!

Such bold genius!

Penury:

1. : a cramping and oppressive lack of resources (such as money)
   especially : severe poverty
2. : extreme and often stingy frugality
   [Merriam-Webster]

Noted in “Why men don’t age like wine,” Ed West, Wrong Side Of History:

To those of you too young to remember TV from the 1980s, Blake Carrington was the silver fox from Dynasty who tricked my generation (born 1978) into believing that men age like wine, when they clearly don’t. He was married multiple times, an alpha male signal, but it’s alpha because very few men can afford it. Rather than living in a neo-classical mansion surrounded by women in shoulder pads, the typical divorced man is far more likely to end up above a kebab shop living in penury.

Regarding my call for police to not hire anyone less than, oh 28 years old, a reader writes:

Not really true. The average age of the shooter for all mass shootings over the last 40 years is about 33. It is more true for school mass shootings where the average age of the shooter is only 22. More interesting when you look at the fact that 9 of the 20 total school shooters (in the 19 shootings that occurred) were 18 years of age or less. And even more so when we realize that 7 of the 20 were less than 18, and not entitled to own any gun at all, and thus no amount of laws would have stopped them. These 20 shooters, over that 40 year timespan, killed a total of 197 students and adults. 41 of those deaths occurred at the two college shootings, and the remaining 156 at elementary through high schools. Just some data to ponder as you wonder what would actually change things.

Oh, and of course that means that there have been a total of 807 deaths in non school mass shootings over that 40 year timeframe. And yes, that includes Vegas and Pulse – it includes all of them.

My bold, and emphasizes where I think the reasoning goes off the rails for the general case of prohibiting selling guns to, or owning guns, those less than 28 years old. The problem with the reasoning at this juncture is that the reader is holding a dependent variable constant, and that variable is the number of available guns. The variable is dependent on the existence, or not, of the proposed law.

Because these murderous minors are stealing these guns, or even buying them via loopholes or unmonitored sales environments, it’s necessary to consider that the universe of accessible guns to these minors will decrease if the general proposal were to be enacted, because some, and possibly even most of those guns that can be stolen, begged, or bought by the minors are available because their owners, although not minors, are still under 28, which is not only a legal stricture of impact to the argument at hand, but also, often, indicative of foolishness in their firearms management.

Scientifically speaking, they’re just not wired, yet, to make good decisions. The brain hasn’t matured.

By removing firearms from those not ready to privately manage them properly, I think those minors who want to buy and use firearms in the commission of an atrocity would find it more difficult to gain possession of them. The farther they have to go afield in search of their desired weapons, the more likely they stumble across an informant or even a law enforcement agent. This sort of thing happens with bombs from time to time, and the materials for making bombs are regulated. We just don’t hear of bombs being used to kill very often, as they are difficult to use safely.

And then if we can cure the madness of permitting private ownership of weapons of war, that’ll make it even harder to have a massacre.

None of these are a guarantee, just as putting guards around schools isn’t a guarantee. It becomes a question of which hurdles are effective and make sense in the greater context. We need to soberly determine how to slow down these people.

Ally-shoring:

The U.S. can do much the same thing with key South and Southeast Asian nations today that it did with East Asian nations in the previous century. Allowing India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines to sell their products in the U.S. largely unimpeded will boost growth by creating a stable, predictable source of demand, and by incentivizing companies in those countries to learn foreign technologies and business models in order to compete internationally.

This will accomplish three goals at once:

1. It will improve and strengthen economic and political ties between the U.S. and its prospective friends and allies in the region.
2. It will make these Asian countries economically stronger and more technologically advanced, and thus more capable of resisting Chinese power.
3. It will help the U.S. reshore production from China to more friendly countries, making our supply chains more resilient in case of a conflict. (This is often called “ally-shoring” or “friend-shoring”.)
   [“The U.S. must commit to making South and Southeast Asia rich,” Noah Smith, Noahpinion]

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.