Previous | Next
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Note: Because of the switchover to the Senate version of the page, the mobile version of the site did not work properly for some readers yesterday. The URL www.electoral-vote.com/phone should work now for the current phone page. You might have to clear the cache, though, if your device is too clever by half and fetches the old page from the cache to "help" you.
McCarthy Makes His Picks
In the end, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) realized that if he boycotted the Select Committee on the January 6th Insurrection, House Democrats and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) would get to define the narrative when it comes to the events of that day. Heck, they already are defining the narrative—it's the Select Committee on the January 6th Insurrection, not the Select Committee on the Boisterous January 6th Tourists. From a list of bad options, the best one for McCarthy was to have at least a few of his people in the room to push back against the Democrats/Cheney, and perhaps to raise a ruckus on occasion, So, on Monday, he named his five picks for the Committee.
Here are the five Republican members—pending approval from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)—along with the apparent reason they were chosen:
- Jim Banks (IN) is the chair of the Republican Study Committee, the largest ideological
caucus in the House, and one that counts the 153 most right-wing Republicans as members. He will be the ranking member
of the Select Committee.
- Jim Jordan (OH) is the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
- Troy Nehls (TX) is in his first term, and is a former sheriff who has supported the
Capitol Police, if not the view that the incident was an insurrection.
- Rodney Davis (IL) is the ranking member of the House Administration Committee.
- Kelly Armstrong (ND) is a former lawyer who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment.
That's five white guys, for those who are keeping score at home. Not too surprising, since the House Republican Conference is roughly as diverse as the audience at a Ted Nugent concert.
Among the five, the fellow who is best known for being a bomb thrower and pot stirrer is Jordan. That said, Banks also has the potential to be a troublemaker. Both men come from deep-red districts (R+19 for the latter, R+20 for the former), both regard themselves as rising stars in the Republican Party, and both voted to overturn the election results. In the statement in which he accepted the appointment, Banks decreed: "Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi created this committee solely to malign conservatives and to justify the Left's authoritarian agenda [and] I will do everything possible to give the American people the facts about the lead up to January 6, the riot that day, and the responses from Capitol leadership and the Biden administration." So, you kinda know where he's coming from. We will be interested to see what Banks "learns" about the Biden administration's response to January 6, since the 46th president was not, you know, inaugurated yet.
Among as to the other three picks, Nehls also voted to overturn the election results, but comes from a swing district (his is R+4). Armstrong comes from a deep-red district (R+20), but voted to sustain the election results. And Davis voted to sustain the election results and comes from a swing district. In short, McCarthy seems to have made two "headache" picks, and three "non-headache" picks, though it is at least possible that Nehls and/or Armstrong move from the latter category to the former.
Pelosi has yet to say whether or not she will accept all five picks. Vetoing Jordan and/or Banks would look bad, but having them mucking around in the proceedings (and, quite probably, issuing their own "report") could be worse. However, the enabling legislation actually says "The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader." That means that all 13 members serve at her pleasure. So, our guess is that she allows McCarthy's picks to stand, but warns him that if Banks and/or Jordan do not put their big-boy pants on and act like adults, they'll be booted and replaced.
And the work of the Committee—under the watchful eye of Pelosi—is not the only challenge the Trumpublicans have when it comes to trying to rewrite history. The courts are also weighing in, convicting people of crimes, and sending them to prison. As chance would have it, McCarthy's picks came on the same day as the first felony sentence for 1/6 was handed down. Paul Hodgkins, who was photographed marching with a Trump flag on the floor of the U.S. Senate, will spend the next 8 months as a "special guest" of Uncle Sam.
In addition to imposing the sentence, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss was not shy about his opinion of Hodgkins' behavior. "The symbolism of that act is unmistakable," Moss decreed. "In that act, he captured the threat to democracy that we all witnessed that day. ... People have to know that assaulting the United States Capitol and impeding the democratic process, even if you don't come bearing arms, will have consequences." Not exactly a description of a harmless "tourist." One wonders what kind of sentences the folks who were bearing arms will get. (Z)
Meanwhile, Over in the Senate...
The 100 folks in the north wing of the Capitol would hate to let the 435 folks in the south wing have all the fun. And so, while one soap opera plays out in the House, a different one is playing out in the Senate. On Monday, Senate Republicans warned that if Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) moves forward with the Wednesday vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, he won't get the 10 GOP votes he needs to overcome a filibuster. In response, Schumer said the vote would be held, as scheduled.
We had a little fun last week in regards to the plan to vote on a bill that hasn't even been written yet. But the truth is that this is just a procedural maneuver, and is not all that uncommon. All that would happen, if the vote succeeds, is that the senators would be able to debate the bill on the floor once it's actually ready. Nobody would be committing to anything beyond that, and a filibuster would still be possible. So, the Republican outrage and recalcitrance here is more than a bit manufactured.
When it comes to Schumer's thinking here, we can see four possible explanations:
- He's playing chicken right now, and will reschedule the vote if, on Tuesday, he becomes convinced that he really
doesn't have 60 votes.
- He's trying to put pressure on the Gang of 10, 20, or 21 to get a bill hammered out pronto.
- He is trying to assess whether or not the Republicans are actually willing to commit to a bipartisan process, or if all
of this is just for show.
- He has already concluded that all of this is just for show, and he wants to demonstrate that to the rest of the world (translation: to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV), so that the Democrats can move forward with their reconciliation bill, and stop wasting time.
We're not sure which of these it is, but we are inclined to doubt it's #1. We do think there is ample reason to be skeptical that a bipartisan bill is possible. As we noted yesterday, the Republicans have declared all of the plausible options for funding the bill to be off the table. Further, they know full well the Democrats are going to pass a much more massive reconciliation bill, and are going to get the lion's share of credit for the whole shebang (whether two bills or one).
And speaking of the reconciliation bill, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) appeared on CNN this weekend, and observed that "infrastructure" also includes...election infrastructure. And so, she said, it may be possible to get some of the new voting rules the Democrats want by attaching financial incentives to them, and then rolling them into the reconciliation bill. If a state gets extra federal funding based on registering some percentage of eligible voters (say, at least 60% of residents eligible to vote) and loses funding if they have not registered enough eligible voters (say, less than 40%), that would certainly have an effect on the federal budget, and so might pass muster with Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough.
Of course, Klobuchar is just following the lead of immigration reformers, who last week observed that changing the rules on immigration would most certainly affect the federal budget, and so that should also be doable via reconciliation. That means we could well be headed toward the passage of a $3.5 trillion+ frankenbill that has money for bridges and roads, and more money for elder care and college tuition, and new voting rules, and new immigration rules, and a whole gaggle of other Democratic goodies.
Only MacDonough knows what she will allow the blue team to get away with. Actually, probably even she doesn't know until she sees the actual legislation. However, once she lets immigration or voting be a "budget" issue one time, it will be hard to put that genie back in the bottle. Meanwhile, if nearly any policy initiative can be crafted so as to have a meaningful budget impact, and if (at least) two reconciliations are allowed each year, then what we have is the backdoor murder, by a thousand cuts, of the filibuster. It might soon be the case that if a party has the trifecta, they just figure out everything they want and pass a giant omnibus bill every 6 months. It's not the most nimble form of governance, but it's better than no governance at all. (Z)
Rating the Competitive Senate Races
Yesterday, we had a lot of information about the Senate races. We also made a brief reference to Charlie Cook, who rates Senate races by their competitiveness. However, we did not belabor that point, because we didn't want to overdo it. You might say we didn't want to desenatesitize you.
But now, let's belabor the point. To start, here are there are three major prognosticators, namely Cook (Cook Political Report), Larry Sabato (Sabato's Crystal Ball), and Nathan L. Gonzalez (Inside Elections) who use a "grouping" system. Here's how they have the Senate races right now:
| Type | Cook | Sabato | Gonzalez |
| Safe D | California (Alex Padilla, D) Colorado (Michael Bennet, D) Connecticut (R. Blumenthal, D) Hawaii (Brian Schatz, D) Illinois (Tammy Duckworth, D) Maryland (Chris Van Hollen, D) New York (Chuck Schumer, D) Oregon (Ron Wyden, D) Vermont (Pat Leahy, D) Washington (Patty Murray, D) |
California (Alex Padilla, D) Colorado (Michael Bennet, D) Connecticut (R. Blumenthal, D) Hawaii (Brian Schatz, D) Illinois (Tammy Duckworth, D) Maryland (Chris Van Hollen, D) New York (Chuck Schumer, D) Oregon (Ron Wyden, D) Vermont (Pat Leahy, D) Washington (Patty Murray, D) |
California (Alex Padilla, D) Colorado (Michael Bennet, D) Connecticut (R. Blumenthal, D) Hawaii (Brian Schatz, D) Illinois (Tammy Duckworth, D) Maryland (Chris Van Hollen, D) New York (Chuck Schumer, D) Oregon (Ron Wyden, D) Vermont (Pat Leahy, D) Washington (Patty Murray, D) |
| Likely D | |||
| Leans D | Arizona (Mark Kelly, D) Georgia (Raphael Warnock, D) New Hampshire (M. Hassan, D) Nevada (C. Cortez Masto, D) |
Arizona (Mark Kelly, D) Georgia (Raphael Warnock, D) New Hampshire (M. Hassan, D) Nevada (C. Cortez Masto, D) |
Arizona (Mark Kelly, D) Georgia (Raphael Warnock, D) New Hampshire (M. Hassan, D) Nevada (C. Cortez Masto, D) |
| Toss-Up | North Carolina (Open, R) Pennsylvania (Open, R) Wisconsin (Ron Johnson, R) |
Pennsylvania (Open, R) | |
| Leans R | Florida (Marco Rubio, R) Ohio (Open, R) |
North Carolina (Open, R) Wisconsin (Ron Johnson, R) |
Florida (Marco Rubio, R) North Carolina (Open, R) Pennsylvania (Open, R) Wisconsin (Ron Johnson, R) |
| Likely R | Florida (Marco Rubio, R) Missouri (Open, R) Ohio (Open, R) |
||
| Safe R | Alaska (Lisa Murkowski, R) Alabama (Open, R) Arkansas (John Boozman, R) Iowa (Chuck Grassley, R) Idaho (Mike Crapo, R) Indiana (Todd Young, R) Kansas (Jerry Moran, R) Kentucky (Rand Paul, R) Louisiana (John Kennedy, R) Missouri (Open, R) North Dakota (John Hoeven, R) Oklahoma (James Lankford, R) South Carolina (Tim Scott, R) South Dakota (John Thune, R) Utah (Mike Lee, R) |
Alaska (Lisa Murkowski, R) Alabama (Open, R) Arkansas (John Boozman, R) Iowa (Chuck Grassley, R) Idaho (Mike Crapo, R) Indiana (Todd Young, R) Kansas (Jerry Moran, R) Kentucky (Rand Paul, R) Louisiana (John Kennedy, R) North Dakota (John Hoeven, R) Oklahoma (James Lankford, R) South Carolina (Tim Scott, R) South Dakota (John Thune, R) Utah (Mike Lee, R) |
Alaska (Lisa Murkowski, R) Alabama (Open, R) Arkansas (John Boozman, R) Iowa (Chuck Grassley, R) Idaho (Mike Crapo, R) Indiana (Todd Young, R) Kansas (Jerry Moran, R) Kentucky (Rand Paul, R) Louisiana (John Kennedy, R) Missouri (Open, R) North Dakota (John Hoeven, R) Ohio (Open, R) Oklahoma (James Lankford, R) South Carolina (Tim Scott, R) South Dakota (John Thune, R) Utah (Mike Lee, R) |
The three prognosticators agree entirely on the 14 Democratic-held seats. The biggest area of disagreement is Ohio; the only seat that each prognosticator has in a different category. We actually think Gonzalez is the one in the wrong here; inasmuch as Sherrod Brown (D) holds the other Ohio seat, and that the Democratic side of that contest is thus far Rep. Tim Ryan (D) and nobody else, while the Republican side is turning into a bloodbath, it's hard to see how that seat could be 100% safe.
There are also some prognosticators that do Top 10 lists, including CNN and Race to the White House, with the most vulnerable seat in the #1 slot, and so forth:
| Rank | CNN | RTTWH |
| 1 | Pennsylvania (Open, R) | Pennsylvania (Open, R) |
| 2 | Georgia (Raphael Warnock, D) | Georgia (Raphael Warnock, D) |
| 3 | Wisconsin (Ron Johnson, R) | North Carolina (Open, R) |
| 4 | Arizona (Mark Kelly, D) | Arizona (Mark Kelly, D) |
| 5 | North Carolina (Open, R) | Nevada (Catherine Cortez Masto, D) |
| 6 | New Hampshire (Maggie Hassan, D) | Ohio (Open, R) |
| 7 | Nevada (Catherine Cortez Masto, D) | New Hampshire (Maggie Hassan, D) |
| 8 | Florida (Marco Rubio, R) | Wisconsin (Ron Johnson, R) |
| 9 | Ohio (Open, R) | Florida (Marco Rubio, R) |
| 10 | Missouri (Open, R) | Colorado (Michael Bennet, D) |
CNN is a little more bullish on the Democrats, as they have given six of the 10 slots, three of the top five, and the #1 to the Republicans. We would say the notion that Michael Bennet is in any sort of trouble, and in particular that his seat is in more danger than the Missouri seat, is dubious.
And finally, the degenerates at PredictIt are already accepting wagers on the "in play" Senate seats. Here is their Top 10, based on implied odds:
| Rank | State | Odds to flip |
| 1 | Pennsylvania (Open, R) | 59% |
| 2 | New Hampshire (Maggie Hassan, D) | 50% |
| 3 | Georgia (Raphael Warnock, D) | 45% |
| 4 | Wisconsin (Ron Johnson, R) | 41% |
| 5 | Arizona (Mark Kelly, D) | 39% |
| 6 | Nevada (Catherine Cortez Masto, D) | 37% |
| 7 | North Carolina (Open, R) | 36% |
| 8 | Ohio (Open, R) | 22% |
| 9 | Florida (Marco Rubio, R) | 21% |
| 10 | Missouri (Open, R) | 14% |
Take this for what it's worth. Also, in case it is of interest, PredictIt is only taking wagers on two other states: Alaska (12% to flip) and Iowa (10% to flip).
On the whole, it is clear that, whatever the method, there just aren't that many in-play seats right now. There's still lots of time, of course, and so plenty of opportunity for a party or a candidate to shoot themselves in the foot. That said, don't be terribly surprised if, once the dust settles, Pennsylvania changes hands, and the status quo otherwise holds.
Nevertheless, that could be huge. If Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D-PA) is elected senator, the Democrats would have 51 seats in the Senate and Joe Manchin wouldn't be able to gum up the works by voting with the Republicans. Then, even without Manchin, the vote will be 50-50 and VP Kamala Harris gets to vote. On the other hand, if Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA) is elected senator, he is much more conservative than Fetterman, although not as much as Manchin.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) could try to be the new Manchin, but she has to be very careful as she is up in 2024 and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) is champing at the bit to challenge her in a primary. He is a Latino and probably even more electable in Arizona than she is. If Sinema becomes the bottleneck, key Democrats could start hinting how it might be better to have a Latino run in 2024. Sinema would probably get the message. (Z)
A Note to Amateur Actuaries
William M. Treanor, writing for Slate, has an interesting piece on the subject of Associate Justice Stephen A. Breyer. His main point, to those who are concerned about the Justice's 82 years of age: Stop playing amateur actuary.
Obviously, on the whole, someone who is 82 has a shorter life expectancy than someone who is 72, or 62, or 52. However, when general predictions are applied to specific individuals, the wheels often come off. Treanor observes that people worried about the health of John Paul Stevens when he was appointed to the Court and also about the health of Oliver Wendell Holmes when he was appointed to the Court. They served for 35 and 30 years, respectively, and lived into their nineties. Similarly, when the famed appellate justice Learned Hand was considered for a SCOTUS seat in 1943, he was passed over because 71 was just too old. Instead, Franklin D. Roosevelt chose 48-year-old Wiley Rutledge, who died of a stroke 6 years later. To replace Rutledge, Harry S. Truman chose 58-year-old Sherman Minton, who was compelled to retire in 1956 due to ill health. Hand was still alive and on the bench for 5 years after Minton's retirement, having outlasted not one but two men chosen because they were younger than him.
The Democrats' leeriness about Breyer is due, of course, to what happened with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who held on for too long, and ended up surrendering her seat to a right-winger. However, RBG had a long history of serious health problems, with her first cancer scare in 1999 (21 years before her passing). Even then, she lasted until she was 87. Breyer has no known history of health problems, and has access to excellent healthcare. Even if one does rely on the actuarial tables, he would be expected, on average, to live into his mid-nineties.
It's also worth noting that the hand-wringing presumes that: (1) the Democrats lose control of the Senate, (2) Breyer is forced to give up his seat due to ill health or death, and (3) the Democrats lose control of the White House in 2024. Those things certainly could happen, but that's an awful lot of presuming. On the other hand if one Democratic senator dies and is replaced by a Republican governor or the Democrats lose even one seat in 2022, it is probably a given that the Republican-controlled Senate will refuse to confirm anyone before Jan. 20, 2025. (Z)
DACA Is in Trouble
Judge Andrew Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee, is one of the most conservative judges to be found in America. And he is famously critical of immigration of all sorts, having issued a number of anti-immigration decisions, some of them stretching the law to its breaking point. So, it was no surprise that, having gotten his hands on DACA, he struck it down. The ruling came last Friday, and does not immediately affect those who were already part of the program, but does stop new applications from being processed or accepted.
Joe Biden played some role in creating the Obama-era program, which allows the children of undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. and to go to school and get a job without fear of being deported. And so, he has promised to appeal the ruling, which is currently (mostly) stayed. The President also issued a strongly worded statement condemning the decision.
The problem that Biden has is that Hanen may very possibly be a partisan hack, but the law is probably on the Judge's side here. Nolan Rappaport, who spent years on the Hill serving Congress as an immigration law expert, writes that Barack Obama neglected to follow the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when he created DACA. And the reason that the 44th president did that was likely that he knew that even if he'd followed the APA rules, it probably wouldn't have passed legal muster. CNN's Elie Honig is not an immigration law expert, but he agrees that DACA is in deep CACA, while also observing that a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court is not likely to bend over backwards to help out a bunch of immigrants.
In the end, then, it's likely to come down to whether or not Congress does anything, since immigration law is their prerogative. The Democrats are basically unified in wanting to help the recipients of DACA. Many Republican voters agree with them, as do many business owners, who do not wish to deal with the disruption that would come from potentially losing large numbers of employees who are already hired, trained, integrated, etc. The holdup is the Trump base, for which anti-immigration is both the foundation and the glue. Maybe the Democrats manage to exploit reconciliation to get something done. If they don't, then Republicans are going to have to decide whether they are willing to keep the anti-immigrant types happy at the expense of moderates, business owners, and Latinos. (Z)
The South Will Rise Again?
And now for a disturbing bit of news: A new poll reveals that two-thirds of Southern Republicans say that, if given the choice, they would be happy to secede from the United States and to form their own country.
For purposes of the poll, "The South" was defined as the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma. Given that many of these folks have tried to retain Donald Trump as president, through any means possible, and given that many of them lionize the original secessionists, who tried to retain power through any means possible, this result is not terribly surprising.
That said, and as pollster Bright Line Watch is careful to point out, running one's mouth about seceding is a very different thing from actually seceding. Further, even if the South did succeed in seceding, it would be a pretty clear case of "be careful what you wish for." Although the red states flatter themselves that their tax dollars are squandered on wasteful social programs, the fact is that blue states are almost all net contributors to the federal treasury while the red states are almost all net takers. If the 13 Southern states struck out on their own, they would be dangerously close to a pre-industrial economy, with a few developed states, but an overall shaky manufacturing base, banking system, transportation network, and social safety net. And that is before the Coca-Colas and Dells of the world flee for some location in the (newly reduced) United States.
Obviously, the federal government would never allow secession to happen, either. "Two-thirds of Republicans in Southern states" is another way of saying (at least in most cases) "a minority of citizens in Southern states." The federal government has a duty to all the Republicans and Democrats who don't wish to secede. Further, as Abraham Lincoln pointed out once or twice, democracy doesn't work if the losing side of elections is allowed to take its ball and go home. Part of the deal is accepting that you win some and you lose some.
Still, this highlights once again how polarized the country has become, and how badly the fabric of the democracy has been damaged. One wonders who it was that encouraged so many red-state Republicans to see their fellow Americans as the enemy. Must have been someone... (Z)
The Sun Will Rise Again?
We do not believe the South will actually try to secede again, no matter how good an idea it seems to some people. On the other hand, we are confident the sun will rise again today, tomorrow, and into the foreseeable future. The only thing more likely than the sun rising? That's easy. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) getting suspended by Twitter. She had already gotten one suspension for making false claims about the election, and on Monday night, she racked up her second, this time for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccination.
Pop quiz time. Once Greene found out she was suspended, whom did she blame?
- California communists
- The Jews, in general
- George Soros, in particular
- The Deep State
- China
We'll tell you which it was in a moment, in order to give you time to ponder your guess. For now, we will say that Twitter has developed a "strikes" system, and Greene is working her way up the ladder. It's a little opaque, but Monday's suspension was for 12 hours. She may or may not have one more 12-hour freebie left. Then, it's on to a weeklong suspension, followed by a lifetime suspension. Think she makes it the rest of the year without earning a lifetime ban? We don't, either.
Anyhow, we are not especially inclined to cover the Representative's Twitter shenanigans, since that just gives oxygen to her idiocy and/or bigotry. However, every other outlet felt it was worth a "breaking news" item, and we have some stuff coming up later this week about vaccine disinformation, so we're just going to treat this as a preview of the more substantive material. As to the pop quiz, the answer is "a." Because if there is one person in the world who's clearly a communist, it's Jack Dorsey, with his $50 million house and his $13 billion fortune. (Z)
Previous | Next
Back to the main page