Main page    Oct. 31

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Happy Halloween from the staff dachshunds and from everyone else at Electoral-vote.com:

Otto as Batman, Flash as Superman

We hope you get some good candy. And, if not, then Otto says you should at least treat yourself to a nice roll in the dirt:

Otto as Batman, rolling in the dirt

What Kind of Man Is Mike Johnson?

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) emerged from such (relative) obscurity that reporters are still hustling to try to get the measure of the man. And in the first week, there are two themes that keep coming up, over and over.

To start, and to be blunt, he is a religious extremist. Even if Johnson were a garden-variety post-World War II evangelical, that is something we haven't seen in the speakership before. The last half-dozen Republican speakers were all religious enough to be Republican politicians, but not a lot more religious than that. Do you even know what religion, for example, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is? We had to look it up (he's a Baptist). The last half-dozen Democratic speakers, meanwhile, were mostly Catholics who kept/keep their religious practice in private, with the occasional unassuming Methodist thrown in.

But Johnson isn't a garden-variety post-World War II evangelical. Matthew Taylor of the Institute for Islamic, Christian, & Jewish Studies, writing for The Bulwark, has an interesting piece about how there's now a clear divide in the politics of Christian evangelicals. Some of them merely want to work within the democratic process to secure policy victories consistent with their worldview. The others want to forcibly impose their worldview, and if democratic processes have to be shunted aside, then so be it. Johnson is in this second group.

In particular, according to Taylor, the Speaker is closely associated with an extreme far right Christian movement called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). The NAR believes in, and is responsible for crafting, what is known as the Seven Mountain Mandate. Consistent with the well-worn truism that religious movements WILL FIND scripture to support whatever it is they want to do, the NAR is laser-focused on Revelation 17:9, which reads: "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits." They couple that with Isaiah 2:2, which reads: "Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established on the top of the mountains."

From this relatively scant bit of scripture, NAR concludes that what God wants is for Christians to position themselves to establish control over seven aspects of society: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government. Once all of those things are operating in line with hard-right Christian precepts, then the Christian nation (a.k.a. the theocracy) will be realized, and the end days will be near (or, at very least, nearer). NAR leaders, you will not be surprised to learn, played a significant role in whipping many of the 1/6 insurrectionists into a (religious) frenzy.

That brings us to the second theme that keeps coming up in the articles about Johnson: He's disingenuous. Or, if you prefer, duplicitous. Or two-faced. Or slimy, if you don't like typing a bunch of letters. Consider his approach to marriage, which is as far outside the mainstream as that of Mike Pence. What Johnson and his wife entered into is called a "covenant marriage." Basically, they have agreed (with state sanction) that they cannot divorce but for a very limited list of reasons: abuse, abandonment, imprisonment of a spouse, or lengthy separation. That's actually pretty much how divorce worked 250 years ago, so the Johnsons are taking the institution of marriage back to the eighteenth century. Perhaps, if Kelly Johnson is unfaithful, then Mike will skip the divorce (since adultery is not one of the qualifying conditions, anyhow) and go right to burning at the stake.

Officially, the motivation for covenant marriages—which the Johnsons have pushed states to allow, with limited success—is to solve the social issues that allegedly come from divorce, such as children who suffer because of problems in their parents' relationship. However, anyone who knows anything about children and divorce (including the many, many people who have experienced this as children themselves) know that the negative impact on the kids comes from the parental conflict, not from the divorce itself. Indeed, on the whole, kids tend to be happier after a divorce, because the conflict in the household goes way down.

So the "social good" argument for covenant marriages doesn't really fly. And indeed, that argument is just a façade. The real point here is for states to sanction the version of marriage that many evangelical (and, to be fair, many non-evangelical) Christians believe the Bible calls for: "till death do you part." Of course, laws prohibiting, or strongly discouraging, divorce went out the window generations ago, so this cannot be achieved directly. Wrapping it in the guise of "it's for the kiddies" is just a backdoor means of trying to once again make divorce difficult-to-impossible.

And that is just part of the reason we describe Johnson as duplicitous, two-faced, slimy, etc. Like most people, even people who watch politics closely, we were only vaguely familiar with him until last week. And since then, his fundamental disingenuousness keeps coming up, again and again. His marriage operates under one publicly stated notion, but in reality is about something very different. He's a member of the Freedom Caucus... or maybe he isn't. He's actually not formally a part of the NAR; he just pals around with the leaders of the movement, goes to many of their events, and believes what they believe. He's a "nice guy" according to everyone, but one who believes things that leave him squarely in line with Christian fascists like the John Birch Society.

Since there's never been a speaker—or, for that matter, a high-ranking member of the American government—with Johnson's worldview, we haven't the faintest idea how this will play out. We do know that his proposal for military aid "We'll fund Israel now, and get to Ukraine later... for sure!" seems consistent with his less-than-forthright approach to life and to politics. If he keeps that up, he's going to alienate a lot of colleagues, some of whom he needs to get things done. And if he tries to put his "burn it all down if you have to" approach into action, he's going to do a lot of damage to the country and to the Republican Party, probably in that order. (Z)

More Crimes Against Statistical Analysis

We were less than impressed with a piece from CNN's numbers guy, Harry Enten, about 6 weeks ago. Pull up a chair, because we are unimpressed once again, this time with his two most recent pieces.

The first piece that stoked our ire is headlined "Analysis: World Series or not--viewership is baseball’s big problem." The basic thesis is that, based on viewership numbers for the World Series, Major League Baseball (MLB) is in deep trouble. Here are the main observations that Enten makes in service of his argument:

And that's actually... pretty much it. Enten unpacks the numbers a little more, but this is pretty much his (very thin) case.

And now, let us apply our critical lens to Enten's argument:

We will note that the NFL is the world's most successful sports league, with revenue of $17 billion. Where do you think MLB ranks on the list? Keep in mind, we not only live in a world with the NBA and eSports (eek!), but also English Premier League soccer, the National Hockey League, Spain's La Liga, Germany's Bundesliga, Indian Premier League cricket, etc. The answer is that MLB is the world's... second most successful sports league, with revenue of $10.5 billion. This is hardly a sport at death's door.

We continue to be mystified as to how a person with a major national platform can produce such low-quality material. Maybe Enten doesn't know the subject matter. Maybe he has to rush to meet deadlines. Maybe he's under an order to produce clickbait. We don't know.

What we do know is that if Enten drops the ball so badly when he's out of his lane, it makes us nervous about his writing when he's in his lane, namely politics. And guess what? The MLB piece was followed, in short order, by a piece about Mike Johnson headlined "Mike Johnson is well within the mainstream of today's GOP."

The heart of Enten's case is contained within these three paragraphs:

[Johnson's being a mainstream Republican] is best seen through aggregate statistics compiled by the academics at Voteview. Since entering the House in 2017, Johnson has built a voting record that is more conservative than 81% of all members currently serving. He is, however, only more conservative than 63% of his GOP colleagues. In other words, 37% of House Republicans are more conservative than the new speaker. That puts Johnson right in the middle third of today's House Republican Conference.

In fact, Johnson has voted with the Republican majority 94% of the time this Congress. That almost matches the median House Republican member (93%).

To put that in perspective, take a look at failed speaker hopeful Jim Jordan. The Ohio congressman's voting record is more conservative than 91% of other House Republicans. Unlike Johnson, Jordan really is out of the mainstream not just within Congress overall but the House Republican Conference, as well.

Being more conservative than 63% of the Republicans does not make you a moderate or a centrist within the House Republican Conference, even if it (barely) puts you "in the middle third." And it may well be that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has a more extreme voting record than Johnson, but that's because Jordan has been in the House much longer. There are far fewer chances to be to the right of the House Republican Conference in the last 6 years (since Johnson began his tenure) than there were 10 or 12 years ago, when there were still some GOP centrists.

In short, we don't buy that Johnson is somehow near the center of his conference (particularly if you consider things not captured in his votes, like his extreme religious views; see above). And even if he is... what does that really matter? The Republicans in general are quite extreme these days, and being slightly left, slightly right or right in the middle of them still makes one an extremist. And that is what is going to matter when Johnson tries (and very possibly fails) to get things done.

Anyhow, forgive our potshots at Enten, but we cannot help but notice, and pass along, that one of the half-dozen most prominent numbers-crunchers in the American media... is doing subpar work. (Z)

Today in House Musical Chairs

As we've noted a few times in the past week or two, we are in prime "put up or shut up" territory when it comes to next year's House elections. The holidays are right around the corner, and then the primaries are right around the next corner, and so now's the time for members and wannabe members to make their moves.

Yesterday came three bits of news on this front. First, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has decided that 14 terms will be enough for him, so he's retiring from his seat representing OR-03 at the end of this Congress. Blumenauer is known for being laser-focused on one issue, and that issue is... bicycling. He always wears a bicycle pin on his lapel, he is founder and co-chair of the Congressional Bike Caucus, and he's constantly pushing for more funding for bike lanes and related infrastructure. OR-03 is D+22 and hasn't been represented by a Republican since Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, so Blumenauer is surely going to be replaced by a member of the blue team. Let's see, is any member of the Oregon legislature fanatical about roller skating? Bobsledding? Gondoliering?

Meanwhile, to the south of Blumenauer, defrocked speaker Kevin McCarthy now has a mega-MAGA challenger in the form of perennial candidate and person of questionable sanity David Giglio. McCarthy's district, CA-20, is R+16 and he won it 67.2% to 32.8% in 2022. Given California's top-two-finisher system, we suppose we could see a situation where a MAGA candidate gets 40% of the vote in the primary, leaving McCarthy with just 27%, and thus out of a job. But we don't think it likely, since McCarthy is pretty popular in his district and he has more money in the bank than any four other House candidates. And if it does happen, it probably won't be Giglio who does it.

Finally, we have our first hot, hot member-on-member action of the cycle. In view of the new maps in Alabama, there is going to be a current member of the House tossed out on his white, conservative rear end. It is the district of Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) that will be all Black and blue next cycle, and rather than try to swim upstream, he announced yesterday that he will take on Rep. Jerry Carl (R-AL) in the R+16 AL-01. Playing the victim card, or perhaps the underdog card (we can't tell), Moore decreed: "I am a true conservative, and the system doesn't like a true conservative." Surely a fair assessment—if there's one place a right-winger can't get a fair shake, it's Alabama, right? In any case, Carl is familiar to the voters of the district, so we presume that when the current Congress expires, Moore will be packing his bags and leaving Washington. (Z)

Trump Legal News: Still Crazy After All These Years

Former Donald Trump lawyer Sidney Powell just can't leave well enough alone. After taking a plea deal from DA Fani Willis, she is apparently trying to... save her reputation in conservative circles? Remain in Donald Trump's good graces? Something else?

Since Powell entered her plea, she's spent a lot of time doing two things. The first is continuing to insist that the 2020 election was fraudulent and was stolen by Democrats. She's sent out dozens of tweets on the subject, and also promoted the latest masterpiece from Dinesh D'Souza, which just so happens to be on that theme. After all, a grifter's gotta eat. Anyhow, "Go see this movie!! It is so important and terrifying because it is true," was Powell's review.

Meanwhile, Powell has been using her newsletter (yes, she apparently has a newsletter) to explain to her... fans (?) that she didn't really plead guilty, so much as she was "extorted" by Willis. Powell claims she could not possibly get a fair trial from "a jury culled from deep-blue Fulton County" and so she was left with no other choice but to plead out.

Perhaps Powell has forgotten that when she entered her plea, she affirmed that it was "voluntary" and that the charges against her have "a sufficient factual basis." If so, well, we bet Willis and Judge Scott McAfee have NOT forgotten. So, we could be looking at a perjury charge here; we don't know. Given Powell's lack of enthusiasm for her ostensible testimony, maybe she's not such a great witness, and maybe she won't be called. Even if that's how it works out, we suspect Willis got what she wanted, in that she has a recorded statement from Powell and, perhaps more importantly, Powell's defection led to Kenneth Chesebro's plea. And Chesebro is a more valuable witness than Powell, since he's considerably more knowledgeable about the Georgia scheme while also being considerably less crazy.

Meanwhile, a pretty clear distinction has emerged between Trump co-conspirators. The little fish can reportedly still have deals, if they want them. However, the four biggest fish, namely Trump himself, America's former mayor Rudy Giuliani, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Trump lawyer John Eastman, have received no phone calls and no offers. It could not be clearer who is in Willis' sights. And given Powell's behavior, maybe even the little fish will find that plea deals have become much harder to get. (Z)

The War in Israel, Part VI: Israel Is Tearing the Democrats to Pieces

Hamas may have made a terrible mistake attacking Israel, but not for the obvious reasons. The attack is tearing the Democratic Party limb from limb. Older Democrats, especially white ones, are solidly behind Joe Biden's strong pro-Israel stance. Younger Democrats, especially nonwhite ones, and left-leaning ones, are unhappy with him and want him to condemn both Hamas and Israel. This divide is convulsing liberal America, from D.C. to Hollywood, and from college campuses to union halls. Once the IDF gets going in Gaza and many more people are killed, the battle within the Democratic Party will only get worse.

By November of next year, most Democrats will probably see the choice is not Israel vs. Hamas, but Biden vs. Trump and will vote for Biden. But some nontrivial number will be so angry with Israel and Biden that they will vote for some protest third-party candidate, maybe Cornel West or whoever the Green Party puts up. If enough Democrats do this, in the expected close election, then Donald Trump will win.

If the war in the Middle East is still on by Jan. 20, 2025, that's when the rubber hits the road. What happens if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asks President Trump for permission to use (tactical) nuclear weapons in Gaza, to teach Hamas a lesson it won't quickly forget? Biden would instantly veto the idea and that would be the end of it. Would Trump veto it? We're not so sure. If he didn't, we do think Hamas would not forget it for a while, but it would not likely lead to peace in our time. Or anybody else's time.

The big problem here is that young voters tend to be impulsive and idealistic and not interested in arguments like: "If you decide to punish Biden for strongly disagreeing with you, you are going to get something much worse." Think about those 92,000 people who voted for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. Did they really want George W. Bush as president? No, they wanted to send a message. And look what they got. Older voters tend to be better at seeing the consequences of their decisions and realizing that "sending them a message" isn't always the best course of action. (V)

The War in Israel, Part VII: Readers Weigh In, Yet Again

We got some very positive feedback in response to the reader letters we ran about Israel last week. And so we're going to run some more, so as to reiterate the theme of the item above, namely that opinions on the war in Israel are very divided, and deeply endowed with feeling:

Thanks to all contributors. We'll have some more letters tomorrow, including a very good one from a reader who has expertise related to Palestine. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers