The Democratic Party’s Missing Electoral College Game Plan

Rule number one of politics:  The first step in exercising political power is to get elected.  Somewhere along the line the Democratic Party has forgotten this.  Why this is important is that right now it looks that Democrats are on the road to another 2020 presidential popular vote victory and a loss in the electoral college.  Simply put, the Democrats have no electoral college victory plan.

            The reality is that  the only number that matters in US presidential politics is 270.  That is the number of electoral votes you need to  win.  US presidential elections are not really national popular votes; they are 50 separate state elections plus the  District of Columbia where in 49 instances the winner of the state’s popular vote nets the candidate the entire trove of its electoral votes.  The combination of  the electoral college and this winner-take-all structure means that effectively in 40 states the 2020 presidential election is over.  How New York, California, Massachusetts, Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma will vote is not in doubt.  The presidential candidates know this too.  The race for the White House comes down to a handful of swing states, prominent among them are Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  As Trump demonstrated in his 2016 Midwest strategy, winning them was key to his victory and had less than 90,000 votes flipped in them, Hillary Clinton would have won the electoral college victory and not simply the popular vote.

            Political coalitions, like fences, are only as strong as the weakest link.  Democrats need a strategy to hold all the states they won in 2016 and then how to pick up Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.  Yes, they could try to flip Arizona, Georgia, or Texas as some pipedreams hope for, but the reality is winning them is distant and difficult.  They key is flipping critical swing states.

            What is interesting about these swing states is that their electorates are generally to the left of recent Republican Party presidential candidates and to the right of Democratic Party candidates.  In many ways they are states more centrist than the non-swing states, and certainly more in the middle compared to the overall Democratic Party base.

            There are two way to flip these  swing states.  One option is to move swing voters back to the Democrats.  But here what we know is that who is a swing voter is less and less likely to be someone who moves back and forth between voting Democratic or Republican and more so whether they swing into or out of voting.  Democrats did badly in 2016 because swing voters, especially suburban  females, stayed home or did not vote for them.  In 2018, those suburban females came out for Democrats.  Winning in 2020 is getting these women to vote.  What we know about these voters is that they are socially moderate to liberal but are not left of center.  This is a more centrist strategy.

            Option two is moving voters who do not normally vote to show up.  Presumably these voters are more liberal as they constitute younger people, perhaps people of color.  These are the people who perhaps resonate with issues such mandatory Medicare for all.  These individuals are hard to motivate to vote and they may be a smaller percentage of the potential electorate in swing as opposed to non-swing states.

            The point here is that a viable strategy for the Democrats to win the 2020 election relies upon them winning critical swing states, whether it is running more to the center or to the left.

Unfortunately, the debates so far, the 2020 primary and caucus schedule, and the candidate messages are setting the Democrats  up to fail.  Consider first recent polling data.  In critical states such as Michigan ,  Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin  mandatory Medicare for all is unpopular (or is divisive at best) despite the fact that nationally a majority of Democrats support it.  Nationally, only 41% support eliminating private insurance for a mandatory Medicare plan for all.   A pledge by Warren or Sanders to push for this as an issue may not play well in the swing states.

Two, the current so-called debate structure does not favor or emphasize winnability of Democrats in critical swing states.  Instead, its combination of popularity in national opinion polls and national fundraising keeps potential popular vote candidates alive but does little to winnow candidates to those who are viable in swing states.

Three, consider the primary and caucus schedule.  While arguably Iowa (February 3, caucus) and New Hampshire (February 11, primary) are swing states, the critical states of Michigan (March 10, )  Wisconsin (April 7), and Pennsylvania (April 28) come after the March 3, Super Tuesday which features 14 states and includes California and Texas.  Super Tuesday could well filter out candidates who could run well in swing states because of either the costs or ideological orientation of these 14.  Of these 14 states, arguably only Minnesota and Virginia are swing.  Running and winning the gauntlet of Super Tuesday does not mean one is prepared to win in the swing states that will decide the road to 270.

Perhaps the electoral college is unfair and needs to be eliminated or reformed.  But it is a reality at least for next year.  Democrats need a process that vets candidates and strategy to win the electoral college in 2020.  They do not have it.

Ten Questions on Impeachment and the 2020 US Elections

1 - One year out from the 2020 elections, what does it look like?

One year out from the 2020 elections American politics is very polarized.   The US is experiencing the greatest gap in income and wealth at least since the 1920s and studies point to a nation with rigid social mobility.  The result is a nation divided geographically, racially, and most important, politically.

The country is very divided across a range of issues including health care, the economy, foreign policy, and most important, over the performance of President Donald Trump.  Democrats and Republicans have very different views on Trump’s performance, and the coming 2020 elections to a large extent will be a referendum on him.



2 - What are the big election themes?

Really the 2020 elections are about Trump–a referendum on his performance and whether he should get a second term, or even impeached or removed from office.  But beyond Trump, the major issues seem to be health care, both cost  and access, the economy, which seems to be slowing, immigration, and perhaps foreign policy or how the US engages with the rest of the world.

3.  On Thursday the Democrats in the House formally voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry.  What was the significance of that vote?

First, this was not impeachment, merely formalizing what has been going on for several months.  The Constitution gives Congress broad investigatory and oversight powers and the line between those functions and their constitutional power of impeachment is thin.   There is amble case law on this as precedent.  Thus, for a legal perspective the vote on Thursday meant little, but politically it was significant. 

With that vote Donald Trump is only the fourth president in US history subject to a formal impeachment inquiry.  That is not a great club to be in.  But also politically, the vote is important for other reasons.  Trump and the Republicans have thus far complained that the impeachment process is not legitimate and transparent, thereby justifying the president’s refusal to cooperate.  Never ask for something because you might regret getting it. Those reasons not disappear.  Again, from a legal perspective, none of this mattered, but now politically if the president or Republicans refuse to cooperate when they have the ability to do so it looks bad for them politically.  Also, the president’s decision not to cooperate looks even more like possible  obstruction of justice.

Also, now the formalizing of the impeachment inquiry sets up a long process of educating the American public about the president’s behavior.  If the president fights the inquiry, it drags the process further into 2020, placing impeachment into the center of the primaries and perhaps the general election.  The more Trump fights, the more it drags on, the more it gets into the center of the  election.  How the impeachment and the 2020 elections intersect is a great question.  Will it mobilize Republicans or Democrats?  Or is the issue really how it impact party base mobilization and swing voters in a few swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin?  This latter scenario may be the real issue.


The impeachment complicates the ability of the two parties to work together, which was already bad.  It also complicates the electoral picture because it is not clear which party the impeachment process favors.  Will it boast Democratic or Republican base voting.  How will it impact swing voters, especially in a cluster of swing states such as in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  Finally, the timing of a possible impeachment and Senate trial is critical to how it impacts politics.


4 - Three months are left before the primaries begin and four months before Super Tuesday, which this year will have California and Texas.  Where are the Democrats?

Right now the Democratic field for president is wide and deep, but there are really only a handful of serious candidates.  Generally, Iowa and then New Hampshire are the two states that have the biggest influence on the presidential nomination process in the US.  The Iowa caucuses are February 3, 2020.  Yet this coming year California and Texas have moved their primaries to March 30, with early voting in the former coming the day of the Iowa caucuses.   These two primaries may make Iowa less important, or change the strategy of the primary process.  California and Texas will require a lot of money and momentum, and it is not clear that doing well in Iowa will provide either.  In addition, candidates may need to decide whether to commit resources to Iowa–with few delegates–or work to do well in California and Texas, which have more delegates. The change in primary schedules complicates the strategy for 2020.

Moreover, while the Democrats are united again Trump, they lack a defining narrative of what they want to do and what they stand for.  They are missing the elusive narrative.  Right now they are a party divided facing a president who has a unified Republican party behind him.  Despite the slowing  of the economy, a dreary manufacturing sector, and how health care and the trade wars are hurting  his base economically, there is no sign that these factors are eroding his support.

5 - Who are the favorites among Democrats?
At this point it is Joe Biden, Elizabeth, Bernie Sanders, and Peter Buttigieg who are the top tier candidates in terms of money raised and standing in the polls,    Biden is the leader among the more centrists of the party while Warren and Sanders are fighting for the left.  The questions will be who emerges as the candidate of the left and then how will they square off against Biden and then which side–the moderate or the left–prevails within the Democratic party.

What has been surprising is the endurance of Biden.  Despite his weak debate performance, he still is at or near the top in national and many state polls.

6 - What about Trump’s  wall?  Is it still an issue.

The wall was always a metaphor about other things that Trump was forced to own and take literally  as a promise.

The wall will continue to be an issue for Trump and his base, but the impeachment and court challenges to the wall are complicating this as an issue.  Trump will raise it at rallies but he has somewhat moved on to running against his impeachment and Democrats as his core issues along with going after immigrants.

The other issue of possible concern for Trump is the slowing of the US economy, but so far it does not look like it is affecting his support among his political base.

7- How will the China theme impact as elections?

China is a surrogate for immigration, isolationism, and protectionism.  These themes resonate with the Republican base and so far there is no indication that the economic consequences are weakening support among Trump’s base.

8 - Is it possible to apply for an independent (Bloomberg) or a competitive third party to enter the race?
People always talk of an third party candidate or party but the entry barriers, such as costs and legal challenges to get on the ballot, make it unlikely that a third party will emerge.  Bloomberg also dislikes Trump enough that he will not enter as a spoiler.

9 - What about the congressional elections?

It seems unlikely the House will flip, especially with the number of Republicans who are retiring.  The issue is whether the Republican can hold the Senate. Currently that have a 53-47 effective majority.  In 2020 there will be 35 Senators up for election, of which 23 are Republicans.  The impeachment process and possible Senate trial will test their loyalty–support the president or act to protect their own Senate seat.

One should also not forget that many state legislative seats are up for election in 2020. This is the election will determine control of the state houses going into the 2021 census and redistricting.

10–Any last thoughts?
Forget all the national polls.  Remember that the presidential election is about the electoral college and the race to 270 electoral votes. The next president is the only who moves a handful of swing voters in a few swing counties in a few swing states. That is the real presidential election.

Hillary Clinton’s Southern Strategy

If ever there were a state perfect for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run it was South Carolina.  In fact, looking forward to Super Tuesday, it is a demographic well suited for her.  It is a repeat of Nixon’s 1968 southern strategy, but with a twist.  And that may be a problem for both her and Sanders.

Much has been made of the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire were demographically perfect states for Sanders in that they were heavily white.  Sanders has struggled to break through to people of color, more so with African-Americans than Hispanics, because his message has been more about class than necessarily about race and sees the politics of rich and poor as the defining force uniting the party and his coalition.  Clinton has made her campaign that of unity via identity politics, drawing heavily upon the current coalition of forces that define the Democratic Party and which elected Obama in 2008.  Sanders is challenging that coalition, seeking to build a different one that refines the party along generations and class.

It is no surprise that Clinton did well in South Carolina.  It is a state Democratic Party heavily African-American and relatively conservative.   A perfect demographic for Clinton.  Sanders failed to make many inroads into the African-American community and largely also fell flat with  young people and college students who did not show up.  This is something for him to worry about in the future.

But looking at Super Tuesday Clinton should do well in the Southern states of Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. They look more like SC than they differ.  But Sanders also has his states of Colorado, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Minnesota.  The point is that there is a real possibility that both Clinton and Sanders will do well where they are expected to do so, failing where one would also assume so.  But overall, Super Tuesday’s demographics favor Clinton.

In some ways the Clinton strategy is a twist on the Nixon southern strategy, or on challenging the notion that Democrats no long can win in the south.  Yes Clinton will do well in southern primary states, but there is no evidence that she will do well there in a general election.  Her husband had mixed success in the south in 1992 and 1996 and 20 years later, it is even less likely that the south will vote Democratic in a presidential election, especially for Clinton.  White conservative southerners are probably not going to vote for her no matter what.  Thus, Clinton is doing well in states where the Democrats probably will not win or even challenge as a rule during the 2016 general election.  Winning the south does little except to rack up delegates to  get the nomination.  As I constantly point out, the issue is how (Democratic) candidates do in swing states among swing voters compared  to Republicans.

This is important because the race for the Democratic nomination is far from over, even after this Tuesday.  Clinton has some of her best states up front here and if Sanders can survive the demographics look better.  However, and this is the challenge–he does need to figure out how to reach out to people of color much in the same way that Clinton needs to reach out to liberals and to young people.  Neither of them can win the presidency without making a credible move to winning over half of the Democratic Party.  So much has been written about how divided or torn up the Republican Party is, but Clinton and Sanders too are showing a powerful demographic split within their party.  But more importantly, both need to reach out to the swing voters, and here there is some evidence that Sanders does better based on the first four contests.

Neither candidate can assume that the supporters of the other will just naturally come along and vote for them if the others get the nomination.  This is a bigger problem for Clinton.  Those supporting Sanders are either less likely to vote if she get the nomination, or they are independents, with whom Clinton has a difficult time, especially in the critical swing states.  Conversely, Sanders were he to get the nomination, would perhaps benefit from the fact that older persons are more likely to vote and that people of color are solid supporters of Democratic candidate in general elections, and would probably be unlikely to vote for any Republican.  But as we know, turnout among people of color  is often a problem, and it is not clear how well he can motivate them to vote.

Overall, Clinton did exceptionally well in SC and should also do well in pursuing her southern strategy, but it is not clear that such a strategy is a winning one for the 2016 election.

Quick thoughts on Super Tuesday

All eyes on Ohio will it be Romney or Santorum?


Here are the variables.

The polls have them tied or Romney with slight lead with Santorum going down in the last couple of days.  Romney did well with early voters or those who already made of their minds but a large percentage of 35% of so have yet to make up their minds or might change it. If electability is on their minds they will break to Romney, if it is about the blue collar vote then they break to Santorum.

Regardless of who wins the popular vote, delegates will be split almost evenly. Santorum wins in OK and TN, Romney in VT, MA, and VA. Gingrich wins in Georgia. Everyone declares themselves to be a winner.

I think Romney eeks out a win in Ohio.

End of the Day. Delegates are split and the battle goes to next week in Alabama and Mississippi where Romney does poorly.

The GOP war on the 1960s: “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Curiouser and curiouser turns the 2012 Republican presidential primary. But what seems now to stand out the most is how the race is turning on issues that one had thought were long since resolved. In many ways, Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign, and the pull he is having on the Republican Party, seem to be a referendum on the 1960s and the changes that decade unleashed on American society.

Over the last few weeks I have had so many people turn to me and say about the issues being debated this year: “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Think about it.

Santorum grossly misquotes a 1960 John Kennedy speech talking about the need to respect a diversity of religious perspectives and not use the government to impose its orthodoxy upon others. JFK gave this speech both to assure voters that his Catholicism did not mean as president he would take direction from the Pope and that America was simply more than a Protestant nation. Santorum construes this speech to be about an attack on religion and a separation of church and state that makes he want to throw up. Never mind also that the Supreme Court has also repeatedly addressed  issues of prayer in public schools and public displays of religion on governmental property. Santorum wants to fight this battle all over again. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Santorum hates birth control and think that employers and their health plans should not be required to pay for it for women. In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a constitutional right to privacy protected the choice of couples to use birth control. Last year Rick Perry was assailed for a decision at one time to mandate human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine for  young women to protect their health. Rush Limbaugh calls a woman a slut and prostitute for taking a stand on this issue. All this is reminiscent of the battles in the 1960s over the pill and claims that it encouraged promiscuity. Have we not resolved the issue of protecting women’s health and promoting women’s equality? “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Beginning in the 1960s states began relaxing abortion laws and repealing rules restricting sexual behavior between consenting adults.  In 1973 in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court affirmed reproductive rights of women, and again did so in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yet Santorum and all the Republicans want to take away these rights and label women who want to control their reproductive and sexual choices as sluts. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Ron Paul objects to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as eroding personal freedom. I thought Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have a dream” speech and the civil rights movement demonstrated the importance of racial equality. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

The 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case stated that marriage is a fundamental right.  Then beginning with the 1969 riots at the Stonewall Bar in NYC the movement for gay rights began.  The two events come together to represent a national evolution towards equal rights regarding of sexual orientation.  The Republicans want to deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

It is curious. The Republican presidential candidates and the base seem intent on revisiting the 1960s. They cannot seem to stand the fact that America has evolved, even after nearly 50 years has passed. It is more than simply the politics of nostalgia. It seems to be one of both a generational and racial divide, looking to see a world that has changed and an anger over it. For the Republicans, these issues are disasters both in 2012 as they will alienate many swing voters, but beyond as one generation dies out, only to be replaced by another that believes simply: “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Final Thoughts
My very first undergraduate political science professor Mary T. Hanna wrote a book in 1979 entitled Catholics and American Politics. She foretold of a future American politics with Catholics as the largest religious denomination in the country. Yet at the time she wrote the book in 1979 she saw a Catholicism that was progressive and liberal. Since then much of Catholic politics has turned conservative. What we may be seeing in the United States now is how the change in Catholicism is driving the GOP. It is now a religion that is large and conservative, pent on using it clout to further its orthodoxy. Amazing how it is forgotten the days when Catholics were a minority persecuted by a Protestant majority. Amazing how it has forgotten the wisdom of JFK’s 1960 speech.

Super Tuesday Preview
Super Tuesday will be rough for Romney. He will not do well in the South and if he doe not win Ohio then the race is clearly wide open. The race is tightening in Ohio and it is unclear who wins but even a close second by Santorum along with wins in Oklahoma and Tennessee and a Gingrich win in Georgia mean the race is not over for a long time. But now the race is less about states than delegates, although where those deletes are won makes a difference in terms of assessing presidential prospects. Romney, except for Florida, seems to win in states that Republicans will not win in November, and has a tough time in close swing states such as Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio.

Dodging a Bullet: Quick Thoughts on the Romney Victory and the Problems Ahead

Romney dodges two bullets. His double wins in Arizona and Michigan ensure he is the frontrunner and forestall even more panic among the GOP. But more importantly, his win in Michigan saves him from embarrassment that he cannot win his home state.

But all is not well in Romney city. He was expected to win in Michigan, but barely hung on. In some ways his victory here was less impressive than four years ago.

In 2008 Romney won Michigan with 39% of the vote compared to McCain with 30% of the vote. In 2008 Romney won 20 delegates. In 2008 Romney did win a greater percentage of the vote with 41%, but Santorum came in second with 38%. Instead of a margin of victory of 9%, it was 3%, and with a much less crowded field than in 2008. This time Romney only won 11 delegates and Santorum received the same. The one bright spot is that in 2008 Romney won 338,316 votes, in 2012 it was 410,000. It is possible that without a contested Democratic primary Romney benefited from a larger turnout.

After Michigan there is still no indication that Romney has closed the gap with the social conservatives or the Reagan Democrats. His campaign demonstrates continued strategic ills such as his decision to do a rally in the near empty Ford Stadium, and Romney himself concedes that his gaffes are hurting him. His negative ratings continue to rise. Moreover, the negative attack ads all of the GOP are using are damaging the party badly. Unlike 2008 with Obama-Clinton, Obama came out a better and strong candidate. The opposite is happening with the Republicans and Romney.

Put simply: He is not sealing the deal with a large active base of his party and there is no indication that he is helping himself with the swing voters if he moves beyond the nomination to the general election. He cannot win over the right of his party and he cannot win over the moderate swing voters. He is caught in a political squeeze that is hard to escape.

Final thoughts: Super Tuesday next week. Polls now have Santorum leading but that may change. Gingrich has a chance in Georgia and Tennessee and that may add a new dynamic to the race. Romney ventures into a south full of white evangelical voters who do not like him, but who like Santorum. Even after Romney's two victories, it is too soon to call the race over.