During the election it seemed that many of the articles focused on Trump voters being the deplorables that Hillary Clinton depicted them as. Since the election reporters have been doing a good job at depicting why traditionally Democratic voters and Republican voters who didn't like Trump supported him. I think it's important, at least here in LA, where so many people I know have no idea why people voted for Trump. Maybe they'll read articles like this.
I'd like to see articles about why suburban districts like Mimi Walters' CA-45 swung toward Clinton at the Presidential level and why those people still voted Republican down ballot. Do they still plan to keep voting for Walters in the future or should she be worried?
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Yes.No? Okay, first a little history to show how different these movements are. The Tea Party started when Rick Santelli made his famous rant on CNBC on February 19, 2009. That was 30 days after Barack Obama took office. There was no hint of opposition to him at that point. We are still a few days away from 30 days into Donald Trump's term. The organized resistance started before Trump took office and showed up in the women's march a day after Trump was inaugurated. So right away Democrats appear to be ahead of Republicans. Being faster to have this much resistance might be good, as they already have their supporters in place. It might not because the Republican wave built up over time with people jumping on board when they were ready. The left runs the risk of not sustaining this movement. A lot of people won't be active for two years. Occupy also had a huge number of supporters faster than the Tea Party.
Can we go home now?
Can we go home now?
Republicans did meet the night Barack Obama was inaugurated to discuss how to respond to him and make him a one term President. This is normal. Did anyone think Republicans weren't going to try to win the Presidency back in 2012? That Republicans weren't going to oppose policies they had always opposed? Opposition in congress was light at this point. All of Barack Obama's cabinet nominees sailed through. Most were confirmed by voice vote. A voice vote is taken when no one objects to what's on the floor. Only two nominees were confirmed with less than 75 votes. Kathleen Sebelius got 65 votes and Timothy Geithner was confirmed 60-34. Almost every Democrat has voted against a little less than half of Donald Trump's nominees.
At first, Republicans were working with Barack Obama on the stimulus. When they objected to tax cuts for people who didn't pay taxes, Barack Obama told Eric Cantor, "I won." It was basically, "Vote yes or no on my bill and go away." Over the next several months, Republicans started to become uniform in their opposition to Democratic legislation. They say it was because the legislation contained too many things for them to vote yes to. Republicans were working on the healthcare bill for some time before being discouraged from doing so by the party base. Democrats have indicated they'll vote no on Republican bills already. Will Republicans make the bills so poisonous that no Democrat would think of voting for them or will there be more outreach to Democrats than Democrats did in 2009? Regardless, Democrats have put up their wall of opposition earlier. That might or might not be better for them.
Another comparison people have made is the town halls. The Tea Party was active in them in August 2009 and Democrats seem to be gearing up for them. Many of the loudest 2009 town halls were in Democratic swing districts. Democrats have made a lot of noise at town halls for Congressmen Tom McClintock and Jason Chaffetz. Both are in very safe Republican districts. If they want to take back the House they need to organize in districts belonging to Pat Meehan and Steve Knight. They may well do that and the only reason they've gone after McClintock and Chaffetz may be that they were the ones having town halls.
The Tea Party didn't start out as a movement trying to win elections. In fact, their trajectory was to slowly get larger and larger until the November 3, 2009 special election in NY-23. Local New Yorkers organized behind the Conservative Party candidate and he lost. The first big victory for Republicans during this period was the January 2010 Massachusetts special senate election. Again this started small locally in Massachusetts and got larger because they reached out to Tea Parties throughout the country.
Democrats appear ready to start organizing to win elections now. Starting earlier should be better but they may just be a lot of people organizing and not enough people voting. The Tea Party didn't have a goal of winning elections. They won one and, after the fact, they looked brilliant. Democrats have had lower enthusiasm at almost every election since 2009. Are they less enthusiastic or were they less enthusiastic because they controlled the White House?
The anti-Trump movement could be a force at the ballot box. Enthusiasm is better than non-enthusiasm. They just aren't following the Tea Party trajectory.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Many voters voted against Trump in 2016 and it didn't hurt the GOP. Republicans down ballot didn't benefit much in areas where Trump greatly improved over Mitt Romney and weren't hurt in many areas where Trump underperformed Romney. Voters didn't associate Trump with congressional Republicans as strongly as voters have in the past. Republican congressional candidates actually got more votes than Donald Trump. That didn't even happen for Democrats in 2008 even though they got a higher percentage of the two party vote than Barack Obama.
Democrats got walloped in both of Obama's mid-terms. The last time one party had two mid-terms where they did at least 3.5% worse than they did in the Presidential years was the GOP in 1970 and 1974. That was a time when the south was so heavily Democratic that Republicans barely competed. Democrats had a systematic advantage in the House vote. Do Republicans have one in mid-terms now? Maybe, although it's likely that they don't.
While voters didn't strongly associate Republican congressional candidates with Trump in 2016 they may not be able to escape that in 2018. Before Trump was an outsider but now Trump is in government, right alongside congressional Republicans. Congressmen don't usually oppose the President if he's from their own party and even when they do people don't always pay attention. Most people see Donald Trump's immigration order. How many know which Republicans oppose it?
Donald Trump has already gotten the opposition mobilized against him. It took Barack Obama months to get this level of opposition to him. As the Tea Party showed a motivated opposition wins elections. If Trump keeps doing things that stir up this level of opposition Republicans will pay a price.
Monday, January 23, 2017
"Divided States of America" mostly interviews Democrats. The Republicans who got the most screen time were former Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor. While those two can provide something valuable about the 2009-2016 period the film covers, a large part of this era is about the anti-establishment sentiment. The people who opposed insiders like those two were ignored in the film. There's very little insight into the Tea Party.
In "Divided States of America" the Republicans look unreasonable, ridiculous, and people who have no real motivation for doing what they do other than spite. There’s an occasional quote from a Tea Party congressman, but mostly just a line that reinforces something. When they want a Republican point of view they have Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin yelling and complaining on their radio shows. The audio they throw in often could be these two reacting to anything and they don’t actually make an argument for anything. They do sprinkle a handful of Sarah Palin quotes from speeches.
After working on it for years, I’m finally finishing my documentary, now called "From The Ground Up." It covers the 2009-2010 period but from a very different perspective. In fact, the only person I interviewed who is interviewed in their documentary was Eric Cantor and none of my Cantor interview made my cut. There are several events we both cover but often from different perspectives.
"From The Ground Up" explores the 2009-2010 period as the origin of the angry voter. Most of the first two thirds of the film is told from the perspective of the people who founded the Tea Parties and volunteered with the Tea Parties. Most of you will have never heard of any of these people and what they did in 2009-2010. There’s praise and criticism but mostly the film is told in their own words. The Scott Brown, Rand Paul, and Trey Gowdy stories are all told from the perspective of people who volunteered. They are undoubtedly presenting only one point of view but one that needs to get told.
The last third of the film centers on the candidates. Most of the candidates weren’t very well known at the time and aren’t very well known now. Their stories haven’t been told either. In some cases I do have candidates telling their own story, because that’s an important perspective too.
Not one person I interviewed ever mentioned Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin. Four people do mention Sarah Palin, although they don’t mention anything she said or did but mostly it’s, “Sarah Palin came to one event we had.” None of those three are in "From The Ground up." That’s not to say they didn’t say or do things during this period that impacted people. I interviewed Paul Ryan for the film and none of that interview is in there either.
We are putting the finishing touches on the film now and I plan to share the film with audiences this year. I don’t know when yet. Stay tuned.
Monday, January 16, 2017
1. I used districts that had one Republican and one Democrat congressional candidate. In addition to the districts where both major parties didn't run a candidate, I also excluded Louisiana. Louisiana had their jungle primary on election day and the elections had multiple members of one, or both, parties. It wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison.
2. I used the two party vote. This excludes third parties from both the congressional and Presidential elections. This allows a comparison of how Republicans did against Democrats, treating third party voters as the same as those who didn't vote. I did this for consistency. Some races had third party candidates. Others didn't. I didn't include Utah districts because they were the only ones where Evan McMullin got a high percentage of the vote. McMullin voters likely voted heavily for Republicans down ballot, as Hillary Clinton's percentage was fairly close to the percentage Democratic congressional candidates got. So Trump-Clinton numbers would make the districts look more Democratic than they do.
The districts in the first column are those where the two candidates got between 43% and 57% of the vote and the Republican congressional won the seat. The second group are the same Presidential and the Democrat won the seat. The next two groups are the remaining districts where Republicans won and Democrats won respectively. If Hillary Clinton got less than 43% but the Democrat still won it's in the second group.
The first group consists overwhelmingly of districts where the Republican congressional candidate outperformed Donald Trump. That many would outperform him isn't that much of a surprise since all the Republicans in the list won their district. That said I didn't expect that many to outperform Trump and by as much as they do. Thirty-four of them did at least 7 points better. There are a lot of suburban districts in this column. Again, that's not a surprise. Trump got over 57% in many rural districts and Clinton got over that in many urban districts. So those districts are more likely to be in the third and fourth group. A big question for the future is whether Democratic congressional candidates can come close to matching Hillary Clinton in the future.
The districts that Democrats won where Clinton got between 43% and 57% of the vote is smaller. There are more districts where the Republican outperformed Trump, or the Democrat underperformed Clinton than in the group Republicans won. Clinton did win most of these, but it'll be interesting to see if some of these Democrats vote with Republicans in House votes. Their districts are more Trumpy than Republican. Chart here
Monday, January 9, 2017
States sued the Obama administration over things that the administration required them to do. It's possible that the Trump administration will roll back regulations or repeal laws. You can sue the Federal government for requiring your state to enact an environmental law. You can't sue them for repealing that law if it doesn't require the state to do anything. So we don't know if the laws passed by congress will warrant any legal work.
So what we have here is a legislature is fighting a battle against a non-existent opponent (until January 20) over non-existent laws. And spending money to do it. Kudos.
Monday, January 2, 2017
Overall, there was similar improvement across the board when comparing 2012 to 2016. Congressional Democrats improved by 2.2 points, while senate Democrats improved by 2.8 points, and assembly Democrats by 1.7 points. That's a good showing but Hillary Clinton improved on Barack Obama's two party performance by 4.2 points. (Note: Clinton's two party percentage was 66.1% compared to Obama's 61.9%. The margin improved by double 4.2, 8.4 points) So Democrats didn't do as well as they could have. Democrats did have some districts with big gains, e.g. CA-49, 2, and 53, but not enough in any Republican held district to take it. There were a few places where the Republican congressional candidate did better than 2012, but there doesn't seem to be much commonality to the districts.
Some people don't feel Republicans did that well in 2014 because the party lost a congressional district. The chart shows the difference between 2014 and 2016 was dramatic. The average Democrat did 5.6 points better. The average margin in the 37 districts where a Republican ran against a Democrat each time increased from Democrats by 6.6 to Democrats by 17.8. Yet, these two very different results ended with the two parties winning the same districts each time. This wasn't due to gerrymandering creating safe seats. California lines are drawn by an independent commission. In 2014, won 7 districts by 5.4 points or less. That won most of them by much greater margins in 2016. Had Republicans just done a little better in 2014 and taken those districts they probably would've lost almost all of them in 2016.
Democrats picked up three assembly seats in 2016, but two of those AD-65 and 66 were ones they won in 2012, but lost in 2014. In fact, the Democrat did worse in 2016 in AD-66 than he did in 2012.