Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts

Friday, December 03, 2021

Yes, Texas Will Turn Blue

Texas goes from 38 electoral votes to 40 in the next Presidential election. Republicans know they cannot win a national election without winning Texas, that's why they are trying their damnedest to subvert democracy in the Lone Star state. The GOP can probably keep Texas from going blue in 2024 and beyond, but not forever. The facts:

1. The results speak for themselves: In the George W. Bush days, the Republican ticket carried Texas by more than 20 points. Last year, Trump beat Biden there by only 5.6%.






2. Changing population demographics spell doom for Republicans. That is, unless they can figure out a way to get non-white Texans to vote Republican while the party becomes ever more white supremacist.
Nearly half of Texans under 18 are Latinx and 95 percent of them are U.S. citizens. And Latinx Texans vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

Now you've probably heard about a shift to the GOP in Texas among Latinx Texas voters in 2020. Trump did improve his performance in some Latinx areas of Texas over the 2016 vote, leading excited conservatives to write articles with titles like, Why Democrats Are Losing Texas Latinos. But the idea of some larger shift among Texan Latinx voters in an illusion: In 2016, they voted for Clinton over Trump 61% to 34%, while in 2020 they supported Biden over Trump by the virtually unchanged margin of 62% to 37%.

3. Democrats are making huge inroads among educated, white urban/suburban voters that have traditionally supported Republicans. From Alex Samuels and Geoffrey Skelley of fivethirtyeight.com:

"(A)bout two-thirds of Texas’s population lives in one of the state’s four huge metropolitan areas — Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio and Austin. If you combine all the votes there, Democrats improved their margin by more than 5 percentage points between 2016 and 2020, carrying these areas 52 percent to 47 percent in November. This shift is significant because even though Texas’s border counties moved sharply to the right in 2020 — Starr County, for instance, swung a staggering 55 points toward Republicans — Democrats’ gains in those four big cities and their suburbs added almost five times as many votes as Republicans’ gains in 28 counties along or near Texas’s border with Mexico."

"But Democratic losses in the border areas may not frustrate their efforts to eventually turn Texas blue, primarily because the state’s four most populous metropolitan areas have trended Democratic over the past four years. These opposing trends potentially form a favorable tradeoff for Democrats because a lot more voters live in and around Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio and Austin than in the border regions." "(T)hose four big cities and their surroundings contributed nearly 70 percent of Texas’s 2020 presidential vote total, and all of them shifted left."

4. Blue Texas is outgrowing red Texas by huge margins. Here are the 10 counties with the biggest gains in voter registration since 2014:

Harris: 502,929. Biden won 55.94% of the vote in 2020
Bexar: 276,554. Biden won 58.20% of the vote in 2020
Tarrant: 255,477. Biden won 49.31% of the vote in 2020
Travis: 229,882. Biden won 71.14% of the vote in 2020
Dallas: 221,640. Biden won 64.89% of the vote in 2020
Collin: 201,879. Trump won 51.26% of the vote in 2020
Denton: 187,075. Trump won 53.23% of the vote in 2020
Fort Bend: 153,592. Biden won 54.57% of the vote in 2020
Williamson: 138,033. Biden won 49.56% of the vote in 2020
Montgomery: 118,618. Trump won 71.22% of the vote in 2020

 
Good night, and good luck.

 

Sunday, January 24, 2021

'The Producers' Presidency: Trump Wanted to Lose in 2016. But Not in 2020.

"It's absolutely amazing. But under the right circumstances, a producer could make more money with a flop than he could with a hit." - Milo Bloom, The Producers

A business case: A man realizes he can scheme to enrich himself and his friends through an otherwise failed enterprise. No one will notice the dishonesty and criminality involved, because no one pays attention to an enterprise that failed. Then the scheme backfires: the enterprise accidentally becomes a success.

The above case describes the plot of the 1967 Mel Brook movie The Producers, in which the characters Max Bailystock and Milo Bloom plan to raise, and keep, a great deal of money by producing an flop Broadway musical only to have the scheme unravel when the musical becomes a success.

It also describes Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. That scheme went like this: Donald Trump wanted to prove to doubters that he could get the Republican nomination for President. He wanted to make a lot of money and become an even bigger TV star than the already was. At the same time his friends and family would ride his coattails to success. So, lose the Presidential election by a narrow margin, claim the election was stolen, raise a lot of money from supporters and clean up as the number one critic of the new Democratic administration on mass media.

And I suppose the funniest part of the whole thing is that I can compare the Trump campaign to The Producers without even alluding to the fact that The Producers was also about a Broadway musical called Springtime for Hitler. But I digress. And I must confess that the comparison between the Trump campaign and the Mel Brooks comedy is not my own.

From an article by journalist Michael Wolff, author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House:

Certain that they would lose the election, "As the campaign came to an end, Trump himself was sanguine. His ultimate goal, after all, had never been to win. "I can be the most famous man in the world," he had told his aide Sam Nunberg at the outset of the race. His longtime friend Roger Ailes, the former head of Fox News, liked to say that if you want a career in television, first run for president. Now Trump, encouraged by Ailes, was floating rumors about a Trump network. It was a great future. He would come out of this campaign, Trump assured Ailes, with a far more powerful brand and untold opportunities.

"This is bigger than I ever dreamed of," he told Ailes a week before the election. I don’t think about losing, because it isn’t losing. We’ve totally won.""

"Most presidential candidates spend their entire careers, if not their lives from adolescence, preparing for the role. They rise up the ladder of elected offices, perfect a public face, and prepare themselves to win and to govern. The Trump calculation, quite a conscious one, was different. The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their worldview one whit."

"From the moment of victory, the Trump administration became a looking-glass presidency: Every inverse assumption about how to assemble and run a White House was enacted and compounded, many times over. The decisions that Trump and his top advisers made in those first few months — from the slapdash transition to the disarray in the West Wing — set the stage for the chaos and dysfunction that have persisted throughout his first year in office. This was a real-life version of Mel Brooks’s The Producers, where the mistaken outcome trusted by everyone in Trump’s inner circle — that they would lose the election — wound up exposing them for who they really were."



"Now let's see, two thousand dollars. That isn't much.  I'm sure I can hide it somewhere.  After all, the department of internal revenue isn't interested in a show that flopped." - Milo Bloom, The Producers

A second comparison between Trump and the team of Bailystock and Bloom. Both assumed that their sure-to-fail enterprises would allow them to benefit from obscurity, drawing no attention to their breathtaking criminality. From the same article linked above:

"Almost everybody on the Trump team, in fact, came with the kind of messy conflicts bound to bite a president once he was in office. Michael Flynn, the retired general who served as Trump’s opening act at campaign rallies, had been told by his friends that it had not been a good idea to take $45,000 from the Russians for a speech. "Well, it would only be a problem if we won," ­Flynn assured them."

This brings us to 2020, a different election altogether in that it's clear that this time, Trump very much wanted to win. Why? First and foremost I think, because the President of the United States is immune to prosecution while in office.

From Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, written just before the November election: "No American President has ever been charged with a criminal offense. But, as Donald Trump fights to hold on to the White House, he and those around him surely know that if he loses—an outcome that nobody should count on—the presumption of immunity that attends the Presidency will vanish. Given that more than a dozen investigations and civil suits involving Trump are currently under way, he could be looking at an endgame even more perilous than the one confronted by Nixon. The Presidential historian Michael Beschloss said of Trump, "If he loses, you have a situation that’s not dissimilar to that of Nixon when he resigned. Nixon spoke of the cell door clanging shut." Trump has famously survived one impeachment, two divorces, six bankruptcies, twenty-six accusations of sexual misconduct, and an estimated four thousand lawsuits. Few people have evaded consequences more cunningly. That run of good luck may well end, perhaps brutally, if he loses to Joe Biden. Even if Trump wins, grave legal and financial threats will loom over his second term."

Second, Trump seems to think he can establish a political dynasty. Just two examples: there's talk his daughter Ivanka might run for Senate in Florida, and/or his daughter in law Lara running for Senate in North Carolina.

Unfortunately for them as Meridith McGraw and Nancy Cook of Politico observed on election day: "But if Trump loses, a family brand built on "winning" will be dealt an embarrassing defeat after years of successfully side-stepping creditors, bankruptcies and cultural comeuppance. Republicans might turn on the Trumps. MAGA politics may fade. And the Trumps likely can’t retreat back into the glitzy world of New York galas. Nor do they want to. Instead, they’ll try to do what they always do, according to over a dozen current and former senior administration officials and close associates of the Trump family: Keep the Trump brand alive. Expand the family business. Export it when possible."


"We're trapped. It's either the show or us.  There's no way out.  What can we do, blow up the theatre?" - Max Bailystock, The Producers


In the conclusion of the Producers, Bailystock and Bloom dynamite the theater where Springtime for Hitler is playing, only to be caught and imprisoned. Once in prison, their scheme begins all over again. Well, we've already seen Trump try to stop Joe Biden from becoming President by asking his supporters to storm the Capitol. Will we also see him try to stage a political comeback, running for office again, (hopefully) from prison? Actually, I'd love to see Trump as the nominee for the MAGA party he's been threatening to create, running for President from a cell in Sing Sing.



Saturday, December 30, 2017

The Eclipse of American Democracy, Part One: Bigotry as a Winning Strategy

Democracy is not dying in America. But that's not for lack of effort by leading Republicans and conservative billionaires. Those folks are attacking democratic institutions with everything they've got, because their interests and the interests of the American people are very much at odds. The driving force of American politics in the current decade has been conservative leadership attempting to cement their long-term goals as public policy before changing population demographics overwhelm them and their old, white hegemony at the ballot box. This is the first in a series of articles that will focus on how conservatives are attempting to transform America into an oligarchy where elections are held only to determine which Republican will have the job of making sure corporations and billionaires get everything they want.

Republicans expected to win the 2012 election. In the immediate aftermath of that loss, conservatives noted that the tide of changing population demographics and growing minority vote not only contributed to Romney's loss (given that few non-whites voted Republican) but also that these same trends would prove even bigger challenges in the future, given that American minority populations are growing faster than the white, Christian conservative base of the Republican party.

Here's what conservative pundit Sean Trende had to say:
"For Republicans, that despair now comes from an electorate that seems to have undergone a sea change. In the 2008 final exit polls (unavailable online), the electorate was 75 percent white, 12.2 percent African-American, 8.4 percent Latino, with 4.5 percent distributed to other ethnicities. We’ll have to wait for this year’s absolute final exit polls to come in to know the exact estimate of the composition this time, but right now it appears to be pegged at about 72 percent white, 13 percent black, 10 percent Latino and 5 percent “other.”

Obviously, this surge in the non-white vote is troubling to Republicans, who are increasingly almost as reliant upon the white vote to win as Democrats are on the non-white vote. With the white vote decreasing as a share of the electorate over time, it becomes harder and harder for Republicans to prevail.

This supposed surge in minority voting has sparked discussions about the GOP’s renewed need to draw in minority voters, especially Latinos, usually by agreeing to comprehensive immigration reform."

Republican party leadership was quick to pick up on the theme of expanding minority outreach. Here's a quote from the Republican National Committee "Growth and Opportunity Project", issued in 2013: "We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate we care about them, too. We must recruit more candidates who come from minority communities. But it is not just tone that counts. Policy always matters."

That was the strategy the Republican establishment recommended, but it wasn't the one they got in 2016. Here are some quotes from Donald Trump:
March, 2016: "I think Islam hates us... And we can't allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States."
From Time magazine, August, 2016: "Donald Trump kicked off his presidential bid more than a year ago with harsh words for Mexico. "They are not our friend, believe me," he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.""
November 2017: Regarding the suggestion from Greg Sargent of the Washington Post on Twitter that, "Trump regularly attacks high-profile African Americans to feed his supporters' belief that the system is rigged for minorities", Trump responded, "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

As it turns out, there was another, completely opposite strategy to the more-inclusive campaign the Republican leadership had suggested: go full-on white supremacist. During the 2016 campaign, Sean Trende described the Trump strategy in terms of numbers: In 2012, the electorate that went to the polls had been 59% white, but, "If we do see Donald Trump push the white vote up into 63-64%, it suggests that as whites move towards minority status that they become more aware of their whiteness, and it plays into politics. It is a disheartening and dangerous trend, but it might be something we don't have any control over."

Trende was exactly right: the "forgotten" white voter who ignored Mitt Romney found a home in Donald Trump's whites-only Republican party, helping Trump carry rust-belt states that nearly everyone thought were safely in the Democratic column. Trende, to his credit, noted after the election that, "my observation was expressly limited to the idea that missing whites could help the GOP win. People interpreted this as advocating for a "whites-only" GOP, which I expressly disclaimed."

Final point: I said this is a series about how Republicans are attacking democracy. Successful appeals to white-supremacy are repugnant, but it takes more than an assault on inclusiveness and on America as the great melting pot to destroy democratic institutions. Next time, I'll talk about how Republicans have translated their attacks on minorities into policies that keep minority voices from being heard.