But... But... 2016!!! One poll and six pundits got it right in 2016. What are they saying in 2020?

They got it right in 2016. That wast then. This is now.

Six months after the election and three months into President Donald Trump's first term, the Dividist was still trying to figure out what happened. This blog was lying fallow, but as he said then: "With the passage of time, and with judicious use of third person plural, the Dividist has created enough distance from the election to get back to work and begin posting again." And with that, he selected among those few in the punditocracy who - unlike the Dividist - got it right and predicted that Donald Trump would win the Presidency. It was his first post after the 2016 election. The thesis was to "listen to a few notables who got it right... listen to what they said before the election and what they've said since."

Good advice then. Good advice now. We are now less than two months from the election to determine whether President Trump will serve a second term or if he will be replaced by Joe Biden. Conventional wisdom informs us that Labor Day is when most Americans start paying attention to the election. A good time to close the loop, go back, look at the sources who got it right then and see what they are saying now. We'll start with the polls.

- Cognitive Madisonianism Part Deux - Divided government, protecting the filibuster, and voting for hypocrites.

 Biden Shrugged  

The 2016 presidential election stunned pundits and voters alike (including the Dividist). But, as surprising as the electoral victory of Donald Trump was in 2016, a case can be made that the 2016 Senate election results were even more shocking. And therein lies a lesson for 2020.

Four years ago, The Dividist shared his thoughts on the 2016 election in a post entitled "Cognitive Madisonianism, splitting tickets, the 2016 Senate race, and why American voters are smarter than pundits and political scientists."

The Dividist was enthralled to discover the phrase "Congnitive Madisonianism" and eager to put it to use. As he explained then, it is a political science term for the simple concept that American voters, in their collective wisdom, prefer and vote for divided government. That concept being the raison d'etre for this blog, the reader can appreciate the Dividist's enthusiasm.

In that post we assessed the current state of the election and made some predictions about the likelihood of maintaining our happily divided government across the new year:

"In 2016 the GOP will keep the House majority, the Democrats will keep the Executive branch and our government will stay happily divided regardless of what happens in the Senate. The dividist voting heuristic strives to Keep It Simple Stupid and walk the simplest path of least resistance to keeping the government divided. In 2016, that path is to vote Clinton for President (or - at the least - not vote for Trump), and vote to reelect your Republican Congressman. For the Senate - vote your conscience."

In 2016, the Dividist could see a rationale to vote for either party gaining majority control in the Senate:

"The best dividist reason to support a Democratic Senate is based on the fear that some "Black Swan", "October surprise" event (e-mails, Wikileaks, Clinton Foundation, Trump quitting the race, etc) will derail the Clinton campaign juggernaut sufficiently to let the GOP nominee be elected President.  A Democratic Senate is a backstop to prevent Unified One Party Republican Rule.

The best dividist reason to support a Republican Senate is based on moderating Supreme Court picks. If the Democrats win the Senate there is a real possibility they will implement a "Nuclear Option" rule change for Supreme Court nominees. That means a Clinton Presidency and Democratic Senate could steamroll a GOP minority and confirm anyone Clinton nominates for the Supreme Court. They might even withdraw Garland to nominate and confirm a more reliably liberal judge.

Given the continuing catastrophe of the Trump campaign, the Dividist thinks hoping for a GOP Senate and moderation of Clinton picks for the Supreme Court is the better choice."

You win some. You lose some. For a current comparison, our 2020 prediction is that the Democrats will keep the House majority, Joe Biden and the Democrats will win the Executive Branch, and the best way to keep the government divided will be for the GOP to hold a slim Senate majority. But, as in 2016, the outcome of the Senate races in 2020 are very much in doubt.

That Was Then. This Is Now.

On Voting In The California Primary, Early Voting, Super Tuesday & Why Bernie Cannot Beat Donald Trump

The Dividist will be casting his California vote for Joe Biden on Super Tuesday in the Democratic primary on the day of election. We understand why some would prefer the convenience of early voting and absentee ballots when and if you know you will not be able to cast your vote on election day. What we don't understand is why anyone would cast an early ballot if they don't have to, with a primary season as fluid and dynamic as the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2020.

Stack Ranking the 2020 Presidential Candidates 2.0 The Post-NH, Pre-NV, Presidents Day Edition

President's Day is a good day to reflect on who might be our next President. During the formative years of this blog, the Dividist frequently maintained and updated candidate stack rank preferences over the course of a presidential campaign cycle (a couple of examples here and here from February, 2007 and February, 2008). Interestingly, some of the presidential hopefuls from those lists over a dozen years ago remain relevant in the campaign today, including Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton.

As noted, the Dividist stack ranking is a preference not a prediction. The list, then and now, represent the top candidates the Dividist would like to see as President, stack ranked in order of preference, within an additional constraint of supporting a divided government outcome.

State Of The Union - The Musical! "Wicked" Witch Hunt Edition

Welcome to the Dividist's annual coverage of the Presidential Address to Congress - aka State of the Union - The Musical!

President Trump is engaged in graft that does not meet the moral standards of one of the most corrupt participants in the most corrupt political organization in U.S. history.

UPDATED: 02-02-2020

 Trumpany Hall - Trump Tower New York / Trump Hotel D.C. / Mar-a-Lago Florida 

As the Kabuki Theater of the Senate Impeachment Trial plays out on our screens, let's reflect on what what transpired in this White House over the course of this administration.

We often hear the phrase "All politicians lie." It's probably true.  But does quantity matter? Do the dozens of Obama lies during his presidency justify the thousands of lies by Donald Trump three years into his first term? Does the qualitative nature of the lie matter? Are all lies equal? Is this really the hill that President Trump, his administration and GOP accomplices want to die on? If "all politicians lie", does it not matter how many lies or what kind of lie?

“We do that [quid pro quo] all the time ... That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” - Mick Mulvaney

 Since there is always going to be "political influence in foreign policy", does it matter if the quid pro quo is pressure in the service of United States policy objectives or if it is extortion in the service of the President's personal political benefit? Does motivation matter. Does corrupt intent matter? Is it all the same to Trump apologists when "everyone does it".

So how do we sort out the spectrum of corrumption and graft in Washington DC? How do we distinguish the unseemly legal graft of selling access for political contributions, from the illegal corruption of extorting foreign governments for personal political gain? Where do we rank the conflict of interest of President Trump when he shapes domestic and foreign policy to generate financial profit for the Trump family, Trump friends, Trump Administration cronies, Trump Company and President Donald Trump himself? How do we sort it out?

For guidance, we might look to the wit and wisdom of George Washington Plunkitt.

An Open Letter To: Senators Lisa Murkowski (R), Joe Manchin (D), Mitt Romney (R), Doug Jones (D), Susan Collins (R), Kyrsten Sinema (D), And Two Senators To Be Named Later Re: The Senate Impeachment Trial

  Proposed Impeachment "Gang of Eight"  

Dear Senators Lisa Murkowski, Joe Manchin, Mitt Romney, Doug Jones, Susan Collins, Krysten Sinema,

I am writing in regard to your imminent role setting the ground rules for and rendering a verdict in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. You've each publicly stated your intent to live up to the oath required of all Senators prior to the trial:

 “I solemnly swear, that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of President Donald Trump, I will do impartial justice, according to law.”

As regards the pending impeachment trial you've shown restraint in your public comments, expressed a willingness to keep an open mind on the proceedings, and a desire to treat the trial with a serious consideration of the facts.

In your respective careers in the Senate you have shown a pragmatic willingness to compromise on legislation with your counterparts across the aisle without compromising your Democratic / Liberal Republican / Conservative principles. That does not mean you don't support most of the partisan policies promoted by your party. You do. Presumably you choose to run as a Republican or Democrat because those party policies predominantly reflects your views and those of your constituents. That's expected.

Because of who you are, because of your willingness to compromise, because of your respect for the Constitution and the institution of the Senate, you are uniquely positioned to provide an extraordinary service to Americans, the institution you represent, and the country you love - Right Now.

I propose you form an Impeachment Gang of Eight.

Unitary Executives, Imperial Presidents, National Emergencies and Partisan Realignment

 When it comes to executive overreach, Trump is standing on the shoulders of giants. 

In light of President Trump's dubious declaration of a "National Emergency" to tap more of the Treasury than Congress will authorize, it's worth noting how far we have drifted from the Framer's intent for presidential power, congressional power of the purse, and the separation of powers in general.

As Gene Healy of the Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency noted:

"[The President's] constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers."

Oh wait. My bad. That quote was from Cato's 2006 White Paper "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush." It was an essay I referenced when, as a blogging toddler in 2006, I was alarmed at the ever expanding Unitary Executive claims made by the Bush/Cheney administration.

Later, in 2008, I was gratified to see candidate Barack Obama run on a promise of reversing the executive overreach in the GWB administration and returning the United States to core constitutional principles:

"I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the constitution very seriously. The biggest problem that we're facing right now has to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America." - Sen  Barack Obama - Townhall in Lancaster, PA, March 31, 2008

But I digress. Lets return to what the ACLU has to say about our President's overreach:

"... there is a very real danger that the administration will enshrine permanently within the law policies and practices that were widely considered extreme and unlawful during previous administrations. There is a real danger, in other words, that the administration will preside over the creation of a "new normal."

Oh wait. My bad. That paraphrased quote was from the 2010 ACLU Report "Establishing a New Normal" documenting the Obama administration extending, expanding and institutionalizing the executive branch overreach of the Bush/Cheney administration. The ACLU fears were borne out with later revelations of the Obama administration's widespread warrantless surveillance, continuing indefinite detentions, Presidential ordered drone kills, and of course Obama's infamous "phone and pen" executive orders on climate, immigration policy and the ever expanding regulations by presidential fiat.

The Cult of the Presidency
Abdication of congressional authority to the executive branch did not start with the last three administrations. It's part and parcel of a long term trend that has waxed and waned (mostly waxed) since the founding of the republic. It was Franklin Roosevelt that put the notion of POTUS as Cult Leader into high gear. Every president since has stood on the shoulders of previous executive power abusing giants. At least when FDR issued presidential edicts based on a National Emergency, there really was a national emergency (Great Depression, WWII). We also learned from FDR that even if there is a real national emergency, presidential orders can be misguided, racist,  immoral, unconstitutional and contradict American values.

State Of The Union - The Musical! "Shall We Dance!" Edition

Welcome to the Dividist's annual coverage of the Presidential Address to Congress - aka State of the Union - The Musical!

Happy Divided Government New Year!

As noted by a recent twitter acquaintance, January 2nd is Divided Government Eve, and January 3rd is the real date to celebrate the political new year.

This is the eve that really matters. A return to divided government will lead to improved governance.

— 🌳❄️🌳Chris Resister🌳❄️🌳 (@ChrisResister) January 2, 2019

And the Dividist is celebrating. After another disastrous short 2 year stint of unified one party rule, today Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats take majority control of the House of Representatives and restore divided government to Washington D.C.

Since the election, the punditocracy has been weighing in on what we can expect from divided government over the next few days, weeks, months, and years. Unsurprisingly, the Dividist has some thoughts on the subject, but we'll leave those for future posts. This Divided Government New Year is a time for celebration and prognostication.