Periodically, the Dividist enjoys strolling down a metaphorical beach to take note of the divided government detritus that has washed ashore and cluttered his little island of rationality in the great big blogospheric ocean.
Time to go beachcombing and look for any shiny bits of divided government flotsam we may have previously overlooked. Submitted here for your reading enjoyment...
Jonathan Haidt explains the impact of tribalism on the Framer's intent.
While participating in a twitteratti discussion on the impact of tribalism on our body politic (along with a generous helping of Trump bashing), the Dividist stumbled across a lecture by Jonathan Haidt entitled "The Age of Outrage." Haidt fuses issues of tribalism, identity politics, polarization, intersectionality, illiberal "liberals", the Social Justice Snowflakes so evident on college campus, and - most interesting to the Dividist - the relevance of the Framer's intent to all of the above. In particular this beautiful, almost poetic, description of what the Framer's were trying to create and why:
"Here is the fine-tuned liberal democracy hypothesis: as tribal primates, human beings are unsuited for life in large, diverse secular democracies, unless you get certain settings finely adjusted to make possible the development of stable political life. This seems to be what the Founding Fathers believed. Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of those eighteenth-century deists clearly did think that designing a constitution was like designing a giant clock, a clock that might run forever if they chose the right springs and gears.
Thankfully, our Founders were good psychologists. They knew that we are not angels; they knew that we are tribal creatures. As Madison wrote in Federalist 10: “the latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.” Our Founders were also good historians; they were well aware of Plato’s belief that democracy is the second worst form of government because it inevitably decays into tyranny. Madison wrote in Federalist 10 about pure or direct democracies, which he said are quickly consumed by the passions of the majority: “such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention . . . and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
So what did the Founders do? They built in safeguards against runaway factionalism, such as the division of powers among the three branches, and an elaborate series of checks and balances. But they also knew that they had to train future generations of clock mechanics. They were creating a new kind of republic, which would demand far more maturity from its citizens than was needed in nations ruled by a king or other Leviathan..
So, how are we doing, as the inheritors of the clock? Are we maintaining it well? If Madison visited Washington, D.C. today, he’d find that our government is divided into two all-consuming factions, which cut right down the middle of each of the three branches, uniting the three red half-branches against the three blue half-branches, with no branch serving the original function as he had envisioned."
We're bored with the "Blue Wave" metaphor. We'll go with "Dividist Pac-Man"
Outside of the Mueller investigation, the biggest political question of 2018 is whether Democrats can ride a widely anticipated Blue Wave into a majority in Congress and divide the government. There are similarities to the mid-term wave elections that flipped Congress in 2006 and 2010.
In both cases, the long shot won with the help of a seriously flawed opposition candidate. In Alabama Roy Moore was accused of sexual impropriety with minors, and in Massachusetts Martha Coakley called Curt Schilling a "Yankee fan." This is, of course, not a fair comparison. Coakley's faux pas was far more egregious to the citizens of Massachusetts and more damaging to her candidacy than Moore in Alabama. Still the similarities are striking and the punditocracy at MSNBC are positively giddy in anticipation of surfing the blue wave they see on the horizon. Prospects for Democrats flipping the Senate - Less Than Zero
With Jones in the Senate, the GOP is barely afloat with a 51-49 Senate majority. It doesn't seem a massive political tsunami should be necessary to flip a leaky Republican rowboat with a mere two seat majority. An energetic GOTV ripple or two might do it. But those numbers are misleading.
There are 33 contested Senate seats in this election cycle. Twenty four of those seats will be defended by Democrats, only nine by Republicans. This class of Democratic Senators were elected on the coattails of Barack Obama's re-election in 2012, and a number of them are in states carried by Donald Trump last year. Only two Republican seats are considered toss-ups and the other six are either leaning or strong Republican. The Democrats would have to take both toss-up seats and defend 100% of their own. It's just not going to happen.
In the 2010 Red Wave Republicans picked up six seats, but still fell three short of the majority. Unlike 2018, the 2010 election was an even playing field with Democrats defending 19 seats and Republicans 18. The 2006 Blue Wave was also contested on a relatively even playing field, with Democrats defending 18 seats and Republicans defending 15. Democrats picked up six seats and took the majority.
The wildcard for Senate predictions in this election is whether either the moonbat left or wingnut right successfully primary establishment candidates and run clown candidates that scare the electorate. As Republicans found in the 2010 and 2012 Senate races and again this year in Alabama, there are limits to what even partisan voters will accept in a candidate. We assume that voters from both parties have learned that lesson, but we could be wrong. If the parties avoid that mistake and the candidates fall into the normal politician range our Dividist 2018 Senate prediction is that Republicans pick up 1 or 2 seats and retain the Senate majority [Nailed it.*]. Prospects for Democrats flipping the House - Pretty Darn Good
The House of Representatives is notoriously difficult to flip. Tip O'Neill's famous dictum "All Politics is local" is generally applied to House elections. Historically, incumbent representatives enjoy 95%+ reelection rates with strong local support, even if Congress is wildly unpopular. For whatever reason, voters who hate Congress still love their representative, particularly if they bring home the bacon, which they all do.
Despite the entire House being up for reelection every two years and only 1/3 of the Senate at risk each cycle, for over 100 years, the House never flipped unless the Senate flipped first or concurrently. That changed in 2010 when the GOP flipped the House but fell short in the Senate. This was widely attributed to Republicans undermining their electoral advantage by posting a slate of un-electable clown candidates. They did the same in 2012. Eventually they figured it out and took the Senate majority in 2014.
Any rule is only true until it is not. Tip O'Neill's maxim "All politics is local" was not true in 2006 and 2010 when nationalized wave elections made politics decidedly not local and flipped House majorities.
What does history tell us?
A few years ago, we started looking at the history of flipping House elections, hoping to glean some insight into what nationalizes the electorate sufficiently to throw their local heroes out of office. We first looked at recent elections, then over the modern era, then at the previous century. Now we'll finish the job by looking at every single time the House flipped majorities since Republicans and Democrats first faced off in 1856:
In 1856 the Whig Party disbanded and the Republican Party was born. That year Republicans and Democrats faced off for the first time and Republicans won 37 seats. Democrat James Buchanan won the Presidential election, Democrats retained their majority in the Senate and secured a majority in the House with 133 seats. Two years later, in the 1858 mid-terms, Republicans picked up 90 seats and won a majority in the House against the previously unified Democratic government. That was the first flip of a House majority when Democrats and Republicans were the dominant political parties.
Since then, including 1856, there have been 8081* Republican vs Democrat elections for control of the House and Senate. Over that period of time the House has flipped majorities exactly 1718* times - in 1858(R), 1874(D), 1880(R), 1882(D), 1888(R), 1890(D), 1894(R), 1910(D), 1918(R), 1930(D), 1946(R), 1948(D), 1952(R), 1954(D), 1994(R), 2006(D), 2010(R) and maybe2018(D).
A necessary but not sufficient condition.
Here is the interesting bit. Of those 17 18 flips over 160 162 years only three elections, 1880, 1888 and 1948 flipped against a divided government. All of the other 14 flips were against unified one party rule of the opposition party. Exactly like we have now had in 2018*. In addition, the three exceptions of 1880*, 1888*, and 1948* all occurred during Presidential election cycles. The House has never flipped majorities in a midterm election against a divided government. In the entire history of Republican vs Democratic elections, the House has only flipped against unified opposition party governments in a midterm election. Moreover, the House has never flipped against a divided government in the Modern Era since 1948. We call this electoral phenomena...
The O'Neill Exception:
The House majority never flips against a divided government in a midterm election. Most of the time unified one party government is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to flip majorities in the House of Representatives and is always a necessary condition to flip during midterms.
This may be the most reliable rule of thumb in politics that no one knows. Historically speaking, the table is set for the Democrats to take the House majority in 2018. But, as noted, the O'Neill Exception is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Other elements must also be in place to nationalize the election and flip the House. As I explained in a previous post about this phenomena:
"The interpretation of this phenomena is pretty clear. A nationalized i.e. - not politics is local - election requires a national focus to energize the voters. A sufficient "wave" election needs an organizing principle to power the kind of tsunami that can flip the House. Focused anger/blame on a unified party in power does the trick. A divided government distributes the blame and blurs the electoral focus. A divided government cannot drive a sufficient nationalized election groundswell to overcome local favorites and local politics.
We conclude that, as we've stated repeatedly, a one party unified government is a necessary but not sufficient condition to flip the House majority. Still, a unified government can remain in place for many years without a reaction against the concentrated one party rule. Additional factors, above and beyond one party unified government rule, must come into play to precipitate a wave election. In general it takes an additional combination of corruption, overreach and/or arrogance on the part of the unified party in power to align voters in opposition and nationalize the House election."
Because Trump won, and because the Democrats managed to snatch Senate defeat from the jaws of victory when the Senate playing field was slanted decidedly in their favor, we now have Unified One Party Republican Rule. And because we have Unified One Party Republican rule, the conditions now exist for Democrats to flip the House in 2018. The Democrats need to gain 25 seats to flip the House in 2018. Not as many as the 2006 Blue Wave when they picked up 31 seats. Not as many as the 2010 Red Wave when Republicans picked up 63 seats. Not as many as 1858 when Republicans flipped the House against Democrats for the very first time with a pickup of 90 seats. Doable, even likely.
What are the sufficient conditions to flip the House?
The most popular test for the prospect of a nationalized wave election flipping the House, is the generic partisan poll. Decision Desk HQ has a great detailed analysis of the prospects for a Democratic flip in 2018 utilizing a variety of analytical techniques, including an average of the Generic Polls:
On the basis of an average ~9% Democratic edge in the Generic Poll, they are currently forecasting the Democrats to net 32 seats and a narrow majority. That is encouraging for Democrats and Dividists, but we must strike a cautionary note. The Generic Poll is not a good forecasting tool, particularly this far out from the election.
Late in 2013, the Democrats also had a ~9% lead in the generic poll, prompting a lot of triumphalist tweeting about the prospects of Democrats reclaiming Congress. One year later the GOP picked up 9 Senate and 13 House seats in the 2014 midterms. That said - it's different this time. In the 2014 midterms, the Democrats were up against a divided government and the historical precedence of the "O'Neill Exception." In the 2018 midterms the Democrats are facing a unified one party rule Republican government, and the "O'Neill Exception" has their back.
Above and beyond the necessary condition of running against a Unified Government to nationalize the election, history offers additional conditions common to prior House flips that sufficiently offend the electorate to vote against the party in power. In short, the unified party in power has to cooperate by demonstrating some combination of egregious legislative overreach, blatant corruption, and/or arrogant abuse of power. This is the Trump One Party Rule Unified Republican Government - so no problem. Those conditions are met.
The Dividist 2018 House of Representative prediction is the Democrats will pick up around ~35 seats and take majority control of the House [Democrats picked up 40 seats to take the majority*].
Another key for Democrats will be forging a nationalized campaign organized around a unifying message in opposition to Trump administration overreach. Just like they did successfully in 2006 against the Bush/Cheney administration. And they should avoid running the kind of brain dead, electorate fracturing, identity politics campaign that so many of them love. It would also help to replace polarizing leadership that may deter independent and moderate voters. We are looking at you, Nancy Pelosi.
If they do that, Democrats can wrest majority control of the House of Representative from the GOP, restore divided government, moderate government policy, and provide real oversight for the balance of the Trump (or Pence) administration.
Hope Floats (on a Blue Wave).
Cross-posted on Uniters.Org: The Dividist is pleased to participate in Solomon Kleinsmith's ambitious new venture to organize Centrists, Moderates and Independents. Check it out.
*ADDENDUM - The "O'Neill Exception" exceptions:
Three exceptions that prove the rule.
The 1880 election for the 47th Congress of coincided with the presidential election between Democrat Winfield Hancock and Republican James Garfield when Republican President Rutherford Hayes declined to run for reelection. Going into the election the government was divided. Democrats held a 42-32 seat majority in the Senate. Republicans controlled the White House and a 148-132 seat majority in the House of Representatives. James Garfield won the Presidency, Republicans picked up 5 seats in the Senate to create a 37-37 tie (broken by Republican VP), and took control of the House by flipping the majority to 151-131 with a net gain of 19 seats and a unified Republican government. One interesting sidelight - 78% of the electorate turned out to vote in one of the largest turnouts in American history, and this was the closest popular vote in U.S. history with the presidential candidates separated by less that 2,000 votes.
The 1888 election for the 51st Congress coincided with the presidential election between incumbent Democrat Grover Cleveland and Republican challenger Benjamin Harrison. Going into the election the government was divided. Republicans controlled a narrow 38-37 seat majority in the Senate. Democrats controlled the White House and a 167-154 seat majority in the House of Representatives. Benjamin Harrison won the Presidency, Republicans maintained their one seat majority in the Senate, and Republicans took control of the House by flipping the majority to 179-152 with a net gain of 25 seats and a unified Republican government.
The 1948 Election for the 81st Congress coincided with the presidential election between incumbent Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Thomas Dewey. Going into the election the government was divided. Republicans controlled a 51-45 seat majority in the Senate and a 246-188 seat majority in the House of Representatives. Thomas Dewey - I mean - Harry Truman won the Presidency. Yeah, there was a lot of confusion about that election, and the electorate might have been anticipating a Dewey victory, as was the Chicago Daily Tribune. Regardless, Democrats flipped the Senate gaining 9 seats with a 54-42 majority and the House gaining 75 seats to a 263-171 majority and a unified Democratic government.
Creative name-calling of President Trump on mainstream and social media has become something of a national sport. Each day, fast on the heels of the latest idiocy to come out of the mouth of our perpetually aggrieved president [Today, as I write this, it's "shithole countries."], we get the "shocked! shocked!" hair-on-fire horrified characterizations of those perpetually aggrieved at the fact that he is still in the White House. In this game you get extra points if the name-calling is wrapped in righteous indignation, high dudgeon or general hysteria.
In "Fire and Fury" - Michael Wolff's account of the early months of the administration - we see variations on all the same words and characterizations:
"For Steve Mnuchin and Reince Priebus, he was an "idiot." For Gary Cohn, he was "dumb as shit." For H.R. McMaster he was a "dope." - Michael Wolff, Fire and Fury
"I don't describe him as childlike, every person in the White House ... Literally, that is the common description among every one of his senior people," Wolff said. "That the president is somewhat like a child." - The Hill
"An idiot surrounded by clowns. Trump won't read anything - not one-page memos, not the brief policy papers; nothing. He gets up halfway through meetings with world leaders because he is bored."(F&F via CNBC)
"Wolff added that "100 percent of the people around" Trump, "senior advisers, family members, every single one of them, questions his intelligence and fitness for office." - NBC
"Mr Wolff portrays the president as an ageing man who repeats stories and quotes some of Mr Trump's closest allies describing the president as “incapable of functioning in his job.” - Telegraph
“Bannon described Trump as a simple machine. The On switch was full of flattery, the Off switch full of calumny. The flattery was dripping, slavish, cast in ultimate superlatives, and entirely disconnected from reality: so-and-so was the best, the most incredible, the ne plus ultra, the eternal. The calumny was angry, bitter, resentful, ever a casting out and closing of the iron door.” - Michael Wolff, Fire and Fury
“If the Trump White House was as unsettling as any in American history, the president’s views of foreign policy and the world at large were among its most random, uninformed, and seemingly capricious aspects." - Michael Wolff, Fire and Fury
If nothing else, the book cranked the Trump vilification volume up to 10. And this is where it's taken us...
We have now reached the point where Trump insults are being classified and categorized by the punditocracy into those insults that are politically correct ("evil","spoiled brat","ignorant jerk", "asshole" ) and those insults that are politically incorrect ("sociopath", "mentally disturbed", "narcissistic personality disorder"). In this clip, Professor of Psychiatry Allen Frances tells MSNBC pundit Ari Melber that attributing President Trump's behavior to mental illness is demeaning and disrespectful ... to the mentally ill:
It's easy to understand why Republicans are circlingthewagons on the Tax Bill. Given the dearth of legislative accomplishment in the first year of the Trump administration, failure to pass tax reform is truly an existential threat for the GOP. If a Unified GOP Government can't even legislate every Republican pol's wet dream of tax cuts, then what is the point of the Republican Party?
It's understandable, but inexcusable. The Republican party took control of Congress in 2010 by raising the specter of spiraling deficits and debt, only to support a bill in 2017 that will add trillions of dollars to both.
An understandable vote for GOP partisans? Yes. An inexcusable vote for fiscal conservatives? Yes. And for students of divided vs unified government, unsurprising and completely predictable. The only time our federal government approaches anything that vaguely resembles fiscal responsibility is when the government is firmly divided:
Lyndon Johnson famously said "Whenever most Senators look in a mirror, they see a president.” The sentiment has been quoted, plagiarized and paraphrased by politicians and political pundits ever since. Both Kennedy and Johnson were Senators before they were elected President and Vice President in 1962. While many Senators have run for president since Johnson served, none fulfilled that ambition until the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
In the wake of the election of Donald Trump, it's time to update that maxim:
"Whenever most billionaires look in a mirror, they see a president."
And why not? After all, Donald Trump did it. How does a Mark Cuban look in the mirror and not think "If Trump did it, I can do it." Wealthy celebrities have expressed this sentiment directly. Consider Oprah Winfrey on Bloomberg:
“I never considered the question even a possibility,” Winfrey said about her pre-Trump thinking. “I though, ‘Oh gee, I don’t have the experience, I don’t know enough.’ But now I’m thinking, ‘Oh. Oh.'”
“I wouldn't rule it out,” Johnson, 44, told Vanity Fair with a big smile ...“It would be a great opportunity to help people, so it’s possible. This past election shows that anything can happen.”
I'll say it again. Why not? It is worth noting that presidential campaign strategists don’t have a lot of imagination. They mostly fight the last war. Whatever worked in the last election becomes the template for what to do in the next election – only bigger and better. And what worked in the last election is this: A rich, blustering, boorish, but successful huckster/entertainer with absolutely no political experience and limited understanding of governing, foreign policy, or the constitutional framework of the United States was elected President of the United States. That happened. And when that happened the pool of future President wannabes got exponentially bigger.
This is not an original thought. Across social and mainstream media you can find many lists touting billionaires and celebrities who look in the mirror and see the next President of the United States. Examples include CNBC, People Magazine, INC, Observer, and Newsweek. Some will indeed run. In the brave new world of the Trump era, how do we separate the contenders from the pretenders?
We're now six months into One Party Rule - Republican Unified Government.
Hey! Remember all the social and mainstream media cries, lamentations, rending of garments and gnashing teeth about gridlock, divided government and partisan obstruction over the last six years? Guessing everyone is now enjoying our brand spanking new unified government! What? No? Huh.
Look, the Dividist is not one to say "I told you so..." Oh wait. Yes he is...
Americans may have a short memory, but we are once again learning to appreciate the finer points of a politically divided government. It's encouraging to see my fellow citizens coming to that realization much sooner than during the early years of unified government under either Republican Bush or Democratic Obama administrations.
Perhaps this is a good time to step away from the day-to-day West Wing tweet-storm / soap opera and consider some recent thoughtful essays on the nature and benefits of divided government.
The 2018 Edition of the United Coalition of the Divided is now closed. Thanks to all who participated, volunteers and draftees alike.
Our government is divided again. Both major parties have a share of power and the views of more Americans are represented in the halls of our government.
This was our most successful membership roll ever. Stay tuned for the 2019 Edition of the United Coalition of the Divided. Coming soon to a blog near you!
Welcome to the United Coalition of the Divided - the Dividist's social media version of retail door-to-door politicking.
The Dividist initiated this exclusive club during the 2008 election cycle and recycled it in every federal election since. It was an ignominious start, with the Democrats seizing unified control of the federal government. The 2010 edition was barely posted in time for the midterms. Amidst the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth, divided government was emphatically restored. The 2012 membership drive worked out fine with the reelection of Barack Obama and divided government. In the 2014 midterms, it was just a question of how divided we were going to get as the Democrats managed to dig themselves an even deeper hole in Congress.
So we've come full circle. We again have a Unified One Party Rule Republican Government as we had in 2006 when the Dividist started this blog. It's "deja vu all over again".
The VSG study has become something of a Rorschach Test among the punditocracy. Data on 2016 voter attitudes are distilled into multi-dimensional charts with - sometimes conflicting - analysis of what it all mean. That leaves a lot of room for any good ideologue to find a nugget that will confirm their bias about the election.
When even the solid support of liberal entertainment industry icons turn on Nancy Pelosi, a political firewall has been breached. Pelosi lost Cher ...
👏🏼.CONGRESSIONAL RACE IS NOT OLYMPICS,THERES NO MEDAL🥈FOR 2nd PLACE‼️I ADMIRE & RESPECT NANCY PELOSI,BUT IN“EVERY”RACE,GOP RUNS AGAINST HER🥀 pic.twitter.com/QX5I26Yl3s
... and Cher may be right. Republican strategists credit invoking the specter of - Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House - as a cudgel keeping disgruntled Republicans in the fold and contributing to the GA-06 win. From CNN:
"Why the relentless focus on the Democratic congresswoman from San Francisco? It was at the heart of their strategy to turn out reliably Republican voters who might be queasy with Trump's first five months in office, but did not want to see Pelosi and national Democrats celebrate a marquee victory in their own backyard. Pelosi "consistently polls very unfavorably," said John Rogers, the executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee -- the House GOP's campaign arm. "I think in this instance it had a motivating effect for our voters on the turnout front."
Exhibit A: This right wing Super-Pac ad was one of several mining the Anti-Pelosi vein that saturated GA-06. It was effective and is exactly what we can expect to see in every contested district in 2018:
To Impeach or Not to Impeach...
Conventional wisdom informs us that impeachment proceedings against a sitting President will not happen while the legislative branch is in control of the same party as the President. History bears this out, as impeachment actions against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were all initiated when the House of Representatives was controlled by the opposition party. But with President Trump, history and conventional wisdom may be steering us in the wrong direction, as many establishment Republicans would far prefer Mike Pence as President. Regardless, it is certainly true that divided government would make impeachment easier and the 2018 midterm election looms large.
The unfolding James Comey testimony, and in particular his opening statement published a day earlier, has precipitated predictably contradictory analysis of whether the threshold for impeachment has been crossed or not.
That is the Question
For those of us of a certain age, the question of what it takes to impeach a sitting President, or force a President to resign under threat of impeachment, is not a hypothetical historical exercise. We've seen it twice in our lifetime. We saw President Clinton impeached but not convicted. We saw President Nixon resign under threat of impeachment. In both cases, congressional leadership from the party of the President calling out the President were critical factors. In both cases, there was an evidentiary Rubicon that had to be crossed before impeachment became a realistic possibility.
Periodically, the Dividist enjoys strolling down a metaphorical beach to take note of the divided government detritus that has washed ashore and cluttered his little island of rationality in the great big blogospheric ocean.
