THE DYNAMICS OF THE 2020 ELECTION
By:
LeRoy Goldman
May 8, 2019
THE DYNAMICS OF THE 2020 ELECTION
When I spoke to you in early August of 2016 just before the
presidential election you will remember that I did not paint a rosy
picture. In fact I began that talk by asking you to raise your hand
if you did not like having to make a choice between Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton. Virtually every hand in the room went up, including
mine. We instinctively understood that in 2016 the political system
and the two political parties had let America down. Most of us
believed that no matter who won the election the nation would
continue to go in the wrong direction. Without doubt that has been
the case.
I wish I could stand here tonight and tell you that I'm confident
that 2020 will yield a better result. I can't. So fasten your seat
belt. And since what's coming this evening is ominous, let's start
with a bit of humor.
A little boy goes to his dad and asks, “What's politics?” The
dad says, “Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the
breadwinner of the family, so let's call me capitalism. Your mother,
she's the administrator of the money, so let's call her the
government. We're here to take care of your needs, so let's call you
the people. The nanny, we'll consider her the working class. And
your baby brother, we'll call him the future. Now think about that
and see if that makes sense.”
The little boy goes off to bed thinking about what dad had said.
Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to
check on him. He finds that the baby has soiled his diaper. The
little boy goes to his parent's room and finds his mother sound
asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room.
Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole, and sees his father
in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.
The next morning the little boy says to his father, “Dad, I think I
understand the concept of politics now. The father says, “Good
son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about.”
The little boy replies, “Well, while capitalism is screwing the
working class, the government is sound asleep, the people are being
ignored, and the future is in deep shit.”
Beyond the humor, the hard fact of the matter is that this nation is
in deep trouble—much worse trouble than most think. The reality is
that what's at stake is whether or not this nation's unique
experiment in self governance, individual freedom, and respect for
and adherence to the rule of law will survive.
The real question isn't whether President Trump is unfit, a criminal,
or both, or whether the Republican Party has imploded. And it's not
a question of whether the twenty or so Democrats now seeking the
White House can imagine a reality that is not rooted in slavish
adherence to reverse racism, or whether the Democratic Party will
follow the GOP into oblivion.
No, the question that counts is the one we refuse to face, will we be
the citizens of this nation who are responsible for America's demise.
That's where we're headed. It's a time no less dangerous than what
we faced during The Revolutionary War and the Civil War!
And unlike our forebears in 1776 and 1861, the peril we face is not
clearly evident. If it were more plainly visible, we would be far
more likely to comprehend the danger staring us in the face.
Over that past quarter century we have become a nation divided. And
the fingerprints all over this crime scene are bipartisan. They
include those of Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack
Obama, Donald Trump, and the likes of Newt Gingrich, Harry Reid, Tom
DeLay, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Shumer, and Mark Meadows.
Most of us know that a nation divided cannot stand. Our divisions
are now so deeply rooted that what we do is to spend time blaming
each other for the mess we're in. The blame game never works. What
it does do is to reinforce hatred and division. So now instead of
Republicans and Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue working
together, they have learned it's simpler to hate one another and
falsely accuse one another. That's why the Federal Government is
paralyzed. And the print and electronic media are their accomplices.
Just like the elected officials in Washington they too have
segregated themselves into two waring armies more interested in
reasoning backward from their predetermined conclusions rather than
reporting the news regardless of whose ox it gores.
And we the people have taken the bait. Red Americans sit transfixed
in front of Fox News in order to get their daily “Trump The Savior”
fix, just as Blue Americans sit transfixed in front of CNN or MSNBC
in order to get their daily “Trump The Degenerate” fix.
You don't have to take my word for the pervasiveness of this fatal
national malaise. Earlier this Spring the Pew Research Center
published another of its well researched studies that shines a bright
light on how Americans view the future, specifically America in 2050.
It ain't a pretty picture!
Most of those interviewed by Pew see a nation thirty years from now
with a fractured political system, an endangered environment, and a
weaker economy. On the economy Americans believe the national debt
will have continued to explode, that the divide between the rich and
the poor will have widened, and that the prospect for good jobs will
have been dimmed by automation.
By a 2:1 majority Americans believe that the nation's standard of
living will decline over the next three decades. A plurality of
those interviewed believe that children will be worse off in 2050
than they are today.
It didn't used to be this way. There was a time when the Congress
and the White House worked. They even knew how to work together.
Working together is what the Founding Fathers intended to be the
result of the Constitution they so carefully crafted. They intended
that Federal power be shared and disbursed among the three co-equal
branches of the Government. They intended that it be difficult, but
not impossible, to pass new legislation. They intended the supremacy
of the Rule of Law. They intended that the process of amending the
Constitution be difficult, but not impossible. They intended that
the President and the members of Congress would actually understand
and observe their respective oaths of office which require them to
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Come back with me now almost a half century to the Senate of 1973. I
worked in the Senate then. I saw first hand how it functioned.
Understanding how it worked then illuminates clearly why it doesn't
work today.
Back then the Democrats had a big majority, 58-42. But it was not
sufficiently large enough to shut off a filibuster. But guess what?
We didn't have any filibusters. Instead the Majority Leader, Mike
Mansfield, would schedule legislation by getting the Senate to adopt
what was called a Unanimous Consent Agreement, a UCA. How did
Mansfield get unanimous consent?
First of all the Republicans knew the day would come when they would
have the majority and be running the Senate. And they knew, if they
used the filibusterer to hamstring Mansfield and the Democrats, that
the day would surely come when the Democrats would return the favor.
The second reason had to do with the diverse ideological make up of
both parties back then. Of the 58 Democrats about a third of them
were conservatives, mostly from the deep South, Senators like John
Stennis of Mississippi, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and Russell Long
of Louisiana. Similarly about a third of the 42 Republicans were
Liberals, Senators like Jack Javits of New York, Chuck Percy of
Illinois, and Mark Hatfield of Oregon.
In order for either party to act in concert it had to first
accommodate differing ideas from within its own caucus.
Today all of that is a forgotten relic of history. Today virtually
every Democrat is Liberal, and virtually every Republican is a
Conservative. They don't trust one another. Many of then hate one
another. Most of them view compromise as surrender.
The 2020 election likely will not change that reality.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
One of the few things House members agree upon is calling themselves,
The People's House. Nothing could be further from the truth because
we the people don't pick them. The reverse is the case. House
members pick their voters so that most all of them are guaranteed
reelection. It's called gerrymandering and it comes in two different
forms, racial and political gerrymandering. Both forms achieve the
same end. Members configure their district lines so that only one
party has a chance to win in that district.
North Carolina is one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation.
And Mark Meadows' district here in the mountains is the most
gerrymandered district of them all. Our state is evenly divided
between Democrats and Republicans. In 2016 Trump carried the state
with just over 50% of the vote. At the same time Roy Cooper, a
Democrat, was elected Governor by less than 1% of the vote. Yet in
every one of our 13 House districts the incumbent won with 57% to 69%
of the vote. That's gerrymandering Ladies and Gentlemen.
The GOP recaptured the House in 1994 for the first time in 40
years—40 years! Led by Newt Gingrich and his Contract With
America, the GOP capitalized on voter fury directed at Hillary and
Bill Clinton's failed effort to enact Health Care Reform. For the
past quarter century the Republicans have maintained control of the
House except for the elections of 2006, 2008, and last year when
suburban voters vented their anger at President Trump, his persona,
and his policies.
It's, of course way too early to predict how the House will go in
2020, but there's some handwriting on the wall that's worth looking
at. Voter turnout in 2018 was the highest in a century at just over
49%. And it was highest in competitive races most of which were in
the suburbs. Typically these districts are won by Republicans who
tend to be conservative on economic issues but moderate on issues
like reproductive rights and healthcare. These are the suburban
voters, especially women voters, who voted Democratic in 2018 as a
protest against President Trump and his policies. That's what flipped
the House to the Democrats last year.
The truth is that the Republicans didn't lose the House in 2018.
Trump lost it for them! How stupid is that?
If, in order to continue to feed red meat to his Base voters, the
President continues this counterproductive drumbeat, put your money
on the Democrats retaining the House of Representatives next year.
THE SENATE
There's no gerrymandering in Senate elections, but, like the House
elections, they're rigged too. The rigging mechanism is
money—prodigious amounts of campaign contribution money. In fact
all senators spend more time each day of their six-year term raising
money than they spend doing anything else. Think about that!
Before you get all hot and bothered about how wonderful any one
senator seems, or how despicable another appears, take a deep breath
and remember what they both have in common. They've both sold their
votes and maybe their souls to the lobbyists who bankroll them while
both of them attempt to convince you that they represent you.
They're banking on the expectation that you're too dumb to figure out
that you're being played for a sucker. Regrettably, too frequently
they're right. Those most likely to be hoodwinked in this way are
the zealots in both political parties who take as truth whatever
comes out of the mouths of the senators they idolize.
If anti-Trump fervor enabled the Democrats to win the House in 2018,
how come the Republicans still control the Senate? The answer comes
down to coincidental luck. When all the votes were counted in 2018
the GOP gained two senate seats. Thus there are now 53 Republicans
and 47 Democrats. The GOP maintained its majority in the Senate
because of the 35 seats up for election last year only 9 were held by
the Republicans. 26 were held by Democrats, making them far more
vulnerable to losses. Democrats lost 4 of their seats, while the
Republicans lost 2 of theirs.
However, what goes around, comes around. And next year the Senate
tables turn. The Republicans will have to defend 22 seats, while the
Democrats only have to defend 12 seats. That's advantage Democrats.
In virtually every senate election cycle most of the seats are safe
for one party or the other. We pretty much know who will win those
seats before the first vote is cast. The explanation is
straightforward. Incumbents usually have a huge edge in name
recognition and in campaign cash. Frequently they face an opponent
who is weak, not well known, and/or cash strapped 2020 will be no
exception. A significant number of incumbent Republican and
Democratic senators will be safe and coast to reelection.
The balance will hang in the remaining states where the election will
be competitive. My guess is that at the present time there are about
11 of these toss-up states. They are the ones to watch, and they
are: Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia,
Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona. At the
present time the GOP controls eight of these eleven Senate seats.
Thus, the GOP is at greater risk. We can talk about any of the
toss-up states during the Q&A, if you wish.
The Democrats can take control of the Senate by winning a net of
three seats if they also control the White House, or by winning four
seats if they don't. But what you can be sure of is that once all the
votes are tabulated neither party will have the 60 votes necessary to
shut down filibusters. And you know what that means—MORE GRIDLOCK.
THE PRESIDENCY
Before we try to look ahead to next year's presidential election
let's look back at how Donald Trump won in 2016. No one expected him
to win, not even Trump or his Campaign. 2020 will be different. If
Trump is the nominee of the Republican Party, as seems certain, he
will be running to win.
The key that unlocks the door to the White House is winning at least
270 Electoral Votes. Just winning the popular vote ain't good
enough. Hillary Clinton and Al Gore did that in 2016 and 2000 to no
avail.
In most states we know the winner of its electoral votes before the
first vote is cast. Most states are routinely solidly Democratic,
like California, or solidly Republican, like Texas. Thus it all
comes down to who can win in the relatively few Swing States. In
2016 there were 8 Swing States: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia,
New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada.
Trump carried four of them, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Iowa,
not enough to put him
over the top. But he also won three states that normally are solidly
in the Democratic column, the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Wisconsin. He won them by the narrowest of margins, by
75,000 votes out of a total in those three states of over 13 million
votes. That's a margin of victory of about one-half of one percent!
In 2020 I believe the number of Swing states will be different.
First of all Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin can no longer be
considered reliably Democratic. They are now in play. However, I
believe that Virginia and Nevada no longer deserve Swing State
status. They have become reliably Democratic. Finally, I believe
Arizona, thanks to its changing demographics and Trump's bitter
attacks on Senator John McCain, will put the Grand Canyon State in
play next year.
Now you don't have to be a political junkie like me to know that
after a quarter century of growing political polarization and
gridlock that the only effective way out of the mess is for the two
political parties to return to the formula that has sustained this
nation for most of its history—trust, cooperation, and compromise.
It's glaringly obvious that that is the only way forward when the
nation is so closely and bitterly divided.
All of us are old enough to remember that the American people
commonly relied upon divided government with a President of one party
and a Congress controlled by the opposing party in order to force the
kind of compromises that made sense and stood the test of time. It
was so during the Administrations of Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon,
Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush.
Trump's opportunity to be an effective president, even a great
president, would have required him to deliver an Inaugural Address
that would have called for national reconciliation, and for him to
have worked with the Democrats on the Hill to enact such a genuinely
bipartisan plan. However, his polarizing inaugural did just the
opposite, and, therefore, his Presidency was stillborn on January
20th 2017.
Since taking office, he's proven that he's unfit to govern. He
doesn't understand how to manipulate the levers of power in
Washington, and that's essential for any leader who believes as Trump
presumably does that those levers must be used to change profoundly
Washington's direction. He does not understand or accept the
constitutional constraints that necessarily limit the action of any
president of the United States. He believes the prime directive of
all those in the Executive Branch is loyalty to him personally.
His conduct in office has made a mockery of the oath he took more
than two years ago that requires him, “to the best of his ability
to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States”.
No tweet storm can disguise that brutally disgusting reality. And so
it would seem he's a sure loser in 2020. Perhaps, but maybe not. He
has a pathway to a second term. His fate will be determined by the
Democrats vying for the nomination, and whether or not they surrender
their party to those among them whose dark side is no less corrosive
than Trump's.
The question for the Democrats is whether from the twenty or so
seeking the nomination they can nominate someone who does not kowtow
to the Gods of reverse racism and gender discrimination that animate
so many of the extremists in their Party. These extremists call
themselves Progressives. Nothing could be further from the truth.
They are modern day Jacobins who believe in and practice vigilante
justice, not the rule of law.
This intraparty struggle will be ferocious and threatens to tear the
party apart. If that happens, Trump will be the beneficiary.
Is there no way to reverse this fatal cycle of polarization?
Happily, there is, and the way forward is found in a brilliant book
by Philip Howard, The Rule of Nobody. In less than 200 pages Howard
describes America's descent into a bureaucratic state without the
capacity to make necessary choices and implement them. Howard goes
on to chart a course correction out of this barrenness.
I'll give you a capsule summary of one of the many examples Howard
gives us of government ineptitude, the inability to pull a tree out
of a creek. In 2011 a storm toppled a tree into a creek in Franklin
Township New Jersey that caused serious flooding. The effort to pull
the tree from the water was blocked by the fact the creek was a
“class C-1 creek” that required formal approval prior to any
alteration to its natural condition. The flooding continued for
twelve days and the town spent $12,000 dollars in an effort to get a
permit to pull the tree out of the creek.
The problem in Franklin Township, in the puzzle palaces that line the
Potomac River in Washington, and throughout America is that
government officials don't have the authority to make decisions.
Howard insists that it's imperative that government officials be
given the authority that is commensurate with their responsibilities.
Doing that, Howard argues, requires rethinking how laws and their
regulations are enacted. We've come to believe that the principal
purpose of law is to tell people how to do things properly. Howard
says that's wrong. He says the purpose of law is to prohibit actions
that are improper. The difference between the two concepts is
enormous. That's because the latter notion will free citizens and
bureaucrats to make decisions like pulling a tree out of a creek, or
not taking thirty years to fail to figure out how to build the I-26
Connector in Asheville.
Howard challenges us to think of law as,” a giant corral” that
protects us from antisocial behavior and arbitrary state power.
However, Howard argues that within the corral's fences, “people are
free to pursue their goals in their way”. In other words the
purpose of law is to say what you can't; do, not what you can do.
Now stop for a moment and think about whether Howard is on to
something or not. If, like me, you think he is, then ask yourself
whether his ideas would likely be embraced by Liberal/Democrats,
while being rejected by Conservative/Republicans-or vice versa.
Of course not! The beauty of Howard's formulation is that it will
appear reasonable across the political spectrum—because it is
reasonable! And that creates the conditions that will make
compromise and consensus possible again. It's the antithesis of the
paralysis of polarization that today strangles this nation.
The remaining question is whether someone, anyone, seeking the
presidency in 2020 will champion this simple, yet breathtaking
concept. If so, that someone will get my vote and a whole lot more.
LeRoy Goldman can be reached at:
