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 20^th 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: 

EmailMe