Something interesting is going on in this election that hasn’t got much discussion: Hillary is doing the same as Obama (in 2012) in blue states, about two points better in swing states, and about nine points better in red states.
This is a very health development, because one of the real dangers for our political system going forward is extreme regional polarization. If Republicans continue to hold the Senate (which disproportionately represents red states) while Democrats dominate the overall popular vote, that could be a huge source of political dysfunction. (Yes, for now the House is the real problem, but I think that will start to change after the next redistricting.)
Hillary losing Texas by 7 points instead of 15 doesn’t make a whit of difference in terms of this year’s election. But in a sense that’s halfway to winning the state in a future election
Betty Cracker
Definitely a heartening development.
Have y’all seen this remarkable GIF from last night’s debate? It shows Trump’s barely suppressed rage at that Nasty Woman as the debate ended. I missed it in real time. I bet it made the Secret Service twitchy.
raven
Kind of Blue
SFAW
Interesting that Hillary is doing better than Obama in the red states. I wonder why that would be?
The Moar You Know
Huh. Wonder why that is?
(Not wondering at all)
Frankensteinbeck
@Betty Cracker:
I’ve been telling you guys, it HURTS him to lose to a woman. He’s going to be hilarious on Twitter this week. Right now he’s probably drugged unconscious to escape the pain.
SFAW
@The Moar You Know:
Jinx
bluehill
@Betty Cracker: That scene needs a trigger warning. Apparently it is resurfacing bad memories for some women watching it on twitter.
Doug!
I think the main reason for the shift is Trump losing college-educate whites, no matter where those college-educated whites live.
Major Major Major Major
@Betty Cracker: wow, that’s amazing.
@Frankensteinbeck: it’s pretty incredible how his Thorazine always wears off exactly 20 minutes into a debate.
Betty Cracker
@bluehill: I had that psycho stepfather too.
gene108
I don’t get this logic.
If Democrats can’t crack open state houses and the House in 2016, why would they have a better chance in 2020?
The gerrymandered districts will not change, unless the Democrats can take back state houses. And I don’t see why 2020 will be easier than 2016.
Iowa Old Lady
New Clinton ad based on comparing their last 30 years:
Betty Cracker
@gene108: Luckily, President Obama and AG Holder will be on the job! [WaPo]
Major Major Major Major
@gene108: well, for one, 2020 will be after a concerted four-year organizing effort by that Obama guy.
Villago Delenda Est
Donald still has two and a half more weeks to do that voodoo that he does so well. The Senate is in play, and I dare say, the House is in play. I’m sure Donald’s sublime influence will do what it needs to do, and his burn the world base will make Speaker Pelosi a thing once again.
Just One More Canuck
Why is Richie Rich spewing bullshit on CNN right now?
He is the classic definition of backpfeifengesicht
Kylroy
@Major Major Major Major: Plus, four more years of the GOP base dying off and more d-friendly voters aging up.
PhoenixRising
TX by 7 makes a difference if more districts send Dems to DC from the painfully gerrymandered areas of Dallas & Houston that are fragile (R +2-4). This could be the wave.
boatboy_srq
This is very easily explained. Blue states value competency in elected officials, and Red states just don’t like Blah people.
Amir Khalid
@Frankensteinbeck:
Die Trumpenkinder may have simply given up trying to control Daddy’s Twitter outbursts. The polling says the election is well beyond reach by now, so what is there to gain by reining him in?
Villago Delenda Est
@Frankensteinbeck: “Donny is losing to a GIRL!”
Villago Delenda Est
@Amir Khalid:
That thudding sound you hear? Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan doing the /headdesk thing.
SFAW
@Villago Delenda Est:
Oh, pleasepleaseplease let it be so.
Llelldorin
@gene108: If I remember from the last few times, gerrymandering tends to become less effective the further from the last census you get, because populations shift around, so the assumptions built into the previous districting start to fail. Census years are critical, because (a) it’s the least effective the previous gerrymander will ever be, and (b) it sets up a few years of _extremely_ effective redistricting post-census.
I could have that wrong though… I’m sure some of the real elections experts in here will chime in.
Brachiator
Republican control of governorships and state legislatures, and their control of the House will ensure the continuation of political dysfunction for years to come, unless the GOP begins to welcome moderates again.
gvg
@gene108: Because if there are fewer people that are reliable republican voters, then the partisan redistricting people have less room to work with. Even doing all their tricks, they will come up with fewer districts.
They didn’t give themselves large margins either. If we have a wave and take some of the safe districts, the GOP is likely to be scared and build their districts with a bigger margin, which will also cut down on the total.
Clever districting has its limits and only overcomes demographics for a while, so they are going to be fewer even so.
Partly we are also keeping up hope and have a goal. Its not certain or anything, but it does help. It will also help if we figure out how we want to set it up so future shenanigans are less likely to succeed no matter which party is up and then keep up the demands that “our” side do right when they do get the majority.
Villago Delenda Est
@Betty Cracker: Someone else mentioned before he said “nasty woman”, he seemed to check himself from saying anything, but then went ahead and said it anyway.
Before this election is over, he’s going to go into C-word or N-word territory. He’s not going to be able to stop himself. He’s got to let it out.
SFAW
@Just One More Canuck:
Who?
boatboy_srq
@Betty Cracker:
1) tRump just hates to lose. Because he’s the winningest winner ever to win at winning. Losing to a woman just makes it worse.
2) This is the same face that would be across the table from Russia, or China, or Turkey, or North Korea. Just as out of control, just as readable, just as undiplomatic. Which is worse: that he’s a stone’s throw from the WH, or that 40+% of the US electorate thinks that’s acceptable/desirable?
Frankensteinbeck
@Villago Delenda Est:
The audience laughed at him. He will be hearing that, side by side in his dreams with the laughter from the first debate, for the rest of his life.
Gin & Tonic
@raven: Precisely what I was thinking of.
burnspbesq
@Amir Khalid:
If you’re a child of a crazy rich parent like Trump, fear of being written out of the will is never far from front-of-mind. None of them except Ivanka (maybe, depending on what her pre-nup looks like) is in a position to stand up to him.
amk
@gene108: may be the dems won’t be as stupid as they were in 2010? who knows?
Just One More Canuck
@SFAW: Harlan Hill
burnspbesq
It’s possible that after the American People and Secretary Clinton, the biggest winner in last night’s debate was Judge Garland. You have to believe that McConnell and Grassley got hit in the face with a true-by-four last night, have no more illusions about the outcome of the Presidential race, and are seriously contemplating losing their control of the Senate. If so, then Garland is looking better by the second, and they may be thinking about bringing the Senate back into session for a day before the election. Sham, pro forma Judiciary Committee hearing from 10 until noon, vote at 1:30, and get back out of town on the 5:30 flights.
Calouste
@burnspbesq: You’re saying that the Groping Orange Pedophile has already recovered that $915 million and there is actually anything to inherit? And that it’s not just one big Ponzi scheme?
hovercraft
@Betty Cracker:
That is one pissed off asshole. If they were alone, I’d fear for her safety. Temperament , she hung her campaign on his temperament, and it’s paid off bigly. Says something for large campaigns that have a lot of resources, and use it for things like research and preparation. Who knew?
Amir Khalid
@Villago Delenda Est:
Mitch and Paul were kidding themselves if they ever thought die Trumpenkinder had any loyalty to the Republican party that Mitch and Paul could appeal to.
Iowa Old Lady
@gvg: Also you can’t gerrymander women. If the GOP keep up its current course of action, that will hurt.
hovercraft
@Major Major Major Major:
Seriously, is that what it is? I know nothing about drugs, what would he take/they give hin to keep him calm and rational at the beginning of the debates?
Wapiti
@Frankensteinbeck: Fred Trump had Alzheimer’s before he passed, so Donald might not hear the laughter of the audience in his later years.
burnspbesq
@Calouste:
Even if all he owns outright is Trump Tower and a handful of golf resorts, and even if the whole shebang is heavily leveraged, there is likely still several million dollars of free cash flow. I wouldn’t be in a hurry to piss away a 20 percent share of that (net of a couple of million in attorneys’ fees; the battle with the IRS over the value of those properties is likely to be long and brutal).
liberal
@Doug!: Yeah, I don’t buy the race thing. People did look for a race effect in 2008. They found it, but it was far smaller than what’s being talked about here.
And it’s not exactly like having Trump as an opponent isn’t a confounding factor.
Ceci n'est pas mon nym
@boatboy_srq:
We recognize this as a clear and dangerous sign of weakness, that other countries could exploit as mercilessly and effectively as Hillary just did in debates + tweets.
His supporters think that thin skin and ready rage is some sort of sign of strength and toughness.
Now I find myself wondering how many people in business negotiations have gotten the advantage over Donnie by poking the same sore spots.
gene108
@boatboy_srq:
I live in NJ. A state generally run by Democrats, with occasional Republican governor.
There are plenty of crooked, incompetent Democrats in office here, who survive by handing out patronage.
It’s just that Democrats have a saving grace, their Party platform is about more than trying to cut taxes and funnel money to the rich, so even the sleaziest Dems end up doing some good once in awhile.
Major Major Major Major
@hovercraft: oh, I have no idea. Just the joke that gets thrown around. He probably is just the kind of person who can only pay attention for 20 minutes and is easy to bait.
trollhattan
@gene108:
Dems need to focus on not backsliding in 2018.
cokane
Interesting development, but likely due as much to Trump’s mediocrity as much as Democrats’ efforts. While I think some long term trends are in there, I don’t think youll see this positive move continue for 2020, should a better candidate win their nomination.
Frankensteinbeck
@burnspbesq:
I doubt they see a difference between Garland and anyone Clinton would nominate. That Obama thinks Garland is sufficiently liberal is enough to move him into ‘blood enemy’ status. There is even some justification to it. A moderate liberal faithful-to-the-law judge will still eviscerate a conservative agenda. They haven’t exactly been happy with Obama’s other moderate picks.
Randy P
This is a test of my old nym which FYWP has been throwing in the trash. Checking to see if Alain’s fix works for me.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@Brachiator:
I think that’s more accurate.
bluehill
@hovercraft: Yeah, it’s an expression goes beyond simply being upset. It’s a malicious look and then he quickly masks it. Chilling.
Kylroy
@burnspbesq: If Garland doesn’t get confirmed, once Clinton is President I absolutely see her sending RBG 2.0 to a Democratic senate.
Ceci n'est pas mon nym
@Randy P: Whoa…. it worked! But now I’m kind of fond of the new one. I don’t think of nyms easily.
liberal
@burnspbesq: Is it really so clear?
If they keep the Senate, they win and that seat is held open, as are any seats that open up in the future. Sam Wang still gives them a 29% chance of keeping the Senate.
If they lose the Senate, OK, Clinton might pick someone other than Garland. But (a) she might keep going with Garland, (b) the person she picks might not be significantly further to the left of Garland, (c) even if the person is significantly to the left of Garland, does it really shift the court that much (when compared to Garland)?
And one big advantage of Garland (for the Republicans) is that he’s not young. He’s 63 yo.
If I were them, I’d just keep sitting on the appointment. The downside is overrated.
satby
Just booked my trip to India for my friend’s wedding, and after last night am feeling a bit more confident that I’m coming back to President-elect Clinton. Even in red Indiana, people admitting they would vote for Drumpenfueher are scarce. Most of the sad conservatives just hammer on about the “horrible choices” on offer, and I get the feeling lots are disgusted enough to skip voting.
liberal
@Kylroy: Let’s hope she doesn’t pick someone who is (a) as old as Ginsburg when she took office (60 yo), (b) as absurdly selfish and narcissistic as she is.
Frankensteinbeck
@liberal:
On the other hand, they looked for a race effect in Trump’s support, and it was an overwhelming statistical factor.
@Wapiti:
It may also mean he can’t hear anything ELSE. We won’t find out, since he’ll become a nonentity with terrifying swiftness after he loses.
Matt McIrvin
For a while the pattern was that Clinton was doing worse than usual in blue states and Trump was doing worse than usual in red states. But the whole map has shifted toward Clinton.
I think there are a few things going on at the same time:
1. The continuing demographic shift toward the Obama coalition (all racial minorities + college-educated whites) in the coastal South.
2. Minorities hate Trump even more than they do typical Republicans.
3. White religious conservatives may vote for Trump, but for the most part, they don’t really like him–particularly the women. Mental gymnastics are necessary. That creates some resistance and an opening for third-party guys like Johnson or McMullin, especially among Mormons (who are far more serious about squeaky-clean personal behavior than Protestant evangelicals are). But it might reverse if the Republicans run a more conventional candidate next time.
liberal
@Frankensteinbeck: Yes and no.
Yes, there’s a race effect, but it’s against the Democratic Party as a whole—because we are OK with welfare going to “those people,” not just poor white people and wealthy people and corporations.
We’re talking about a race effect directed against Obama himself.
I mean, people go on and on about the Republicans being deranged by Obama because he’s black, but FFS, they impeached Clinton, remember?
They. Categorically. Reject. The. Legitimacy. Of. Any. Democratic. President. Ultimately it’s partly (not entirely) rooted in race(*), but it’s not quite as simple as whether the Democratic office holder is him/herself black.
———
(*) It’s also rooted in the notion that the truly filthy, stinking rich should pay no taxes whatsoever.
liberal
@Frankensteinbeck: Yeah. That’s one of points I made in my comment.
liberal
@gene108: I think Krugman put it best. Democrats, like all politicians everywhere, might engage in retail corruption. The Republicans engage in wholesale corruption by privatizing entire functions of government and handing the resulting goodies to their friends.
boatboy_srq
@gene108: the GOTea platform does seem to have become “burn it all down, salt the earth with Liebrul Soshulist tears, water it wth the blood of tyrants, and start all over.”
liberal
@Betty Cracker: When I was trying to come up with things to top the crazy-ass $hit he’s already pulled, the main one I came up with was him physically assaulting her during the debate.
liberal
@boatboy_srq: I don’t think that’s it. I think they’ve really imbibed the worship of Teh Market. Teh Market will solve any problem known to man. We don’t need government.
liberal
@gene108: Agreed.
hovercraft
@Frankensteinbeck:
I think the 2011 WHCD when Obama and Seth Meyers roasted him will be first, then the debates.
gene108
@liberal:
I agree with Krugman’s sentiment. I sort of reached that hypothesis, though with different wording.
Individual Democrats maybe corrupt, but the Party, as a whole, stands for something.
The entire Republican philosophy is corrupt and stands for nothing but IGMFY.
boatboy_srq
@liberal: That works for the Beltway and the VSPs. If they were running the party we’d have Candidate HEB?, or Rubio, or Kasich. Instead, we have tRump.
hovercraft
@Kylroy:
Rub their faces in it, he’s a young liberal and Chinese American.
amygdala
NFLTG POTUS, trolling DJT on Twitter. Nice.
Citizen Alan
@gene108:
My personal hope is that a 6-3 liberal SCOTUS will declare that gerrymandering (even if for a facially non-discriminatory purpose like protecting incumbency) is per se unconstitutional because it inevitably disenfranchises one protected class or another. That would force every state to turn apportionment over to some non-partisan body which would draw fair districts.
MCA1
@Frankensteinbeck: I agree with your conclusion, but Republican pundits, at least, have been very vocal about their belief that Hillary will nominate someone more liberal than Garland. That probably means the Republican politicians think so, too. It’s felt like their conventional wisdom all along, but they were just willing to take the gamble on Trump being able to win the White House. When it comes to basic math, you’re right that there’s no difference because whoever the next Justice is they’ll be replacing Scalia. But I do think they perceive a difference between Garland and Srinivasan or whoever – it’s just not important enough to change the political gamble calculus for them.
MCA1
@gene108: …and Cleek’s Law.
Shell
Guess Trump figures he’s got nothing left to lose. He’s now claiming that Hillary got the debate questions ahead of time.
Walker
Clinton is not going to get any Supreme Court justice if they do not eliminate the fillibuster. And I am not convinced Schumer (D. Israel) is going to do that.
liberal
@boatboy_srq: yeah. Though trying to view their thought process through a rational lens is difficult. They’re fucking stupid, above all else.
liberal
@Walker: huh? They just have to eliminate it on judicial appointments.
IMHO they should indeed chuck the whole damn thing. And they’ve been real wimps about battling the Rs on this stuff. But I can’t see them letting the Rs hold that USSC seat open in the next term by filibuster. It’s just too much.
Frankensteinbeck
@hovercraft:
Understandable, but I think the first debate was worse for him. The Dinner may be televised, but it does not compare in a ‘the nation is watching’ feeling to a presidential debate. This was an actual contest, and he lost, lost so bad she ran rings around him and reduced him to a spluttering wreck. His attempts to fight back failed. He wasn’t just made fun of, but beaten and humiliated in what should have been his moment of triumph in front of the nation. Plus, he lost to a woman, and I think he has a deeper contempt for women than blacks. As bad as the Dinner was, as much as he’s seethed over it since, I think the 1st debate replaced it as the worst night of his life.
different-church-lady
Nice how you slipped in the Elvis Costello title there.
WaterGirl
@Betty Cracker: Holy shit. He looks like he can barely control himself. That is very scary.
And all she did is walk in front of him, right? It’s almost as though he can’t stand her being in his physical proximity. Yikes.
Emerald
@Amir Khalid:
“Die Trumpenkinder” would be plural. The correct German would be “das Trumpenkind.”
OK OK, call me a German grammar Nazi. OK.
WaterGirl
@Frankensteinbeck: I figured trump would think that when they laughed (when he said he respects women) that they laughed because they were in on the joke with him. I could be wrong, however.
Fair Economist
@PhoenixRising:
Well, it would if they existed, but they don’t. TX has only one district between D+6 and R+10, and that’s TX-23, a rural district in West Texas.
WaterGirl
@hovercraft: @Major Major Major Major: Except in debate #2, I thought he was hopped up on something for the first 20 minutes, and then he got calmer after that. (Calmer on the trump scale, at least.)
So my theory for debate #2 was that he didn’t calm down until 20 minutes in. Last night, he was only calm for the first 20 minutes. But I definitely agree on the 20 minute timeframe. And that it’s drugs of some kind.
Brachiator
@burnspbesq:
The GOP might still be entertaining a fantasy of a Trump victory. After the election, the Senate will have until their December 16 holiday break to confirm Garland.
AnotherBruce
@Shell: This is really transparent and childish, even for Trump. He really likes to stink things up with the thoughts he pulls out of his ass.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@burnspbesq:
Not a chance in Hell. McConnell will not give Obama the victory, even if the alternative is worse.
You’re assuming rational decision-making processes are still in play – I think that’s a bad assumption. All they have left is spite.
bemused
@liberal:
I agree. It’s short and easy to digest. It could fit on a bumper sticker. Al Franken humorously pointed out that most Dem policies too hard to condense enough to fit on a bumper sticker. Republicans have the advantage that way. They stick to Keep It Simple for the Stupid.
Villago Delenda Est
@Grumpy Code Monkey: Spite and undisguised racism.
Mai.naem.mobile
@Betty Cracker: I think the secret service is going to stick around longer with Trump after he hopefully loses,than they did with Romney because of their concern for what he would possibly do to Clinton.
Keith G
@Villago Delenda Est:
I know there are a lot of reasons why this would not happen, and some of them are even reasonable, but I would die a happy man if I could see John Lewis serve as Speaker of the House.
nonynony
@burnspbesq:
What incentive is there for the Republicans in the Senate to confirm Garland?
Suppose Clinton wins and Republicans retain the Senate. They can insist on sitting with 8 justices from now until they get a Republican president and will pay no consequences for it. Nobody who would vote Republican cares – in fact, folks who vote Republican would be angry that they were putting a Clinton appointee on the bench without fighting it with every ounce of energy they have.
Suppose Clinton wins and Republicans lose the Senate. Sure to you and I it looks like they made a bad choice because Clinton will get Garland anyway or maybe someone younger and/or lefter. But that isn’t how their primary voters will feel – their primary voters will be angry at the RINO sellouts who cost them Congress and didn’t vote for Trump. Senators can fight the good fight and filibuster and when the Dems break that filibuster scream about how horrible the Dems are and it’s all their fault and give us money to elect Republicans to the Senate.
Suppose Trump wins in a longshot. McConnell will be able to get whoever he wants appointed by “cutting a deal” with Trump and stroking his ego.
There is literally no incentive for Republicans to vote for Garland now or even in the lame duck session. If Republicans still believed in governance then there’s a case to be made that they should, but they don’t. It’s all politics all the time now – a trend started by Gingrich and that has gotten worse each cycle. The politics are bad for them to confirm ANYONE, even if the governance and policy arguments are strong for them to confirm Garland.
LadyNorth
@SFAW: Race could be a factor. But Trump is a weaker candidate than Romney. By far.
Vhh
In other words, the South and the Western states settled by ex Confederates remain burbling cesspools of racism 150 years after the emancipation black slaves. Who knew?
Matt McIrvin
Right-wing polling outfits are trolling hard: Rasmussen’s latest has Trump gaining at +3, and IBD/TIPP has a four-way with Trump +1 (both pre-debate). If you turn down the smoothing on HuffPo’s graph, just those two polls make it look like Clinton’s support is cratering.
Paul in KY
@hovercraft: Maybe 4 valium & the adrenalin response from being whupped like a dog makes them wear off quicker?
Paul in KY
@Kylroy: I wouldn’t mind seeing Thurgood Marshall 2.0
Paul in KY
@Citizen Alan: They will fight that to the bitter end, as fairly drawn districts would be the end of them (IMO).
rikyrah
That Whiteness thing.
rikyrah
I believe Hillary will win Georgia, and it’s possible she can win Mississippi.
No, I ‘m not crazy.
Jay B.
@gene108:
Most states elect governors on non-presidential years. I don’t know about assemblies or senates. The next four years will give the Democrats the opportunities to make inroads.
Paul in KY
@rikyrah: There’s no fuckin way she wins Mississippi. If that happens, wow…I don’t know what I’d do. Probably scream at front door & bang pot & yell “Mississippi Muthafuckas!!!!!!” until the cops came by to tell me to shut up.
catclub
@Paul in KY: Black turnout by percentage was higher than white in Miss in 2012. It could happen again.
I think it happened in Georgia. Motivated voters.
11% and 16%. Obama got 11% of white voters in MS. If he had gotten 16%, he would have taken the state.
WaterGirl
@Paul in KY: If that happens, let us know so we can set up the fund for your bail money.
rikyrah
@Paul in KY:
Demographics.
40% of the voters in Mississippi are Black.
All Hillary needs is 16% of the White vote.
That’s it.
16%.
President Obama received 10%.
They defeated a Personhood Amendment because of a whole lot of White women.
You mean to tell me that there aren’t enough White women who voted against the Personhood Amendment that couldn’t vote for Hillary?
16% is her magic White people vote.
That’s all she needs.
NoraLenderbee
@rikyrah: @Paul in KY:
It would be so freakin awesome if black people start taking back the slave states.
Paul in KY
@rikyrah: You got me believin! Come on Mississippi!!!!
Matt McIrvin
@NoraLenderbee: Already started. Virginia wouldn’t be voting blue without them.
TG Chicago
I’m not sure this is true, or at least meaningful. Looking at the 2012 Presidential results, I see the states going 26-24 for Democrats. Given the popular vote total was 51.1% to 47.2%, that’s less than a point of disproportionate representation.