‘Blogger’s Note: This is a delayed post so some of the information is incomplete. Florida’s 2 big races were hi-jacked, Scott bought the Florida Senate seat, but the Arizona pick-up by Sinema was sweet. Mr. Gillum of Fla. is an up and coming force.
The Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest is compiled by David Nir, Jeff Singer, Stephen Wolf, and Carolyn Fiddler, with additional contributions from David Jarman, Steve Singiser, Daniel Donner, James Lambert, David Beard, and Arjun Jaikumar.
• AZ-Sen, AZ-SoS: On Monday night, following a ballot drop that increased her margin to over 38,000 votes, the AP declared Rep. Kyrsten Sinema the winner of Arizona’s hard-fought Senate race, making her the first Democrat to win a Senate seat in the Grand Canyon State in 30 years. Though Sinema trailed Republican Rep. Martha McSally on election night, ballots counted after Election Day consistently favored her, allowing her to leg out to a margin of 49.7 to 48.0 at the time the race was called.
This seat became open when Republican Sen. Jeff Flake decided to retire after a single term, recognizing that he could no longer win a GOP primary after being on the receiving end of heaps of abuse from Donald Trump. What passes for the Republican establishment these days then rallied around McSally, who beat two ultra-extreme opponents, former state Sen. Kelli Ward and the disgraced ex-sheriff of Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, to capture the GOP nomination. Sinema, meanwhile, won the Democratic primary with little opposition, despite her transformation from a one-time Green Party member to a member of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.
Both parties spent heavily, and the race was a tossup the whole way through—a remarkable enough development on its own, given Democrats’ long drought in Arizona. (Until Monday, they hadn’t won a statewide race of any kind here in a decade.) But this very diverse state reacted poorly to Trump, holding him to a 48-45 win that was the poorest showing for a Republican presidential candidate since 1996.
That marked the latest step in a gradual transformation that saw Democrats put together their strongest election night in Arizona in a very long time. In addition to powering Sinema to a win, this latest ballot update also moved Democrat Katie Hobbs into a 5,667-vote lead over Republican Steve Gaynor in the race for secretary of state, and she’s likely to keep it. This post is doubly important because, in addition to serving as the state’s top election administrator, the secretary of state is also next in line for the governorship. (Arizona has no lieutenant governor.) Four of the state’s last nine governors have, in fact, been elevated from this position.
On top of that, shortly after their Sinema call, the AP announced Democrat Kathy Hoffman as the winner of the race for superintendent of public instruction, a position Democrats last held in the mid-1990s. Sandra Kennedy is also poised to win a seat on the corporation commission, which regulates utilities, making her the only Democrat on the five-member board.
On the legislative level, Democrats picked up four seats in the state House, slicing the Republican majority to a narrow 31-29 margin. And while Democrats did not make gains in the Senate (which Republicans held 17-13 heading into the election), one GOP-held seat remains uncalled, and there are still some 172,000 ballots left to count statewide. Both chambers will assuredly be top targets for Democrats in 2020.
• FL-Sen, FL-Gov: As expected, recounts in three super-tight Florida races—for senator, governor, and agriculture commissioner—were ordered on Saturday, since all three were separated by a margin of less than 0.5 percent. All 67 counties are busy conducting a machine recount of all ballots, meaning ballots are fed back through scanners, with a deadline of 3 PM ET on Thursday.
Prior to the recounts, the tallies in each race stood as follows:
After the machine recounts, if any races are within a margin of 0.25 percent, a second manual recount will take place of all undervotes and overvotes to determine voter intent. An undervote means a voter failed to vote in a particular race, while an overvote means a voter chose too many options in a given race—or at least, a machine thinks so. A human can be more discerning.
The massive number of votes and the short timeframe are putting a strain on some counties, some of which are now working 24 hours a day. Susan Bucher, the top elections official in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County, where over half a million ballots were cast, said on Sunday that it would be “impossible” to finish on time, though she later expressed confidence her county would meet the deadline.
And of course, the recounts have also led to a flurry of litigation—accompanied on the Republican side by incendiary rhetoric from Donald Trump on down designed to undermine democracy by attacking the very notion that all votes should be counted. One judge, who rejected a request by Scott to impound voting machines in Broward County, even warned the attorneys in his courtroom “to tamp down the rhetoric,” adding, “We have to be careful about what we say.”
Of course, the biggest question is whether any of these recounts could flip the outcome in any of these races. Marc Elias, a top Democratic election lawyer who is working for Nelson, sounds cautiously optimistic, saying he ultimately expects his client “to take a small lead.” In particular, Elias thinks that the well-documented undervote problem in Broward County, where some 25,000 voters apparently skipped the Senate race, was due to improper scanner calibration rather than poor ballot design—though the ballot does seem to have been poorly laid out. But Elias’ track record is good: He prophesied on Thursday that Kyrsten Sinema would win the Senate race in Arizona, a forecast that turned out to be quite keen.
In any event, we’re unlikely to have any greater clarity before Thursday, and since a second recount in at least two of these contests is likely, we probably won’t know how things turn out for some time—and that’s not even taking into account further lawsuits, which are inevitable
This whole video is worth watching, but at around 12 mins in:
“It’s time for this society to unite if only to help the men and women who fought to protect us.”
Not enough thank yous in the world for your service #VeteransDay
I know some of you will be turned off by the f-bomb in Beto’s speech, but I think it’s well-timed and heartfelt. I think if Cruz and Beto were duking it out on the national stage, things would’ve gone a lot differently. Here’s hoping we see more of Beto!
I remember love in the summer days of Wolf Trap verdant with Potomac heat and the Ragtime craze of those mid Seventies and love on a trip on a credit card in Cambridge and Stratford gardens boxwood, black-eyed Susans a few years after
and love in the mushroomy pine straw island in Lake Spednic off New Brunswick so the question is how will love look in the silver times, and where and your eyes will they reveal it?
Can this lovely world we think we have sustain the creeping of deserts, the slash-burning of rain forests confusing toucans and hyacinth macaws not to mention Us and the rising seas and boys with smoking guns feral
and on the loose carelessly treated and seeking some testosterone fueled revenge near Mogadishu, in Idaho, Damascus, Gaza, San Salvador so many places to kill so many reasons so what will bring it to a stop and
will life on Earth and wherever else survive the coming in 4 billion years collision of Andromeda and the Milky Way you have to think long term sometimes not every problem is a now problem so there may be some comfort in thinking
about disturbances you will not have to witness in every case though we seem to need to hold hands and hope for good outcomes hard as they may be to imagine now I’m thinking we could
use less bluster, less torture, less passivity and you my love and all the beloveds can probably agree on more convergence more serious searching for in-commonness under the brief green skies of setting suns.
fls 11/4/18 blogger and occasional poet
Some common sense food for thought here that coastal, urban headed characters like us ( about how Trump can hold onto even 41% of the American political support base (the worst track record since the 1920s and Gallup’s birth). Blogger, fls read on!
ps READ THIS. IT WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHY TRUMP CAN TAP INTO REAL PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY REAL AMERICANS WHOSE PROBLEMS WE MUST UNDERSTAND. THIS IS NOT ABOUT TRUMP-BASHING.
It pretty much comes down to identity politics. We don’t just vote for politicians who promise us stuff… sometimes we vote for them because of who they are and who they allow us to say we are. In the case of rural voters for Trump, there are large trends that are making rural life in America far less appealing for a lot of older white Americans.
Companies are fleeing, shops are closing, their kids are moving to places with more opportunity. Their values are increasingly shunned as immoral. They feel inferior intellectually and socially. Immigrants, who work harder for less, and don’t necessarily speak English are moving next door. Because of Netflix, movie theaters are closing, because of Amazon… the local shopping mall (that was barely hanging on by a string) is closing. The kids that remain have nothing to do and are getting hooked on opiods. In other words, it is a culture in decline.
Trump comes along and says he’s going to make America Great again for people like you, “Oh no, it’s not your fault… its the Mexicans’ fault.” “Yeah,” he says, “it’s okay to be a little racist. And I gonna yell and scream and get those companies to move back to Iowa (or whatever)…. and I’m going to put conservative supreme court justices on the court that will think the same things are gross that you think are gross.” In other words, Trump is affirming them. “I am going to stick it to those coastal elites who look down on you and your latent racism, your religion and questionable values.”
Largely Trump has held true to that promise. not because he has succeeded at anything. He hasn’t. But no one doubts that most decisions he makes are only designed to help his base or hurt their perceived enemies. He makes these Americans feel smart and put upon and like a cohesive group and that’s worth more to them than any actual policy that might stand a chance of making life better
Adult actress Tasha Reign is visiting college fraternities around the country to lecture fraternity brothers and pledges about affirmative consent. This is what she’s learned.
Brett Kavanaugh has ignited a rage in women—and in our country.
Thanks to the courage of women like Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who claims the Trump Supreme Court nominee attempted to sexually assault her at a house party when she was 15 years old, and Deborah Ramirez, who alleges that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a party at Yale, we are having a much-needed discussion about evidentiary “proof,” sexual assault, consent and the ideology behind “boys will be boys.” In many ways, Kavanaugh is a reflection of our male-entitlement culture—one that oozes toxic masculinity.
I began guest-lecturing at universities—starting at UCLA, my alma mater—about seven years ago. In the beginning it was nerve racking, and I wasn’t sure the juice was worth the squeeze. I always figured my speeches about the adult industry could be recorded and played in class, but apparently that doesn’t have the same effect on students. I was back on the hallowed grounds of Bruin territory, almost two years ago, when a student came up to me after class. He introduced himself as “Harrison,” and he was very amicable and confident. He looked me dead in the eye and said, “You mentioned that word ‘consent’ a lot. I am in AEPi here on campus, and I was wondering if you could come talk to the new pledges about that word, ‘consent.’ I think they could really benefit.”
At first listen I wasn’t eager to go to a fraternity house alone and talk to a bunch of young boys about consent. I was scared. I had visited my fair share of fraternity houses in college and wasn’t willing to return to that time in my life. I had also cast the same judgment that so many women do on fraternity houses. Stereotypes filled my mind and I was very apprehensive about getting involved. A few days went by and I began to brainstorm. I couldn’t get Harrison’s face out of my mind or the words that he had used. I realized quickly that instead of reading about all these fraternity horror stories I could be part of the solution.
Part of my apprehension stemmed from resentment I had toward society. Constantly being told by mainstream media outlets and religious extremists that my job as an adult performer somehow encouraged men to make bad choices like murder and gang rape had taken a heavy toll. Then it hit me: whether I like it or not, these men are learning about sex through my videos. My videos are made for media-literate viewers that already know about sex—entertainment for couples, for fun alone, for the man that can’t have sex with women, that is my target audience. However, that is just not the way it is. The rise of free tube sites has both changed the way we consume porn and the audience that consumes it. So I came to the conclusion that it was my civic duty to educate these AEPi members. What else did I have to do on a Wednesday night, anyway?
I wore a green romper from Nasty Gal and a pair of nude heels. I was nervous, not knowing exactly what I was going to say or even how I was going to present this “consent” talk. I rattled my mind for ideas, googled and read a series of sex education articles. After all, my degree was in women’s studies, not sex ed. However, almost a decade as a sex worker had taught me all I needed to know and then some. I had an idea: an anonymous bowl could be passed around. That way, the young pledges could submit their questions without the embarrassment of their brothers, and then I could answer them candidly.
As I pulled up to Frat Row, I had been thinking about how all my girlfriends told me to bring a bodyguard—advice that I’d brushed off. I was also concerned about how if something were to happen, would anyone even believe me? I didn’t know. I just had a gut feeling that AEPi would be warm and welcoming. Upon entering the historic building, I was cheerfully greeted by all the brothers that had already been initiated. I noticed that there was a young woman amongst the men, which made me feel at ease. She was there to help them talk to women; to coach the pledges, too. When I walked upstairs to find the pledges, they were all sat down in chairs in a circle. Each pledge wore white—except one little outlier who forgot. There was a candle lit, kind of like a séance, and I took a seat. I don’t think they’d seen my movies or even been told exactly what was happening. They were on their best behavior.
Most of the questions that these guys ask are both familiar and shocking. I am incredibly impressed by how many of them are well-versed in California’s affirmative consent law—the conscious agreement to engage in sexual activity throughout the entire encounter. That conscious agreement can be verbal or physical, although I warn them about the latter. In my opinion, using your words is the most effective strategy we have in the bedroom. I reiterate to them how imperative this is. I give anecdotal examples from my past that they can relate to (it’s possible that they have been on the other end of similar events, and this conversation makes it clearer). The next thing I emphasize is that they have such bright futures, and those futures depend on them upholding their reputations and responsibilities as role models; as the prestigious fraternity brothers that they are. They are in a very privileged position, so I like to remind them of that—and how it all can be thrown away. Just look at Brock Turner. He may not be serving any more time in prison but he is serving his own form of societal “time.” People will never forget.
Then, I lighten the mood and turn the conversation to more sex-based specifics. They have all this energy and emotion that no one has really allowed them to express—or so it seems. Women, in my experience, talk about details; we communicate in ways that men are ashamed of. It’s refreshing to answer their questions about how to perform oral sex on women and how to initiate foreplay without being creepy. They seem to want to learn. Maybe they act differently with a few beers in them, because they really “like beer,” so I make sure to let them know that consent means you or your partner can’t be blacked out, or even drunk. That proves to be the most challenging part of our conversation. There are unfortunately many queries like: “What if the girl makes it up—that I did something to her?” That is when I present them with their fear versus reality: Why on earth would a woman want to deal with the public humiliation that follows? What is her reward? I tell them that the chances of that are so incredibly rare that they needn’t worry.
Why am I doing this? Consent is the most important and serious issue that fraternities face, at parties and behind closed doors. Speaking to these young men on this candid level may help prevent them from making poor choices. I tell them to think of me and this conversation when they’re in positions they see as “gray.” As a feminist, I constantly remind myself that men are a product of their environment and women must help shape that environment. We raise men, mold men, and are a part of Greek life. That is why I was there that night, and that is why I will continue on with this advocacy project that’s still in the early stages of development.
Because we are all in this together.
WASHINGTON — House Democrats will open an investigation into accusations of sexual misconduct and perjury against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh if they win control of the House in November, Representative Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat in line to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on Friday.
Speaking on the eve of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote this weekend, Mr. Nadler said that there was evidence that Senate Republicans and the F.B.I. had overseen a “whitewash” investigation of the allegations and that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was at stake. He sidestepped the issue of impeachment.
“It is not something we are eager to do,” Mr. Nadler said in an interview. “But the Senate having failed to do its proper constitutionally mandated job of advise and consent, we are going to have to do something to provide a check and balance, to protect the rule of law and to protect the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions.”
Mr. Nadler’s comments resembled those of Senate Democrats who pushed aggressively for an F.B.I. investigation into allegations by three women — Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick — that Judge Kavanaugh had engaged in sexual assault or misconduct. Democrats said the resulting investigation fell far short of legitimacy. And they have questioned whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful in his testimony about a number of issues, including his drinking habits, before the Judiciary Committee.
But unlike Democrats in the upper chamber, who are likely to remain in the minority after November’s elections, Mr. Nadler could soon have subpoena power and a chairman’s gavel, backed by a Democratic majority in the House.
He said that if Democrats took power, he would expect the committee to immediately subpoena records from the White House and the F.B.I., which conducted an abbreviated supplemental background investigation into two of the misconduct claims. That document request would include communications between officials at both entities. The committee would also seek to interview Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers and the dozens of potential witnesses they identified in recent days, most of whom were not contacted by the F.B.I. He said he would also call the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, to testify.
Mr. Nadler said it would probably be difficult to interview Judge Kavanaugh if he was sitting on the Supreme Court.
Dr. Blasey, a research psychologist in Northern California, publicly accused Judge Kavanaugh of trying to rape her when they were teenagers. Ms. Ramirez has said Judge Kavanaugh positioned his genitals in her face at a college party. The F.B.I. spoke to roughly 10 witnesses about the cases, but lawyers for both women said the F.B.I. failed to follow obvious leads.
Mr. Nadler’s comments are likely to be seized on by Republicans, who have accused Democrats of waging a campaign to discredit Judge Kavanaugh at all costs. They argued on Friday that Democrats would never be satisfied with any investigation, and they say that it is the Democrats who are trying to undercut the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Senators are expected to hold a final vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination Saturday afternoon, despite entrenched Democratic opposition. Judge Kavanaugh appeared to have the support of every Republican but one, meaning that his confirmation was all but assured.
Mr. Nadler said he was not yet thinking about the possibility of impeaching a Justice Kavanaugh, although the House Judiciary Committee is the congressional body that would initiate such proceedings.
Only one Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase, has been impeached. The House voted to impeach him in 1804 on counts that he had let his political bias sway his rulings, but he was acquitted of all counts by the Senate.
In the case of Judge Kavanaugh, even if the House did proceed to impeach him, it would take the consent of two-thirds of the Senate to remove him.
Mr. Nadler said he did not know what impact the specter of an investigation would have on November’s election, but he said he felt an obligation to proceed if Democrats take control of the House. He said such an investigation would be part of broader Democratic concerns about attacks on the judicial system and the rule of law by the Trump administration.
“We have to assure the American people either that it was a fair process and that the new justice did not commit perjury, did not do these terrible things, or reveal that we just don’t know because the investigation was a whitewash,” Mr. Nadler said.
Article by Guest Editor Alexandra Shiels“Her policies are so far from the mainstream, her election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems.”
“Meteors fizz out.”
“If we as a Democratic Party are going to move from a minority at every level that is dedicated to resistance, to a majority that is capable of governing, we have got to move from grievance to optimism…and we’ve got to abandon a politics of anxiety that is characterized by wild-eyed proposals and instead deliver ideas and practical solutions.”
These cutting remarks aimed at Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (quoted from Joe Liberman, Alcee Hastings, and Chris Coons, respectively) aren’t being slung from Republicans, but from her fellow Democrats.
Ocasio-Cortez historic win, combined with her youth and outspokenness should galvanize the Democratic party or at the very least, not be met with this kind of insider sniping. Ocasio’s bio is the stuff of American dreams. She was born in the Bronx and still lives there in a modest one-bedroom. She comes from a Puerto Rican family who sacrificed everything for their daughter’s education.
And she produced a soulful, viral campaign video which led to her Democratic primary win in New York’s 14th congressional district in June 2018. This win showed us that voters (not just liberal ones) are ready for politicians who don’t just speak in stale talking points who never had to work a job in retail or the service industry (like Ocasio-Cortez). Her working-class background combined with her fear in calling out corporatism is what we need if we want our party to represent (and perceived as) champions of the working class again.
Her platform is in-line with what many of us believed in: single-payer health care, equal rights for women, POC, gay, and trans people, justice system, immigration, and campaign finance reform. She’s even pushing for a New Green Deal to combat climate change.
Ocasio-Ortiz has electrified the Democratic party. Like her or not, she’s pushing out ideas and a platform that mainstream Democrats are too afraid or unwilling to vocal about. By pushing our party out of its complacency, she’s doing her job. If we consider ourselves the party of progress, we must be less resistant to those who challenge us to change.
The most common one cited (because of its longevity and consistency) is:
But when you take those self-described Independents’ partisan preferences into account, you don’t see a really major shift.
However, what Democrats and political forecasters are really looking at when saying that the Republican Party is “shrinking” are the demographics of the parties’ composition.
The Republican Party has a lock on rural, white-majority working class areas and older voters generally, but the long-term prospects of those electorates aren’t great. America is diversifying, becoming more educated, ever-moving into cities and suburbs, and the older, conservative generations will be replaced by liberal ones.
Now, prognosticators erred in thinking that these forces were going to come together in 2016 (eg, “(TIME, 2016)”); but unless there’s a significant demographic realignment in the parties – and in the Republican Party specifically – they’re not wrong. (They were also caught off-guard by ).
So even if you can kinda-sorta point to long-term measures of voter identification, it’s not really any particular poll that Democrats and others cite to say that the Republican Party is shrinking, but long-term demographic trends on top of their voting behavior.