Category Archives: U.S. politics

The bipartisan support of democratic norms is eroding

Political scientist Seth Masket wrote the following this week:
“Norms are what really keep a democratic system running. Good constitutional design is obviously important, but it doesn’t ensure a thriving or stable liberal democracy. The American presidential system has been replicated in many other nations, particularly in Latin America, with far less successful results, in large part due to different norms about what is and isn’t acceptable.”
This is different than supporting or opposing Obamacare or having different opinions about ideal levels of taxation. It’s about supporting and defending the political framework that enables those discussions to take place while avoiding civil conflict and political instability.
Traditionally, both Democrats and Republicans have agreed (despite their other differences) that this framework is good and worth defending, but this bipartisan agreement is starting to disappear.
As citizens of a democratic political system (regardless of whether you’re a liberal or conservative or anything else) it’s up to us to fix it. If we’re not up to the task, then we will get the government that we deserve.
I recommend reading his blog post in its entirety here.

Defending American democracy is not a partisan opinion

I take very seriously my professional obligation to not publicly engage in partisan debates just for the sake of partisanship. I also take seriously the importance of not being an alarmist.

But I also take seriously my responsibilities as a citizen of a liberal democratic society, which places upon me an obligation of speaking out when that system of government is under active threat. Now is one of those times.

Please read my recent Huffington Post piece entitled “Not kidding around: Donald Trump is actively threatening American democracy.

Then take action!

 

2016 Colonel’s Canvass Poll: polling results vs. voting results

The 2016 Colonel’s Canvass Poll, conducted October 18-23, showed Hillary Clinton with the support of 44.9% of likely voters and Donald Trump with 40% of likely voters, with a 4.1% margin of error.

That means that there was a 95% chance that Hillary Clinton’s level of support was anywhere from 40.8% and 49% and Donald Trump’s level of support was anywhere from 35.9% to 44.1%.

As of 12/9/2016, Hillary Clinton had won the popular vote with 48.04% compared to Donald Trump’s 46.08%. Our polling estimate for Clinton support was therefore off by 3.14% and our estimate for Trump was off by 6.08%.

It is important to note, though, that our poll was conducted three weeks before the election. It also showed Johnson with 6% support, “someone else” with 2.7%, and “don’t know” with 5.4%. As usually happens before elections, support for the third-party options decreased and support for the two-party candidates increased.

In sum, there is little evidence that our poll was “way off” or incorrect. Our poll correctly predicted Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote. Like most other national polls, we slightly over-estimated Clinton’s level of support and moderately under-estimated Trump’s level of support. In the end, however, our poll showed Clinton winning by 5% whereas she is currently winning the popular vote by about 2% in the final tabulation. A 3% difference is within the traditionally-accepted margins of standard polling error.

Why President-Elect Trump’s bluster about flag burning is worth worrying about

 

Is this purely bluster? Perhaps.

But so far he’s tried to do the things he promised to do during the campaign, even the bluster. For example, he followed through on the racism bluster by nominating a white nationalist (Steve Bannon) as Chief Strategist. He has followed through on the Islamophobia bluster by nominating someone who believes Islam to be a “cancer” (Michael Flynn) as National Security Adviser.

Therefore, it’s not entirely outside the realm of possibility that he will try to take steps to weaken other First Amendment freedoms once in office. These might possibly eventually include freedom of assembly and freedom of religion.

It is not a partisan opinion to state that threatening jail time or the revocation of citizenship for those who exercise their First Amendment civil liberties is clearly outside the traditional norms and boundaries of liberal democracy (as offensive as flag burning or other forms of expression might be to us).

As someone who believes that liberal democracy is a preferably form of government to autocracy or authoritarianism, I see rhetoric like this to be potentially harmful to liberal democracy whether it comes from Republicans or Democrats or anyone else. Even though it may just be bluster, the evidence so far is that our President-Elect believes the things he blusters about and will try to implement them.

Therefore, it is worth taking the President-Elect at his word and worrying when he threatens to weaken or undermine the core tenets of liberal democracy, including First Amendment freedoms.

Q&A with the Kentucky Democratic Primary

Answers to commonly-asked questions about the May 17 Kentucky Democratic presidential primary:

Q. What was voter turnout?

A. Official election returns are currently showing a turnout of 20.65% of registered voters (which is different than eligible voters, mind you). This is about the same rate of turnout in previous Kentucky primaries over the last several years and just about what the Secretary of State’s office was predicting in the days leading up to the primary.

Q. Was voter turnout different between Republicans and Democrats?

A. Yes. Republicans had a non-competitive Senate primary (Rand Paul and two challengers) while Democrats had the presidential primary and also a Senate primary (in addition to various local and state-level primaries).

The election returns indicate that 199,519 registered Republicans voted in the Senate primary, which is 9.2% of the 1,295,392 registered Republicans in Kentucky, as per the Sec. of State’s website. On the Democratic side, 454,573 registered Democrats voted in the presidential primary which is 26.9% of the state’s 1,688,472 registered Democrats. This is a little better than the 18% or so of Republicans who turned out in the Kentucky GOP caucus back in March.

This is not terribly surprising given that Republican primary was non-competitive and the Democratic presidential primary had received a great deal of attention in the last few weeks, including multiple visits by both Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders.

Q. Who won the Democratic presidential primary?

A. Secretary Clinton, by a margin of less than 1%: 46.76% for Clinton vs. 46.33% for Sanders.

Q. How did the race go in Boyle County?

A. Hillary Clinton won 50% to Bernie Sanders 44%.

Q. How does this translate into delegates?

A. More or less a straight tie: most media outlets are estimating that both candidates will receive 27 pledged delegates to the DNC convention. Kentucky Democrats also have 5 super-delegates, at least 2 of which have already announced support for Secretary Clinton.

Q. How does Kentucky’s primary affect the Democratic presidential race?

A. Mathematically speaking, it is nearly impossible for Bernie Sanders to win enough pledged delegates (not counting super-delegates) to win the Democratic nomination at this point. To make any dent in Hillary Clinton’s lead would have required a massive landslide win in Kentucky which did not happen. That being said, by continuing to keep the delegate count close, the Sanders campaign is motivating the Clinton campaign to continue to be responsive to Sanders voters and their interests and ensures that the Sanders coalition will have an important influence on the Democratic platform going forward and possibly even an influence on who Hillary Clinton chooses as a vice presidential candidate.

Q. What explains the election results?

A. Hillary Clinton won by racking up large margins in Louisville and Lexington. Bernie Sanders kept it close by dominating in coal country in eastern Kentucky and also in far western Kentucky. It was pretty evenly split throughout the rest of the state.

Academics and data journalists have identified a few basic factors that have done a pretty good job explaining the Democratic primary election results so far:

  1. Closed vs. open primaries: Clinton does better in closed primaries and Sanders does better in open primaries.
  2. Primaries vs. caucuses: Clinton does better in primaries and Sanders does better in caucuses.
  3. Demographics: Clinton does better with minorities while Sanders does better with whites.
  4. Geography: Clinton does better in the south while Sanders does better in the north.

Based on those factors, statistician Nate Silver predicted Hillary Clinton winning by 2%. Given that this estimate was off by only about 1.5% it suggests that she won because: 1) Kentucky has a closed primary (not an open primary or a caucus), 2) she racked up bigger margins in urban areas (Louisville, Lexington) with larger minority populations, and 3) Kentucky is south-ish where Clinton has done better.

One interesting pattern is that Bernie Sanders did very well in eastern Kentucky which is dominated by the coal economy and Appalachian culture. Democrats in this part of the state are very likely not “social democrats” as Bernie Sanders identifies as. Thus, it is likely that they were not voting for Bernie Sanders out of an affinity for his policy views. Rather, they likely voted for Bernie Sanders as an anti-Clinton “protest vote” as they perceive Hillary Clinton very unfriendly to coal interests and disapprove of the direction that the Democratic establishment has gone in recent years, similar to what happened in West Virginia.

Q. Where can I find nifty election statistics and maps?

A. Here are a few:

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/KY/61323/168222/Web01/en/summary.html

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/kentucky

 

 

 

 

Previewing the Kentucky Democratic primary

DOES KENTUCKY’S DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY MATTER?

At this point Hillary Clinton is a clear favorite to win the 2016 Democratic nomination, but that doesn’t mean that next week’s Kentucky Democratic primary election is unimportant. The question now is how many pledged delegates Bernie Sanders will accumulate before the summer convention. The more pledged delegates the more influence he will be able to exert on the party platform and potentially also having some input or influence on Hillary Clinton’s VP pick. If Bernie Sanders wins next Tuesday, he’ll be in a stronger position to influence the party platform and future direction of the Democratic party, even if he (likely) does not win the  nomination.

WHO IS LIKELY TO WIN?

Until a few weeks ago, I would have confidently said Hillary Clinton. She won the 2008 Kentucky Democratic primary by more than a 2-to-1 margin against Barack Obama (65% to 30%). Kentucky also voted for Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

Kentucky Democrats are generally not near as liberal as Democrats in other parts of the country. Given that Hillary Clinton is clearly the more ideologically moderate of the two, it would be entirely reasonable to assume that moderate/conservative Democratic primary voters would choose Clinton over Sanders (a self-described Democratic Socialist).

But then this week Bernie Sanders won neighboring West Virginia 51% to 36% and West Virginia is culturally and demographically similar to Kentucky in many ways (especially Eastern Kentucky). Jeff Stein argued that Sanders voters in West Virginia did not choose him because they agree with him ideologically, but instead because it was an “anyone but Clinton” protest vote against the policies of the Obama administration which they perceive as entirely antagonistic to the coal and energy industries that are the lifeblood of many West Virginia communities.

So next week’s primary will likely turn on whether Kentucky’s Democrats decide to vote based on ideological similarity or protesting the energy regulatory policies of the Obama administration. Clinton will win if the former, Sanders will win if the latter.

WHAT IS TURNOUT LIKELY TO BE?

A few months ago about 18% of the registered GOP electorate showed up to vote in the caucus where Donald Trump won, which was not all that different than the usual primary turnout rate in Kentucky of around 16-19%.

Given that the Democratic primary race is even less competitive than the Republican primary race was back in March, I would be surprised if turnout tops 20%.

How many #nevertrump folks will change their mind?

Here is one of my (many) questions this morning: how many of the #nevertrump folks will ultimately change their mind and get behind their party’s presumptive nominee?
 
The usual pattern over the last several decades is this: partisans pick favorites in the primary and are angry when their candidate loses and vow never to support the person who beat them for the party nomination. Then they have a few months to think about it and turn their focus on the other party’s candidate. And then the convention happens and its a week of positive coverage of their party’s candidate and most of them end up saying “well, I didn’t support him in in the primary… but whatever, maybe he’s not so bad and he’s certainly better than the other party’s candidate.” Then the general election happens and 90%+ of Republicans vote for the Republican candidate and 90%+ of Democrats vote for the Democratic candidate.
 
Ordinarily that would lead me to be confident that most of the #nevertrump people will grumble for a few months but by September be on board the Trump train.
 
But Mr. Trump is no ordinary candidate. So my question is to what extent that pattern will hold or will we see something very different happen this time around?
 
I suppose only time will tell…