Political Effects of Puerto Rican Statehood

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the results of Puerto Rico’s latest statehood referendum, and how residents of the island should have the final say on whether or not they become the fifty-first state. It was outside the scope of that post to discuss the effects that a bid for statehood would have on national politics, but I wanted to briefly address some of those political considerations here.

The greatest effect that Puerto Rican statehood would have on national politics would be in two areas—Congressional representation and the number of votes in the Electoral College. The population of the island, which currently stands at a little over 3.4 million according to the latest Census Bureau estimates, would presumably entitle the hypothetical state to either four or five U.S. representatives (when all states are ranked by population, Puerto Rico lands between Iowa, with four representatives, and Connecticut, with five). It would also receive two U.S. senators and, depending on the exact size of its congressional delegation, either six or seven electoral votes.

The most immediate result of statehood would be the reallocation of congressional seats. Whereas there is no statutory limit on the total membership of the U.S. Senate (or, for that matter, the number of votes in the Electoral College, which currently stands at 538), there is currently a cap on voting members of the House, set at 435. Unless Congress decided to raise that limit, or do away with it altogether (which wouldn’t be advisable, for practical reasons), several states would automatically lose a member of Congress to make way for Puerto Rico. As noted by the author of the Hill article linked above, the states most at risk, based on the 2010 redistricting process, would be California, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington.

Of course, which specific districts in those states would be consolidated, and how the maps would be redrawn, would be anyone’s guess until the process actually occurred. But it is a certainty that none of those states would take the prospect of losing congressional representation particularly well.

The partisan makeup of the new state’s congressional delegation—as well as the island’s partisan tendencies in presidential elections—would be the other major question with regard to the political effects of statehood. Here as well, those effects are difficult to predict. Puerto Ricans in the United States are known for their tendency to vote Democratic, but island politics are more often based around local parties such as the PNP and PPD. Many politicians also choose to affiliate themselves with the mainline Democratic and Republican parties, and based on this Democrats would start out with a significant advantage in island-wide elections, as well as in many of the new congressional districts (currently, the governor and all three nonvoting representatives in Congress are Democrats). But several Republican-affiliated candidates have also found success in recent years, at both the gubernatorial level and in races for the several at-large seats in the legislature, indicating that the island would couldn’t be counted on to vote as a heavily partisan block.

In short, none of the very real effects of admitting Puerto Rico as the fifty-first state can be known for sure, until that day comes (if it ever does). But two things are a certainty: the substantive impact on national politics will be both noticeable and permanent, and that impact will be sure to become a key factor in any debate over the formal admittance of Puerto Rico into the Union.

Policy Spotlight: Redistricting

The political gerrymandering of congressional districts has been in the news in a big way recently, as the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear arguments in a case concerning whether Wisconsin’s legislative map unconstitutionally deprives Democratic voters of equal representation, dividing them into various majority-Republican districts and weakening their clout in federal elections.

National Democrats are understandably hoping that a Supreme Court decision holding that Democratic voters have been disenfranchised will lead to Republican-drawn congressional maps across the country being overturned and redrawn. If that were to happen in time for the 2018 elections, Democrats could then become more competitive in congressional races across the country, increasing their chances of retaking a majority in the House without having to do the heavy lifting of campaigning for votes or convincing the voters to support their policy goals.

But some state Democrats in liberal strongholds are hoping for a different outcome. Nationwide, the vast majority of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, meaning that arguments against gerrymandering are more likely to affect maps favorable to the GOP. But in states such as Maryland, the reverse is true, with blatantly partisan maps serving to shut out Republican candidates for congressional seats. If you thought the Wisconsin district map was gerrymandered, take a look at the Maryland map adopted by state Democrats.

It is obvious, and should be expected, that partisan state legislatures will attempt to draw maps favorable to one political party over the other. Neither party is inherently more honest on the subject, which is why an alternative to the partisan maps must be found and adopted across the country. A few states use independent commissions to redraw congressional boundaries after each census, but since both parties are reluctant to give up one of the great benefits of controlling state legislatures, the practice is far from widespread. Another possibility would be an automatic referendum on proposed maps, which would in theory encourage legislatures to keep the influence of partisan politics to a minimum.

Whatever the answer, it is clear that something must change in how we draw congressional boundaries. What should be a nonpartisan and fairly technical task has become increasingly infused with the worst of party politics, and both sides bear some responsibility.

Maryland Democrats Admit To Disenfranchising Republicans

Out of Maryland comes a rare case of politicians being completely honest about their intentions—to get more members of their own party elected to office, at the expense of disenfranchising voters with whom they disagree.

Several leading Democrats in the state, including former governor Martin O’Malley and speaker of the House of Delegates Mike Busch, gave sworn depositions in relation to a lawsuit alleging that the state’s 2011 redistricting was designed specifically to maximize Democratic representation in the state’s congressional delegation, while minimizing the influence of Republican voters. Taking even a brief look at the current boundaries of Maryland’s congressional districts, it is impossible to see how anything else could be the case—and now, those in charge of the redistricting process have admitted that fact.

The current lawsuit focuses on the Sixth Congressional District in western Maryland, which was gerrymandered to elect a Democrat in what would normally be a deep red area of the state. But what goes largely unmentioned in the current media coverage is that the entirety of the Maryland congressional map was twisted in a blatant display of partisanship, to elect as many Democrats to Congress as possible.

Without a doubt, the region most harmed by the current map is Anne Arundel County, in the center of the state. The county, home to such major drivers of job creation as the state capital, BWI international airport, NSA headquarters, and Fort Meade army base, is split into no less than four separate Congressional districts, and not a single congressman calls Anne Arundel home.

The reason is simple: the county in general leans Republican, with a large number of voters identifying as Independent, and if it were contained within a single district, any Democrat running for office could not be guaranteed success.

Hopefully, the court will recognize what those of us who live and vote in Maryland have long known to be true—that the entire congressional map was created to serve the political interests of a single party, and to ensure citizens' equal representation, the process of drawing congressional boundaries in the state must start from scratch.

America Has Survived Worse Than Donald Trump

The United States of America was founded in the midst of a bloody revolution, fighting a war against the most powerful nation on Earth. Thirty years later, that same enemy was boarding American ships, bombarding a major port city, and burning the nation’s capital to the ground. And fifty years after that, over half a million people died in a brutal civil war, the political and economic effects of which continued to haunt America for decades.

The point is that the United States has faced many struggles in its two centuries of existence, from wars the likes of which the planet had never seen before, to economic collapse, the threat of nuclear war, and a succession of power-hungry politicians. Through it all, the country has made it through battered but alive, and ultimately stronger than before. When compared with these seismic historical events, the election of Donald Trump as President can hardly be deemed a mortal threat to the survival of the country, even if you disagree with his every policy proposal and despise the man personally.

The rhetoric of many on the Left has become increasingly hysterical, and it is no longer uncommon for them to suggest that the end of the United States as we know it is at hand (see, for instance, the many liberal reviews of The Handmaid’s Tale). But it is ridiculous. Is Trump a different sort of president from what we’ve seen before? Absolutely. But to suggest that he and the Russians are engaged in some sort of secret plot to bring about Russian world domination is at least as stupid as suggesting that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11.

There are many valid criticisms of this White House. It has lurched from one crisis to the next with no sense of greater purpose. Trump himself has routinely shot himself in the foot, threatening to derail the entire Republican agenda, and if he can’t get a handle on these (avoidable) crises soon, my past suggestion stands—though the hurricane of bad news that was the past couple weeks seems to have subsided somewhat, at least for now. But the available evidence suggests less a nefarious plot to destroy the country than simple incompetence.

Of course, a full investigation could lead to a different conclusion, which is why such an investigation, led by a special prosecutor, is necessary. But at present, deranged talk of treason and the impending end of civilization does nothing to further the very serious conversations about classified information and the firing of James Comey.

Thanks To Trump, 2018 Is Now Anyone's Guess

On paper, 2018 should be a banner year for Republicans. Following the solid Democratic years of 2006 and 2012, Senate Democrats are overextended in red states, to a point rarely seen in modern partisan politics. Democrats in Indiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and Missouri are all up for reelection—all states that went for Donald Trump in 2016 by double digit margins. Winning seats in just those five states (while successfully defending the eight seats they hold that are up for reelection) should put Republicans within reach of a filibuster-proof majority. Winning elections in those states, plus in even a few of the swing states that Trump won by single-digit margins, would give the GOP its first legislative supermajority in the Senate in nearly a century.

The gubernatorial map is more difficult, mainly because whereas the Senate class up for reelection next year comes off two successive elections that solidly favored Democrats, the governors up for reelection were elected and reelected in the Republican waves of 2010 and 2014. Additionally, many more governors than senators will be leaving office next year, leading to more open seats that will make it easier for the opposition party to post victories. Still, it should not be impossible for Republican governors nationally to hold their own in terms of total numbers.

But all this, of course, ignores the Trump effect. Maps and data were next to useless in 2016, and their effectiveness will not likely improve with President Trump in office. Despite the convention wisdom about midterm elections being uniformly bad for the party in power, that outcome is not foreordained. Republicans made gains in Congress in 2002, and Democrats broke even in 1998. If Republicans are successful at leading a unified government, voters will reward them.

So far, of course, they haven’t been, due again to the Trump effect. The administration currently lurches from one crisis to the next, with no clear plan for enacting any sort of ambitious reform agenda. The government elected in 2016 has certainly not been a status quo government, but neither has it been one to deliver many meaningful results.

We are now faced with a reversal in hopes from the 2016 election. Republicans now hope that the maps and data are correct, and count on the “Great Red Wall” of the South and West. Democrats, meanwhile, hope for grassroots anger to defy the odds and retake Congress. Whichever party ends up being right, the outcome of 2018 largely depends on the President and his administration getting their act together.

President Trump, Get It Together. Now.

People voted for Donald Trump for a multitude of reasons. Some wanted him to build that “big, beautiful wall”. Others were hoping for a couple solid Supreme Court nominations, or to finally have a chance at repealing Obamacare. Still others thought that by withdrawing from free-trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or NAFTA, Trump would bring back American jobs.

But I guarantee that no intelligent person voted for Trump so that we could see a White House in chaos, a legislative agenda in limbo, and endless investigations and speculation of Russian collusion.

The last time Republicans had unified control of the federal government was for four years during George W. Bush’s presidency, from 2003 until early 2007. Before that, it was two years during the Eisenhower administration. This is only the third time the GOP has enjoyed full control of the government since the Great Depression.

And thanks to Trump, we’re wasting precious time, time which could be spent advancing a conservative agenda that has no hope of becoming law during periods of divided government, talking about Russian collusion, administration shakeups, and the firing of the FBI director. These opportunities of unified party control of government don’t come along often, particularly for Republicans, and when they do they are usually short, lasting no more than one or two election cycles. They are an opportunity not to be squandered.

Yes, the Democrats are being dramatic and grandstanding for “The Resistance”, and the media has it out for Trump and any Republican. But much of the current mess is of the President’s own making, and did not have to be as big of a deal as it now is.

Mr. President, get it together. Please. Stop undercutting your own employees, listen to your advisers, and rise above the insults. Make your presidency memorable for more than just scandal and controversy.

Pro-Lifers Banned From The Democratic Party

Everyone knows that the modern Democratic Party is radically pro-abortion, but I never thought they would actually say this:

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez became the first head of the party to demand ideological purity on abortion rights, promising Friday to support only Democratic candidates who back a woman’s right to choose.

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

“At a time when women’s rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country,” he added, “we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.”

To my knowledge, this is the first time in recent history that the leader of a major political party in America has demanded absolute conformity on a political issue from all members of that party. Sure, certain groups of people have been barred from parties before, or at least been discouraged from showing active support—racists and white nationalists come to mind. No self-respecting political party wants to be seen as a home for such people. But on policy issues such as abortion, parties usually encourage diverse coalitions as a means of growing their brand and expanding voter outreach.

Obviously, Perez’s comments cater to the core of the Democratic liberal base. But outside of an extremely narrow group of voters, it’s hard to see how this does anything but hurt the party at large, as it gears up for midterm elections where it hopes to make significant gains in Congress. Even many pro-choice Democrats recognize the importance of building coalitions with pro-life, but otherwise liberal, voters. Even Nancy Pelosi recognizes this fact.

According to polls, 28% of Democrats can reasonably be classified as pro-life. That figure includes some Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2018, including Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Senators vital to any Democratic hopes of regaining control of the Senate. Will the DNC continue to support their re-election bids?

A final note: Some may say that the Republican Party, and conservatives specifically, have long made pro-choicers feel equally unwelcome. But this is a false equivalency. There are many pro-choice Republicans prominent in the party today, such as Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Have they been the target of ire and primary challenges from the Right? Absolutely, much of it well deserved. But no respectable figure has ever demanded that they leave the party altogether. Primary challenges are robust and healthy for a party and a movement. Attempts to silence dissenting views altogether and impose conformity by degree are not. But no one should expect any more from the modern progressive movement.

How Much Will Neil Gorsuch Really Change The Supreme Court?

From a conservative point of view, the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was a huge deal, because of both his solid originalist record on the 10^th Circuit bench and the seat on the high court that he was destined to fill. For conservatives to preserve the center-right status quo that has more or less endured on the Court since the early 1990’s, it was vital that someone at least as committed to the Constitution as Antonin Scalia be nominated and confirmed to the vacancy.

But for liberals, the stakes were much lower—despite the fact that Democratic senators were howling left and right that if Gorsuch was confirmed, it would mean the end of the republic as we know it. Liberals have survived the past two decades with a Court nearly identical, ideologically, to the one that will soon take shape, once Gorsuch begins hearing cases. They’ve even gotten a few wins—the survival of Obamacare, the nationwide legalization of gay marriage—out of the equation.

Which is why I continue to struggle to understand why Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democratic caucus in the Senate felt it was worth sacrificing the filibuster for high court nominees in a fruitless effort to prevent Gorsuch’s elevation. Why make the replacement of one conservative justice with another the hill to die on, rather than waiting and saving ammunition for the next vacancy, when Democrats could well be confronted with the idea of Donald Trump replacing an outspoken liberal with a conservative?

Others, many others, have asked the same question since the announcement of Gorsuch’s nomination. The likeliest answer seems to be that the Democratic base was exerting so much pressure on members of Congress to oppose Trump and his nominees at every step, that Democrats were cowed into doing what in their hearts they knew was strategically stupid. Sure, if Democrats had saved their fire until Trump’s next Court pick, the same end result would probably have occurred—the filibuster would have been gutted, and the nominee would have been confirmed. But in that case, liberals would have had more public credibility from keeping their opposition to Gorsuch low-key, and their hysterical opposition would have been more believable—translating to greater public support, as opposed to now, when that opposition is easier to see as more of a reflexive rejection to anything Trump-related, no matter the circumstances.

Gorsuch and Scalia are different people, no doubt about it. There is evidence to suggest that on some issues, Gorsuch may actually be a little to the right of Scalia. And the former’s relative youth ensures that, absent sudden circumstance, he could well be deciding cases for decades to come. But overall, Democrats’ decision to go all-in on opposition to Gorsuch, rather than saving ammunition for later, was pretty shortsighted of them.

Time To Go Nuclear

Democrats now look likely to attempt a filibuster of Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Based on public statements, at least forty-one Democratic senators now say they will vote against the cloture motion, which would allow for a final vote.

I have to say, I’m surprised. Gorsuch won confirmation to the Tenth Circuit unanimously only a decade ago. Many of the Democrats now decrying him as a dangerous and unqualified ideologue were already serving in the Senate then, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. It was to be expected that Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be far from unanimous, but I didn’t expect that quite so many Democrats would be so eager to be seen as partisan hacks.

But either way, Democrats have made their choice, and now they must deal with the consequences. Neil Gorsuch is an eminently qualified judge who will make a superb justice. Eliminating the filibuster is not the ideal solution, but it seems to be the only one left.  Apparently, the current Democratic caucus will only accept a judge who has first sworn allegiance to Planned Parenthood and taken an oath vowing to uphold Roe v. Wade at any cost. Anyone else is “outside the mainstream”.

Republicans may well one day regret eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. But putting Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court is a worthy enough reward. Time to go nuclear.

Democrats Need To Confirm Neil Gorsuch

As of this writing, just two Senate Democrats—Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of South Dakota—have said that they will vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Over thirty other members of the caucus, including the Minority Leader, have indicated their opposition to Gorsuch, and the remainder (about a dozen) remain uncommitted, at least publicly.

For comparison’s sake, five Republicans ultimately voted to confirm Elena Kagan, the most recent Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court, in 2010. The previous year, nine Republicans voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor. As both votes occurred when Democrats still held close to sixty seats in the Senate, neither nomination was ever in any serious jeopardy.

The days when strongly conservative or liberal nominees to the Supreme Court, such as Antonin Scalia or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could be confirmed with near unanimity are clearly over. But the fact remains that there is an empty seat on the Supreme Court which must be filled, and Democrats are not likely to see a more qualified, respected, or thoughtful judge than Neil Gorsuch be nominated to fill the vacancy. The Democratic caucus, egged on by liberal activists, is obviously betting that a general policy of resistance will have a big payoff in 2018.

The reason Republicans blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination last year was simple: it was a presidential election year, and whoever won the election should get the opportunity to fill the vacancy. It was an idea built over decades of Senate tradition, by Republicans and Democrats alike. Do those Democrats now blocking Gorsuch, who last year argued so strenuously that there could be no vacancies on the Court, now want Scalia’s seat left vacant until 2020?

Neil Gorsuch is an outstanding nominee, highly qualified, has no skeletons in his closet, and has proven through both his testimony and written opinions that he serves the law and the Constitution, at the expense of any personal agenda. Democrats can ask for no better from any nominee to the Supreme Court, much less a Republican nominee.

Summarizing The Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

In a word: Excellent. Or, in four: future Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Gorsuch, as expected, did just about everything right during his confirmation hearings this past week, skillfully parrying the expected Democratic attacks on issues such as campaign finance and abortion (you can read my take on the abortion-related exchanges here). He was always a favorite to be confirmed, absent some shocking gaffe at his confirmation hearings, and with the hearings now past even that remote possibility is dead.

Chuck Schumer and the more liberal members of the Democratic caucus may make noises about filibustering the nomination, thereby requiring sixty votes to confirm, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they lack the votes within the caucus even to sustain a filibuster. There are probably at least 6-8 Democrats, up for reelection next year in vulnerable seats, who would consider voting to confirm—or at least voting to end any potential filibuster. And no Republicans are likely to oppose Gorsuch, either.

All that said, Neil Gorsuch will be on the Supreme Court by June at the latest, and could be confirmed by Easter, providing a big win to both conservatives and the Trump administration.

Is This Really Going To Be The Next Four Years?

Donald Trump has only been in office for six weeks, but it already seems much longer. The frequency of the leaks, pseudo-scandals, angry Tweets, and assorted controversies have left many watchers feeling exhausted.

The question is how much longer this pace can keep up, with regard to both Trump and his critics. Will liberals continue to manufacture outrage at this same level, over every little thing Trump does or says, for the next four years? Will Trump be able to keep saying outrageous things?

The answer to the second question is a self-evident “of course!” Whether he will, or will instead become “so presidential [we’ll] be bored,” is a different question. But I can’t imagine that the next four years will be the same as the last month. The pace of the controversies and outrage, from both sides, just seems too frenetic, outpacing even the infamous Bush Derangement Syndrome on the left.

Something has to give. Either Trump will grow in office, liberals will tire of complaining about every single perceived slight, or some combination of the two. More likely the last option.

But either way, the past few weeks should not be a harbinger of the next several years. It certainly can’t get any more bitter, divisive, and just plain exhausting.

Can it?

The Irony of Democratic Women Honoring Suffragettes

One of the lesser-noted events from Trump’s Tuesday night address to Congress was the spectacle of many Democratic women wearing white, apparently in an attempt to show solidarity with the early suffragettes—as well as outfits like Planned Parenthood.

Set aside the grandiosity of claiming the mantle of the “next generation of suffragettes. No one, to my knowledge, is threatening to take away women’s right to vote. But obviously, these Democrats don’t know the history of the very movement they praise and attempt to emulate at every turn, or they would see the hypocrisy of standing in support of Planned Parenthood and the suffragette movement at the same time.

Susan B. Anthony considered abortion one of society’s great evils, running in her newspaper columns critical of the practice. As Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, wrote in National Review earlier this year, Anthony would often reference “the newspaper reports every day of every year of scandals and outrages, of wife murders and paramour shooting, of abortions and infanticides, are perpetual reminders of men’s incapacity to cope successfully with this monster evil of society.”

Her colleague, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, also decried abortion and “the murder of children, either before or after birth… We believe the cause of all these abuses lies in the degradation of women.”

And another early feminist, Victoria Woodhull (who was the first woman to formally run for president), said, “Wives deliberately permit themselves to become pregnant of children and then, to prevent becoming mothers, as deliberately murder them while yet in their wombs. Can there be a more demoralized position than this?”

Hard to imagine any Democrat in the House chamber Tuesday night saying something like that.

Thoughts on the New DNC Chair

Democrats on Saturday elected a new party chair, former Labor Secretary Tom Perez.

A lot was made of the battle for the chairmanship between Perez and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison as being crucial to the Democratic Party’s future, especially heading into a tough midterm election. Personally, I think Perez’s election will turn out to be less consequential than most people are saying. After all, how many people outside of politics really know, or care, who the DNC chair is? Or the chair of the RNC, for that matter?

There was also little in the way of substance to distinguish Perez and Ellison, as far as major policy issues. The basic differences came down to personality and how much the Democrats would oppose Trump: push for impeachment, or merely block legislation and nominees at almost every turn. In that respect, Perez was the moderate, although both are so far out of the American mainstream that the word really ceases to have any meaning.

Many Republicans, myself included, were hoping Ellison would be victorious due to his abrasive personality and scandal-filled personal life—including his past anti-Israel and anti-Semitic remarks, his affiliation with the Nation of Islam, and his flirtations with 9/11 trutherism. But Perez, in a show of party unity, quickly appointed Ellison as deputy chairman following his victory. The Democratic Party never fails to disappoint.

This election, by itself, will not swing any Congressional races in 2018. It will not make Donald Trump’s reelection in 2020 any more or less likely. But what it does do is show just out of touch and far out of the mainstream national Democrats continue to be. And that is the core challenge the party will have to face in the years ahead.

Looking Ahead with the Libertarian Party

The 2016 presidential election presented a golden opportunity for the Libertarian Party, even more than other third and minor parties, to become a major force in American politics. Both the Democrats and Republicans nominated truly awful candidates, despised by both independents and large numbers of liberals and conservatives in the party bases. Mistrust of the federal government in general, and specifically insider politics as practiced by members of both parties, was historically high. The time seemed ripe for a third-party disruption, and the Libertarians, as the largest third party with an existing infrastructure and ballot access in all fifty states, seemed the ones to do it.

And then they blew it by nominating Gary Johnson, he of “What’s Aleppo?” fame, who was given several opportunities to make a sizable impact and even came close to reaching the 15% polling benchmark necessary to appear on the general debate stage, but never seemed presidential or serious enough to earn the votes of the many who were convinced that voting third-party would merely constitute a “wasted vote”. To earn those votes, the Libertarians needed a fresh face that appealed to the broader electorate, and an aging ex-governor most people had never heard of, who reminded many of a crazy, if good-natured, uncle, was not the vehicle they needed.

In the end, Gary Johnson received just over 3% of the national vote. In down-ballot races, the party’s best showing came in the Alaska Senate race, where Joe Miller, a conservative former Republican with high name recognition in the state, earned over 20% of the vote against moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski. There is currently one Libertarian state legislator, a Nebraska state senator who switched from the Republican Party following Donald Trump’s nomination.

So, what now? Libertarians must now figure out how to define themselves over the next four years of a Trump presidency, which will be both a challenge and an opportunity. Democrats will obviously be the major opposition party, but as the main liberal party in America, conservative voices of dissent against Trump’s policies will not often be welcome there. Libertarians therefore have a chance that would not have been available had Clinton been elected president, with Republicans united against her—the chance to gain support from conservatives opposed to some of Trump’s more liberal leanings. His proposed major infrastructure bill, for instance—something being embraced by many Democrats, taken seriously by many moderate and establishment-oriented Republicans, and viewed with trepidation by conservatives—offers an opportunity for Libertarians to gain a significant foothold within the GOP and begin gaining high-profile, strategic supporters.

Of course, this assumes the party at large actually begins thinking strategically and wants to win, something it has demonstrated itself incapable of in the recent past. But the opportunities for political triangulation and further growth are there, if the party has the collective will to seize them.

Changes Since 1992: California

Following Donald Trump’s victory, the dominant media narrative on the two major parties has quickly gone from “Republicans are nearing extinction” to “Democrats are no longer a national party,” and understandably so. Just about the only thing we heard in all election coverage of the past four years, from the end of the 2012 campaign until last month, was how Republicans were facing demographic ruin. The minority, Democratic coalition was ascendant. The GOP must embrace identity politics or be washed away by ever-growing numbers of liberal Hispanic voters.

Now, of course, the demographic focus is all on how the Democrats have abandoned the white working class. But just as those voters were wrongly ignored during the Obama years, it would be a mistake to think that just because Republicans won this election, changing demographics are no longer an issue for them and vital swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will ultimately trend in their direction. Many states are trending red, as I’ve written about over the past month, but states are also trending blue, far more dramatically than Virginia.

Many people forget that California, the home of both Nancy Pelosi and Ronald Reagan, was once a Republican stronghold. And many of those who remember this fact, don’t realize that the state was still widely competitive for Republicans, even conservative ones, as recently as 2000. The transformation of California from conservative stronghold to battleground state to liberal bastion should be a warning that, just as Democrats ignored the white working class at their peril, Republicans ignore Hispanics and other minorities at theirs.

Although California has voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election since 1992, it is an interesting fact that before 2008, the nominee consistently won by less than thirteen points—and that margin was falling:

1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016
Clinton +13.4	Clinton +12.9	Gore +11.6	Kerry +10.0	Obama +24.0	Obama +21.0	Clinton +28.8

These were all still convincing victories, to be sure. But the trend in favor of Republicans, post-Obama, is intriguing. And for comparison’s sake, Kerry’s ten-point margin in 2004 is almost identical to Bush’s concurrent 9.8% margin in… Arkansas.

Statewide races paint an even more interesting picture. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have served as California’s two U.S. Senators since 1992 (Feinstein won in a special election that year, and won her first full term in 1994). Both have been would I would term fairly generic liberal Democrats, so one would expect them to regularly win California by fairly wide margins. And indeed, they have generally won reelection handily, but there have also been interesting exceptions.

In 1992, Feinstein won her Senate seat by more than sixteen points, but Boxer won by less than five points. Two years later, when Feinstein was up for election to her first full term, she won by less than two points. And in 1998, Boxer won by ten points.

That year marked the last time either faced a truly competitive reelection fight until 2010, when Boxer won another term (against Republican nominee Carly Fiorina) by just 9.6 points. This year, Boxer retired, and under California’s new “top-two”, all-party primary voting system, two Democrats advanced to the general election—Rep. Loretta Sanchez and state Attorney General Kamala Harris, who won by a twenty-five point margin.

But no electoral analysis of California would be complete without looking at attorney general and gubernatorial elections, and that’s where things really start getting interesting. Several times since 1992, California has seen competitive, high-profile races in which a Republican has either won or come close to winning—most recently in 2010, when Kamala Harris was elected Attorney General by just two-tenths of a point.

California Gubernatorial Elections, 1994-2014:
1994	1998	2002	2006	2010	2014
Wilson +14.9	Davis +19.6	Davis +5.0	Schwarzenegger +16.9	Brown +11.4	Brown +18.8

California Attorney General Elections, 1994-2014:
1994	1998	2002	2006	2010	2014
Lungren +14.4	Lockyer +9.1	Lockyer +11.0	Brown +18.2	Harris +0.2	Harris +13

Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger also won a special election for governor in 2003, by a margin of 17.1%.

This is where Democratic dominion of California begins to look much less permanent. Schwarzenegger’s candidacy was obviously a special case; there were many voters who would presumably have voted for a generic Democrat over a Republican, but the possibility of having the Terminator as governor was just too good to resist. But some of the other recent Democratic margins are shockingly low (looking at you, Kamala Harris), and every single Democratic victory over the last twenty years has significantly underperformed the margin we’ve come to expect from Democrat presidential candidates in the state. Obviously, a governor who enters office with a five-point margin of victory is just as powerful as one who enters in a landslide. But only one will be looking over his shoulder as reelection looms, and seek to reach out to independents and Republicans accordingly, at the risk of upsetting his own party.

Overall, however, and particularly at the presidential level, California is a warning that in politics, nothing is eternal—and today, Democrats in Arkansas and Republicans in California find themselves in almost identical positions. Neither state is permanently out of reach for the minority party, but they will have to fight for every inch of what they once took for granted. New coalitions will have to be formed, new outreach efforts aggressively pursued, and new strategies tested, because just as the current electoral map began to take shape in 1992, so to could the winner of the 2032 presidential election be decided by actions taken by the California Republican Party in 2017.

Come 2019, Republicans Could Be Looking at a Filibuster-Proof Majority

After the way my 2016 predictions went, I’m in no hurry to begin making predictions about 2018. But that being said, Senate Republicans could be looking at a majority of upwards of sixty seats—a number never-before achieved by the GOP in the chamber, rarely achieved by the Democrats, and one which would allow Republican bills and nominees alike to pass easily against unified Democratic opposition.

Five Democrats will be up for reelection in states Donald Trump won by double digits. Another is in a state (Ohio) Trump won by a solid single-digit margin. And another seven are in states Trump either won narrowly (such as Florida and Pennsylvania) or lost narrowly (Virginia).

By comparison, only two Republican senators are in states even remotely competitive—Dean Heller in Nevada and Jeff Flake in Arizona. Both, as of right now, are reasonably popular in their states. Trump won Arizona narrowly, and lost Nevada by only a couple of points.

None of this is to say that Republicans will definitely gain the eight seats necessary to have a filibuster-proof majority when the 116^th Congress convenes. Republicans typically do better in midterm elections, but the incumbent President’s party also usually suffers—as we saw in 2010 and 2014. It is also far to know which Senators, from both parties, are running for reelection. Defending an open seat is usually much harder than defending an incumbent with high name recognition and legislative accomplishments. And, circumstances could change dramatically over the next two years, making Republican seats in Tennessee, Texas, or Utah unexpectedly come into play. In 2012, Republicans were certain of picking up seats in Missouri and North Dakota, and both stayed blue in the end.

But, given what we know now, GOP gains of some sort are likely, with two or three seats being the conservative estimate. That much I feel confident predicting (though not which two or three seats will flip.) And if the next two years are successful, and Trump voters feel validated, then the Senate could become a bastion of one-party rule seen only rarely in its history.

Whether that’s a good thing, regardless of the party in charge, is a discussion for another day.

Changes Since 1992: Virginia

So far, I’ve looked at changes in voter trends over time in three states, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. All three have, over the last twenty years, moved toward Republicans to some degree—Arkansas and West Virginia dramatically so, and Wisconsin at a much slower rate, voting Republican this year for the first time in a presidential election since 1984. But analyses of these three states don’t paint an accurate picture of the nation as a whole, because just as the white working class votes increasingly Republican, so too proceeds the solidification of minority voters behind the Democratic Party.

This opposite phenomenon, coupled with the Democrats’ increased reliance on urban professionals can be seen in Virginia, which has now broken with the rest of the South in voting Democrat in the last three presidential elections. Virginia was actually, decades ago, a trendsetter in voting Republican when much of the South was still avowedly true. Now, the opposite is occurring.

This shift began quite recently; though the Democratic ticket performed quite well in 1992 and 1996, its status as an all-Southern ticket (Clinton from Arkansas, and Gore from Tennessee) undoubtedly helped matters. And still, both George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole managed to carry the state even while losing convincingly across the country.

1992	1996	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016
Bush +4.4	Dole +1.9	Bush +8.1	Bush +8.2	Obama +6.3	Obama +3.0	Clinton +4.9

Obama’s margins in 2008 and 2012 closely mirrored his national margin of victory. But Hillary Clinton won the state by five points this year, even as she lost the Electoral College nationally and won the national popular vote by a little under two points.

Obviously, there is a huge caveat to the 2016 results—Clinton’s selection of Virginia Senator, and former Governor, Tim Kaine as her running mate. Nearly all national elections work this way—the home state results of the presidential and vice-presidential nominees can be skewed for an election cycle, and then return to a regular pattern the following cycle when home-state advantages disappear. But it should also be noted that Clinton was leading Trump in Virginia state polls by a substantial margin even before the announcement of her VP pick, and Obama also won the last two elections in the state by solid margins, despite having no similar advantage.

Meanwhile, election results from other state races are somewhat of a mixed bag. Control of the Congressional delegation has seesawed back and forth since 1992, with Republicans currently holding a 7-4 majority. Democrats control both U.S. Senate seats, although Mark Warner barely retained his seat in 2014 by a much closer than expected 0.8%. Gubernatorial results have also varied wildly, from  back-to-back, double-digit Republican wins in the 1990’s, to five-point Democratic victories during the Bush years, to Bob McDonnell’s 17-point margin, his subsequent fall following an ethics investigation, and Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s 2013 win. And in the state legislature, the state Senate is almost evenly split, though Republicans have a commanding advantage in the House of Representatives.

Overall, Virginia, like Wisconsin, is narrowly balanced. Neither party can yet afford to take the state for granted on any level. But while Wisconsin might now be considered a red-leaning purple state (to strain the political color metaphors), Virginia could now be classified as a blue-leaning purple state. A state where Republicans can still excel, especially at the state level, but Democrats, even liberals, are slowly in ascendance. Where the white working class of the Appalachians and center-state area is still a political force to be reckoned with, but are slowly being outnumbered by the urban and liberal suburban voters of Richmond and the D.C. outskirts. And Virginia Republicans will be forced to reckon with that fact even more in future elections, if the state is to remain competitive in the long run.