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.

Some Thoughts On The British Elections

As I write this, with the returns of yesterday’s parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom all but finalized, it appears certain that the ruling Conservative Party has fallen short of an outright majority, thereby forcing a coalition government with one of the several minor parties in Britain. I have a few thoughts on the results, and what they mean for Britain, the European Union, and the United States going forward:

First, the results, coupled with the overall election process, seem to highlight a simple fact of modern democratic governments—parliamentary systems are inherently less stable, and are less suited to leading strong national governments on the world stage, than more structured democratic systems such as in the United States. In America, a pattern of regularly scheduled elections, coupled with the historical irrelevance of any third parties, make for a more predictable and organized political system—even when, as in 2016, the ultimate outcome of those elections is unexpected. In Britain and other countries with parliamentary systems, meanwhile, elections can be called at any time (with a few limits on frequency), and complicated coalition governments are common. These arrangements often lead to weaker and more transient governments than are common in the United States and some other countries—yesterday’s election results being a prime example of that fact.

Unsurprisingly, the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, no longer holds even a single seat in Parliament, a dramatic reversal from the growing influence of the party just two years ago. The reason is simple: Brexit was the party’s single animating feature, the part of its platform that differentiated it from all others. Now that Brexit has been achieved, and the only real debate among the parties centers on the precise terms of Britain leaving the European Union, UKIP has been robbed of that which made it special. A similar phenomenon is often seen in American politics, where a single-issue minor party will enjoy some short-lived success based on the strength of one particular argument, but will quickly disappear once one or both of the major parties co-opt that argument, or the issue itself fades in relevance.

And finally, the results themselves will likely not affect American foreign policy in any meaningful way, at least in the short term. Britain will still withdraw from the European Union, although the negotiation process has just become more difficult for them. The Conservative Party is still the dominant political party in the U.K., although likewise their hand has been weakened. It would have been nice to see a right-wing party enjoy some success across the pond, but direct repercussions from yesterday’s results will probably be limited.

Still, what those results do show is the fickleness of voters in any democracy, the foolishness of declaring a political opponent to be finished, and the dangers of being seen as not delivering substantive reform. That may be the most important lesson for Americans, and the Republican Party in particular.

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.

What's Next for the Obamacare Debate

On Friday, House Republican leadership, acting on the behest of President Trump, pulled the awful American Health Care Act from consideration, only minutes before a scheduled vote.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that Speaker Ryan, Trump, and the rest of leadership now seem to be running up the white flag on Obamacare repeal. Trump: “I’m glad I got it out of the way.” Ryan: “Obamacare is the law of the land…for the foreseeable future.”

Are you kidding me? They spend seven years campaigning for full repeal. They promise millions of voters that if their party just controlled the House of Representatives, Obamacare could be repealed. Then they just needed the Senate. Then, of course, once they had the Senate, Congress was no good unless they had the presidency as well. And now, after only two months and one half-baked, terrible bill that succeeded in uniting moderates, conservatives and Democrats in opposition, they’re giving up?

I don’t think so. Not if we have anything to say about it. The solution is simple: just pass the same damn bill Congress sent to President Obama in 2015. Don’t worry about the replacement for right now. Just repeal the mandates, repeal the taxes, repeal the regulations. Do what was literally the one thing every single member of the Republican conference was elected to do over the past four election cycles.

Go back to the drawing board. Talk to members. Lead. And repeal Obamacare, in full. Because if a solidly Republican Congress, working with a Republican president, can’t even achieve their single signature promise, then having a GOP majority isn’t worth a bucket of spit. And that, rather than actually keeping a core campaign promise, will be the one thing that could actually cost Republicans the majority in 2018.

CPAC Speeches Have Become Symbols of Complacency

The big news going into this year’s annual CPAC conference was, as everyone who cares has now heard, the invitation to Milo Yiannopoulos to be a keynote speaker, the revocation of that invitation, and Yiannopoulos’ subsequent loss of his book deal and resignation as senior editor of Breitbart. I had no desire to discuss the drama while it was unfolding, and see no need to offer any exhaustive summary or commentary here.

But it is a symptom of a wider problem with CPAC in particular, and the conservative movement more generally. In recent years, as CPAC has become a bigger and more influential event, the focus has gradually begun to stray from promoting conservative values, and toward promoting the Republican Party in general. When Mitch McConnell and the rest of GOP Congressional leadership is regularly given a favorable platform, by virtue merely of their status in leadership, it is perhaps time for some self-examination. McConnell, and the rest of leadership, has done some good, conservative things. But in what universe is Mitch McConnell emblematic of steadfast conservative leadership?

In a similar vein, in several recent years gay Republican and gay conservative organizations (such as the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud) were barred from CPAC entirely over their more libertarian attitudes toward homosexuality. But Milo Yiannopoulos, an extravagant celebrity who is openly gay and often talks about his affairs with other men, is offered a keynote speaking role. The invitation was only rescinded after not just videos surfaced of him endorsing what is essentially pedophilia, but after intense public backlash. In other words, it was the reaction to the videos that got the invite rescinded, more so than the actual content of the videos (which were already public). Yiannopoulos might make liberals mad, but he is no conservative and that fact by itself should not be enough to garner a prime speaking slot.

 The vast majority of the attendees understand all this. It’s among the crowds and on the floor of conventions like CPAC that you are most likely to find the most interesting array of differing, yet still conservative viewpoints, not with the (majority) pandering speeches and attention-seekers on the main stage.

Great Expectations

Senate Republicans have officially taken the first formal step to repealing Obamacare, approving a budget resolution that lays the groundwork for a later vote on full repeal.

This is, obviously, a good thing. I can think of no campaign pledge more defining for Republican candidates over the past six years than the promise to repeal and replace Obamacare, and being handed all the levers of power in the federal government and then failing to follow through would be an unforgiveable betrayal of the voters. And while I understand Rand Paul’s concerns about cutting spending, the chance to repeal Obamacare is one that is too important to conflate with any other issue, even something as important as federal spending. With Obamacare repeal, speed is key.

And yet repeal is only the first item on a lengthy wish list conservatives have for the new Republican government. Tax reform, approving the Keystone pipeline, cutting spending, instituting Congressional term limits, securing the border, guaranteeing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for decades to come… The list goes on and on, and has had Republicans practically drooling for months. In just four years, the thinking goes, we can make it as if Barack Obama’s presidency never even happened.

But those big dreams seem to forget one of the biggest lessons of President Obama’s tenure: Many, indeed most, Republicans in positions of power in Washington are not as committed to sweeping changes as they claim to be on the stump. Republican and conservative goals do not always align. And many candidates who talk big about eliminating departments and slashing the national debt change their tune once in office.

This may seem like an obvious statement of fact to many, just over a year after John Boehner was forced to give up the Speakership. But for others, the headiness of unexpected Republican victory will cause memories to quickly fade. The draw of belonging to a team, especially a winning team, is strong, and it will be easy for many who proudly proclaimed their loyalty to principle during the Obama years to set those principles aside for greater personal power.

Personally, I expect Obamacare to be repealed. The promise to do so was so firm, was repeated so often, that it would now be suicidal not to. Whether it will be fully eliminated is another issue; the few popular provisions of the law, combined with the way other portions have already permanently altered the health-care industry, make the single-line repeal, “The Affordable Care Act of 2010 is hereby repealed,” of conservative dreams all but impossible.

On other issues, voters would do well to control their expectations. In four years, we will have the same number of federal departments as we do now. Federal spending will still be going up, though the rate of that increase may slow—hardly an achievement to get excited about. Keystone may be approved, if it is not already too late, and tax reform may pass, though it will be nothing like the flat tax of an ideal world. And there will be no federal term limits amendment passed by Congress.

I hope I’m wrong. Everything on the conservative wish list is possible. A radical pivot back to Constitutional basics could happen. But Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump are not the men to lead that charge. A more reasonable, and still hopeful, expectation for the next four years is for a competent administration and Congress to limit what new damage the federal government can cause, while laying the groundwork for a future President and Congress to more aggressively shrink the government back within Constitutional boundaries.

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.

The 115th Congress Assembles

Today, the 115^th meeting of the United States Congress will begin. All 435 members of the House, along with the thirty-four Senators newly elected or re-elected in November, will be sworn in. Presiding officers will officially be determined. Rules governing the conduct of business in the new Congress will be voted on. No legislation will pass today, but it will be a busy and important day all the same.

From a purely historical, nonpartisan perspective, it is incredible. The Congress has been meeting in a similar fashion (if not on the same day) since the 18^th century, from the birth of our nation, through wars and economic catastrophes and political turmoil, to today, uninterrupted. Looking at the other countries of the world, how many can say the same?

This Congress has the potential to be one of the most consequential in a very long time. If it is successful in dismantling Obamacare, it would represent the first time in American history that a major piece of welfare legislation was undone. It already represents the first time in over a decade that the GOP has held both Congress and the White House, and the first time since the 1920’s that it has enjoyed such large majorities in Congress while also holding the Presidency. All this while dozens of states are also under total Republican control.

The opportunities for rolling back government overreach and enacting conservative reforms are immense. The question is now whether congressional Republicans, as well as the incoming Trump administration, will seize those opportunities. The whole country will be watching.

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.

Was 2016 A Realigning Election?

First, a primer: A realigning election, generally speaking, is one in which the country as a whole seems to dramatically shift in its political leanings. The media often talks about wave elections, where one party or another does significantly well across the board in certain years—as Democrats did in 2008, and Republicans did in 2010 and 2014. A realigning election is more significant than even that—an election that rewrites the electoral map, sees party coalitions change, and ushers in a new era of politics as it is generally understood. The 1860 election, which saw the election of Abraham Lincoln, the rise of the Republican Party, and ultimately the beginning of the Civil War, is generally considered to be such an election. The election of 1932, which heralded FDR’s election as President and the rebirth of the Democrats as the major liberal party in America, is another.

Sean Trende, a skeptic of the realignment theory, laid out what are generally considered to be the major hallmarks of realigning or critical elections, in his 2012 book The Lost Majority: “sharp and durable” voter changes; the emergence of new issues; spiking voter turnout; turmoil at conventions; and a strong third-party showing. The 2016 election indisputably had most, if not all, of these factors:

·         “Sharp and durable” voter changes: The relationship between working-class white voters and the Democratic Party has been increasingly strained for years, if not decades, but this year the tensions finally broke into the open, flipping three states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) that had been reliably blue at the presidential level since the 1980’s. Working-class whites are to Democrats now what Hispanics were to Republicans following the 2012 election. The changes in party coalitions this year, and the resultant changes in the electoral map, were sharp; only time will tell if they become durable.

·         Emergence of new issues: In 2016, trade became an important campaign issue for the first time since at least the 1990’s. Immigration was even more important, becoming perhaps the biggest defining issue in a campaign dominated by personal attacks. The traditional major issues of national campaigns, national security and the economy, meanwhile played no major, defining role for the first time in years.

·         Spiking voter turnout: This factor is less impressive. Turnout was down slightly from 2012 (from 54.9% to 54.6% of eligible voters), and overall was the lowest since 2000, presumably because of the nasty and seemingly never-ending campaign.

·         Turmoil at conventions: Um, yes. Trende argues that since the rise of the national primary process, and the concurrent decline in importance of the conventions themselves, extended primary battles are the best modern way to measure this factor. Either way, 2016 had it all: convention drama and brutal primary fights on both the Republican and Democratic sides.

·         Strong third-party showing: There was no single groundbreaking third-party candidacy, as in the mold of Ross Perot or George Wallace, but the third-party vote was far from dormant, as I discussed here. One third-party candidate got 20% of the vote in Utah, and had a very realistic chance at winning the state outright. Two others combined for almost six million votes between them, although neither came close to winning almost a single state. Polling showed that had a strong independent or third-party candidacy emerged, that person would have been a legitimate threat to win, no small feat in modern American politics. I would argue that these respectable showings from several less-than stellar third-party presidential candidates underline what could have been, if a single, stronger candidate had decided to take the plunge, and the failure of third parties to make more of an impact hinges more on the personal decisions of a very select group of people than on the political climate of the country as a whole.

By my estimate, the 2016 elections satisfy at least three, and possibly four, of the five main criteria for determining pivotal realigning elections. The question then becomes whether one believes in the overarching realignment theory, a subject much too broad for this post. But I find many of the arguments in favor of it compelling, if some proponents of the theory to go somewhat overboard in their attempts to ram every national election into a narrow framework of cycles and “deviating elections”. And if one accepts the overall theory, then the evidence seems clear that we have just witnessed such a realigning election.