Wednesday, November 9, 2022

Some Early Takes on the Midterms

 Here are some interesting takes from The Bulwark.  I don't think this part is behind a paywall, though they do have paid content.  This is from their free newsletter:

The Knives Are Already Out - by Charlie Sykes (thebulwark.com)

The knives referred to are from Trump: 

  • "Of course Trump will claim all sorts of victory, but he had a craptacular night. His candidates underperformed across the country and the GOP was reminded that he is an electoral boat anchor. The former president spent the final days of the campaign lashing out and even threatening Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose apparent interest in running against Trump has puzzled him, according to advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect private conversations. The Florida governor didn’t return fire, other than to hold his own campaign event on Saturday, competing with a Trump rally in Miami and further irking the former president."

    • "The Trump-Effect cost the GOP the Governor’s races in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Maryland… and that’s just for starters. Arizona’s gubernatorial race is still too close to call."
    • "Yesterday was definitely not the election that MAGA expected. And, as you may have noticed, TrumpWorld does not deal with disappointment well. So expect a lot of Mid-Term Stop The Steal Denialism — especially in Arizona if the Empress of Trollistan falls short."
    • "Speaking of denialism: lots of election deniers won yesterday. BUT . . . voters seemed to draw the line at electing them to key secretary of state positions, where they would have overseen elections."

    • "Democracy may not be dead, after all."

      • "Liz Cheney had a pretty good night. She had endorsed both Elissa Slotkin in Michigan and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia — and both Democrats won close races."

      • "Next year is going to be pure hot pulsating Hell for Speaker (?) Kevin McCarthyHe had predicted a 60-seat GOP surge. In the end, it may be fewer than 15 seats." 

      • From bulwark contributor Mona Charen:  "The nightmare we dreaded was a red wave, crested with Trump-anointed lickspittles and morons. If that had materialized, the takeaway this morning would have been Trump’s unshakable dominance of the GOP, and the country would have marched, as if to the scaffold, to the Trump 2024 announcement.   That did not happen and the relief is overpowering.Yes, some horrible candidates won, and a few more may yet succeed. But the red wave is looking more like a small toxic spill. The voters of Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Michigan, among other places, apparently weighed more than inflation in their calculations, and that gives a fighting chance to those who hope to right this listing ship."

      • From Amanda Carpenter:  "What happened last night was both ordinary and utterly amazing.

        I’m not talking about the fact Democrats had surprising wins. It’s that Republicans appeared to have easily accepted their losses."

        "After two full years of enabling, indulging, and pandering to 2020 election conspiracy theorists, it appears that without Donald Trump on the ballot, Republicans will, by and large, concede their races when the votes don’t tally up in their favor. Although several key races remain too close to call, and nutty candidates like Kari Lake and Lauren Boebert, who are still waiting for results, could challenge their losses, that position is not the norm."


      • The whole article is worth reading; especially check out the tweet by George Conway at the end.  

      • (Didn't mean to put all the bullet points in, but I didn't know how to get rid of them.)

20 comments:

  1. Those are some great comments. It's worth calling out that many results are still not fully determined. Hershel Walker could end up winning in GA (in a run-off, if Warnock doesn't get to 50% in yesterday's election). JD Vance won in Ohio. Trump has a couple of pegs to hang his hat on. And I believe Lake still could win? (I haven't seen any updates since early this morning so I may be behind on developments.)

    Btw, I use this blog in a Chrome browser which is running in a Wintel environment. For me, I can click on the bullet tool to enable bulleting, and then click on the same tool a second time to disable it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jim. I will see if I have the bullet tool on the browser I an using.

      Delete
  2. Democrats won both chambers of the Michigan Legislatrue for the first time in 40 years, and that came as a surprise.

    This will be laid at the door of our new bipartisan redistricting procedures by Republicans.

    But the fact that Gov Whitmer was reelected, Prop 3 went thru, and liberal members of the state Supreme Court were retained speaks to across-the-board disenchantment with a GOP that is more concerned with social conservatism (dirty books in schools, critical race theory, LGBTQ issues, returning to no-exceptions abortion laws) than Chamber of Commerce concerns (improving the business climate, small biz tax breaks, getting tourism back on its feet).

    In my lifetime, Michigan has done best under moderate Republican administration, and I usually voted GOP at the state level, Dem at the Fed.

    I am hoping this election cycle washes out enthusiasm for Michigan Trumpers and encourages the state GOP to return to its moderate roots.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Republicans were eviscerated around here: lost every statewide race on the ballot, and every suburban (and city) US house race. As one-sided as that all sounds, that's the way it's been for the last 2-3 election cycles in this area.

    The governor's Republican opponent is one of those guys whom Democrats touted with big ad buys during the primary season, in the hope that the Democrat could have the Trumpiest opponent. The strategy worked as planned, as I understand it did in most/all places where Democrats did that.

    I also see that Lauren Boebert is trailing in CO by a percentage point with 93% of ballots counted - that would be a good flip for never-Trumpers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was reading about Democrats voting for the Trumpiest candidate in the primary in the hopes of beating them in November. Personally I think that is a risky, not to mention dishonest, strategy. And I wonder how much difference it actually made. It seems likely that those candidates probably would have won in the primary without the Democrats' support. And wouldn't they have felt like idiots if the Trumpiest candidate would actually have been elected, when they could have been putting all their support behind the one they really wanted to win.

      Delete
  4. Good news from Michigan, Pennsylvania with the Fetterman win, and apparently Illinois, although it usually goes blue. I will be thrilled if Boebert is defeated. Maryland went pretty much as expected.Mostly blue, with the rural areas electing two GOP Congress reps. Not a surprise. Our GOP governor, Larry Hogan, has been very popular, winning twice in a state that has four Dems for every Republican. The primary nominee was endorsed by trump. The candidate endorsed by our GOP governor would have had a much better chance to win in this state. The state GOP has gone heavily MAGA and ensured the Dem win for the governorship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of my brothers lives in Colorado, though not in Boebert's district. Pretty sure he is hoping for her to lose. He's a Republican, but doesn't suffer fools gladly.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately she’s less than 100 votes behind. There will be a recount I’m sure.

      Delete
    3. Katherine, my husband’s Libertarian, gun nut brother lives in Denver. Guessing he’s rooting for her re-election.

      Delete
  5. Even though congress may still end up in the control of the GOP, the election does provide a glimmer of hope. So I will postpone my trek downtown to the French Consulate to apply for a residence visa. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. ISTM that the midterm was remarkably free of drama, most GOP losers like Tudor Dixon in Michigan conceded graciously, there were few technical glitches (outside of Maricopa Count's problem with toner), attempted hacking by entities foreign and domestic was just about nonexistent, and Anne has not defected to the French yet.

    While armed militias strutted around in camo cargo pants and deer rifles around absentee ballot dropboxes in a few locales with high wingnut demographics, most secretaries of state acted quickly to shut down misinformation and keep things running transparently, which kept the lunatic fringe at bay.

    Yet the Washington Post is paying a lot of attention to Trump--his response to the election results, who he is blaming for losses, whether he is mad at Melania for urging him to endorse Oz, when he might announce his reelection campaign, whether the GOP at large feels he is a help or hindrance, whether Ron DeSantis will out-Trump him, etc etc.

    Should reporters still be giving Trump this level of attention? My gut says no. Other views?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Jean. The whole country would be better off if the media spent far less time covering trump, and more time on those more moderate candidates who defeated trump’s handpicked candidates. A move towards the center, even baby steps, is at least a bit of progress. I was encouraged by the lack of violence, and the minimal interference of voting by the trumpers. There will be demands for recounts in some of the very tight races, but those will probably be for legitimate reasons, rather than because of far- fetched conspiracy theories. .

      Delete
    2. I agree with you that reporters should move on from Trump. He wasn't running this time, and many of the people he supported didn't do very well. It's like the latest doings of the Kardashians, who cares? Of course he fancies himself a kingmaker. I suppose they're hoping to generate clicks.

      Delete
    3. Trump has become a cash cow for current and former Post reporters who have written books about him: Bob Woodward, Robert Costa, Carol Leonnig, Philip (?) Rucker.

      Trump's awfulness has been pretty well established, and mainstream news outlets are, to some degree, feeding his legendary status and thereby inflating his importance. The fascination with him, to some extent, is the way he serves as a mirror that reflects the worst in Americans.

      Media reporter Margaret Sullivan has tried to grapple with how best to report on a political figure/force like Trump.

      I think a good start is to stop reporting on his personality quirks--yelling at staff, complaining about his news coverage, throwing food at walls, etc etc.

      Delete
    4. Yes, a cottage industry. I'm rather tired of Trump. It's like publishing articles and books on why we shouldn't dine on cow dung. The man was always a symptom. He would have never happened if either party really cared about the welfare of all their citizens instead of empire games and big money.

      Delete
  7. Jean - this is a letter to the editors of the WaPo. I believe that you have a subscription

    “Regarding the Oct. 22 front-page article “Papers at Trump estate held secrets about Iran, China,” as well as several others on the same general topic, I suggest it would make your paper easier for readers like me to navigate if, in addition to the “Metro,” “Style” and “Sports” sections, The Post were to introduce a new one labeled “Trump.”
In this Oct. 22nd edition of the newspaper alone, I counted eight articles that either focused entirely on former president Donald Trump or concerned him in some peripheral fashion. As the quantity increases over time to include an ever-expanding number of court cases, congressional subcommittee investigations, rallies, instances of new classified documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago, former and current advisers and supporters put in jail, etc., clearly it would be easy for you to fill the new Post “Trump” pages.

In the spirit of full-disclosure, I will admit right here, up front, that my underlying reason for this suggestion springs from how sick I am, day after day, of reading about this man, his family and his associates. Having articles grouped in a “Trump” section would make it easier, first thing in the morning, to find and immediately throw away the section in its entirety, so I could enjoy the rest of the paper and my day without reading the T name anywhere.
If you would please consider making this one structural-design change, the quality of my life and, I am convinced, that of countless other devoted Post readers would be dramatically improved.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but it's an e-subscription. You have to do some clicking to find the letters, so I don't read them.

      That begs a larger media question about how e-papers offer stories of all types. It certainly is not the same kind of experience as reading TVs physical newspaper, but physical subscriptions are largely beyond the means of many people.

      Delete
    2. My subscription is also digital. There was a li k to Letters at the bottom of the Home page. Not really obvious.

      Delete
    3. Whoever wrote that letter should win a medal.

      Delete
    4. Jim, I would guess that the thousands of us in the DC area for whom the Post is the local, hometown paper (even when read in pixels), would agree. Enough already. Enough about trump!

      Delete