Early voting began yesterday in Ohio. Three STATISTA graphics provide a good framework for thinking about the midterms.
This great graphic confirms my long held theory that voters vote against the greater of two evils. I formulated that view when Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater. The pundits said that the Republican party would never recover. I simply saw them repudiating the Republican Party represented by Goldwater.
Essentially in the midterms we almost always repudiated the party in power as the greater of two evils. We have absorbed the need for checks and balance into our voting for political parties even when we are skeptical of both parties. Those who are not rigid party voters do the work for us.
If I were campaigning door to door I would carry copies of this post, tell people about my theory of voting, and ask for their thoughts, and then carefully listen to them.
As seen in presidential approval ratings, Obama was a more popular president, achieving 51 percent approval at the end of his term. Both Biden and Trump proved less popular, at annual average approval ratings between 39 percent and 44 percent.
Note that Republican maximized their affiliation during the Biden term at 46%, and that the Democratic affiliation has always been between 44 and 49%. That means the Democrats problem is their failure to mobilize their base, while Trump has done a good job of mobilizing the Republican base.
The affiliation measure for each party is a combination of those who affiliate with the party and those who lean. Essentially the Democratic party lost people during the Biden administration.
I think you are right that voters vote against the greater of two evils. Or rather what they perceive as the greater of two evils. The Republican line is that the Democrats are socialists (at least, maybe next door to communists) and want to force that agenda on everyone. That they can't be trusted to govern. And worst of all they are about "wokeism". Oogetty boogetty. So far that has worked like a charm.
ReplyDeleteI think the Democrats' best strategy is to throw their record back at them. All the pundits seem to be advising to focus on affordability. Fine. But they shouldn't stop with that. Throw the Iran war, masked goons in the streets, kidnapping people, and putting them in internment camps, voter suppression, corruption, and all the rest of the stuff the administration has done in broad daylight back at them. People want to know what the greater of two evils is? Here it is, in real time.
I guess one of the great questions facing Democrats is: why did they lose people during the Biden administration? I am aware of two theories: (1) Biden wasn't sufficiently progressive; the party's energy for a number of years now has been in its leftie wing; (2) Biden proved to be a progressive in moderate's clothing, tacking consistently to the left once he was installed in office.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people (including me) saw Biden, toward the end, as a symbol of the disarray/disunity in the party. First he pledged not to run again, then he did run, then he had to be persuaded to drop out, he had kept Harris out of the spotlight (unlike Trump who has Vance front and center) so that she was a virtual unknown, and there was no consistent message or vision.
DeleteNone of that gave me the stomach to vote for Trump, but enough other people thought they were at least getting a known entity with him.
A lot of people also liked Trump's DOGE idea. I'm not sure it isn't a good idea in theory for an independent fact-finder to take a hard look at our bureaucracy and duplication of effort every few decades. But, of course, that's not what Elon did.
Not progressive enough....too progressive. A darned if you do darned if you don't scenario. I think a lot of it was a Covid hangover.
DeleteAnd I think Jean is right, Biden should have kept his word about one term only. Then the Democrats would have had an actual primary. Either Harris would have won, or someone else would have, and people would have felt that the candidate was more "legit". And possibly? that candidate would have done better.
I think culture war issues are radioactive, But threats to democracy and the rule of law are real, Democrats shouldn't lose focus on those, in addition to the economy.
Jim, did the democrats lose people because of Biden? His record is actually pretty good, but he didn’t toot his own horn loudly enough. He brought down the COVID induced inflation faster than any other western leader. Real wages rose for the first time in decades, and he also brought down the COVID related unemployment in record time. I suspect that the real problem was related to the fact that Kamala is a black female. I’m guessing racism and misogyny are the biggest reasons she lost. Plus she isn’t very charismatic, but few presidents are.
DeleteAnne I agree. Had his faculties not diminished so visibly, I would have been fine with him for another four years. I especially appreciated the way he conducted foreign policy.
DeleteI understand his border policies really hurt him politically (and helped Trump). Personally they didn't affect me or my life, but apparently a lot of voters were upset about the number of immigrants crossing the border.
Re: Kamala: I thought she ran a decent campaign in 2024.
DeleteJim, why were so many voters upset about immigrants? The immigration issue definitely won votes in MAGA land. Why? Racism. Studies have shown that immigrants don’t take many jobs that white and African Americans do. But they do take the jobs that whites and African Americans won’t take. They’re a net positive for the economy. But they have brown skin and speak Spanish. Trump tapped into the racism in 2016 and realized that he could seal the deal by manipulating the pro- life movement and inciting fear and hatred of immigrants. Sad that this was his winning g formula. Twice.
Delete"I understand his border policies really hurt him politically (and helped Trump)."
DeleteProbably, and Harris was his designated "border czar," tho her activity along those lines was kinda skimpy.
If Biden had helped more border towns like El Paso, where immigrant bottlenecks occurred and increased the number of judges to get asylum claims adjudicated quicker, things might not have gone quite so badly.
However, Trump had stirred up so much anti-immigrant feeling with insane claims (they're eating pets!!) that a lot of people couldn't think straight.
MAGA needed scapegoats. Immigrants were there. If it wouldn't have been them it would have been someone else. Clue is the rise in antisemitism now.
DeleteWe do need a rational immigration policy, and they were working on a bipartisan bill. But Trump shot it down. He wasn't even in office then. But he wanted to use it when he came back. And he did
That's right! I forgot that dirty little trick.
DeleteUnfortunately not until 2028. Such a brazen Zionist tool. Just repeats their talking points like a robot. There were clues that vame up during his campaign. Years ago, while mayor of Braddock, he held a young black man at gunpoint because he suspected the jogger after hearing what he thought were gunshots. His opponent in the election was Doctor Oz. His primary Democratic rivals were suits. And also pro-Israel. Fetterman is over-the-top with that nonsense.
Delete"Jim, why were so many voters upset about immigrants? "
DeleteYes, I am sure dislike of the "other", whether that is racism or some other "ism", plays a big part - perhaps the biggest part.
I think we need to ask ourselves, Is it possible to be either too open or not open enough to immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and others? We can look at those questions from many angles: moral, political, economic, practical, security, and so on.
It appears to me that many, perhaps most, Americans operate from a stance of fear of a world that none of us fully understand in its vastness and complexity. This fear leads to a bias toward fewer rather than more immigrants. Under Donald Trump, the GOP has fanned the flames of this fear with rhetoric of violent criminals, out of control crime, and so on.
Populism is really bad in a lot of ways. This is certainly one of them.
The energy in the Democratic party WAS in the youth, They got Obama first the nomination and then the presidency. I saw that first-hand because I usually take a course or two at Lakeland, our Community College.
ReplyDeleteI decided to join the Obama campaign because I had been active in the Eugene McCarthy campaign which successfully ousted Lyndyn Johnson. Young people have been generally more progressive because they can see the positives in change because young people (and animals) are more open to experimentation than older people (and animals).
By the week before election, I came to know the precinct captain, The day before the election I hung reminders on the doors of one of the wealthiest sections of our county, and the day of the election on the doors of one of the most conservative sections of our county loaded with McCain signs. The reminders had the age and gender of the person. I was reminding the young people of their commitment to vote for Obama. He carried Lake County about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. At that time, Ohio was still viewed as a swing state and our county as a swing county.
By the time of the second Obama election, I had my walking problem. No campaigning. But I did something that I had never done. I contributed money to a campaign. Indeed, I contributed the maximum amount because the Obama people during the primary season were building a computer system to organize grass roots supporters. I was disappointed in the results, one or two meetings nothing substantial.
In the next election when Hiliary ran, I received a personal invitation to meet her at a private location. It was probably one of those people who organized maximum amount donors. I decided not to go and luckily found Bernie a month or two later. Again, I was impressed with Bernie because he had the youth vote.
However, Hiliary was nominated instead of Bernie and lost to Trump, then Biden was nominated instead of Bernie. Although he won (probably more correctly Trump lost) the lesson for the youth was that new people (the young) and new ideas (Sanders) were not welcome in the Democrat party. Look at the Biden lost to Trump with the eyes of young progressives. All because some Democrats and well as many Republicans have a fear of the word socialism. Remember the saying "Don't trust people over thirty."
Young people are more attuned to the world around them. In recent decades that has been toward a progressive world of change. In my youth that meant each generation did better than its parents. That is no longer true, so youth are far more open to reactionary politics and manipulation by people like Trump who identify groups and elites that are the "enemy".
I don't think we will have a blue wave this time because the youth will turn out, it will because it is the Republicans not the Democrats who are demoralized. Democrats finally have hope that Trump will bring Republicans down rather than rallying them.
I find it hard to see the positives in the Biden Administration even though there may be some. His unwavering and unconditional support for Israel's genocidal project even after it went light speed cancelled out anything for which I might have given him credit. I have already filled out my mail-in ballot. FWIW, I voted almost all Democratic because the present situation of three branches under one party is disaster-squared. But I don't expect the Democrats to do anything for ordinary people because ordinary people don't give them huge dollops of money. I don't expect them to stop the stupid war on Iran because it would offend Israel. I don't expect them to stop the Palestinian Genocide for the same reason. As for Ukraine, why negotiate with an established nuclear power when you can keep pushing and poking the Bear to see what happens? The Democrats are just a not-so-rightwing party. Footnote: for PA governor, I voted Libertarian merely because they're third party. Shapiro previously served in the IDF and critisized U. of P. student demonstrations against the zionist genocide. My guess is he'd throw the US under the Greyhound if it were a choice between this country and Israel.
ReplyDeleteIs Fetterman up for reelection? He needs to go.
DeleteOff topic: Hegseth plans to live stream Nidal Hassan's execution.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/08/hegseth-fort-hood-shooter-public-execution
Sorry Jean, I didn't see your comment before I commented.
DeleteNow Hegseth has announced plans to livestream a firing squad execution on Dec. 3. A "happy Advent, Merry Christmas" message. Or something. Does Congress have any oversight of this? I thought public executions were illegal. They all ought to be, but this is nothing but blood sport. I hope there is some way to protest, because if it actually happens it's a step over the cliff.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least we know our national leaders are not at risk of falling into the sin of "toxic empathy."
DeleteI'd say some protest calls and letters to your fed reps are warranted at least. I cannot imagine who benefits from a public execution.
More proof of how this administration is dragging America into the gutter. The only other OECD country that has capital punishment is Japan - the other OECD countries have abolished capital punishment. Of course that “admirable” Catholic, William Barr, was delighted to execute a whole bunch of people on death row at the end of trumps first administration..
DeleteAmerica will now join Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Afghanistan, North Korea— in the ranks of most barbaric countries
From the Guardian:
DeleteJD Vance – a practicing Catholic – told reporters on Friday he wouldn’t watch the livestreamed execution of Hasan, but stopped short of criticizing the administration’s decision.
When asked how his Christian beliefs influence his view of the public execution, Vance dismissed controversy about the manner of execution and appeared to question whether the livestream will happen.
“Whatever the controversy is about the method of the execution, I hope the people don’t forget that this is a guy who brutally murdered a lot of innocent people,” the US vice-president told reporters. “That said, if it’s ultimately livestreamed, I’m not going to be watching it.”
I don't know how it is better to say you're "not going to watch it", but say nothing about the morality of the execution itself. No one is saying that the guy is innocent, or that he ought to be let loose. He is in a wheelchair, somehow that just adds another layer.
DeleteThe arguments for the death penalty always include some version of "the victims' families deserve to see justice done". But it won't do a thing to help them, it will just make them live through the murders again.
David Brooks on PBS Friday night gave a good explanation of why most countries have banned public executions--they do not deter violence, but instead whip up bloodlust and increase the general appetite for cruelty and violence.
DeleteWe really don't need more of that in this country, not when last week two more men in Georgia and Pennsylvania slaughtered their families, including kids..
I read this morning that various people who have Trump's ear - staff members, members of Congress, friends, leaders from other nations - have been whispering to him that the public execution is a very bad idea. He has now taken a half-step back, saying that there are pros and cons, and that he will be the one to decide.
DeleteBased on his recent track record of making unfathomable decisions that are against the interests and welfare of the country he was elected to lead, I suspect he will decide to go through with televising it. But anyone who professes to know what Trump will decide, is claiming too much. I understand it often comes down to, who talked to him about it most recently.
I see that Archbishop Broglio has said that any Catholic service person who is assigned to be part of the firing squad for the execution is obliged to ask to be excused.
DeleteInteresting abt Ab Broglio. Is the distinction that killing in war is justified as self-defense (arguable in any of the missions Trump has embarked on), but that killing as punishment/entertainment is not?
DeleteI think the distinction is that while killing in war can sometimes be justified as self defense, there is no way to spin killing someone who has been in prison and is paraplegic since 2009 as self defense.
DeleteI think the distinction is that Papal Teaching has pretty much come down on the side that all executions are immoral because they are not necessary to remove the offender from society and that while most wars are immoral because they can be solved by other means, a country still may defend itself from an unjust war but not react proactively.
DeleteArchbishop Broglio when asked by the BBC about the US invading Greenland pretty much gave a similar answer that soldiers would have to ask to be excused.
The reality of US military service (since one cannot reasonably spend all one's time in the service questioning the judgment of one's superiors in particular cases) is that it is better to take CO status as a conscientious objector to all war preparation and waging by the US than to simply decide that one will accept the judgment of one's superiors all the time.
There was a time when many saw the extensive U.S. "defense establishment" as a means of U.N. authorized "peace keeping." The Trump administration has pretty much said that we are in the making war for our own purposes.
That puts an Archbishop of the military services in the uncomfortable position of having soldiers ask: Can I invade Greenland? blow up civilian ships at sea? assassinate whomever we identify as hostile without trial or notice?
It is interesting that while he was still president of the American Bishop Conference Broglio did not raise these concerns, probably because he knew he would not get strong backing from his brother bishops, now however he has to face these unavoidable issues in his own archdiocese.
There were once some bishops involved in Pax Christi, a Catholic organization that supported CO's. I think that Catholic youth (women as well as men) during their college years should all face the issue of becoming a CO and opt to spend a year in voluntary church service as evidence of their unwillingness to participate in military service, maybe even somewhat like a religious take a vow of peace. Traditionally Catholic religious as well as clergy have been exempted from military service.
I think we should continue to respect men and women who join police and military forces for their good intentions to help protect us.
"killing in war can sometimes be justified as self defense"
DeleteI think killing in war can be justified by more than self-defense, although self-defense surely is part of it.
To illustrate my thinking, let me note this sentence from the Catechism, no. 2310:
"Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace."
There are a couple of points here. Regarding the morality of killing others during military service, this statement positions it as a matter of maintaining national security and national freedom. In my view, this takes military killing (as in a battle) out of the realm of personal morality (such as the right to self-defense) and into the realm of the common good (the rights of nations to defend their their people and their territorial integrity).
The second point is: this statement refers to serving with honor and integrity. As I understand it, honor and integrity not only are Catholic moral requirements, they are also core values of US military service. I think one military-morality way to think about this proposed public execution is that it is dishonorable.
In fact, there are multiple objections:
* It is dishonorable
* It is not sufficiently proximate to legitimate defense-of-the-country considerations(*)
* It is profoundly anti-life: (a) the church opposes the death penalty, full stop; (b) making the execution public, as Hegseth proposes, in some sort of twisted celebration, makes it much more immoral.
(*) IIRC, the person who is slated to be executed is the Fort Hood shooter. My recollection of the incident is, he was an active serviceman who became a radicalized Islamist. The argument could be made that this attack constitutes a military attack by a US adversary (I think he was affiliated with the Taliban in some way). Because he was actively serving in the Army, he was convicted by a military court of justice, which is why Hegseth is involved. So perhaps an argument could be made that the shooting constituted a war-time attack on the United States. But istm that interpretation is open to dispute: it's not the same thing as, say, the Pearl Harbor attack or the occupation of Fort Sumter
Hmm. Just to play Devil's Advocate:
DeleteHow is participating in the execution "dishonorable"?
If Hegseth were not televising this gleefully, would participating in the execution still be wrong?
If Hasan's killing spree is construed as an attack on the nation, *how* is it any different than a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?
Unfortunately anyone in the military can be asked to do immoral acts. Those of us old enough to remember Viet Nam well remember the My Lai massacre. The defense was that they were just following orders. Pete Hegseth’s actions at shooting small boats, and orders to shoot survivors are considered war crimes. under the Gene a Conventions according to experts. Maybe someday he will be tried for war crimes. Fortunately none of our sons were interested in a military career. If they had been I would have done my best to change their minds. Because based on reports of veterans of mid- east wars and Viet Nam ( my generation) they are often expected to undertake immoral actions that could be considered war crimes. Even if not technically war crimes, they could be ordered to do things they thought were immoral and be placed in a very difficult and dangerous situation if they disobey orders.
DeleteDefense is permitted. Iran isn’t defending our country it was a power grab for land by Israel and a power grab to control Irans oil industry on the part of Trump. He thought it would be as easy as Venezuela. He brags about all the oil that is now coming into the US. Venezuelan oil isn’t as “ good” as Iranian oil which is even more valuable. Grabbing other countries’ natural resources is not a moral reason to go to war.
"If Hegseth were not televising this gleefully, would participating in the execution still be wrong?"
DeleteI think it is dishonorable by exercising a critical role in a dishonorable activity, i.e. the televised celebration of this man's execution, being broadcast by an evil regime for polical purposes.
By contrast, the person who flips the switch in an electric-chair execution carried out without witnesses, arguably is committing an immoral act, but I don't see it as dishonorable.
How can an act be immoral but not dishonorable?
DeleteUnrelated, sending more prayers for Pope Leo. He had his surgery today, and it did turn out to be cancer. They're saying it was caught early and he has a good prognosis. But that diagnosis is never something one wants to hear. A few of us here are cancer survivors, and can relate to what he is going through.
ReplyDeleteI had not heard it has been diagnosed as cancer. I will add him to my cancer prayer list. We want him around for many more years!
DeleteFrom what I am reading now, the diagnosis was much worse than originally communicated. Still much not known, e.g. has the cancer spread elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteI haven't read anything further other than it was cancer and the tumor was small. I think they had a pretty good idea it was cancer before they did the surgery. Normally it takes several days after surgery for pathology to generate a final report on the tissue removed after they go over it all with a fine tooth comb (or a fine tooth electron microscope). A big question will be whether there was lymph node involvement.
DeleteI really hope he would postpone that South America trip and give his body a chance to heal.
DeleteThe popes keep up a pretty strenuous sked even for healthy people. I hope he takes it easy! He seems like a good man who is largely immune to b.s.
DeleteI see that Pope Leo was able to celebrate Mass at Gemelli Hospital today, so it's good he was feeling up to it.
DeleteI heard a cancer specialist on one of the news programs state that it was obvious from the speed of scheduling the operation that the doctors had reason to fear it was (is?) malignant. Further testing needed to determine whether, and how fast and far, it may have spread.
DeleteSo sad. I hope we can still have his necessary voice for a while. He didn’t smoke but apparently he was exposed to a lot of second hand in his career. Pope Francis had lung removal as well. Get Trump’s doctors for Pope Leo. If they can keep that pile of decrepitude and libertinism alive…
Delete