,
17 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm wondering how the history of strategically adding states to the union in the 19th and early 20th century might help inform the way we grapple with this challenge to our political system moving forward.
Haven't read a ton on this part of US history...but at first blush this makes me think of the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. [I know, this is a terrible precedent...but it's definitely relevant.]
In order to balance the relative political weight of different parts of the country w/ diverging economic structures, the politicians of the 19th century carefully and intentionally added free and slave states in proportion so as to keep the Senate functional.
By "keeping the Senate functional," of course, these pre-Civil War politicians meant "capable of avoiding the issue of slavery." This is just one of the ways America's political tradition rests upon the long history of trying to suppress a conversation about racial inequality.
But can we imagine a different, better way of re-imagining the Senate that would keep the "let's make this institution functional and conducive to governing the union" part but jettison the "let's build a governing consensus upon protecting white supremacy" part?
I know even less about the process through which states were added after the Civil War, so will leave it to others to comment on that history if they're so inclined.
But the bottom line seems to be this. Throughout US history we have added states to the union, and this has been done with at least some attention to how it would impact the functionality of the Senate.
The article (linked in the retweet that opened this thread) does a smart job of unpacking the "constitutional hardball" the GOP played in regard to admitting western states after the Civil War.
As the author concludes, "Democrats should know that admitting new states for political reasons is entirely normal in American history — and it was a tactic pioneered by America’s greatest president [Abraham Lincoln]."
I'd add a few caveats that maybe soften how dire things look moving forward. California was a reliable Republican state for decades. And then, it wasn't. California is unusual, sure, but states do change their political stripes over time in sometimes surprising ways. 
By my count, Trump won 9 states by less than 10 percentage points. [Ga, Tx, Pa, WI, IA, NC, AZ, FL, OH (& also UT if we combine HRC & McMullen votes)] Most of those states trended blue in 2018. A 10% shift can happen quickly, esp in a state w/ few ppl. nytimes.com/elections/2016…
The states that Trump won by < 5% [GA, NC, FL, WI, MI, PA] add up to 106 Electoral Votes. All of those states are quite different from rural GOP strongholds like WY, ND, SD, MT, ID, etc.
Here's the current Senate map. Now consider what Stacey Abrams almost accomplished in a statewide GA race, what Andrew Gillum almost did in a statewide FL race and what Beto O'Rourke almost did in a statewide TX race. Sinema won in AZ, and Tillis won NC by 1% in 2014.
This is a fascinating visualization of how voters acted in 2018 compared to 2016. Notice all of those arrows pointing leftward in red states. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
The average representative district swung 10 points toward the Dems in 2018 compared to 2016. Note that many of these swings happened in districts the GOP still won, but won by a smaller margin.
This is how winning GOP candidates fared in 2018 compared to 2016. The vast majority won by smaller margins. In only a handful of places did the GOP make gains.
The totalizing discourse of "red state/blue state" often obscures more than it reveals. Will the "blueing" dynamic of 2018 keep up in FL, GA, NC, AZ, IA, OH, TX, MI? Who knows. But this map says to me that few things are inevitable in electoral politics.
