There's a new letter from 100 political scientists on the threat to democracy, and the need for federal election standards
It may be too oblique to reshape the debate, but it does nudge the conversation toward the most salient issues newamerica.org/political-refo…
The letter recognizes the preeminent threat of election subversion, advocates a comprehensive federal response, and notes that the current proposals are insufficient.
But it doesn't quite state the legislative implication: a totally different proposal is probably needed
Embedded in the letter, however, is the key framework that might help Congress craft a law that's both more efficacious and has a better chance of passing: minimum standards to protect what's necessary for democracy
I doubt anything can get 60 votes right now.
But if there's any chance to get Manchin off the filibuster, it would be far, far, far likelier to happen with something that's narrowly tailored to protect democracy than a bill like HR1
And part of the problem here is that HR1 doesn't include a lot of what you'd want for protecting democracy, and so you can't just trim the fat off of HR1 and end at a workable product. They kind of need to start over if they want something effective and viable
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
More generally, there's this weird thing that's going on with the HR1 push: there's not really much evidence of an effort to craft a proposal with a real chance of success, despite advocates insisting on the urgency of doing something
HR1 reflects the hopes of a coalition of reformist interest groups. That doesn't mean it's bad. But it was crafted to satisfy the coalition, not the demands of passing Congress. And most reporting--and common sense--suggests it's very far away from something that could pass
This is all separate from another serious but more salvageable issue: the law doesn't really deal with election subversion, which has plainly emerged as a more serious threat than suppression
One theme in my replies yesterday is an assumption that plausible reforms under consideration--ending gerrymandering, DC/PR, HR1, etc.--would so fundamentally change the electoral incentives that the GOP would have no choice but to moderate
I don't think that's clear at all
That's not to say that they wouldn't make things tougher on the GOP, but in terms of the magnitude of the effect consider this: the GOP would probably still win all three branches of government in 2016, a fairly close election, if all of those changes were enacted
It's useful to go by chamber. Adding up to four Senate seats would certainly help Democrats, but it wouldn't be enough to flip control in any election this decade.
It would move the Senate bias from R+5 to R+4. Hardly a huge incentive to remake the GOP.
Based on this @RonBrownstein piece, it seems the Biden admin's lack of emphasis on HR1/HR4 reflects their evaluation--and in my view, an accurate evaluation--of the relative threats democracy and Democrats. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
According to the article, Biden administration appears to believe that the GOP voter suppression laws, however odious, don't really pose a meaningful threat to democracy or Democrats.
It does appear to take the threat of election subversion--like refusal to certify--seriously
One missed connection here is that HR1/HR4 doesn't do much to address to election subversion. These are reform bills; they just weren't conceived to secure the fundamentals of democracy, and the politics around these bills might be quite a bit different if they were.
Republican candidates for House won the most votes in 29 states worth 290 electoral votes, accounting for uncontested races, even as Democrats won the House and carried the national House vote by about 2 points by the same measure
And if the conventional wisdom is right about how redistricting will go for Democrats, and I believe it is, then even that national margin of victory in the House vote probably wouldn't be enough to hold the chamber in 2022
I think this winds up as an important twist on the 'why won't the GOP rebrand/autopsy/ditch Trump?' question.
Many have noted the GOP nearly won in 2020, but if the non-Trump GOP did enough to win a trifecta, at least on a 2022 map, why would it think it needs to do anything?
Can Biden bounce back among Latinos? I think there are a lot of reasons for Ds to hope so
Merely holding 2016 support among Latino voters would have meant a Biden+2 victory in Florida and Trump+1 in Texas.
Is there any GOP dead-cat bounce in affluent, well-educated, conservative suburbs?
They're not going back to pre-Trump levels, of course. But what about merely Trump 2016? Here's there's a lot more GOP upside in Texas than Florida
I'm a little late to the Catalist report on the demographic makeup of the electorate from earlier this week, but I wanted to note a few quick things catalist.us/wh-national/
One observation: in the fight between AP/Votecast and the exit poll, the Catalist estimates are a fairly clear vote in favor of Votecast.
And when you put all the various sources together (adding CCES, CPS, live phone), the exit polls are an outlier on several indicators
I'm not going to be comprehensive, but the exit polls continue to show--as they have for more than a decade--an erroneously diverse and well educated electorate, with countervailing (and erroneous) Dem weakness among white voters (esp with a degree)