Keeping control of the Senate

September 24, 2024

On a day with a dozen important stories reverberating in the media echo chamber, I want to start with a positive report on a fundraiser for Senators Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown. Both face challenging races in November because they have achieved the improbable—being elected and reelected as Democratic Senators in red states. That fact alone means that every reelection effort is an uphill battle.

Their MAGA opponents are being showered with staggering amounts of dark money from the unholy trinity of the cryptocurrency industry, billionaires whose only goal is to lower taxes, and conservative organizations promoting the autocratic, Christian nationalist agenda of Project 2025.

But as is increasingly the case in the 2024 election, Democrats responded with enthusiasm and generosity. Several hundred readers of this newsletter donated to and showed up at a fundraiser hosted by Senate Circle. I moderated a conversation with Senators Tester and Brown that left everyone on the call feeling more confident about Democratic prospects in the US Senate in 2024.

It is easy to see why Senators Tester and Brown have succeeded as Democrats in red states. There is not an ounce of artifice or political calculation between them. They say what they think in a plainspoken, genuine, and charismatic manner. They hold strong beliefs that run counter to those of some of their constituents, but they are men of their word who devote every day working to make the lives of their constituents better—regardless of their political affiliation.

Neither candidate guaranteed victory. They have too much integrity to issue guarantees during a volatile election season. But when they tell you that their chances are strong and that their policy positions are resonating with the voters in their states, it is clear that Democrats have a reasonable basis for hoping we will retain both seats.

Senator Tester noted that at this point in his 2018 re-election bid, he was down by four to six points in the polls (because he voted against Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation). The current public polling regarding the Montana race is skewed by small, low-quality polls by Republican operatives. But even those polls show that Senator Tester leads with younger voters and women—two cohorts that should be motivated to turn out in an election with an initiative protecting reproductive rights on the ballot. Senator Tester is confident that he is better positioned than in 2018 and has the ground organization to win.

Senator Brown is running against an opponent (Bernie Moreno) recruited by JD Vance and supported by the cryptocurrency industry because, you know, cryptocurrency regulation is at the top of the list of issues for Ohio voters—not! Of course, JD Vance and Bernie Moreno have made anti-Haitian animus in Springfield a top campaign theme. But Bernie Moreno outdid himself on Monday, saying that Ohio women are “a little crazy” for supporting abortion rights.”

Moreno continued,

You know, the left has a lot of single-issue voters. Sadly, by the way, there’s a lot of suburban women, a lot of suburban women that are like, ‘Listen, abortion is it. If I can’t have an abortion in this country whenever I want, I will vote for anybody else.’ … OK. It’s a little crazy by the way, but — especially for women that are like past 50 — I’m thinking to myself, ‘I don’t think that’s an issue for you.'”

See Ohio.net, Bernie Moreno calls Ohio women 'a little crazy' for supporting abortion rights.

Bernie Moreno is repeating and extending the slander against women that JD Vance has thrust into the limelight with his “childless cat lady comments.” Moreno shows the same disrespect, ignorance, and intolerance toward women that JD Vance has exhibited throughout the 2024 presidential campaign.

Senators Tester and Brown are both in the fight to win it—and believe they will. They have strong ground operations but need “late money” to keep those operations going strong. At the fundraiser on Monday, readers of this newsletter helped raise $192,170 to be split between Tester and Brown.

It would be terrific if readers of Today’s Edition can help push that total beyond $200,000—to help maximize Democratic prospects for retaining control of the Senate. If you are moved to contribute any amount, the link is here: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/2024_mt_oh. (For amounts less than $100, just fill in the “additional contribution box”).

Thanks to the hundreds of readers who contributed and joined the call. Your generosity and commitment will help Democrats defend the Senate and preserve democracy! Bless you all.

Post-script to the fundraiser

During conversation with Senator Sherrod Brown, he noted that his wife, Connie Schultz, is a Substack author. Connie writes Hopefully Yours—a title that resonates with the viewpoint of this newsletter—“Viewing the news through the lens of hope.”

While I am a guy with a laptop and a lot of opinions, Connie is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and best-selling author, among many other accomplishments. I just subscribed to her Substack. Check it out. As an incentive, Connie recently interviewed Heather Cox Richardson and will be publishing an article about that interview on Substack. Keep an eye out for it!

---

Effort by Nebraska Republicans to change allocation methodology for electoral votes appears to fail

Nebraska is one of two states that apportions electoral college votes by congressional district. In 2020, Joe Biden won one of five electoral votes cast by Nebraska. Republicans fear that Kamala Harris will repeat that feat and so attempted to change to a “winner take all” methodology only 43 days before the election. But to do so, they would need to have sufficient votes to overcome a filibuster in the state legislature.

On Monday, a key Republican state senator in the Nebraska legislature announced that he did not believe it was appropriate to change the allocation methodology so close to the November election. See Talking Points Memo, Key Nebraska Sen Rebuffs MAGA Attempt To Coax Him Into Depriving Harris Of Likely Electoral Vote.

GOP state senator Mike McDonnell issued a statement that said, in part,

After deep consideration, it is clear to me that right now, 43 days from Election Day, is not the moment to make this change. I have notified Governor Pillen that I will not change my long-held position and will oppose any attempted changes to our electoral college system before the 2024 election.

Mail ballots have already been sent, and Democrats have argued that it is too late to change the method for allocating electors given that fact. Democrats have a good point. In casting ballots for a presidential candidate, voters are voting for the electors who pledge to vote for the voter’s preferred candidate. Changing how those electors are allocated after the ballots have been mailed changes the rules mid-stream.

For now, at least, the plan by Nebraska Republicans has failed.

---

Confused by news about polls on Monday? Everyone is!

Ignore the polls—which is almost impossible to do. If you only glanced at your smartphone on Monday, you undoubtedly saw that there were two major polls that seemed diametrically opposed. One poll, the largest phone-based poll since the debate, provided very good news for Kamala Harris. But the NYTimes/Siena poll was (again) a wet towel for the Harris campaign.

What gives? I don’t know, but Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has a long piece that provides a simple explanation: The NYTimes has created a “model of the electorate” that is significantly different than the models used by other pollsters. If the Times had any humility at all, it would acknowledge that its polls were outliers. Instead, its political polling expert (Nate Cohn) assures readers that the polls commissioned by the NYTimes are correct and that all other polls are inferior!

Here is a snippet of Marshall’s excellent analysis in an article entitled, A Tale of Two Polls.

Marshall writes,

I think every serious polling observer would agree that Times-Siena is simply modeling an electorate that is, not dramatically but significantly, different from that which most other pollsters are using. Once that’s clear, it’s not a huge surprise that you have a result like this and the NBC poll coming out at about the same time. . . .

What we can’t really know until the election is which of these models is “right.” All we can say at present is that Times-Siena seems to be an outlier.

If they were some random pollster, they’d be easier to dismiss. But they’re not. They’re well respected. But they’re largely on their own with this theory or model of the electorate.

To the extent there’s a problem it’s that [the NYT] poll has a wildly disproportionate impact on media narratives. You can’t just dismiss it as some crazy, junk poll. Because it’s not.

But the attention to this one poll would suggest that it’s been uniquely predictive in the past or has some dramatically different level of quality than other polls. Neither is the case.

So, we remain where we have been ever since Kamala Harris secured the nomination: It is a close race, but Kamala Harris has the momentum and is moving the polling averages in the right direction. That has been a constant trend. The fluctuations generated by frequently conducted polls with a wide margin of error are more likely to be artifacts of the polling methodology than a true reflection of the electorate's mood.

Ignore the polls—and focus on getting out the vote. In the end, the only poll that matters is the one that takes place on Election Day.

---

NYTimes reports on Trump's efforts to prosecute political opponents

At a rally on Monday, Trump again threatened to prosecute anyone who “cheats” in the 2024 election. Of course, that threat is intended to dissuade honest people from becoming involved in the election process. Just as Trump nearly ruined the lives of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, he is threatening to do so again to anyone who refuses to support his pre-scripted tale of a “rigged” election.

Trump's fresh threat on Monday occurred on the same day the NYTimes published a lengthy report on Trump's efforts during his term as president to prosecute his political enemies. See NYTimes, As President, Trump Demanded Investigations of Foes. He Often Got Them. (This article is accessible to all.)

The Times opens its reporting as follows:

It was the spring of 2018 and President Donald J. Trump, faced with an accelerating inquiry into his campaign’s ties to Russia, was furious that the Justice Department was reluctant to strike back at those he saw as his enemies.

In an Oval Office meeting, Mr. Trump told startled aides that if Attorney General Jeff Sessions would not order the department to go after Hillary Clinton and James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, Mr. Trump would prosecute them himself. The episode marked the start of a more aggressive effort by Mr. Trump to deploy his power against his perceived enemies despite warnings not to do so by top aides. And a look back at the cases of 10 individuals brings a pattern into clearer focus: After Mr. Trump made repeated public or private demands for them to be targeted by the government, they faced federal pressure of one kind or another.

If Trump is re-elected, he will not only repeat the efforts of his prior term, but will do so with the protection of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision in Trump v US. The story in the NYTimes is a stark reminder of how bad things got under Trump—and how close he came to using the DOJ as his private political militia.

---

Opportunities for Reader engagement

---

Movement Voter PAC on Thursday, September 26

Join me (Robert Hubbell), Mainers for Democracy and Movement Voter PAC, on Thursday, September 26th at 7:00 PM Eastern / 4:00 PM Pacific on Zoom to generate much-needed support for local, grassroots organizations who can get out the vote for up- and down-ballot races. These groups are trusted messengers in their communities and live and work there year-round.

I will be sharing more about the importance and need for local organizing to register and turn out voters in order to elect the right people at the state and national levels in defense of our rights and our democracy.

With so much at stake and so little time, it’s more important than ever to focus our resources in critical states and with organizations that will help us win. I support MVP’s efforts. They are a one-stop shop for investing strategically in hundreds of local organizations to win the 2024 elections — and transform policy in 2025.

This free September 26th Zoom event is a fundraiser for the Movement Voter PAC.  Register here for the Zoom link.

---

Join me, Jessica Craven, and Lucian K. Truscott IV during Postcard Around the Clock 3.0

Downtown Nasty Women, Markers For Democracy, and Team Min, are sponsoring a 24 hour extravaganza including dozens of great speakers. On Tuesday at 2:00 pm Eastern / 11:00 am Pacific, I will join Lucian K. Truscott and Jessica Craven for a “Substack writers” discussion about the election.

RSVP here to get the Zoom link now for the full 24 hours so that you can come and go as your schedule permits. If you are new to writing postcards to voters, visit their Postcard Resources page or attend a Postcard Bootcamp on Wednesday evening, Sept. 18. 

---

Concluding Thoughts

I am seeing an uptick in readers who are saying things like, “Trump isn’t canvassing because he plans on stealing the election.” Others are worried about efforts to manipulate the electoral college ballots through lawsuits or refusal of local officials to certify election results. One reader was worried that she has heard nothing about Democratic efforts to counter Republican efforts to cheat.

First, please rest assured that voter protection groups, including Marc Elias’s law firm, are gearing up to file lawsuits when necessary. For the most part, those suits can’t be filed until the election occurs and Republicans refuse to comply with the law. That is why you aren’t hearing about lawsuits that will counter Republican efforts to subvert the election.

Second, it is true that the electoral college system confers a slight advantage on Republicans. But that advantage is a function of the original design of the electoral college (which we can’t change before November) and the evenly divided nature of the American electorate. If, for example, 60% of the population voted Democratic, the electoral college would be an afterthought and a formality instead of the decisive factor it is today. The relative advantage enjoyed by Republicans only comes into play in close races (like the 2024 election).

The complete answer to both of those concerns is to achieve a decisive victory in the electoral college. The only path to that result is by getting out the vote in enough states to prevent the slight Republican advantage in the electoral college from becoming relevant.

I understand the anxiety over Republican efforts to manipulate the system in an unfair manner. But the solution is always motivating turnout. Let the lawyers and voter protection groups do their job, while we do ours!

Talk to you tomorrow!

---

Daily Dose of Perspective

Sometimes, the images that emerge from astrophotography are surprising. You expect the Western Veil Nebula to consist of red, blue, and white ethereal strands. But when you are running out of objects to photograph and point your telescope at a star designated as HR 9104 in the hope of capturing faint nebulosity, it is a pleasant surprise to capture the image below.

The gas cloud below is part of NGC 7882, which I featured in yesterday’s newsletter. Because the fragment below did not have a separate catalog designation, I used star HR 9104 as a target and captured the pleasing image below. Oh, well! Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good!

The gas cloud in the photo below 3,000 light years from Earth.