Why Democrats are winning.

June 15, 2023

          One challenge of writing a daily newsletter that discusses the seemingly endless stream of jaw-dropping, head-spinning developments is to avoid a narrative that goes something like this: “This bad thing happened, and then another bad thing happened. And then X person made this outrageous statement while Y person attacked LGBTQ people and Z person tried to make it more difficult for Black Americans and young people to vote.”

          While such descriptions are warranted given the rise of MAGA extremism and must be acknowledged if we hope to overcome the underlying events, there is always “more” to the story. And that “more” is usually a positive counter-narrative that takes time to explain and doesn’t make for good television or alarming headlines. Unfortunately, the GOP primary will be a boundless source of jaw-dropping, head-spinning material for the next year.

          While discussing the statements and positions of GOP presidential candidates (including Trump), it is helpful to remember that such statements are inherently self-defeating to some extent. Statements that provoke outrage and anger in you should have a similar effect on other voters—enough to make Trump (or his clones) unelectable in the general election.

          I frequently urge readers to ignore polls that attempt to predict the outcome of the 2024 election—especially eighteen months out! But looking at voting data on a retrospective basis can provide insights into whether, how, and to what degree Trump's message of MAGA extremism is playing out in elections. A retrospective look at voting trends since 2016 paints a hopeful, positive picture for Democrats in the short and long term.

          A reader sent a link to a voting trends analysis by Michael Podhorzer in Portside, The Emerging Anti-MAGA Majority. This is a deeply researched, data-rich article that presents a level of analysis far beyond the usual election analysis fare in major media outlets. I recommend reading the article for as long and deeply as you can. I confess that I struggled with some of the graphs near the end of the article.

          The author examines the question of why MAGA Republicans have lost most regular and special elections since 2016. Although some might posit that Democrats have wooed back Obama voters who supported Trump in 2016, Podhorzer explains that the reason for Democratic success since 2016 is based on attracting non-voters and new voters to the Democratic coalition.

Podhorzer writes,

Instead, Republicans have lost because of the emerging anti-MAGA majority consisting of those who did not vote in 2016. The literally unprecedented surge in new voters over the last three elections has two components: 1) young people are aging into the electorate, and are voting at a higher rate than previous generations at their age, and reject MAGA by 20-point margins, and 2) those who skipped 2016 (the so-called “Obama-none” voters) have returned. Those margins with young voters have two components – that young voters are much more diverse than the rest of the population, and young white people are far more anti-MAGA than their parents.

          Podhozer says that neither party has made much progress in moving voters in “red” or “blue” states, but Democrats are succeeding in “purple” states by attracting “new” voters, while “legacy” (older) voters are sticking with Trump. That dynamic spells short-term and long-term success for Democrats as new voters join the voting rolls and legacy voters exit. Per Podhozer,

Post-2016 voters in Blue and Red states still substantially favor Democrats and Republicans, respectively. On the other hand, in Purple states, new voters favor Democrats, while legacy voters favor Republicans.

          A possible explanation for the above dynamic is that younger voters are offended by the anti-democratic, anti-woman, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-environment rhetoric of the GOP presidential cohort. That explanation is my surmise, but it makes sense to me. MAGA extremism repels more new voters than it attracts.

          Finally, Podhozer explains succinctly why we should “ignore” the polls that track presidential favorability as a predictor of the 2024 election. Podhozer writes,

Nor is there any reason to listen to those who panic at any survey which shows Biden substantially behind . . . . Invariably, those prophesying doom . . . . over rely on polling results that reflect the generalized disaffection of the moment with all politicians, rather than election results which consistently show that the voters in the key Purple states reject MAGA/Trump when the choice is clear.

          MAGA extremists won in 2016 but lost in 2018, 2020, and 2022. An explanation that says “Democrats are attracting new voters at a higher rate because MAGA policies are repelling new voters” fits the data. There is obviously a lot more going on, but if attracting new voters is a key part of Democratic success, we should feel confident about our future. And that knowledge should allow us to tolerate the hateful rhetoric of the MAGA presidential candidates—because it is self-defeating and self-limiting.

The Presidential Records Act.

          Trump attended a post-arraignment birthday dinner at the scene of the crime (Mar-a-Lago). He gave a speech that was clearly written by members of his defense team. In the speech, he asserted that the Presidential Records Act gave him the authority to retain national defense secrets. That statement is false, a fact that is frequently noted by news anchors and legal commentators when they report on Trump's claim.

          But why is Trump wrong in asserting that the Presidential Records Act gave him the right to retain the records for a period of two years after his presidency ended?  The National Archives has provided a helpful FAQ section that addresses Trump's claims. See Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Presidential Records and the Presidential Records Act | National Archives.

          I excerpt relevant sections below, highlighting portions that directly rebut Trump's claims. I have omitted legal citations.

Question: How much time do outgoing Presidents have to go through their papers to determine what to retain as personal documents?  

Answer: The Presidential Records Act (PRA) requires the President to separate personal documents from Presidential records before leaving office. The PRA makes clear that, upon the conclusion of the President’s term in office, NARA assumes responsibility for the custody, control, preservation of, and access to the records of a President. The PRA makes the legal status of Presidential records clear and unambiguous, providing that the United States reserves and retains “complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records.” There is no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office to sort through, such as for a two-year period as described in some reports.

Question: How are documents in the White House determined to be an official Presidential record or a personal record?

Answer: The Presidential Records Act (PRA) defines what constitutes “Presidential records” and what are “personal records.” . . .  The President does not have discretion to categorize a Presidential record as a personal record.

          So, next time you hear someone claim that the Presidential Records Act allowed Trump to take documents at the end of his term so he could designate which documents are presidential records and which are his personal property, you can refer them to the National Archives for the correct information.

Democrats and twenty-one Republicans defeat motion to censure Rep. Schiff.

          Democrats were able to table a motion to censure Rep. Adam Schiff with help from twenty Republicans. The vote as 225-196-7 to table the motion, with five Democrats and two Republicans voting “present.” See The Hill, Censure of Adam Schiff blocked by House. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who sponsored the motion, promised to file a new resolution next week to censure Rep. Schiff.

          The five Democrats who voted “present” are all members of the House Ethics Committee. They presumably did not vote on the motion to preserve their independence in the event they are called upon to preside over the provision for a fine against Rep. Schiff. Apparently, the Republican members of the House Ethics Committee felt no such obligation to preserve their independence.

          This is a good outcome for Rep. Adam Schiff. The effort to censure him for his service to the nation was an affront to all Americans.

A few words about Ron DeSantis.

          Real Clear Politics published an article about Ron DeSantis’s disturbing plans if he is elected president. See Real Clear Politics, EXCLUSIVE: The DeSantis Plan To Wage War on ‘Weaponized’ DOJ.

          According to RCP, DeSantis plans to fire, uproot, and disband key components of the DOJ and FBI, including moving their headquarters and personnel out of Washington, D.C.

          RCP writes,  

The governor has privately told advisors that he will hire and fire plenty of federal personnel, reorganize entire agencies, and execute a “disciplined” and “relentless” strategy to restore the Justice Department to a mission more in line with what the “Founding Fathers envisioned.”

But his ambitions go beyond bureaucratic restructuring. He wants to physically remove large swathes of the DOJ from the District of Columbia, including FBI headquarters, RealClearPolitics is first to report.

“We’re not going to let all this power accumulate in Washington, we’re going to break up these agencies,” DeSantis said during a private strategy session over the weekend, excerpts of which were obtained exclusively by RCP. He vowed in that call to order “some of the problematic components of the DOJ” be uprooted, reorganized, and then promptly “shipped to other parts of the country.”

           DeSantis will have difficulty keeping his expansive promises to donors, especially if Congress is firmly in Democratic hands. By statute, all executive offices are required to be resident in the District of Columbia. Per 4 U.S. Code § 71,

All that part of the territory of the United States included within the present limits of the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United States. All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.

          Despite the statutory requirement that the executive branch of the government be located in D.C., DeSantis could nonetheless wreak havoc—on his own administration. His first order of business, if he is elected president, will be to attract senior leaders to the DOJ and FBI who are willing to reside in Oklahoma and Kansas (no offense intended to either state). Moreover, for a man who has spent his time as a governor increasing the power of the executive branch of the state government, it seems unlikely that he will set about dismantling two of the presidency’s most powerful agencies.

          There is little sign that DeSantis can overcome his awkward personality and outrageous policies in Florida to become president. But if he gains traction, his Covid policies will be a weak spot. Mehdi Hasan of MSNBC just published an article that suggests DeSantis’s Covid policies increased Florida’s death rate substantially after the vaccine became available. See MSNBC, DeSantis is trying to gaslight America about his Covid record in Florida.

          As Hasan notes, DeSantis frequently touts his “anti-mask” policies for keeping the number of deaths in Florida below that of New York and California. Of course, the relevant comparison is the death rate, which normalizes deaths by the size of the population. On that metric, Florida was in the middle of the pack of death rates for the entire pandemic.

          But, if you examine the death rate after the vaccine became available, Florida’s death rate increased dramatically compared to other large states, such as California and New York. As Hasan notes, Florida’s death rate after the vaccine became available was nearly double that of California! Worse, more than half of Florida’s deaths due to Covid came after the vaccine became available—a travesty!

          Trump has been claiming that DeSantis mishandled the response to the Covid pandemic. He now has the data to back up that claim. But in the “up is down” world of MAGA extremism, suggesting that DeSantis should have promoted the vaccine may be an untenable position for Trump—but not for Biden!

          I receive emails from readers every day that say, “DeSantis is more dangerous than Trump.” I agree that both are threats to American democracy and are unfit to be president. Tell a friend!

A victory for the environment and the Inflation Reduction Act in Texas.

          Last week, a coalition of environmentalists, industry organizations, and business groups defeated an effort in the Texas legislature to shut down the green energy industry in Texas. In 2002, green energy accounted for only 1% of production in Texas. Today, it accounts for more than 25% of Texas’s power production—which is why Governor Abbott and Texas Republicans attempted to strangle the green energy industry. See David Wallace Wells in NYTimes, Opinion | Even in Texas, You Can’t Stop the Green Revolution.

          A reader recommended the op-ed to my attention, writing

The importance and beauty of the piece is that it highlights a way that Biden's good work has put together a coalition to pass the Inflation Reduction Act. It has actually had a positive effect on a number of red states and that there seems to be, grudgingly, a force for good that may embed itself in these states going forward that all of us on the blue state side can get behind as well. A true win-win and a seed for future ways we may be able to save this country.

Concluding Thoughts.

          As I hope you have noticed, I have shifted the primary focus of the newsletter away from the Trump indictment over the last two nights. After four days of nearly exclusive coverage on that topic, I concluded that I needed to return to my regular programming—despite the fact that major media continues its coverage unabated.

          The indictment of a former president and current leading contender for the GOP nomination is one of the most significant stories of our lifetime. We can’t avoid it. Finding the right balance is the tricky bit. Trump will likely be defending four criminal indictments through the 2024 presidential election. His pursuit of the presidency may be his primary defense to the criminal charges. So, not writing about it is not an option.

          But you can help me bring balance to the news and remain focused on the positive aspects of our endeavors. Please be on the lookout for stories that can help inform, inspire, and motivate readers as we work to defend democracy. If you can, please send articles that are not behind paywalls (or, if you are a paid subscriber to the source, use one of your “gift” options to share the article).

          I don’t mean to whine about the effort to bring balance to the newsletter. That is a challenge each of us will face every day through November 5, 2024—and beyond. We all need to be intentional about finding that balance. We can’t ignore the extraordinary events that will determine the rights, liberties, health, and safety of hundreds of millions of Americans. Nor can we become prisoners to the news cycle.

          So, we need to target our issues, moderate our consumption, and choose our sources. As I said to a reader today who expressed exhaustion over the focus on Trump, “Take a guilt-free break from the newsletter. I will still be here whenever you want to check back in.” I think that is good advice for everyone as to all sources of news. Taking a break is a sign of health and strength that will ensure your readiness for future challenges that will test us all.  

          Stay strong, but don’t be reluctant to pace yourself. We will need your full attention at a later date!

          Talk to you tomorrow!