A Blue Wave in November? I Doubt It!

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

All of the pundits seem to feel that there is going to be a blue wave this November, and the Democrats are going to trounce the Republicans. Historically, in the off year of a presidential election, the Party in control of the White House loses seats in the Congress. This is not going to happen this November. I do not have any algorithms; I also do not have any computer models. However, what these psephologists and others who perform statistical analyses of elections and polls have not recognized is there has been a paradigm shift in the electorate. The old models are just not going to work anymore. I made this observation, “The Birth of the Electorate Paradigm Shift,” in Citizen Oversight’s August 2015 posting, “…why should we, the electorate, believe any of it? It is the ‘same old – same old’ because the majority of the candidates are calcified bureaucrats … who espouse non-winning strategies.” I wrote that there’s been “…a change in the direction and tone of conversations, interviews, and stump speeches concerning many topics which are of interest to most Americans (not so much politicians – except as it relates to their electability).”

Let’s look at some numbers. In the Senate 35 seats are up for reelection (includes MN and MS special elections); 26 of those seats are held by Democrats, and they need 2 seats to take control. All 435 House seats are up for reelection; probably 215 “favor” Republicans and 200 “favor” Democrats. That means approximately 20 to 25 seats are tossups. Here is where I diverge in my projections from everyone else because I believe the days of Party voting are on the wane. I believe that the electorate is going to be influenced by the people who vote based on the Zeitgeist (German Zeit or “time” and Geist or “Ghost”, specifically, the spirit or invisible force of that period). It will be this defining spirit or mood of the people that will determine the outcome of this election. Included in this assessment are economic issues such as taxation, regulation, employment/unemployment, immigration, terrorism, and social issues. Regardless of regional differences, all will be judged according to what’s happening in Washington.

I think that the midterm elections are going to be decided by those motivated voters who have had enough of the Democratic Party and RINOs and their continued refusal to accept the fact that Donald Trump won the election. Between them and the liberal press, voters have grown tired of only hearing the negatives about the President and our country. In a recent article reported in CNS News, “Today's strong economy is the result of President Donald Trump's policies, according to a recent poll by CBS News, which also showed that nearly half of Americans believe Trump is keeping a good number of his campaign promises. …. As for the 2018 congressional elections, 34% said they would prefer to vote for a ‘Republican who is more in line with Donald Trump.’ Only 22% said they would prefer to vote for ‘a progressive of [sic] liberal Democrat.’” The same poll reported that 72% (of Democrats and Independents) want a Democratic candidate who will promote a progressive agenda; 28% want a candidate who will oppose Trump’s agenda. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/cbs-poll-68-credit-president-trump-current-economy

I have thought about this continued resistance to everything that is “Trump”, and I have finally concluded that the model to explain this is the Kübler-Ross model, otherwise known as the five stages of grief. The five stages are: anger, denial, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model Let’s start with the first stage: anger. It would be hard to find anyone who is a Democrat (and some Republicans) who is not angry that Trump won; I have never seen so much anger and hatred after a national election. The second stage, denial, is evident in the fact that Democrats and Republicans (especially RINOs) are trying to completely ignore him by refusing to accept the fact he is the President (and leader of the Republican Party) by trying to circumvent or prevent his programs. The third stage of bargaining is beginning to creep into the National agenda; it appears that Congress and the Democrats sort of realize he is the President and are trying – in some cases – to find common ground. The fourth stage of depression will occur if the Republicans retain control of both the Senate and the House; I am pretty sure this will put the Democrats over the edge. The last stage, acceptance, will occur at some point between 2020 and 2022. In my opinion this might be the most dangerous stage because the Democrats will regroup and try to refocus an agenda that will resonate with the electorate – and not just be an anti-Trump campaign strategy.

I believe that the voters are going to go to the polls this November with the intent of voting out the incumbents – both Republicans and Democrats. I believe that this anger will be more directed at the Senate level; the numbers (presented previously) favor Republicans coming out on top because of the number of seats up for election/reelection. I believe that the house will be less chaotic because it is a more “personal environment (i.e., smaller jurisdictions). There will be some juggling within the incumbency, but overall I believe the Republicans will come close to keeping control of their existing numbers. The 20 or so House seats that are undecided will probably add to the Republican’s majority.

Obviously, a lot can happen between now and November. I’m going to believe that the positive direction present in Trump’s performance is going to continue. The Consumer Confidence Index is increasing, job openings are increasing, and unemployment is declining. Hopefully the positive things that he is doing will be reported on by the media, and people will realize that Trump is really Making America Great Again! And Americans prefer winners who play fairly. When a campaign ad starts off something like “I’m going to show Trump!” – well, you know that person is a loser who will probably not play fair. As far as the anger against incumbents, James Madison, referring to the House of Representatives, wrote in The Federalist Papers, No. 57: “. . . [T]hey can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? … I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.” While this particular comment is applicable to both parties, the point is that the electorate is upset – and this is just one more reason. Also, according to the latest Gallup Poll, 17% approve of the way Congress is doing their job, but 79% disapprove. Blue wave – I don’t think so, but I do think that somebody’s going to pay!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

MID TERMS MATTER

“CONSTITUTING AMERICA” SERIES ON CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY

The definition of a Midterm Election is that it is held mid-way through the term of the President. While not on the ballot, the President’s electoral mandate and actions to fulfill that mandate, are validated or challenged by voters as they elect members of the Legislative Branch.

Midterms were created as the solution to a fundamental issue in the founding of America:

What is the balance between responsive and responsible government?

The authors and advocates of the U.S. Constitution wrestled with this balance.

One the one hand, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, writing as “PUBLIUS”, asserted in their essays advocating for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, that frequent elections guaranteed Congress’ elected Members responding to the will of the people.

Federalist No. 52:

“First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured…. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration.”

Guaranteeing responsiveness and accountability also needed to be tied to short terms in office.

FEDERALIST No. 57:

“The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.”

On the other hand, Hamilton and Madison worried that too frequent elections would create instability.

Federalist No. 62

“The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.”

Hamilton and Madison raised an issue they considered worse than instability - arbitrary and capricious public policy. They sought a structural solution, “necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.” [Federalist 63]

Hamilton and Madison’s solution was to have two separate bodies within the Legislative Branch, one of which would have longer terms of service. “The proper remedy for this defect must be an additional body in the legislative department, which, having sufficient permanency to provide for such objects as require a continued attention, and a train of measures, may be justly and effectually answerable for the attainment of those objects.’ [Federalist 63]

The Senate, having six year terms for its members, would be a defense against, “particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” [Federalist 63]

Hamilton and Madison cited the importance of deflecting transitory and ill-thought public passion throughout history. “What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.” [Federalist 63]

They concluded that not only terms of service, but the cycles of elections would create the proper balance to assure responsive and responsible democracy: “when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty.” [Federalist 63]

Their solution is embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

ARTICLE I; Section 3

1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year;

The combination of having the entire Membership of the House of Representatives face the electorate every two years, and only a third of the Senate submit to re-election every two years created Midterm Elections.

Throughout American history, Midterm Elections have reshaped Presidential agendas, ended or launched new political movements, and marked watershed moments in the civic culture of the nation.

The 1858 Midterm, prior to American Civil War, showcased the fragmentation of the Democrat Party over slavery and catapulted the four-year-old Republican Party into becoming the dominant plurality faction in both the House and Senate. Sixteen years later, Republicans lost 96 House seats and their majority in reaction to the Grant Administration scandals, and the mismanagement of Southern Reconstruction. 

The 1894 Midterms heralded the reemergence of the Republican Party as a new dynamic force that would bring William McKinley to the Presidency in 1896. The voters also blamed President Grover Cleveland for a major economic depression, leading to jobless workers marching on Washington demanding relief. The Democrats lost 116 seats in the House, the largest defeat in history. Fourteen years later, splits in the Republican Party, especially the falling out between old allies, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, triggered Republicans losing 57 seats in the House and 10 Senate seats. This fragmentation worsened, leading to Woodrow Wilson winning the Presidency in 1912 with 42 percent of the popular vote in a three-way race.

The October 1930 Midterm reflected Americans reeling from the Stock Market Crash, facing a deepening Depression, and the collapse of trust in Republicans. The Republican Party lost 49 House and 8 Senate seats. The Republicans barely retained control of Congress by only two votes in the House and one in the Senate. Their Midterm debacle set the stage for the 1932 election, when Republicans lost the White House for twenty years, and lost Congressional power for three generations. Over the next 62 years, Republicans had ten years of intermittent rule in the Senate and led only two separate Congresses in the House.

America redefined itself in the 1994 Midterm elections. President Bill Clinton had overreached on universal healthcare. There was a revitalized Republican Party, fueled by Conservative Talk radio and the visionary leadership and aggressive tactics of Newt Gingrich.

Democrats were shocked, losing 53 House and 7 Senate seats. This brought Republican rule to the House for the first time since the 1952 election, a forty-two year hiatus. Only one Republican Member had served in the previous Republican era - as a House page.

Since 1994, Republicans have dominated the Legislative Branch, even gaining 6 House and 2 Senate seats in the 2002 Midterm, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush Administration unpopularity and Congressional scandals led to voters ending Republican rule in the 2006 Midterms. President Obama’s policy overreach, Conservative Talk Radio, and the rise of digital and social media, brought Republican majorities back to the House in the 2010 Midterms and the Senate in the 2014 Midterms.

No matter the outcome of the 2018 Midterms, the wisdom of those who struck the balance between responsive and responsible government in the U.S. Constitution will once again be vindicated.

[Scot Faulkner advises corporations and governments on how to save billions of dollars by achieving dramatic and sustainable cost reductions while improving operational and service excellence. He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also served on the White House Staff, and as an Executive Branch Appointee.]

Political Hysteresis: Part Deux

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr.]

In a previous blog titled “The Great Republican Hope: Political Hysteresis” (citizenoversight.blogspot.org, February 11, 2013), I presented the possibility that by just looking at the statistical relationships between Republican and Democratic presidencies over the years produced the possibility that a Republican would win the presidency in 2016. I began thinking about possible relationships between Democratic and Republican control of the Senate over the years. I decided to go back and analyze the data from 1861 to present regarding which party controlled the Senate. I once again have good news to report to the Republican Party: it may be their turn recapture control of the Senate in 2014 – at least statistically.

I previously decided to call this behavior Political Hysteresis: the tendency of an electoral outcome to vary about the central tendency of moderation based upon past and current candidates for the office of President. I am extending this definition now to include candidates for the Senate as a cohort analyzed by party (i.e., the Democrats and the Republicans). Granted, it is the candidate’s position and the Party's platform that drive the election. However, I would like to reiterate a simpler reason: hysteresis. “Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment but also on its past environment….To predict its future development, either its internal state or its history must be known.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hystersis]

Consider the following summary detailing which party was actually in control:

 
The matrix shows that Republicans have an average of 9 years of continuous term control; Democrats average 8 years (black is a correct prediction; red is an incorrect prediction). If you start in 1861 and add the average of 9 years to the ending year of control, you can correctly predict the Republicans in control subsequently 5 times, or 56%; using 8 years, you can correctly predict the Democrats in control subsequently 6 times, or 67%. (Note: I used ending years to predict the beginning year of control.)

However, if you start in 1861 and come forward in nine year increments, as a statistical projection, the Republicans will win in 2014 (i.e., 1861, 1870, 1879…2014). Unfortunately, the prediction accuracy is only slightly over 50%. The good news is that the Democratic prediction accuracy is 67%; it correctly predicted that the Democrats would win in 2013 (i.e., in 8 year increments 1869, 1877, 1885…2013) – but not in 2014! (Note: The years are slightly overlapping which produces 2013 vs. 2012.)

Now, to the interesting part; consider the following statistics. When there is a Democratic President and a Republican Senate, the Republicans controlled 52 seats and the Democrats controlled 47 seats (vacancies cause the unequal numbers). When there is a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, the Democrats controlled 55 seats and the Republicans controlled 43 seats. In the 113th Congress (2013- 2015), with a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate, the Republicans control 45 seats and the Democrats control 55 seats (the two independents are considered Democrats for this analysis). But this brings up an interesting question: since the Republicans are statistically projected to win in 2014, how will this occur since they will need to keep the existing numbers and win at least six more seats?

To answer this question, I did some research and found the following discussion of extreme interest: Twenty-one of the 35 seats up for election are now held by Democrats. Moreover, most [sic] the states that will be casting ballots for the Senate in 2014 are Republican leaning: 7 of the 21 Democratic-held seats are in states carried by the former Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, while just one of the Republican seats is in a state won by President Obama.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/can-republicans-win-the-senate-in-2014/#more-38683

I would encourage everyone to read the complete analysis by Nate Silver. It is excellent! He continues:

Are the conditions favorable enough to make Republicans odds-on favorites to gain six seats and win the Senate majority? Not quite. Six seats are a lot to gain, and Republicans are at risk of nominating subpar candidates in a number of races. But it would not take all that much to tip the balance toward them….

Summing up the possibilities across all 35 Senate races yields a net gain of four to five seats for Republicans, just short of the six they would need to win back the majority.

However, the margin of error on the calculation is very high at this early stage…. If Republicans swept all the “lean” and “tossup” races, they would gain a net of eight seats from Democrats, giving them a 53-to-47 majority in the 114th Congress. If Democrats swept instead, they would lose just one seat and would hold a 54-to-46 majority. Considering the uncertainty in the landscape, estimates from betting markets that Democrats have about a 63 percent chance of holding their majority appear to be roughly reasonable.

It is more than just a little bit exciting to see Political Hysteresis at work projecting a 53 to 47 Republican majority when one of the greatest American statisticians and psephologists, Nate Silver, opens the door to the possibility of a Republican win in 2014 – by the same numbers!