Since everything depends on Georgia, I have been giving the runoff elections a good deal of thought and I think there is reason for optimism. I will not call this a prediction – in part because I haven’t been doing too well with predictions lately and in part because I simply don’t know enough (although that, on the Internet, is hardly a reason for caution) – let us say rather that it is a manifestation of my naturally optimistic nature.
Clearly a double win is possible. After all, Biden narrowly
won the state. But it seems plausible to assume that Biden won because a
significant number of Republicans turned off by Trump split their ballots and
voted both for Biden and for Perdue and either for Loeffler or for the other
Republican. Furthermore, past experience suggests that in normal times
Republicans do better at bringing out their voters in runoff and special
elections than do Democrats. So how can I be optimistic? The answer is Trump.
Right now all the Republican officeholders are terrified of
Trump and are falling in line behind his refusal to acknowledge that he has
lost. But well before the runoff occurs on January 5, that will change and I
think when it does Trump will turn on the Republicans in rage and claim that
they have betrayed him. That, after all, is his most characteristic mode of
behavior. I think it is a certainty that Trump will not campaign for the
Republican candidates in Georgia and it is even possible that, in an attempt to
demonstrate his power, he will tell his supporters not to vote at all. He would
then be in the position of having demonstrated that he controls the fate of the
Republicans, which will gratify his desperate need not to acknowledge that he is
a loser. The self-destructive behavior has already begun, of course, with the
call by Loeffler and Perdue for the resignation of George’s Republican
Secretary of State.
The incomparable Stacey Abrams will mobilize on the ground
to turn out as many Democratic votes as she can. I would imagine that Obama,
Harris, and other high profile surrogates will show up to campaign for the
Democrats. And money will be no problem. I am afraid Georgians will have to
wait until after January 5 to see anything but political ads on television.
Meanwhile Pfizer announces good preliminary news about a
vaccine. As a senior citizen, I am comforted by the thought that in the
prioritization of distribution “those over 65” will receive preference. My only
quibble with that is that I don’t want to see a bunch of healthy, lively, still
young 65-year-olds forcing their way to the head of the line while us
86-year-olds hobble along at the rear. :-)
24 comments:
If you are interested, you can hear the S. Ct. arguments re the ACA live here:
https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-1
I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the Supreme Court is going to reject the challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA. It is quite clear that Chief Justice Roberts will reject the challenge. Justice Breyer tore the challengers’ argument apart. (Grammarians would get a kick out of the issue that arose about the difference between the precatory use of the word “should” vs. “shall”) And J. Alito made the point that I raised in a prior comment to a prior post: “How can the mandate be inseverable, when, having been reduced to 0, the ACA has still survived and is being used?” Even J. Kavanaugh questioned the reasoning of the parties claiming that the mandate, which has been reduced to 0, is inseverable from the rest of the statute. We also got to hear J. Barrett speak as a Justice for the first time, and I read her questions as raising skepticism regarding the merits of their argument. So, the ACA will be sustained by at least a 5-4 vote, and may be higher in favor of its constitutionality.
MS - cool story, bro. How about you go post these updates on a supreme court blog? Totally irrelevant to the main post here, once again. You are truly incapable of getting or responding to social cues, it seems.
With respect to the Georgia races, let me just point out the obvious. There are two races, and the GOP only needs to win one to retain control of the Senate; the democrats have to win both. If we take as our starting point that the Democrats' chances in each race are 50-50, then the Democrats chances of winning both seats, without any more sophisticated analysis, is but 1 in 4.
Of course, just as was so brutally shown by last week's election, this outcome of these races will be determined by turnout, Democrats have more to win and Stacy Abrams has proven talent to get out the vote. Given the stakes, this could turn into another mini-presidential election: I don't think it's out of the question for Joe Biden to barnstorm the state to get out the vote.
That assumes he two races are independent of one another, but surely they are not. Someone who votes for Ossoff is extremely likely to vote as well for Warnock, no?
Anonymous (again?),
You know that game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?
Here’s the connection. Prof. Wolff commented on the new vaccine which Pfizer has developed, which they claim is 90% effective. If the vaccine fails, and one contracts the corona virus, then you have a pre-existing condition, which, if the ACA is overturned, will enable insurance companies to deny you health insurance. Even if the vaccine is effective, if you have already contracted the corona virus, then you still have a pre-existing condition and overturning the ACA will allow insurance companies to deny you coverage. If the ACA is not overturned, then the fact that you may have contracted the virus cannot be used as a reason to deny you health insurance.
There, I did it three. Get it?
RPW: Excellent point! To a first approximation they are likely to be perfectly correlated, based on the assumption that those voting are doing so because of the national implications and not because of individual characteristics. So we can start out thinking that the chances are 50-50.
That means that if the Democrats can win the turnout battle they have an excellent shot at winning both races. That's an uphill battle in a special election in a formerly deep-red state, but clearly within the realm of possibility.
Thanks, you've made my day.
MS
Quick takes on the SCOTUS ACA oral arguments seem confident that the ACA will be upheld.
NY Times: Key Justices Signal Support for Affordable Care Act
Washington Post: Supreme Court appears ready to uphold Affordable Care Act over latest challenge from Trump, GOP
Vox: The Supreme Court appears likely to reject the latest attack on Obamacare
PhilosophicalWaiter,
Thank you for the links. That is a big relief for millions of Americans (even, I suspect, for Anonymous).
MS
We hope it will be a big relief. I trust those who are experienced in SCOTUS Kremlinology, but I personally won't be relieved until the (hopefully favorable) decision has been released.
I have tried phone banking for Jon Ossoff and found it to be much too much for my personality (see name). Following your advice to find a way of participating in politics that you actually enjoy, I emailed the phone bank coordinator to see if I can send postcards out to potential voters. The cat and I will enjoy handwriting cards every night while we listen to music and leftist podcasts. Thank you :)
Never give the game away by saying you're "lonely"---opens you up way too much to sarcasm. Mention of cats and wine suggests enough. Just a thought.
LonelyManWithCatsAndWine,
I applaud your affinity for cats, something I would not have done before the pandemic hit. Prior to March, 2020, I had been partial to dogs. We owned a handsome Shiba Inu, an award winning show dog, when our daughter was growing up. He passed away in 2015. When the pandemic hit, my daughter moved back to live with us and brought her cat with her. I was wary, having had a lifelong allergy to cat dander, but for some reason I did not have an allergic reaction to Kvothe (go figure, my daughter named him after a principal character in one of her favorite fantasy books as a child). Kvothe and I have become fast friends. He follows me around the house, jumps on my lap when I am watching TV, wakes me up at 6:00 A.M. to be fed, watches with amazement when my printer starts to print, and, since he sleeps most of the day, when I am up late reading and/or writing briefs and go to get a drink of water, he stalks me. He is a wonderful animal, and I can fully appreciate your enjoying the company of your own cat. My daughter is talking about reclaiming him now that she has move back to her apartment, and he will be sorely missed. (I am considering filing a lawsuit claiming custody because she abandoned him for three months.)
(Anonymous, I know this comment is not related to either of the subjects of Prof. Wolff’s post, but it is within one degree of separation from LonelyManWithCatsAndWine’s comment, and for that reason I think the great blog arbiters would not disapprove of my bit of whimsy. Plus I know that Prof. Wolff is fond of ca
"fond of cats."
We picked up a female German Shepherd puppy who is now 16 weeks.
LonelyMan etc. - personal opinion here - dogs are much better companionship than cats, though I also like cats. Dogs need exercise and so do humans, a nice coincidence of needs. Plus, walking dogs provides opportunities for social intercourse with others also walking with dogs or not. And, if you should get a puppy, your cats will properly socialize the puppy, I.e., demonstrate who is boss.
Regarding the GA run-off: the pandemic is now amping up to 1918 levels of morbidity and mortality. GA is not currently having a spike in cases, but should that occur then all bets are off as to in-person voting. The game for campaigns is no longer GOTV, but ensure the receipt and posting of mail-in ballots.] Republican ‘never Trump’ voters who went for Biden now have a different problem. Will they go straight ticket R, split ticket, or vote straight D (highly unlikely). Those who split their vote will likely go for Perdue and Warnocke. Loeffler is the weaker candidate and doesn’t have the family history of Perdue.
Hey, M.S., I think I'm beginning to dig you. Cat owners, if not cats themselves, can always find a compromise---just takes a bit of wine.
Jeffrey,
So you no longer think that I suffer from a mental illness that requires my institutionalization? “Love is in the air everywhere I look around; Love is in the air every sight and every sound.”
'Since everything depends on Georgia'?
With Georgia, Biden is at 306. Biden won Pennsylvania, 20 electoral college votes. What if Pennsylvania goes to Trump? Well, even if Pennsylvania goes to Trump, Biden still wins with 270. Trump still needs to pull something else from his sleeve. And I don't see why we might be worrying about Pennsylvania anyways. Nothing depends on Georgia, then.
I guess the Senate depends on Georgia. Well, kiss that goodbye, sure, but it hadn't occured to me that the Senate was 'everything'.
So, an intense two months of campaigning as money, political operatives and the news media pour into Georgia, and then, with the stakes so high, it will be an uphill battle for Democrats in particular. Runoffs, historically see lower voter participation rates. Sky-high stakes. Then again, Senate Democrats had unprecedented sums of money at their disposal but still failed to flip additional GOP seats.
As of 2019, Republicans held 53 Senate seats.
There are lots of stories about how what happened is 2 flips in favor of Democrats, 1 for Republicans.
But, this doesn't count Cal Cunninghan having conceded
to Thom Tillis in North Carolina.
Georgia doesn't matter, then..?
A side point related to one of MS's comments above: Justice Barrett asked a question or two in that Free Exercise Clause case out of Philadelphia, so the ACA oral argument was not the first time she has spoken as a Justice. And btw Justice Thomas, who rarely asked questions from the bench in pre-pandemic times, seems to have been doing so, based on snippets of arguments I've heard, more regularly in these remote arguments on zoom or whatever platform they're using. Why the change is anyone's guess.
LFC,
I was not aware that they already had the Catholic Social Services argument already. Could you tell from the questions that J. Barrett asked how she was leaning (conceptually, not physically)? What about the other Justices?
MS
To be honest, I did not listen to enough of the argument to be able to tell how any of them were leaning. But I'm pretty sure that a transcript of the argument is available via SCOTUS's home page, and scanning through that may be a more efficient way of seeing which way the wind was blowing than listening to it.
Post a Comment