Early 2014 Congressional, and 2016 Presidential Analysis

2016 Presidential 

Electoral College 336-202, Democrat

187 Definitely democrat) Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, DC.

14 Likely Democrat) Maine, Minnesota

90 Leaning Democrat) Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida

Total Democrat: 291

90 Undecided) Arizona, Texas, Virginia, Ohio, New Hampshire, Iowa

Total Republican: 157

26 Leaning Republican) North Carolina, Indiana

40 Likely Republican) South Carolina, Georgia, West Virginia, Missouri

91 Definitely Republican) Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky

Note: These figures assume that Republicans do not shift significantly in their share of Latino voters. If they do, bump Florida, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada one notch closer to Republicans. But even under that favorable circumstance for Republicans, Democrats are still looking at 247 votes to Republicans’ 216 votes. The stars really have to align for Republicans to take this race.

Analysis: This is bad news for Republicans. Obama only won 332 votes in 2012, and now we are expecting 336 votes without even knowing the candidates? Republicans look to 2014 for silver lining.

2014 Congressional Midterms

Bottom line: Republicans hold onto the House, and have a decent shot of retaking the Senate. Democrats face tough maps in both chambers, but Republicans face terrible approval ratings.

House D+12

My prediction: 213 Democrats, 222 Republicans

Composition of the House*) 201 Democrats, 232 Republicans

Analysis: Midterms are traditionally bad for incumbent presidents. They almost always lose seats in one, if not both houses of Congress. Add that to the fact that Republicans have gerrymandered the crap out of swing state congressional districts, and it would take a miracle for democrats to take back the house. But, at the same time, House Republicans have a terrible approval rating right now, like 15 points lower than senate democrats’. Polling data is indicating that democrats have about a 5% advantage in a generic congressional vote, which, in a hypothetical gerrymanderless world, would equate to a 5% majority in the House of Representatives (228-207), or a net gain of +27 seats.

But we don’t live in that hypothetical world in which representatives are determined by votes. The RCP average prior to the 2012 election was a dead even split (although democrats had a 1.2% advantage in actual votes cast) and that lead to a 200-235 split. +5% translates into +10 to +11 seats. The real question, though, is where opinions will change. Are we talking a uniformly more liberal vote, a liberalization of conservatives, an emboldening of liberals, or a push from the center? When that question is answered, we will be able to consider this issue much more accurately.

Republicans have a reputation for being obstructionist, and they have a couple of crucial opportunities to continue that image with regards to guns, drugs, and budgetary issues. Americans don’t like cheaters, which is exactly what democrats are and are going to continue accusing republicans of between now and the election. Finally, the economy is recovering, which is good for Obama, and he seems determined to actively campaign for his party, and fundraise for his party. This election is fixing to be an exception to the rule.

Also keep in mind: minority populations are still exploding, which could offset some of the Republican midterm advantage.

Bottom line: Democrats are going to push an agenda that is moderately liberal, but which has majority support. Republicans are going to largely block it, and Democrats will be electorally rewarded, somewhat. The economy is recovering, and minority populations are still increasing. However, the map is still stacked, so actually retaking the chamber in a midterm seems like a long shot.

Senate R+3

My prediction: 50 Democrats, 48 Republicans, 2 Independents**

Composition of the Senate) 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans, 2 Independents**

Seats up for grabs: 21 Democrats, 14 Republicans
Total swing seats: 10 Democrats, 2 Republican

Seats in states where the opposition presidential candidate won: 7 Democrats, 1 Republican

Best Case Scenario Democrats: 55 Democrats, 43 Republicans, 2 Independents
Best Case Scenario Republicans: 43 Democrats, 55 Republicans, 2 Independents

Analysis: The map is terrible for Democrats. But the Senate map is almost always terrible for Democrats. It is inherent in the nature of the senate that small, rural, republican states like Idaho and Wyoming, should be over-represented.

Yet somehow, Democrats have historically been competitive anyways. Sometime in the future, I will write a blog exclusively about American federalism’s artificial conservative tendencies, which is one of the reasons that we are so different from European countries (and here you were thinking that it was cultural…). The point is that there exist many moderate democrats in the US senate, and they manage to get themselves reelected in states like Montana and South Dakota by voting against things like gun control and Obamacare. It doesn’t hurt that Republicans have gotten into this habit lately of nominating candidates who talk about rape inappropriately.

There is also this wonderful effect called incumbency advantage. For various reasons, in a swing race, an incumbent is twice as likely to win as a challenger. Note that 8/11 is about 2/3.

Couple all of this with the fact that Democrats raised twice as much money as Republicans in the first quarter of 2013, and good potential Republican Senate candidates have been sitting on the sidelines waiting so far, and the map starts to look a little less rosy for republicans.

Bottom line: Things don’t look good for Senate democrats this year, but they will likely hang on, and the map looks a lot better for them in 2016 (Democrats will have 8 pickup opportunities to Republicans’ 2).

Further Senate Breakdown by State

Cook Political Report, Five Thirty Eight, Roll Call, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, and Rothenberg Political Report have all provided rankings of the senate races. I assign 0 points for Safe Republican, 1 point for Likely Republican, 2 points for Leans Republican, 3 points for tossup, 4 points for Leans Democratic, 5 points for Likely Democratic, and 6 points for Safe Democratic, for each of the ranking systems. Thus a state that was uniformly ranked tossup would have a score of 15.

>Likely Democratic
(D) Delaware: 30
(D) Illinois: 30
(D) New Mexico: 30
(D) Rhode Island: 30
(D) Hawaii: 28
(D) Oregon: 28
(D) Virginia: 27
(D) Massachusetts: 27
(D) Virginia: 27
(D) Colorado: 26
(D) New Jersey: 26

>Leans Democrat
(D) Michigan: 25
(D) Minnesota: 23
(D) New Hampshire: 23

>Tossup
(D) Iowa: 19
(D) Arkansas: 18
(D) Alaska: 18
(D) North Carolina: 17
(D) Louisiana: 16

=Tossup
(D) Montana: 15

<Tossup
(D) South Dakota: 14
(D) West Virginia: 12

<Leans Republican
(R) Kentucky: 5

<Likely Republican
(R) Georgia: 4
(R) Maine***: 3
(R) South Carolina (Special): 1.25
(R) Nebraska: 1
(R) Alabama: 0
(R) Idaho: 0
(R) Kansas: 0
(R) Mississippi: 0
(R) Oklahoma: 0
(R) South Carolina: 0
(R) Tennessee: 0
(R) Texas: 0
(R) Wyoming: 0

By this measure, if Republicans take 3/4 tossups seats, then they win control of the Senate.

* 2 seats are currently vacant

** Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine both caucus with the Democrats, but Sen. Sanders is a self-identified democratic socialist (the only elected socialist in US politics in six decades), while Sen. King is a moderate.

*** Senator Susan Collins of Maine is virtually guaranteed reelection, provided that she does not retire. But if she retires, then the seat is almost certainly a democratic pickup.

Want to Stay in the UK? Show Me Your Papers – I Mean Sex Tape

In this secluded island of comfortable uniformitarianism, global news is scarce. So most of you probably aren’t aware of what is happening in the UK. The bottom line is that some LGBT refugees fleeing persecution in their native lands have been forced to resort to desperate measures in order to prove that they really are lesbian or gay.

In 2010, the UK Supreme Court issued what was widely considered to be a landmark civil rights case globally. They pretty much said that individuals who were in danger or threat of death or violence because of their gender identity or sexual orientation in foreign countries could not constitutionally be denied asylum in the United Kingdom, where their rights would be protected by law. Remember all the talk of a “Kill the Gays” bill in Uganda? This was the liberal reaction. So all is well and fine, right? What could possibly be wrong with England wanting to protect people under threat of murder or worse?

As it turns out, the British government interpreted that ruling in an… interesting… manner. LGBT refugees would be granted asylum, yes. But only on the condition that they could prove that they were LGBT. You might ask, “How exactly does one go about proving that they are gay?” The same question is posed by the refugees. The answer: I am sure you will find a way. And if you don’t, well, we’ll just have to send you back to that murderous raving mob, and hope that you learn a lot about discretion very fast. One Ugandan woman who was eventually granted temporary leave to remain in the UK presented copies of a Ugandan newspaper. The newspaper, which was initially rejected as proof, actually called for her death should she return to the capital. S Chelvan, a UK barrister (that means “lawyer” in British) quipped, “I know of at least two cases in the last six weeks where I have had asylum seekers filming themselves to demonstrate they are gay. Now it’s all about proving whether you are gay or lesbian.”

Erin Power, the executive director of the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG)says that as many as 75% of these applicants for asylum on the grounds of persecution fail. 75%. Maybe, just maybe, there are a few people out there trying to cheat the system and get in on Britain’s welfare state. But I would strongly hesitate to postulate that 75% of refugees fleeing violence, bloodshed, horrible conditions, squalid poverty, and war, are just faking being gay just because they are selfish and impatient. But even if they were faking it, even if every single one of them truly was a straight refugee fleeing tragic, heartrending, disgusting, impoverished non-life, is it right to deny them entrance to a nation built on equality and charity?

This is an issue in the UK, yes. So that means that it doesn’t apply to us here in our secluded corner of Utah, right? The problem in Great Britain is that their government is not working uniformly to guarantee the basic human rights of all people. We here in our secluded corner of Utah are in a similar situation with regards to non-discrimination.  A few years ago our city council passed an ordinance that made it illegal to discriminate against LGBT individuals in housing or employment. This is a major breakthrough in civil rights, yes. But there is no statewide ordinance. In Brigham City, it is perfectly legal to fire someone because you suspect they might be gay or transgendered.

But surely, here in Utah this never happens. Utah folk are nice people. We love everyone. We aren’t racist, sexist or homophobic. I agree that most people in Utah are remarkably kind and generous. But the wonderful invention of surveys provides us with a new perspective courtesy of Equality Utah. 43% of lesbian, gay or bisexual individuals and 67% of transgendered individuals report that they have experienced discrimination in employment. The Daily Utah Chronicle reported in 2012 that over 40% of Utah’s homeless youth identify as LGBT, as compared to 20-30% in other, larger cities elsewhere in the United States. There is a problem here. It will not go away when we close our eyes, or pinch our arms. When human rights are violated, we as persons, as individuals, as Americans, have a responsibility to ensure that we are doing all that we feasibly can do to ensure that such wrongs are righted. We have the power to write our legislators about this issue. We have the power to demand action. We have the power to use our words and our actions in our everyday lives to make the lives of those around us better. And, most importantly, we have the power to get informed. Knowledge is power. Act on it.

Bowcott, Owen. “Gay Asylum Seekers Feeling Increased Pressure to Prove Sexuality, Say Experts.” The Guardian. 3/2/2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/03/gay-asylum-seekers-pressure-prove-sexuality

Jackson, Rachel. “Homeless LGBT Youth Need Attention.” Daily Utah Chronicle. November 14th, 2012. http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/?p=2579793

“Nondiscrimination Ordinances.” Equality Utah. http://www.equalityutah.org/nondiscrimination

From Drugs to Guns, Americans Consistently Ignore the Big Picture

According to the New York Times, JC Penney just ousted its chief executive, Ron Johnson, because sales fell 25 percent in 2012. This remarkable loss in sales coincides remarkably well with JC Penney’s effort to get rid of all the gimmicks, sales, and so on, in favor of a uniform, predictable, trustworthy pricing system. Just a hint: The “everyday low price” is history.

You never tell your wife that that dress makes her look fat. You never tell someone who is disabled that they are anything other than the most “special” person on this earth, and that they can do anything their heart desires if they just put in enough effort. Never put a $20 price tag on an item when you can instead price it at $19.99. After all, Americans like to save 10 bucks.

If we can learn anything from this, it is that Americans rarely look at the bigger picture, and love to be lied to. Just look at a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll on the various pieces of gun control legislation that have been proposed by Obama: For Republicans, 89 percent in favor of background checks at gun shows, 69 percent in favor of background checks on ammo, 61 percent in favor of a federal database of all gun sales, 59 percent in favor of a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, and even 45 percent in support of a ban on assault weapons. Overall, support for an assault weapons ban, the least popular legislation of the bunch, is at almost 60 percent. Yet, surprise surprise, no less than 72 percent of Republicans are opposed to Obama’s proposals as a whole, and among Republicans in congress, the proposals fair even worse.

Ask me how a proposal like universal background checks, that has about 90 percent support from Democrats, independents, and Republicans can be “controversial gun control legislation” that might barely trickle through congress, and you will find no answer. It is well established in political science that the label we attach to a thing is often far more important than the thing itself. Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents — are strongly in favor of all of Obama’s gun control proposals excepting only … the Obama part.

This is the problem with America, people. We are too narrow minded. We are having this huge debate about gun control, and you know what never enters into the conversation? What impact does this decision have on Mexico? Every year thousands of Mexicans fall victim to warring drug cartels that get their guns from the USA. Mexico has very strict gun laws. But some guy in Texas can just toss a bundle over the fence every now and then. The end result? Only the bad guys have the guns, and we are the ones who make that possible!

With drugs, it’s the same deal. We wonder why Americans got rid of alcohol prohibition so fast, but drugs are another story. When alcohol was prohibited, the drug wars happened here in the United States. This time around, it isn’t our economy that is being shattered. It isn’t our government that is being corrupted. It isn’t our husbands, wives, and children being slaughtered in the crossfire. And hey, the little violence that does cross over the border is confined to the urban poor and the minorities. This is democracy. Since when does their voice matter?

We lie to ourselves everyday about the budget, about our prison system, or about how great a shape our country is in relative to the rest of the world. In the end, we will still be looking in our checking accounts for that extra $10.

Letter to the Editor of the Utah Statesman

Last Thursday, you published an article I wrote with a title that I did not write, which espouses views on gay marriage which I do not and have never held. The title does not accurately capture the content of the article, and quite honestly, I find it quite offensive. I am asking you to print a retraction of the article’s title. Additionally, I would like the article’s title to be changed on the statesman’s website.

The article in question considered the Supreme Court’s expected rulings on gay marriage. The point of the article was that all marriage should be delegalized, that is, that it should not be a state issue. Certain aspects of marriage, such as child-raising, cohabitation, and familial relationships could have a place in the law, but the actual social/religious institution itself should be alegal. The title which you placed on this article is, “Gay Marriage: I Don’t Agree, but it is Your Choice.”

 

You printed my name and picture next to the bolded words, “I don’t agree with gay marriage.” As an editor, you simply cannot do that unless you are certain that that is a viewpoint that I agree with, especially considering that this is an opinion piece. Try and see this from my perspective. I am about to go to law school. Someday, I could decide to run for public office, try to become a partner in a law firm, or even run for a high level executive position in some type of human rights organization. What is an ACLU executive reviewing my record going to think when they look into my past and see this article? I told them that I have been a human rights activist from day one. And here I am not even agreeing with gay marriage when a full majority of Americans agree with it? Consider also, that at its current rate, disagreeing with gay marriage could be exceptionally unpopular in twenty years. I am not planning on living in Utah either. I will likely be in a large city like San Francisco, which, by the way, is pretty much the most gay-friendly local in the entire nation.

 

To be clear, I am a very strong proponent of gay marriage. I was the Secretary/Treasurer of LIFE, the gay straight alliance on campus. I have close ties to the Access and Diversity Center, Allies on Campus, the College Democrats, along with many liberal friends. I am gay! People know that I am gay, and now they think that I am an auto-phobic closet case or something! I may be extremely conservative on some issues, and I may be ambivalent on others, but I am by no means a moderate. I can think of at least a hundred people on campus who could easily have seen this article and now think less of me, or are confused about me. In addition, morally, I cannot afford to have my name attached to a viewpoint that I do not agree with on an issue that is so important to me. I am supposed to be, and try to be, a role model for others who are not certain about who they are, what they believe, or who they want to become.

 

If you want more conservative articles in order to maintain balance in your paper, all you have to do is ask. There are plenty of issues on which I take a conservative approach, or on which I don’t mind taking a conservative approach. But please do not misrepresent my views, especially not on such an incendiary topic.

 

A few things you should be aware of:

 

1) Just to be clear, I have no legal intentions with regards to this matter. However, if you are planning on doing this type of work as a career, you should be aware that this would be sufficient evidence for libel. The standard of proof would be significantly higher if I were a public figure. As it is, all I would need to do would be to establish harm, and that the statement is untrue. A public figure would also need to establish malicious intent. Just FYI.

 

2) This is not the first instance of failure to print an accurate title. The first article you published was about taxes and spending, and you edited the title to say pretty much exactly the opposite of what the article was actually about. I didn’t say anything at the time because I didn’t really care, and because it probably wasn’t the most read article anyways. I think that future authors would appreciate it if you actually read their articles before changing the title.

 

3) I understand that you are an editor, and that you are going to edit my work if you see fit. I understand that you may have an interest in maintaining a balanced paper, in fulfilling space requirements, and so on. I am graduating soon, but I think future writers would appreciate it if you cleared title changes with them, because the title is really the most important part of the piece, and I for one put a significant amount of effort into coming up with a good one. For you to go through and randomly throw words together and slap them on the page without even looking at what the article is about is extremely irritating.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Supreme Court Should Delegalize All Marriage

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, respectively, on March 26 and 27.

If you read the transcripts, it seems highly unlikely that there will be a broad, sweeping ruling such that gays will be marrying in Salt Lake later this year. However, it seems even more unlikely that gay marriage proponents will lose the case. The country has simply moved too far left too fast for that to be a real option.

In the end, the court will do what it does best. It will make a limited ruling affirming the civil rights progress that has been made and allow the civil rights movement to continue propelling itself forward or fail as the American people see fit. The court is stuck in a dilemma. A slim majority of the justices were appointed by republican presidents and are not too fond of gay marriage or change of any kind.

But at the same time, it has become clear through polling data, demographic data and international culture what the opinion of the future will be. The court relies on public trust for all of its power. Consequently, they have a vested interest in being viewed favorably by history.

Preserving the power of the court is undeniably the single most salient reason behind Chief Justice John Robert’s support forObamacare. The court is torn and they are searching for a solution, but they will never find it. In the end, the truly optimal solution that would make the most people happy is something that the court will never do: delegalize all marriage.

Before you get upset, I will first explain exactly what I mean when I say that marriage should be delegalized. Marriage is comprised of two distinct components. There is a cultural or religious element to marriage and there is a legal element to marriage.

Religions marry individuals. Cultures marry individuals. Individuals fall in love. They raise a family. They perform ceremonies and traditions. For many, God is an active participant. This religious side of marriage is completely irrelevant to the legal side of marriage.

The legal aspects of marriage specifically relate to society’s interest in continuing and proliferating itself, in promoting healthy child-rearing and in safeguarding the future generation. Society may have a legitimate interest in promoting cohabitation and the efficient usage of resources.

But, we have a wall between church and state. Society has no business whatsoever in promoting marriage “under God.” There is no state interest in ensuring that marriage is marriage. There is no state interest in preserving marriage as a “sacred institution.”

The state only has an interest in promoting specific behaviors associated with marriage and the state has no legitimate interest in intruding further into our privacy than is absolutely necessary to ensure that those specific state goals are being maximized.

To delegalize the institution of marriage, then, does not mean to end marriage.

It does not mean that we end the legal benefits associated with marriage. It simply means that we separate the religious and legal elements of marriage. Under the model I am proposing, the state would continue to grant all of the legal benefits of marriage that it currently grants, but they would be granted on the basis of specific rational criteria devoid of religious significance.

Pastors would not be registered by the government. Churches or cultures with diverse customs could perform ceremonies consistent with the voice of their own conscience. The world I am proposing disentangles the state from our religious lives. It protects traditional marriage while tolerating differences in viewpoint at the same time.

This is not just a gay issue. There are many individuals in society of diverse religious backgrounds who choose to cohabitatemonogamously with a partner they love and cherish, with whom they raise children in a stable, loving environment. Marriages performed in foreign countries are not recognized by our government when those individuals move to the United States.

Gay marriage is not abhorrent to all religions. Hinduism and Buddhism have never had a problem with it. In many Native American religions two-sex individuals were revered and highly sought after as wives. They became shamans and spiritual leaders. Even Protestant Christian clergy are not unified on this issue.

Right here in Logan we find an Episcopalian church that welcomes LGBT individuals with open arms. Numerous Christian churches voluntarily perform gay marriages in states where it has been legalized.

For the law to pick out a specific religious definition of marriage and to hold it up above and beyond state interests, over the other religious definitions, is a face-value violation of the First Amendment prohibition of state endorsement of any religion.

Conservatives beware. The cultural tide is turning and it is turning rapidly. The most recent Washington Post/ABC poll showed that gay marriage was supported by Americans at 56%-38%, well outside of the margin of error. The government is very clearly interfering in the religions of non-Christians. The government is dictating the exercise of conscience.

It is true that today, the government supports your view of marriage. It is true that today the government is blatantly endorsing Christianity. But the tides will not always be the same.

Who can afford to allow the rules to be bent to their favor, when it forever sets the precedent that the rules may be bent?

In the end, the best course of action is to ask the government to stay out of religion altogether. Do this today when the law favors you and you will have a leg on which to prop up the defense of your religion when later it is attacked. Do this today and you can avert a slippery slope that can lead only to disaster.

In the wise words famously, albeit incorrectly, attributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”