What’s the best play in the special election in Georgia’s 6th district?

For those who don’t know me, I am a special election junkie. In case you need proof, I drove from Hartford to Buffalo (400 miles one way) and spent four days with Kathy Hochul as she won a congressional seat in 2011. 

In the Trump era, special elections are more important than ever. The only thing that will scare Congressional Republicans into acting responsibly is for the fear of defeat. And a special election is on the horizon in the Georgia 6^th. The seat is being vacated by Congressman Price to become HHS secretary. The district saw one of the largest swings toward Democrats from 2012 to 2016, handing Donald Trump a one-point margin of victory 48% to 47%. That’s down from Romney’s 24-point margin in 2012. So this is a seat that Democrats can win in a special election but it is also historically quite Republican.

And there’s an interesting wrinkle in how the election will be held that is being missed. This Georgia election is being held using the California and Washington system whereby the two candidates who receive the most votes regardless of party advance to the runoff, barring a candidate receiving 50%. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/georgia-special-house-election-still-gops-race-to-lose.html

Filing for this election closed Wednesday, and 11 Republicans, 5 Democrats and 2 Independent candidates have signed up for the race. In theory, a candidate could receive 50% of the vote and avoid a runoff all together, but in a candidate field this big that almost never happens. There is no reason to think that it will this time. 

The first round is being held on April 18^th, and the runoff will be held on June 20^th. Although Democrats seem to be banking on the strategy of winning the race in the June 20^th runoff, it seems to this humble observer that winning both spots in the runoff is a better play, though they are of course not mutually exclusive.

Even if there is an anti-Trump sentiment in the district, we are stilling looking at a 60% to 40% split with Republican candidates taking 60% in the first round and Democrats getting 40%. If the 11 Republicans split their vote evenly, and the five Democrats split their vote evenly, Democrats take the top two in a walk. That is not likely to happen. 

The initial take seems to be that the Republican have three strong candidates (Karen Handel, Judson Hill and Dan Moody). It also seems likely there are more votes in the Republican second tier (Bob Gray, Amy Kramer, Bruce Levell) than for the comparable Democratic also rans. This leaves Democrats with a quandary. 

Thanks to support from Congressmen John Lewis and Hank Johnson, as well as the Netroots’ community, the leading Democratic candidate is former congressional staffer and filmmaker Jon Ossoff. At the moment, he is best positioned to win a run-off. But it is the second best running Democratic candidate, former Democratic State Senator Ron Slotin who interests me now.  The other three Democrats who declared seem to be also rans, but Slotin at least on paper looks like he might be able to put on a credible campaign. It is unclear why he was passed over by Atlanta Democrats, but regardless, if he can put together a solid campaign then a Republican split could allow Democrats to win both spots in the runoff and take the seat on April 18^t. This means shifting resources to boost Slotin and away from Ossoff, who likely has enough money to make the runoff spot now. (If he doesn’t, than the odds of winning the runoff would be low anyway). 

If there are locals on the ground who could convince me otherwise, I am happy to hear from them. But it seems more likely we can take advantage of an 11 –to-5 candidate spilt and a 3-to-2 split in serious candidates than it is to get 50% in a runoff. It seems like we need to build up Ron Slotin. 

The Supreme Court Fight.

Deciding how best to fight Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, is an exceptionally difficult problem and one where I see both sides.

 Let’s start with what should clearly happen. Senate Democrats should vote no on Trump’s nominee. (Possible exceptions are the five Democrats who hold seats in states Romney won, particularly Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota and Joe Manchin in West Virginia.) Gorsuch should be grilled at the hearing as thoroughly as possible. Pressure should be put on the perhaps three or four Republicans who could in theory be persuaded to vote no if the nominee was to spring an ethics or other leak. Anything less would mean they’re not doing their job.

But from that point on, the decision becomes murkier. A fierce debate will ensue over what should happen next. Democrats control 48 Seats in the U.S. Senate. (As a quick reminder in the years 2012 and 2014, Democrats lost three seats and thus majority control by a grand total of 56,000 votes.) So that means a filibuster will be required to block Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. With a filibuster, comes the risk that the Senate will vote to end the filibuster on Supreme Court nominee, claiming only 50 votes are required. They would thus vote to permanently end filibusters on Supreme Court nominees and likely end the filibuster altogether. A filibuster currently requires 60 Senators to invoke cloture to close debate otherwise debates can continue on, in theory forever. Ending it would mean that 50 plus the vice president might be all Trump needs for everything he wants to do.  Ending the filibuster could mean the Senate would not be able to slow down the functioning of government. 

Democrats also face a very serious Senate challenge in the long term. The states are currently aligned against Democrats both in the coming election in 2018 but also in many elections to come. Trump won 30 States, Clinton won 20 States. Even moving the four states Trump won by the closest margin to the Democrats  (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Wisconsin) would still give Republicans 26 states, to Democrats 24 states. Democrats currently hold five seats in states Romney-won; Republicans hold three seats in states Clinton won. In states that voted for Obama twice but Trump this year, Democrats hold six seats and Republicans hold six seats. This gives the Republicans an advantage in retaining and perhaps even expanding their Senate control.

The reasons to filibuster are as plain as day. Republicans refused consideration of a reasonable nominee so they could in effect steal this seat. With this seat stolen, the cases coming out of the Supreme Court will be much worse and Supreme Court damage is among the absolutely hardest to change. Once a case has been decided, it often takes upwards of 50 years, if not more, to ever see it overturned. It is unclear just how long Democrats could hold this seat open but a desire to see it held open for as long as possible makes incredible sense. Forcing Republicans to blow up the institution to get what they want also makes some sense. The filibuster has been abused for years and certainly during the Obama presidency. Its death, while incredibly painful in the short term, might work to make the government function which is essential for small d, democratic health. So ending the filibuster might be worth it, regardless. 

Yet, our eye needs to be focused on the 2018 Senate elections. Democrats are defending 10 of their 11 Trump state seats, versus Republicans defending one Clinton state seat.  So the Supreme Court will clearly be a vocal point of the election. To persuade Montanans and Missourians, from two of the seats in play, we need a strong argument for why we are filibustering and why a vacancy needs to be held up indefinitely. Although the Republican argument for blocking Merrick Garland was quite weak, they had a majority and thus their blocking of his nomination did not require a filibuster. They thus did not have to consume all the Senate’s time and prevent the body from functioning, as a Democratic filibuster inevitably will. The presidential campaign also overshadowed the fight over Obama’s nominee. Midterms lack a consistent story line and thus the Supreme Court fight, if it is waged, will be center stage in 2018.

The proper strategy to pursue is exceptionally difficult. People who come down on either side of it should be treated with good will and not be considered traitors on the one hand or nasty partisans on the other. Being able to work with people who disagree on something like this is essential to a successful Trump opposition. 

Don’t believe a poll conducted before an event occurs.

The President signed an executive order Friday temporarily barring refugees and residents of seven countries from entering the United States. This action has led many people to be detained, spurred protests at major airports, and prompted multiple court rulings barring its enforcement.

Into this maelstrom comes a poll asking people what they would think about just such an order and finding the response to be widely positive. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316914-poll-over-half-back-trumps-refugee-ban. The huge catch: the poll was conducted before the order was actually signed.

It is exceptionally important that this poll be given absolutely no credence. The court orders, the protests, the political statements, and the extensive media coverage of all this, has gone a long way to shape and reshape how Americans see this matter.  Finding out  something as simple as, almost all Democrats oppose this order, will take Democrats who supported it in the poll and turn them against it  because they want to follow what the party thinks. Stories of particular people barred under this order can change minds radically.

Ideas that may sound good in theory collapse when put into practice all the time, and as the collapse occurs and is witnessed so does the public support for the idea.

This ridiculous poll serves as a good reminder to always check the dates on a poll when trying to measure what it is telling you and to ignore it if conducted before the event occurred.