Democrats recaptured control of the House of Representatives Tuesday, ending eight years of Republican control and dealing President Donald Trump a stiff rebuke.
With most results in, Democratic candidates either had won or were leading in enough districts to win the 23 seats needed to capture the chamber and then some—perhaps ending up with as much as a 20-seat edge. The question now is how big the Democratic advantage will be when results from all races are in. The outcome is in line with early predictions, though early returns Tuesday suggested the scale of Democratic victories might be smaller than anticipated, and some pundits declared the hope of a blue wave dead. Yet despite tough losses for Democrats in Senate and gubernatorial races, the House has shaped up about as well as the party could have hoped.
The Democratic takeover of the House will reshape the terrain in Washington, providing a genuine counterweight to President Trump for the first time in his presidency and breaking the unified Republican control of the House, Senate, and White House. While it will be all but impossible for Democrats to actually enact any of their priorities into law, House control provides them a position to conduct strict oversight on the Trump administration and to further bog down an already sclerotic presidency.
“Tomorrow will be a new day in America,” Representative Nancy Pelosi, the leading candidate to be the next speaker of the House, told Democrats at a party in Washington. “Today is more than about Democrats and Republicans. It's about restoring the constitution's checks and balances to the trump administration. It's about stopping the GOP and Mitch McConnell's assaults on Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and the health care of 130 million Americans.”
[Read: How a blue wave could crash far beyond Washington]
The Democratic wins on Tuesday came across the country, in traditionally Democratic districts and in ones that Trump captured in 2016. They came in cities, suburbs, and even some rural areas. They came in traditionally progressive states but also in locales where Democrats have become an exotic rare species in the modern era, like Kansas and Oklahoma. Democrats also showed their strength in suburban districts, expanding their dominance from urban areas out to outlying constituencies that Republicans have controlled.
Three wins in Virginia showcase the Old Dominion’s recent emergence as a solid Democratic state. In addition to Tim Kaine’s easy victory in the U.S. Senate race, the first flipped seat of the night featured Jennifer Wexton handily defeating Barbara Comstock in Northern Virginia’s Tenth District. Comstock is a longtime Republican soldier and the party poured millions of dollars into the race, but was unable to save the two-term representative. Elaine Luria also beat Scott Taylor in the Eleventh District. But the most astonishing result came in the 7th district, where former CIA agent Abigail Spanberger defeated Dave Brat in a strongly conservative district. Brat, an extremely conservative Republican, entered Congress in 2014, after beating Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a GOP primary. Now the seat is in Democratic hands.
Pennsylvania is another bright spot. Democrats had expected to win the state in 2016, but it favored Trump. But earlier this year, the state supreme court ordered new congressional districts to be drawn, saying that the old maps constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The new maps were far more favorable to Democrats, and they capitalized Tuesday, netting three new seats in the state.
[Read: How the Democratic Party can turn the Sun Belt blue]
Democrats picked up two seats in Florida, including in the Twenty-Seventh District, where former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala survived a late scare. In eastern Iowa, celebrated young Democrat Abby Finkenauer beat veteran Republican Rod Blum. Republican incumbents Peter Roskam and Randy Hultgren were tossed out in Illinois, too. Democrats won two seats in Minnesota, three seats in New Jersey, and three in New York, including on Staten Island, a GOP stronghold in deep-blue New York City.
In some cases, Democrats won in places where they have seldom had much luck in recent cycles. In Kansas’s Third District, Sharice Davids beat Kevin Yoder. Kendra Horn defeated Steve Russell in Oklahoma’s Fifth. Veteran Texas Republican Pete Sessions lost to Colin Allred in a Dallas-era district, and Lizzie Fletcher unseated John Culberson in a constituency that has been held by Republicans since George H.W. Bush won it in 1966. Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar made history as the first two Muslim women elected to the House.
[Read: Trump already won the midterms]
In total, Democrats are poised to pick up between 30 and 35 seats. The results could have been even bleaker for Republicans. Democrats are projected to win the popular vote in the House by some 9 percent, but favorable districts for Republican candidates give them a built-in edge in the House. Democrats had also hoped for a clean sweep through strongly Republican districts, but saw the “blue wave” wash up short in districts like Kentucky’s Sixth, where Andy Barr stopped challenger Amy McGrath. Several controversial Republicans also survived. Duncan Hunter of California and Chris Collins of New York, both of whom are under criminal indictment, appeared to be on a path to victory, as was Steve King of Iowa, whose racist comments and actions led the National Republican Congressional Committee to withdraw financial support for him late in the campaign.
Yet on a night of heartbreaking losses for Democrats in the Senate and a mixed bag in governor’s races, House candidates came through for them.
The Republican losses are in line with both historical precedent and most predictions. The president’s party typically loses seats during midterm elections—though Trump had spoken boldly of defeating the pattern—and Democratic voters have shown surprising strength in special elections since 2016. By the eve of voting, the leading analysts all expected a Democratic edge. The question was how large it would be.
While every race has its own specific circumstances, there’s no mistaking the major factor in the Democratic win: Donald Trump. The president said he was on the ballot, and voters appear to have agreed, according to exit polls. While Democrats wrestled with how to speak about him on the campaign trail and in ads, his influence is visible in the results. Democrats competed in districts that Trump won handily in 2016, including in the Rust Belt and even in deep-red Texas. Preliminary data show that turnout was exceptionally high among minorities and youth voters compared with recent midterm elections. In some cases, Trump’s personality and style were a factor. In others, his policies, especially his attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, proved a powerful issue for Democratic candidates. Democrats also enjoyed exceptionally strong fundraising.
During the summer of 2018, Trump was predicting a “red wave,” a retort to predictions of a “blue wave,” though as Election Day approached, he backed off that prediction, telling the Associated Press in October that he would not accept blame if Republicans lost the House, and saying this week that he was concentrating on preserving the GOP edge in the Senate, acknowledging the prospect of losing the House.
As the results became clear Tuesday night, Trump tweeted:
Tremendous success tonight. Thank you to all!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2018The president also called Pelosi to congratulate her. Yet despite his effort to put a brave face on the results, it’s a bad night for Trump. While Republicans scored big victories in the Senate and in several hotly contested gubernatorial races, the Democratic House is likely to be a particular irritation to the president himself.
The Democratic victory ends a brief period of unified Republican control of government, including the White House, the House, the Senate, and effectively the Supreme Court. The House has been in Republican hands since the 2010 Tea Party wave. As The Washington Post notes, it’s the third time control of the chamber has flipped in the last 12 years, a level of vacillation not seen since the immediate post–World War II period.
Republicans hand over the gavel with a decidedly mixed record. They successfully stymied much of President Barack Obama’s agenda from 2011 on, but they largely failed to further conservative priorities. Federal spending continues to grow; entitlements have not been cut; Obamacare remains in place, though scaled back; and after aiming for a tax-code overhaul, they had to settle for temporary tax cuts. Much of that class of 2010 has left the House or is leaving this year, and the party is also losing its leader. Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan, hailed as one of the party’s brightest young thinkers, was reluctantly thrust into the speakership, but opted to retire this year, apparently tired of being caught between the unpredictable and often outrageous president and a fractious caucus.
[Read: National politics has taken over America]
It’s likely that the Democratic leader, at least initially, will be a familiar face: former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Although a growing number of Democrats have chafed against her leadership, and some won election this year promising not to vote for her, she remains the heavy favorite to reclaim the gavel—at least to begin. Pelosi has been eager to reclaim the speakership, after serving in that role from 2007 to 2011, but has said she is likely to be a “transitional” leader, paving the way for a new Democratic speaker in the near future.
Given Republican control of the Senate and White House, Democrats will have little chance to enact their policy priorities. Where they are likely to make their biggest impact is in oversight of the White House. The majority means Democratic chairs of committees will have subpoena power, and are likely to deluge the Trump administration with requests for documents and testimony on a range of issues. They could demand to see the president’s tax returns. They could even attempt to impeach him.
For Trump, the frustration will not end there. He’s never enjoyed working with Congress, and has expressed frustration at the slow pace of both chambers. Having the opposition party in control of the House will create further gridlock. If there’s a silver lining for the president, though, it’s that a Democratic House will create a useful foil for him as he runs for reelection in 2020.
In the past year, the Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke has been compared endlessly to the great charismatic stars of the Democratic Party. He was Kennedyesque! He was the next Obama! With his boyish grin, rhythmic speech, and unabashedly left-leaning platform, the Democratic former representative was not just the state’s best hope for going blue: According to political strategists across the country, he is among the party’s most promising presidential contenders in 2020.
But O’Rourke, who challenged Ted Cruz for his Senate seat, might empathize better with someone like Republican Senator Marco Rubio. Like Rubio in 2016, O’Rourke stole his national party’s heart as a young, handsome, eloquent, prolific fund-raiser. And like Rubio in 2016, his political dreams were dashed by the stubborn demands of the campaign trail.
[Adam Serwer: Something’s happening in Texas]
ABC News called the race for Cruz at around 8 o’clock, with just over 20 percent of precincts reporting, highlighting just how frail national momentum can be when faced with long-standing political realities. Ultimately, in a state where a Democrat has not won statewide office since 1994, O’Rourke failed to make the case that his appeal reached beyond the Acela corridor to the voters he would represent.
“He was a cause, not a candidate,” a top Democratic strategist, who requested anonymity because of his involvement in current campaigns, told me. “He was anti-Trump, yes. But he struggled to articulate what that would mean for the people of Texas.”
Perhaps the first clue to O’Rourke’s defeat is the distance between the national conception of O’Rourke and his actual policy positions. He was cast in profiles in seemingly every major publication as a beacon of centrism in an extremist world—someone who could reach across the aisle with an open mind despite his progressive platform. It’s true that O’Rourke spoke with a softness and a compassion that offered a stark contrast to his opponent, the Machiavellian Cruz. But a kind tone does not an ideological moderate make: O’Rourke called for Donald Trump’s impeachment, even as his more liberal colleagues declined to touch the topic, and touted his support for “Medicare for All.” He supported calls to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. All of which might have worked in a liberal stronghold such as, say, Connecticut. But as the conservative Cruz aptly put it in an interview with Politico, “Both Beto and I are fighting for principles and values we believe in. The difference is, the principles and values I’m fighting for are also the ones the vast majority of Texans support.”
O’Rourke’s deficiencies, then, might not be so much his own as they are America’s. One could argue that O’Rourke ran a campaign that was ideologically and operationally uncompromised: He never shied from his progressive stances, and he held firm in his opposition to deploying negative ads. Yet one could also argue—and quite convincingly, at that—that such a campaign never stood a chance of breaking through in a state as historically red as Texas. That the national party so desperately wanted it to signifies, perhaps, just how weak the Democratic field looks ahead of 2020. Because O’Rourke, like Rubio, in his youth and charisma and energy, is something of a Platonic ideal of a presidential candidate: It was incumbent upon the Democratic Party to manufacture a narrative of success for O’Rourke, no matter the outcome of the race itself. (Luckily for them, the media has already bought into it: Reuters reported that, win or lose, O’Rourke was “set to emerge victorious.”)
[Democrats Like Beto O’Rourke Can Turn the Sun Belt Blue]
So O’Rourke may very well emerge the Democratic star of 2020, capturing the national imagination with as much totality as he did in 2018. The problem for Democrats in 2018 was that despite all sensational predictions of a wave election, Texas was not ready to turn blue. But Democrats are hoping that two years from now, the nation will be eager to do just that.
As voters headed to the polls Tuesday, the Associated Press reported an ominous statistic: “More than 40 states use computerized voting machines that are more than a decade old or are no longer manufactured.” A voting machine that’s been around that long is at least as old as the very first iPhone that Apple released way back in 2007.
In a high-stakes situation that requires many hundreds of people to use the same piece of technology without a glitch, would you rely on this old thing?
Mike Segar / ReutersMany Americans went to polling places that relied on even older, less well-designed technology. They encountered impediments to voting. Individually, any one of the following stories could be forgiven in a country as big as ours. But taken together, they ought to embarrass a wealthy democracy.
[Read: The surprising good news about voter security]
Here’s a partial survey of what happened:
In South Carolina, machines were changing votes—a “calibration issue,” an election official told The State. “In Georgia,” The Washington Post reported, “voters waited more than four hours to vote at an elementary school in suburban Atlanta, where some voting machines were not working at the start of the day.” (Problems were reported elsewhere in the state, too.) The Detroit Free Press reported:Michigan voters are being turned away from the polls, or left waiting in seemingly interminable lines, in various metro Detroit locations so far on Election Day.
Rex Nagy, a voter in Redford Township, said that his polling place at Pierce Middle School was relying on just one voting machine that he was told had not been tested before Tuesday morning. Everything was at a standstill while around 100 people waited for it to get fixed. From 7:50 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Nagy saw about half the line leave to go to work, he said. Although Redford Township said the issue was resolved in around a half-hour, Nagy noted the line was still backed up.
According to USA Today, malfunctioning voting machines caused long lines at several precincts in Indiana. Technical glitches were among the factors causing hours-long lines in Maricopa Country, Arizona. In Hamilton County, Ohio, “voting machines unexpectedly rejected ballots that had not been completely filled out” in “Blue Ash, Colerain Township, Hyde Park, Walnut Hills, downtown Cincinnati, Monfort Heights and other locations,” according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. And the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that “a computer glitch at Geauga County polling places caused the system to mark some Election Day voters as having already voted by absentee ballot.” “Across New York City,” the AP noted, “reports of broken ballot scanners surfaced at several polling places. Turnout was so heavy at one packed precinct on Manhattan’s Upper West Side that the line to scan ballots stretched around a junior high school gym. Poll workers there told voters that two of the roughly half-dozen scanners were malfunctioning.” According to Politico, “Glitchy paperless voting machines are affecting an untold number of early voting ballots in Texas and Georgia, raising the specter that two of the most closely watched races could be marred by questions about whether the vote count is accurate.”Tuesday’s problems were not unforeseeable––they were explicitly foreseen. In 2014, the Presidential Commission on Election Administration warned of an “impending crisis.” The report inspired a nationwide survey conducted by the Brennan Center. In 2015, it produced America’s Voting Machines at Risk. Its authors later warned in The Atlantic, “The problem of aging voting technology reaches nearly every corner of the United States. Unlike voting machines used in past eras, today’s systems were not designed to last for decades.”
[Read: The “safest voting method”?]
Wired emphasized that 43 states “use systems that are no longer manufactured. Some election officials have resorted to scouring eBay for decommissioned equipment they can cannibalize to extend the life of machines. Georgia was in such dire straits over the lack of parts for its voting machines that it hired a consultant to build customized hardware that could run its Windows 2000-based election system software.”
The 2014 report was a warning. The 2015 survey was a warning. Glitches in 2016 and 2018 were confirmation of a forewarned problem. And in 2020, when voting machines in many jurisdictions will be two years older than they are now, a glitch that alters the outcome of a race or significantly undermines faith in democracy will count as a preventable catastrophe. Acting now—spending now—is the likeliest way to prevent it.
Journalists don’t like being wrong, or even wavering in the vicinity of not right. And in the run-up to Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, many of us were very wrong. Carefully designed visualizations fritzed out in the face of uncertainty.
So, this year, for these complex midterms, media companies have adopted the posture of humble supplicants to the American voter, waiting on a greater percentage of votes to be cast in a greater percentage of races before making the call on the one big, plausibly contested thing that matters: Who will control the House?
The New York Times—whose skittering needle in 2016 was so anxiety-making it became a viral Halloween costume two years later—tweaked its strategy after “many, many” internal discussions. As a result, the paper refused to unleash a visualization until 9:45 p.m. Eastern. By 10:05 p.m. Eastern, the needle showed Democrats had a 95 percent chance of winning the House. Just minutes before, the page had displayed a diffident message. “We do not yet feel confident enough in our estimates to publish a live forecast,” it read. “If and when we do, we will publish it here.”
[Read: Beto O’Rourke’s huge Facebook bet]
FiveThirtyEight, which prides itself on its data-centric view of politics, saw its own model moving too deeply rightward after early election results, and reset it to a more conservative (prediction-wise, not politically) approach. “After it was wobbling back and forth too aggressively early in the evening, we have the model tuned to a conservative setting, where it’s mostly just waiting for called races,” the site’s editor-in-chief, Nate Silver wrote.
Only Fox News was quick out of the gates, as if calling positive electoral returns for Democrats is now only seen as non-partisan if a conservative outlet does it.
FOX NEWS: 🚨DEMS TAKE HOUSE🚨
CNN: There will be no blue wave.
NYT: We are so confused we literally don't even have a needle
At some level, it’s hard to blame political journalists for holding back this year. Being late or slow might be embarrassing among your savvy peers, but getting it wrong means being subjected to years of unending trolling by whoever felt wronged by your statistical overdetermination of the results.
If there’s one thing the media learned in 2016—and honestly, sometimes it seems like it might be the only thing—it was that you should hold your predictive fire until you’re 95 percent sure you’re gonna hit the mark. Which ... sort of makes the whole enterprise a little ridiculous. At that point, the soothsaying game has another, more familiar name: reporting.
Surely then, in 2018, reporters will demand deep, interesting discussion of the issues from candidates and rely less on horse-race coverage, right?
We’re a country of optimists.
Democrats will recapture control of the House of Representatives, and could gain as much as a 20-seat advantage, ending eight years of Republican control and dealing President Donald Trump a stiff rebuke.
With many results in, Democratic candidates either had won or were leading in enough districts to likely win the 23 seats needed to capture the chamber and then some. The question now is how big the Democratic advantage will be when results from all races are in. The results are largely in line with early predictions, though early returns suggested the scale of Democratic victories might be smaller than anticipated, and Democratic analysts such as James Carville declared the hope of a blue wave dead. Yet despite tough losses for Democrats in Senate and gubernatorial races, the House has shaped up about as well as the party could have hoped.
Democratic control of the House will shift the terrain in Washington, providing a genuine counterweight to President Trump for the first time in his presidency, and breaking the unified Republican control of the House, Senate, and White House. While it will be all but impossible for Democrats to actually enact any of their priorities into law, House control provides them a position to conduct strict oversight on the Trump administration.
[Read: How a blue wave could crash far beyond Washington]
The Democratic wins have occurred across the country. They have won in districts that Hillary Clinton won in 2016, and they have won in districts Trump won. There have been victories in traditionally Democratic states such as Illinois and Minnesota, but also in more exotic locales for Democrats in the current era, including Kansas and Oklahoma. Pennsylvania and Virginia are emerging as particular bright spots for the party early.
The wins in Virginia showcase the Old Dominion’s emergence as a solid Democratic state. In addition to Tim Kaine’s easy victory in the U.S. Senate race, the first flipped seat of the night to be called had Jennifer Wexton handily defeating Barbara Comstock in Northern Virginia’s Tenth District. Comstock is a longtime Republican soldier and the party poured millions of dollars into the race, but was unable to save the two-term representative. Elaine Luria also beat Scott Taylor in the Eleventh District. Additionally, Abigail Spanberger is poised to beat Dave Brat, the Republican who unseated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 GOP primary.
In Pennsylvania earlier this year, the state supreme court ordered new congressional districts to be drawn, saying that the old maps constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The new maps were far more favorable to Democrats, and they have capitalized. Mary Gay Scanlon won in the Fifth District, a substantially new constituency. Also in Pennsylvania, Representative Conor Lamb is expected to defeat Representative Keith Rothfus in a new district that double-bunked the members. Chrissy Houlahan won the Sixth District, vacated by retiring member Ryan Costello. Susan Wild won the Seventh, held by Charlie Dent, who is also retiring. However, the Republican Guy Reschenthaler won the Fourteenth.
[Read: How the Democratic Party can turn the Sun Belt blue]
In Florida’s Twenty-Seventh District, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala defeated Maria Elvira Salazar. The district had been held by a retiring Republican, and while Shalala was a favorite, her slipping polling made Democrats nervous in the closing days of the race. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell defeated Carlos Curbelo in Florida’s Twenty-Sixth District.
Democrats also won in Illinois, with Sean Casten winning in the Sixth. In New York, Antonio Delgado and Anthony Brindisi won in the Nineteenth and Twenty-Second Districts. And on Staten Island, a GOP stronghold in deep-blue New York City, Max Rose unseated Dan Donovan, a Trump-supported candidate who survived a primary challenge in the Eleventh District this year.
In Colorado’s Sixth, Jason Crow is on track to defeat Mike Coffman, a Trump-skeptical Republican. In Michigan’s Eleventh District, an open seat held by a retiring Republican, Haley Stevens won. In Minnesota’s Third, Erik Paulsen, a veteran Republican, lost to Dean Phillips. Another veteran, Texas’s Pete Sessions, lost to Colin Allred in the Thirty-Second District. Ann Kirkpatrick, a two-time former representative, will return to the chamber a third time, winning a race to replace Martha McSally, who is running for Senate. Mikie Sherrill has won in New Jersey’s Eleventh District, formerly held by the retiring Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen. In Kansas’s Third District, Sharice Davids beat Kevin Yoder. Kendra Horn defeated Steve Russell in Oklahoma’s Fifth.
[Read: Trump already won the midterms]
Democrats also lead in a range of other contested races, though their hopes for a clean sweep through strongly Republican districts were confounded in a series of heartbreaking losses. For example, Amy McGrath failed to unseat Andy Barr in a much-watched Kentucky race. Yet on a night when the Senate gave Democrats bleak results and governors’ races were a mixed bag, House candidates came through for them.
The Republican losses are in line with both historical precedent and most predictions. The president’s party typically loses seats during midterm elections—though Trump had spoken boldly of defeating the pattern—and Democratic voters have shown surprising strength in special elections since 2016. By the eve of voting, the leading analysts all expected a Democratic edge. The question was, and remains, how large it would be.
While every race has its own specific circumstances, there’s no mistaking the major factor in the Democratic win: Donald Trump. The president said he was on the ballot, and voters appear to have agreed, according to exit polls. While Democrats wrestled with how to speak about him on the campaign trail and in ads, his influence is visible in the results. Democrats competed in districts that Trump won handily in 2016, including in the Rust Belt and even in deep-red Texas. Preliminary data show that turnout was exceptionally high among minorities and youth voters compared with recent midterm elections. In some cases, Trump’s personality and style were a factor. In others, his policies, especially his attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, proved a powerful issue for Democratic candidates. Republican turnout was up as well, which helps to explain the muted Democratic results.
During the summer of 2018, Trump was predicting a “red wave,” a retort to predictions of a “blue wave,” though as Election Day approached, he backed off that prediction, telling the Associated Press in October that he would not accept blame if Republicans lost the House, and saying this week that he was concentrating on preserving the GOP edge in the Senate, acknowledging the prospect of losing the House.
The Democratic win calls into question Trump’s strategy of hammering on immigration as a wedge issue in the closing weeks of the campaign. While the issue is catnip to his base, his divisive and dark rhetoric wasn’t effective in rallying Republicans to the polls in numbers great enough to preserve their majority.
The Democratic victory ends a brief period of unified Republican control of government, including the White House, the House, the Senate, and effectively the Supreme Court. The House has been in Republican hands since the 2010 Tea Party wave. As The Washington Post notes, it’s the third time control of the chamber has flipped in the last 12 years, a level of vacillation not seen since the immediate post–World War II period.
Republicans hand over the gavel with a decidedly mixed record. They successfully stymied much of President Barack Obama’s agenda from 2011 on, but they largely failed to further conservative priorities. Federal spending continues to grow; entitlements have not been cut; Obamacare remains in place, though scaled back; and after aiming for a tax-code overhaul, they had to settle for temporary tax cuts. Much of that class of 2010 has left the House or is leaving this year, and the party is also losing its leader. Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan, hailed as one of the party’s brightest young thinkers, was reluctantly thrust into the speakership, but opted to retire this year, apparently tired of being caught between the unpredictable and often outrageous president and a fractious caucus.
[Read: National politics has taken over America]
It’s likely that the Democratic leader, at least initially, will be a familiar face: former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Although a growing number of Democrats have chafed against her leadership, and some won election this year promising not to vote for her, she remains the heavy favorite to reclaim the gavel—at least to begin. Pelosi has been eager to reclaim the speakership, after serving in that role from 2007 to 2011, but has said she is likely to be a “transitional” leader, paving the way for a new Democratic speaker in the near future.
With Republicans in control of the Senate and White House, any Democratic policy priorities will be largely symbolic, though tensions between very progressive members and those representing swing districts will test the cohesion of the caucus and the skills of its leaders. Where Democrats are likely to make their biggest impact is in oversight of the White House. The majority means Democratic chairs of committees will have subpoena power, and are likely to deluge the Trump administration with requests for documents and testimony on a range of issues. They could demand to see the president’s tax returns. They could even attempt to impeach him.
For Trump, the frustration will not end there. He’s never enjoyed working with Congress, and has expressed frustration at the slow pace of both chambers. Having the opposition party in control of the House will create further gridlock. If there’s a silver lining for the president, though, it’s that a Democratic House will create a useful foil for him as he runs for reelection in 2020.
In the lead-up to the midterms, there has been a swell of appeals to the country’s youngest voters. Survivors of the Parkland, Florida, shooting launched a nationwide voter-registration drive. Dozens of celebrities organized a live-streamed telethon aimed at directing young voters to the polls. In a rare political message, Taylor Swift, notably silent throughout the 2016 election, urged her 112 million Instagram followers to research their candidates and cast their vote.
It seems to be working.
Preliminary results from ABC exit polls suggest that voters ages 18 to 29 will make up 13 percent of the overall electorate in this year’s midterms, up from 11 percent in 2014. While early voting across every age group increased compared with 2014, the surge is most pronounced among voters ages 18 to 29. More than 3.3 million voters from that group cast their votes early: That’s a 188 percent increase from 2014, according to data from TargetSmart, a political-data-analysis firm.
[Read: Young people might actually turn out for the midterms]
The spike in youth turnout in several key battleground states is particularly striking. In Texas, where young voters have rallied behind the Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke, early voting increased fivefold for voters ages 18 to 29, according to The Hill. It’s the same story in Nevada, where there’s another hotly contested senate race: Five times more young voters turned out early in 2018 than they did in 2014.
Historically, young adults have consistently had the worst turnout of any age group in every election since the U.S. Census Bureau began keeping track of voter-age data, in 1978 for midterm races and in 1964 for presidential races. The United States Election Project, which analyzes Census data, finds that 18-to-29-year-olds both have the lowest turnout rate and make up the lowest percentage of overall voters. And even though 18-to-29-year-olds saw the greatest increase in voters of any age group in 2018 early-voting returns, they did still make up the lowest percentage of early voters.
This election cycle, those trying to read the tea leaves of the midterms have kept squinting into the cup to see if they could make out the shape of a youth wave. Andre Perry, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, went so far as to predict that the youth vote would determine the outcome of this year’s election. Many of the youngest eligible voters seem to have been mobilized to register by the school shooting in Parkland earlier this year and the wave of activism for gun reform that followed. But a Washington Post analysis of that data in August found that those bumps were unlikely to have a significant effect.
[Read: The political revolution of the Millennial generation]
The Harvard Kennedy School’s biannual youth poll stirred the pot again in October, with news that 2018 midterm turnout could be historically high among young people. Forty percent of the 18-to-29-year-olds surveyed said they planned to vote this year; turnout in this age group has only (barely) surpassed 20 percent two times since 1986. And the poll suggested that a hypothetical youth wave would also be a blue wave, which makes sense, as Millennials lean more Democratic than any other generation, according to Pew. The poll’s findings “may signal that the spike in Millennial political involvement that began after the 2016 election of Donald Trump hasn’t lost steam in the past two years,” Olivia Paschal and Madeline Carlisle reported for The Atlantic at the time.
But as The New York Times wrote in a piece titled “Young Voters Could Make a Difference. Will They?”: “Young people have failed to meet expectations in the past, even when they have appeared unusually enthusiastic.”
Updated on November 6 at 11:50 p.m. ET
Republicans were poised to expand their slim Senate majority on Tuesday night, picking up three seats in Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota while cutting off the Democrats’ narrow path to retake control of the chamber.
Democratic Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana were defeated by conservative challengers who leaned heavily on President Donald Trump’s enduring popularity in their deeply red states. And in Texas and Tennessee, neither the insurgent energy behind Beto O’Rourke nor the middle-of-the-road appeal of former Governor Phil Bredesen could overcome the Republican lean of the electorate. Senator Ted Cruz defeated O’Rourke, the well-funded three-term congressman, while the conservative Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee won election to the seat vacated by the retiring Senator Bob Corker.
The initial results assured that Republicans would retain their Senate advantage even as Democrats were on the verge of recapturing the House. The GOP held a 51–49 edge heading into the midterm elections. And while Democrats have a chance to pick up seats in Arizona and Nevada later in the night, the three losses in the middle of the country effectively ended their chances for a majority. In Florida, the incumbent Senator Bill Nelson was trailing Republican Governor Rick Scott with 99 percent of precincts reporting.
The precise size of the GOP Senate majority will likely have limited impact on legislation. Because Democrats appear to have won back the House, any further effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, for example, is doomed. But Republican control of the Senate, however narrow, will allow Trump to make an even deeper conservative imprint on the federal judiciary, and potentially on the Supreme Court. Republicans have confirmed dozens of appellate and district-court judges in the past two years, and they have cemented a conservative Supreme Court majority with the elevation of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Republicans captured their first major Senate battleground shortly before 9 p.m. Eastern time, when the networks called the Indiana race for Mike Braun, a businessman who ran as a conservative outsider against Donnelly, a centrist Democrat. Later in the evening, GOP Representative Kevin Cramer defeated Heitkamp in North Dakota, and McCaskill lost to state Attorney General Josh Hawley in Missouri.
Democrats scored their own victories in West Virginia, where Senator Joe Manchin defeated the state’s attorney general, Patrick Morrisey; and in New Jersey, where the scandal-tarred Senator Bob Menendez held on despite an aggressive and well-funded challenge from the businessman Bob Hugin. The Menendez race became competitive after the longtime Democratic senator was tried on corruption charges and admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee. A federal trial ended in a hung jury.
[Read: An existential moment for Democrats]
Republicans retained a critical seat in Tennessee, where Blackburn defeated Bredesen, the state’s former governor, in a race that Democrats had higher hopes for earlier in the campaign.
In the closing weeks, the races for control of the House and the Senate seemed to cleave in separate directions. The Senate campaign was fought largely on Republican turf, unlike many of the critical House races playing out in GOP-held districts that swung toward Democrats in 2016. Led by Trump, the GOP tried to press its advantage by hammering Democrats over their treatment of the Supreme Court nominee—and now Justice—Kavanaugh, and by summoning fears of a migrant caravan of refugees moving north through Central America toward Mexico and the southern border.
Trump, too, played sharply different roles in the most competitive House and Senate contests. Many House contenders in suburban districts that have turned against Trump wanted nothing to do with the president and touted their willingness to oppose him. But GOP Senate candidates like Hawley in Missouri, Cramer in North Dakota, Braun in Indiana, and Morrisey in West Virginia welcomed him to enormous rallies in the hope that he could drive his loyal supporters to the polls.
And as his party’s fortunes sagged in one chamber and improved in the other, Trump tried to take credit for the GOP’s Senate campaigns while dismissing potential losses in the House as par for the course for a first-term president. “I think we’re going to do well in the House,” he told reporters on Sunday. “But as you know, my primary focus has been on the Senate, and I think we’re doing really well in the Senate.”
[Read: Scattered thunderstorms, with a chance of Republicans]
Despite the favorable political climate, the path for Democrats to a Senate majority this year was daunting from the beginning. Just one-third of the chamber’s 100 seats open up every two years, and in 2018 Democrats were defending 26 seats while Republicans had to protect only nine. And many of those Democratic incumbents were fighting for reelection in red states that Trump carried by wide margins two years ago. In North Dakota, for example, Heitkamp won her first election in 2012 by fewer than 3,000 votes. Two years ago, Trump won the state by a whopping 35 percentage points.
Heitkamp entered Tuesday as the Democrats’ most vulnerable incumbent, with some polls showing her losing to Cramer by double digits. In addition to Donnelly and Heitkamp, Republicans were hoping to oust Nelson and Senator Jon Tester of Montana, who found themselves in toss-up races as the election drew to a close.
[Read: These three races could flip the Senate]
Yet even the prospective loss of a few seats did not match the nightmare scenario Senate Democrats were contemplating at the beginning of Trump’s term, when it seemed possible that a strong year could give Republicans close to a filibuster-proof 60 seats. Several Democrats representing states that Trump won in the Rust Belt and the upper Midwest had strengthened their positions long before Election Day. They included Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania—all of whom were expected to prevail easily on Tuesday. In West Virginia, Manchin had also been narrowly favored to hold his seat in a state that Trump won by more than 40 points two years ago. The early call of his victory was a good sign that Democrats could limit their losses.
In contrast to the Democrats, just a single Senate Republican, Dean Heller of Nevada, was up for reelection in a state Hillary Clinton carried in 2016. But the race for control of the chamber became much closer with the surprise retirements of Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Corker of Tennessee, two Republicans who had bickered with Trump and grown weary of his bombastic brand of politics. In Arizona, Democratic Representative Kyrsten Sinema was running about even with GOP Representative Martha McSally, while Bredesen had faced longer odds against Blackburn.
Still, no Democratic candidate in 2018 captured the imagination—and adoration—of the party’s liberal base more than O’Rourke, the 46-year-old, third-term El Paso congressman who challenged Senator Ted Cruz in Texas. O’Rourke reached voters in every corner of the state by broadcasting his long weekend drives on Facebook Live, and by Election Day he had raised more than $70 million—easily the most for any candidate in the country who was not contributing substantial sums of his own money to his campaign. The energy behind his campaign made the Senate race the closest Texas has seen in years and undoubtedly helped Democrats down ballot. But it was not enough to overtake Cruz.
Though the Republicans were likely to keep their majority, the precise margin may not be known for weeks. In Mississippi, the special election to fill the remainder of retired Senator Thad Cochran’s term was likely headed to a runoff because none of the three major candidates—Democrat Mike Espy and Republicans Chris McDaniel and Cindy Hyde-Smith—were expected to achieve the majority needed to win on Tuesday night.
I had never been this paranoid about voting before. I checked my voter registration multiple times before flying to Florida for early voting. I traveled across the country to vote, rather than voting absentee. That’s how much I needed the reassurance of physically handing in my vote. Think of this paranoia as the post-traumatic stress of more than a century of blatant, consistent efforts by the right to undermine, discourage, and disenfranchise people of color. All too often, barriers have been placed in the way of our voting—or when election laws are applied, we’ve been held to a different standard.
Unfortunately, my spidey senses turned out to be right. When I showed up at the polling site near my house, I had been kicked off the registered-voter roll.
[Read: Voter suppression is a “labyrinth”]
A flurry of phone calls, and lots of head-nodding and “mmm-hmm”s from the supervisor of the polling site, failed to produce any explanation of why the system wasn’t showing me as a registered voter. I was allowed to fill out a provisional ballot. I was given two sheets of paper. One had my provisional-ballot number and explained my rights as a provisional voter. The other sheet listed a website and phone number for the Orange County supervisor of elections’ office in Orlando. I was told I could use that information to track my ballot.
It wasn’t until 45 minutes later that this voting mystery began to unravel. Shortly after I left the polling site, an official from the elections office called me and told me that a tweet I had posted a few weeks earlier had been brought to their attention. I had written that I had recently moved to Los Angeles, but was returning to Florida for early voting so I could vote for Andrew Gillum, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate.
Being a journalist means signing up for life as a nomad. I’ve lived in three different cities this year alone. I’ve lived in six different cities over the course of my 21-year career in journalism. Part of the reason I bought a house in Orlando in 2006 was to establish a base of permanent residency—to have a place to call home, wherever I might temporarily reside. I have never rented my home to another person. I get my bank statements sent there. And I pay Florida property taxes.
My tweet in support of Gillum was retweeted nearly 6,300 times and received nearly 35,000 likes. I wasn’t trying to persuade people to vote for Gillum, but to encourage people to vote, period. I wanted people to know that voting in this year’s midterms was so important to me that I’d cross time zones just to make sure I participated in our democratic process.
I pressed the official who called me from the supervisor of elections about how my tweet had landed on their radar. “Let’s just say it was a red brigade,” he said.
I’m guessing that had I tweeted support for Gillum’s challenger, Ron DeSantis, no one would have questioned my right to vote in Florida. Also in the back of my mind was the dust-up I’d had with the president last year. I’m not accusing Donald Trump of trying to suppress my vote, but I wouldn’t put it past his ardent supporters.
“The fact is, you’re a high-profile person who has political enemies,” said Richard Hasen, a chancellor’s professor of law and political science at UC Irvine, and a leading authority on election law. “The president has influenced passions about voter fraud, so people in the public eye will be watched very carefully. Everybody is looking for a ‘gotcha’ to see if a prominent person across the aisle is committing voter fraud.”
[Read: Inside Trump’s voter-fraud crusade]
Thanks to this whole ordeal, I now have something in common with Ann Coulter and the former White House adviser Steve Bannon (a sentence I never want to type again). The three of us have been accused of committing voter fraud—all in the state of Florida. Coulter also was accused of voter fraud in Connecticut.
Dan Borchers, a conservative blogger and longtime critic of Coulter, filed a voter-fraud complaint against Coulter’s voting in Connecticut in the 2002 and 2004 elections; she was also investigated for voter fraud in Florida in the 2006 election. She was cleared in both states. The Guardian reported that Bannon’s Florida voter registration was attached to an abandoned property. The Miami-Dade state’s attorney later determined that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Bannon had sworn falsely on his voter-registration application.
“Especially in our increasingly mobile society, a person may spend the majority of his or her nights at one (or multiple) locations, but legally reside at another,” she concluded. “Reporters embedded with a national political campaign often sleep in different jurisdictions every night, but they are still able to claim legal residency at a home base. That home base may be where a spouse lives, where their office is, or where they feel most at home.”
In another election year, this incident would just be a funny story for me to repeat at parties—but this was the most serious election of my lifetime. I wanted to vote. In the midterms, we were not simply exercising our customary tradition of voting for our leadership, but fighting for the soul and identity of this country.
That might seem dramatic, but there’s no other way to look at it. This country has always stood for certain ideals: freedom, democracy, decency. We have routinely fallen short of them, but we’ve shown enough flashes of being capable of upholding those principles to, at the very least, make fighting for them seem worthwhile.
[Read: The Georgia governor’s race has brought voter suppression into full view]
Too many people now seem to be celebrating and reveling in our backwards slide. Right now this isn’t a country that’s behaving like it wants to be the best version of itself. It’s becoming a country that is determined to cater to its worst instincts, fears, and insecurities.
We have a president who is openly bragging about being a nationalist and purposely stoking racial resentment. Trump’s political party is willingly tethering itself to his dangerous rhetoric in order to consolidate power, giving little regard to the lasting damage being done to the nation’s moral compass. People are not only being radicalized to hate; they’re channeling that hate into violent and deadly acts—as in Louisville and Pittsburgh.
In Remember the Titans, the star linebacker Julius Campbell told his teammate Gerry Bertier: “Attitude reflects leadership.” So what does the current attitude in this country say about its present leadership?
This is why this election mattered to me more than any other. The election official who contacted me told me that, based upon the information I shared with him, there seemed to be no evidence I had committed voter fraud. He also warned me that he didn’t get to make the final determination about whether my provisional ballot would be accepted. That would be up to the supervisor of elections.
My spidey senses don’t know what to make of that.
HQ2 II: Amazon’s promise of a multibillion-dollar investment and job growth in the form of a massive second headquarters has had cities across America scrambling to court the technology giant. While recent reports point to Amazon opening “HQ2s” in New York and Virginia, these other major finalist cities haven’t given up, with some approving enticing subsidies as recently as this week. Remember: Here’s what can happen to some cities when Amazon comes to town.
Forecasting: Heavy rain fell across many well-populated regions of the U.S. as voters turned out for the U.S. midterm elections. Snow fell in parts of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Bad weather, research suggests, can depress voter turnout, and it can even nudge voters to lean conservative in their choices. Democrats elected on rainier days even tend to act more conservatively in Congress. But a national gloom about the country has lifted slightly, according to recent polls: Over the course of 2018, people seem to be reporting more satisfaction with where the country is headed.
Leave Them Alone: Did you awww over a viral video of a baby bear clawing its way up a snowy precipice to its mother? It’s not a heartwarming image of resilience, but likely a dramatic scene brought about by a drone operator scaring the bears: “It’s staggering—all the misuses that people are proudly posting because they don’t know any better.”
Programming note: We’ll be in your inbox Wednesday morning with a brief extra edition of the Daily on U.S. midterm-elections results. In the meantime, follow along at TheAtlantic.com.
We want to know what you think about …Voter turnout for midterm elections is traditionally mediocre, though there are signs of a swell this year. While some eligible voters sit out because they’ve become disillusioned with the political process, others become excluded from the process through what is tantamount to voter suppression. If you voted—or tried to—on Tuesday, tell us about your experience by writing to letters@theatlantic.com.
Snapshot
Political beliefs in 2018 are driving a vicious wedge between family members—and driving a surprising number of people to publicly rebuke their relatives. In Arizona, for instance, six siblings of the Trump-aligned Paul Gosar took out a television ad renouncing him. These family feuds show no sign of abating. (Getty)What Do You Know … About Family?1. Spanking as punishment for children’s misbehavior is pervasive—some estimates say that up to ______ percent of kids in the U.S. have been spanked by the time they reach the fifth grade.
Scroll down for the answer, or find it here.
2. By one measure, intra-family political disagreements ended up cutting Thanksgiving dinners short by a collective 34 _______________ hours in 2016.
Scroll down for the answer, or find it here.
3. Among the most frequently downloaded apps aimed at children ages 5 and under—even those categorized as “educational” and even ones that cost money—are full of _______________.
Scroll down for the answer, or find it here.
Urban DevelopmentsOur partner site CityLab explores the cities of the future and investigates the biggest ideas and issues facing city dwellers around the world. Gracie McKenzie shares their top stories:
Stockbridge, Georgia—the city used for the Wakanda scenes in Black Panther—elected a black mayor and an all-black city council last year, for the first time in its 100-year history. Today, the wealthier, whiter residents of its Eagle’s Landing neighborhood are voting on whether to secede and form their own city.
A new book examines how urban Boomer homeowners, in their quest to fend off “density” in their neighborhoods, have consistently—and incredibly successfully—blocked the construction of affordable housing, leaving Millennial home buyers in the lurch.
The results of today’s midterm elections will depend on turnout. Historically speaking, though, voting in midterm elections isn’t something that a majority of Americans do. This map shows the sad state of U.S. voter turnout.
For more updates like these from the urban world, subscribe to CityLab’s Daily newsletter.
Looking for our daily mini crossword? Try your hand at it here—the puzzle gets more difficult through the week.
We’re always looking for ways to improve The Atlantic Daily. Concerns, comments, questions, typos? Email Shan at swang@theatlantic.com
Did you get this newsletter from a friend? Sign yourself up.
As Election Day progresses, voting selfies are dominating Instagram. Almost every user has likely encountered at least one from a celebrity or friend, urging other users to perform their civic duty. But as the now tried-and-true format has proliferated, a new one has emerged behind it: the voting thirst trap.
A “thirst trap” can be an attractive person or an attractive photo of an attractive person, posted to social media, aimed at garnering maximum attention. Most thirst traps take the form of bikini pics, shirtless selfies, or perfectly staged poses. An effective thirst trap makes your thumb pause in the feed and gaze for just a second more.
[Read: Why Americans don’t vote]
Posting a thirst trap is a great way to rake in a lot of likes on a photo. But as many Instagrammers have found, it’s also a great way to try and get out the vote. “Go swing to your nearest poll today and #vote,” the hair stylist and Instagrammer Joseph Randall posted below a selfie of him nearly naked, in a thong, straddling a wrecking-ball swing above the water in Thailand. “I VOTED,” posted Daniel Henson, a fashion designer with nearly 30,000 followers. The photo above featured a shirtless selfie displaying a set of chiseled abs with an I voted sticker plastered to his skin above his right nipple.
I VOTED 📩 Hopefully this reminds you to also. 🇺🇸
A post shared by DANIEL HENSON (@danielghenson) on Nov 3, 2018 at 8:08pm PDT
“I wanted to post something that was going to get my followers attention,” Randall said. “I knew it was a thirsty photo, but I also wanted it to be different than other posts we see out there encouraging [people] to vote with just the sticker. You come across that in your timeline like 15 million times.” Randall and others who have participated in the trend say that the highly engaging nature of thirst traps actually makes them the perfect vehicle for getting the message out.
Alex Samson, a behavioral therapist in Florida who posted a shirtless selfie of himself with the message, “Hey, get your ass up and go vote!” said that he was just happy to do his small part in the get-out-the-vote movement. “When you post a thirst trap people look at it more,” he said. “If I can use that and get people to realize that it's voting today, then it worked.”
[Read: Teens debate the news on Instagram]
When Juan Del Toro, a Ph.D. student in New York, got home from the polls this morning, he took his shirt off, set the camera to selfie mode, posted an I voted sticker to his shirtless chest, and shared the photo to Instagram. “Don’t forget to exercise … your right to vote,” he wrote, followed by a winky-face emoji. Del Toro said it was easy, and peeling the sticker off his hairy chest didn’t even hurt.
“I thought it was effective because sex sells. Non-shirtless pics get less likes (40-60) whereas shirtless pics get a ton (200+). So I thought why not,” he wrote via an Instagram direct message, adding that he wanted to “inspire people to do their civic duty and make it seem like voting is a sexy and provocative thing to do. As it should be!”
Not everyone thinks voting thirst traps are harmless. After Henson shared his shirtless pic, a screengrab of it was taken and made into a meme that promptly went viral on Twitter. The tweet mocking him racked up thousands of likes and replies claiming that he was only seeking attention. “I’m screaming,” one man tweeted in reply to the photo. “The reaction has sort of been degrading and ridiculed and that’s the part I don’t like,” Henson said. But he did find a warmer reception among his followers. “Motivates me to do about 500 sit ups AND THEN vote,” one person commented.
“What sucks the most is I honestly was trying to bring awareness to it,” said Henson. “I’m not just taking anything and making it a thirst-trap photo. Obviously it’s a shirtless photo, it’s egotistical, but I’m aware it draws the most attention, so why not try to use that to get people out there voting?”
Don’t forget to exercise... your right to vote 😉 #vote #fitness #fitspo
A post shared by juan.dtoro (@juan.dtoro) on Nov 6, 2018 at 12:59pm PST
Instagram as a platform also made a huge push to inform its users about Election Day. Last week it rolled out an interactive “Voted” sticker that helps users find their polling place. On Monday and Tuesday, people in the U.S. also saw a custom community story featuring clips from their friends who had posted about voting. Many users also couldn’t open up their “Explore” tab without being bombarded with some type of get-out-the-vote messaging, including thirst traps.
And while a large number of people posting voting thirst traps are men, women have also participated. Several women posted images of themselves to Instagram with I voted stickers over their nipples. Others have used photos in bikinis or skimpy workout wear to draw attention to the cause. Beyoncé posted a photo of herself in a crop top showing off a hat in support of Beto O’Rourke. “I saw one pic of a woman with her whole chest out. She had nothing but googly eyes on her nipples and she was talking about getting out to vote,” Henson said.
Randall noted that for many young people, Tuesday would be the first chance they’d have to go to the polls.
“In order to reach and engage with these people, you need to speak their language,” Randall said, “and their language is a thirst trap.”
Americans headed to the polls today to vote in the first national election since President Donald Trump was elected in 2016. There are 435 House races, 35 Senate races, and 36 gubernatorial contests across the country. Democrats need to win at least 23 seats to take back the House, and Republicans are hoping to maintain their majority—and maybe even take a few more seats—in the Senate.
Here’s what else you’ll want to keep in mind as results come in:
Eye on the Clock: The first polls—in Kentucky and Indiana—closed at 6 p.m. ET.
Races to Watch: There are nail-biter gubernatorial elections in Florida, Georgia, and a few key Midwestern states. Democrats like Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona and Beto O’Rourke in Texas are hoping to help turn the Senate blue. And Republican representatives are locked in key House battles in Iowa and Texas.
Rain Delay: Heavy rains fell across well-populated areas of the country as people turned out to vote. Lousy weather makes a difference in voting behavior, researchers find.
We’re sending you this special edition of the Politics & Policy email newsletter for the midterms. Let us know what you think here. Like what you see? Forward this email to a friend, or let them know they can subscribe here.
Nationwide
Representative Beto O'Rourke, the 2018 Democratic Candidate for the Senate in Texas, waves to supporters as he leaves a polling place with his family after voting in El Paso, Texas. (Eric Gay / AP)In one way, Trump has already won
“Regardless of how the midterm elections turn out Tuesday night, President Donald Trump will have at least one thing to celebrate.”→ Read on.
This is the nature of voter suppression in 2018
“The true nature of voter suppression as an accumulation of everyday annoyances, legal barriers, and confusion has come into full view. Today, voter suppression is a labyrinth, not a wall.”→ Read on.
The Democrats are facing an existential crisis
“On one side of the results is redemption, or at least the beginning of it. On the other is the wrenching fear that maybe the Democrats were never right, maybe the country doesn’t believe in any of the things they assumed it had to.”→ Read on.
Can the Democrats win the Senate?
“In key states such as Arizona, Nevada, and even Texas, advance ballots have exceeded those cast in the previous midterm election by more than 100 percent.”→ Read on.
The counties that could determine which party will control the House
“They’re voters who live in counties with distinct demographic and voting profiles: majority-minorities counties, majority-white suburban counties, pro-Trump counties with a manufacturing base, and counties that voted for former President Barack Obama in 2012 and then for Trump in 2016.”→ Read on.
People hold signs supporting Democratic candidate for governor Andrew Gillum at a polling place in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. (Carlo Allegri / Reuters)In Florida, Andrew Gillum’s campaign has been about expanding the electorate
“Over years and years of tight gubernatorial races, razor-thin presidential margins, and efforts among activists to match Florida’s politics to its demographics, the biggest political issue in the state in 2018 is the size and structure of the electorate itself.”→ Read on.
Iowa is seeing one of the closest gubernatorial races in the country
“An avenging wave of indignation could turn Iowa blue again—very blue—in 2018.”→ Read on.
A fundamental issue that could make a difference in the Georgia governor’s race
“To black women in Georgia, the stakes of the debate over health-care access are no less than life or death.”→ Read on.
Kansas is an overlooked battleground for House seats
“The state hasn’t voted Democratic for president or elected a Democrat to the Senate since the New Deal, and Republicans have easily held their four House seats for the past eight years. But Republicans find themselves on their heels here this year.”→ Read on.
In California’s Fiftieth District, one candidate is running the most anti-Muslim campaign in the country
“There are other races with tighter polls, other House seats more likely to flip. But what’s unfolding in the suburbs of San Diego represents an unnerving microcosm of this campaign season.”→ Read on.
Kristen Leach votes with her six-month-old daughter, Nora, on election day in Atlanta. (David Goldman / AP)Here’s what candidates were advertising to you about this campaign season
“Sometimes it seems like Democrats and Republicans aren’t even speaking the same language. But when it comes to online advertising, there are some surprising similarities between the big topics for both parties.”→ Read on.
Midterms turnout is historically lackluster. A dispatch from the lowest-turnout district in the U.S.
“One sentiment may be universal: the sense that something is wrong with a government by and for the people where the people can’t be seen or heard.” → Read on.
This special edition of the Politics & Policy Daily was written by Elaine Godfrey. Concerns, comments, questions? Email egodfrey@theatlantic.com
Were you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up for our daily politics email here.
Arlington, Virginia, and New York City are doing a victory lap after The New York Times reported Monday that Amazon plans to split its second headquarters, called HQ2, between the two cities, bringing high-paying jobs to both locations. The report comes after hundreds of cities across the country went through a more-than-year-long bidding process for the headquarters, which Amazon originally said would bring 50,000 jobs and $5 billion in investment. In January, Amazon chose 20 finalists from 238 bids and said it would announce its final pick by the end of the year.
But Amazon has not confirmed the reports about New York and Virginia winning the process, and other finalist cities are refusing to give up hope. Denver was in communication with Amazon on Tuesday morning and was not told it was out of the running, Sam Bailey, the vice president of economic development at the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation, told me. (Amazon declined to comment.) Despite reports that New York and Arlington had been chosen, “it’s just rumor and scuttlebutt until something is announced from Amazon,” Michael Finney, the president and CEO of the Miami-Dade Beacon Council, the economic-development arm for that region, told me. “As you know, there has been no official announcement by the company,” a spokeswoman for Nashville’s chamber of commerce wrote to me.
Some regions still appear to be securing public financing for developments that could host Amazon. Atlanta’s city council on Monday approved nearly $1.9 billion in public subsidies for a downtown development that had been widely speculated to be a perfect home for HQ2.
[Read: Could Amazon flip a state?]
It’s possible that Amazon will not choose just two cities, but will instead scatter new offices in places across the country, such as Denver, Nashville, and Atlanta, taking advantage of whatever incentives those cities offered up. Amazon decided it couldn’t just stay in Seattle because it was having trouble finding enough talent there. If it doubled down on one more city, it could have the same problem and run out of talent, said Lisa Picard, the president and CEO of Equity Office, a subsidiary of the Blackstone Group that owns and operates office spaces across the country.
But the company may have found that there is a little bit of talent in a lot of cities—robotics talent in Boston, sales talent in Chicago, engineers in Pittsburgh. “It makes logical sense for it not to be HQ2, but instead HQ many,” Picard told me. Amazon and other tech companies have already gobbled up office space around the country, she said—in the fourth quarter of last year, 25 percent of all new office space leased or built in the United States was taken by Amazon. Companies such as Google, Twitter, Spotify, and Facebook have opened offices in cities across the country, including Chicago and Miami, for instance.
[Read: The problem with courting Amazon]
Of course, splitting its next headquarters between multiple cities also means more press, and more tax incentives. City leaders have praised Amazon throughout the process—New York’s governor jokingly offered to change his name to Amazon Cuomo if it would win the company’s headquarters, for instance, and officials from one city outside Atlanta voted to try to name a section of their town Amazon, Georgia. That’s a lot more attention than most companies get when they’re looking for office space. Microsoft, for example, is spending billions to expand its Redmond, Washington, campus, something that’s been followed in the local, but not national, news.
And many regions offered hefty incentives and loads of information that Amazon could still partially use, even if it doesn’t locate thousands of jobs in those places. New Jersey offered $7 billion if Amazon located its office in Newark. Maryland put forward $2 billion in infrastructure and transportation improvements and $6.5 billion in tax incentives for a potential site in Montgomery County. Many others offered an unprecedented cache of confidential information about their development plans, where they intend to make infrastructure investments, what regions they believe will soon see economic activity—all of which could help Amazon sell more goods online and figure out where to open data centers, retail stores, warehouses, and more offices. Soon they’ll find out whether they received anything in return.
O,Election Day! In the ruddy twilight of each year, as autumn incarnadines the republic’s plump pastures and luxuriant hills, its people gather for that most felicitous and humbling of civic offices: to choose our elect, to decide who will rule. With renewed revolutionary vigor, this mighty tide sweeps the continent, intermingling the wise Delaware and the ferocious Klamath, making so strong a torrent as to flood the ancient Appalachians and take the West’s Rocky spine in a single splash. Woe to any tyrant who tries to dam this foamy act of faith, for no virtuous power can block the citizenry from its solemn act—
—except, that is, for some scattered rain showers.
On Tuesday, as voters decided the midterm 2018 elections, rain fell across well-populated areas of the country. In the Southeast, voters faced scattered showers and dreary conditions as some of them waited in hours-long lines at the polls. Steady rains and occasional thunderstorms also soaked the Northeast.
Snow fell in parts of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, according to the National Weather Service.
[Read: Why American’s don’t vote]
These arbitrary weather conditions could shape politics for years to come, political researchers have found. Rainy days can depress voter turnout, discouraging people from going to the polls at all. And lousy weather may even lead a small number of voters to change their votes to more conservative candidates. Both of these effects consistently boost Republicans when elections happen to fall on rainy days.
The party knows it. Bob Hugin, running for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey, called the rain “Republican weather” on the eve of Tuesday’s vote. “This election is about who gets the vote out and who doesn’t, and I hope it rains hard tomorrow,” he told supporters. (It did. Hugin still trails by 11 points in preelection polling.)
For years, political scientists have argued that Republicans do better on rainy days from lower turnout alone. A famous 2007 paper found that every additional inch of rain that fell on Election Day decreased overall turnout by 1 percent. The effect can be profound: Had the mid-Atlantic states seen rainy weather on November 8, 1960, historians would speak of Richard Nixon’s famous victory over John F. Kennedy, the study’s authors argued. Likewise, a dry day in Florida may have let Al Gore win the state on November 7, 2000, handing Democrats a third term in the White House and possibly averting the Iraq War.
Recently, though, political scientists have gone a step further, claiming that rain doesn’t just decrease turnout but can actually change people’s voting decisions. “When weather is bad, people’s mood is affected. Then people become more risk-averse, and in the area of political elections, risk-averse people are more likely to choose Republicans,” says Yusaku Horiuchi, a professor of government at Dartmouth College whose research helped establish the new theory.
He and his colleagues found that up to 1 percent of American voters may switch their decision at the polls based on the weather. Every inch of rain appears to drive up a given Republican’s vote share by 3.08 percent, Horiuchi told me. “So that’s not so small,” he added.
Do Republicans Get More Votes in States With Rainier Novembers?
If your state tends to have a rainier November, do its voters select more Republicans on Election Day? This map, made with climate data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, doesn’t suggest any easy answers. On the one hand, some of the most solidly Republican states in the country—Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee—tend to have sopping Novembers. On the other, the wettest Novembers in the country happen along the coast of the Pacific Northwest—the same area that has seen Oregon and Washington tilting toward Democrats in recent national elections.Even if Democrats win a given race, rainy weather on Election Day may still change how they act once they arrive in Washington, D.C. In another recent paper, political scientists at Yale and UC Berkeley argue that congressional Democrats elected on rainy days tend to act more conservatively in Congress. They argue that since every additional inch of rain depresses the margin of Democratic victory by about two percentage points, Democrats tend to assume a smaller political mandate than they may actually have and make more right-leaning choices as elected officials.
In other words, even if Democrats take the House or Senate today despite the rain, their politics for at least the next two years may be moderated by a random cold front.
Not all of these trends may hold for every election. Nationally, Democrats usually win more elections when more voters turn out. But because of the changing demographics of the parties, higher turnout may actually boost the GOP in this year’s midterms in the North, according to The New York Times’ Nate Cohn. Since it was rainier in the Northeast on Tuesday, Democrats might come out ahead.
[Read: An existential day for Democrats]
That wouldn’t control for voters who switch their decision because of the weather, though. “It’s raining harder today, so Republicans may get some advantage. But rainfall is not so huge; rainfall could be a factor only in very competitive [districts],” said Horiuchi, who declined to make a more specific prediction of the outcome.
Not that good weather always boosts the Democrats to victory, necessarily. On another arbitrary day in November two years ago, it was bright and sunny across most of the country—although there were some fast-moving showers across the upper Midwest, where Donald Trump ultimately cemented his victory in the Electoral College. So maybe there’s a lesson there, too. Democrats’ best shot at success may not be a fight over the most appealing economic message. A more winning strategy may be to turn Wisconsin into the world’s largest tanning bed.
Today is Election Day, and it’s hard to believe that anyone feels cheerful about it. Relieved? Maybe. But positive? Democrats are riven with anxiety about whether they can win back the House. Republicans are riven with anxiety about whether they can hold it. President Donald Trump has chosen a closing argument for the campaign that’s rooted in racist fearmongering and lies. The nation is still reeling from the massacre at a synagogue in Pittsburgh and the mail bombs sent to prominent Democrats.
As Sarah Lyall succinctly put it in The New York Times, “It’s been an awful few days.” And before that, it was an awful few weeks and months. Even those moments that have accrued partisan advantage to one side or the other—the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example—seem to have only increased anger on both sides. The election’s results are unlikely to soothe any of that.
Yet a funny phenomenon exists in public-opinion polling. Pollsters like to ask whether the country is on the right track or the wrong track—a good way to take the temperature of the nation, regardless of one’s stance on specific issues. And despite the gloomy spate of news, several recent polls show a small but real and consistent improvement in the national mood, with slightly more Americans saying that the country is on the right track and fewer saying that it’s on the wrong one. Here, for example, is The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with the most recent results coming from the start of November:
CBS News surveys show a similar trend, with a darkening mood through 2017 in the months after the presidential election, followed by a slowly improving feeling in 2018:
Gallup uses slightly different terms to gauge voter sentiment, but finds the same results: Over the course of 2018, people have become more and more satisfied with where the country is going.
The CNN/ORC poll offers a somewhat more complicated picture, because it asks the question with more options. It suggests a more polarized populace overall: More people are saying that the country is doing very badly or very well, while fewer are saying that it is doing fairly well or pretty badly, though the general arc echoes those of the other polls.
Even with the recent rises, the numbers are miserable: Not even four in 10 Americans think that the country is on the right track. The numbers have been in the cellar for years, too. In the late 1990s, they sometimes reached into the 70s. A sharp, if short-lived and counterintuitive, peak also occurred after the September 11 attacks, which seemed to reflect the surge in patriotic feeling more than a sense that all was well. It’s hardly encouraging that an increase to nearly 40 percent is positive growth. But it is growth nonetheless.
So whence does this occluded optimism originate? Since politics is an unlikely motivator of rosier feelings, one possibility is that the economy is steadily growing, which tends to improve the national mood. What’s strange is that the strong economy and the increasing optimism don’t seem to be coupled with more positive feelings about the president. The resident of the White House tends to reap the benefit of positive feeling, and especially of a growing economy. But Gallup’s latest weekly tracking poll shows Trump’s job approval shifting five points in either direction—higher disapproval and lower approval.
The aftermath of the midterms is unlikely to produce a moment of goodwill in politics. If Republicans hold both houses of Congress, something like the status quo will prevail; if Democrats capture one, it could create even more acrimony on Capitol Hill. What will that do to Americans’ perception of whether the country is on the right track? As 2017 shows, that’s not an easy thing to predict.
Na quinta-feira, O Estado de S. Paulo rasgou elogios a Jair Bolsonaro. O editorial “Disposição bem-vinda” considerou “reconfortante” o presidente eleito ter “ciência” da necessidade de uma reforma previdenciária. Poucas horas depois de o jornal ir ao ar na internet e ser entregue impresso aos assinantes, o Estadão foi barrado na primeira entrevista coletiva pós-vitória do deputado. Também foram vetados repórteres dos jornais Folha de S. Paulo, O Globo e Valor Econômico, da rádio CBN e da Empresa Brasil de Comunicação (à qual se vincula a TV Brasil, que Bolsonaro pretende extinguir ou privatizar).
A uma semana da votação do segundo turno, o então candidato discursara por celular para manifestantes aglomerados na avenida Paulista. Vociferou: “A Folha de S. Paulo é o maior fake news do Brasil. Vocês não terão mais verba publicitária do governo”; “Imprensa vendida, meus pêsames”. No dia seguinte à eleição, foi entrevistado pelo Jornal Nacional e falou mais sobre a Folha: “Por si só esse jornal se acabou. Não tem prestígio mais nenhum”.
Um assessor de imprensa de Bolsonaro emulou a truculência do chefe. Na noite de 28 de outubro, Carlos Eduardo Guimarães remeteu uma mensagem a um grupo de jornalistas. Abaixo da imagem da pesquisa boca de urna do Ibope antecipando o vencedor, insultou: “UÉ… Não tava quase empatado? Vocês são o maior engodo do Jornalismo do Brasil!!!! LIXO”. Mais tarde, desculpou-se. Seguidores do capitão hostilizaram, agrediram ou assediaram ao menos nove repórteres no domingo retrasado, denunciou a Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo.
Na sexta-feira, um policial federal obrigou um cinegrafista da TV Globo a apagar imagens de Bolsonaro feitas na visita ao Centro de Adestramento da Ilha da Marambaia. A PF não esclareceu o motivo da censura. Na reta final da campanha, contabiliza o repórter Ricardo Balthazar, o candidato atacou a imprensa dez vezes por semana.
Jornalismo intimidadoOs vitupérios de Bolsonaro não arrefeceram quando a campanha terminou. A virulência oferece indícios de como o candidato triunfante agirá, no Planalto, com a imprensa. Ignora-se, todavia, como a imprensa se comportará em relação a ele. Para a democracia, não se trata de especulação diletante, mas de aspecto decisivo.
Se cabe ao jornalismo fiscalizar o poder, noticiando o que os poderosos conspiram para manter em segredo, a dita “harmonia entre imprensa e poder” é socialmente degradante. Nos estertores da campanha, o jornalista Janio de Freitas assinalou:
“Para a relação harmoniosa, é necessário silêncio ou complacência da imprensa sobre as falhas do poder – seja o político, o administrativo, o econômico ou privado, e o poder armado. Um certo mal-estar entre imprensa com alguma independência e o poder faz parte da relação entre críticos e criticados, que, aliás, se alternam mutuamente nos dois papéis. Jair Bolsonaro não aceita a relação em tais termos”.
Ao abordar as “agressões verbais e ameaças” do capitão, Janio advertiu sobre o “maior perigo”: a “reação intimidada da imprensa, pouco menos do que inexistente. Atitude que, na ótica de Bolsonaro e seu círculo, só pode significar o início da domesticação buscada pelo autoritarismo. Aqui e fora, sempre que a imprensa não respondeu com altivez aos ataques autoritários, sua tibieza foi debitada na conta da liberdade”.
Bolsonaro e seus partidários jogam pesado. Na quinta-feira, estimulados pelo empresário bolsonarista Luciano Hang, ensaiaram uma campanha de boicote ao PagSeguro. A empresa de pagamento online pertence ao UOL, do mesmo grupo que edita a Folha.
Bolsonaristas promovem o cancelamento de assinaturas do jornal, que deixou de veicular na primeira página os números de circulação das edições impressa e digital. Ao incluir a “Folha” no índex da publicidade federal, por desgostar de sua cobertura, Bolsonaro desafia a Constituição. A Carta estabelece, no artigo 37, o princípio da impessoalidade na administração pública. (Registro: o dinheiro consumido com publicidade do governo e de estatais é excessivo e, em parte, maroto.)
O ataque de Bolsonaro é típico de inimigos da liberdade de imprensa e da democracia. Exige contestação. O repúdio não elimina, contudo, meu lamento pela recente norma da Folha que proíbe, em texto noticioso, que se designe o campo político do futuro presidente como “extrema-direita”. Os repórteres só podem escrever “direita”.
Publicações e emissoras estrangeiras de colorações variadas, como The New York Times, Le Figaro, Financial Times, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, BBC, El País e Independent, não se atemorizam: tratam o presidente eleito como político “de extrema-direita”.
Sociedade político-editorialO Jornal Nacional silenciou sobre a exclusão de veículos jornalísticos da coletiva de Bolsonaro (dois jornais e uma emissora de rádio alvos da restrição integram o Grupo Globo; a equipe da TV Globo foi autorizada a entrar). Poderia reportar que o entrevistado declarou não ter tomado a decisão – o deputado disse mesmo isso. Mas o JN omitiu o episódio.
Malabarismos retóricos tentam igualar quem não é igual – uma coisa é criticar a imprensa, outra é persegui-la. Ao menos desde a ditadura, um presidente eleito ou na função não fustiga tanto, em público, o jornalismo. Nem assim as coisas são contadas plenamente.
Malabarismos retóricos tentam igualar quem não é igual.Títulos sem evasivas sobre a escalação de Sergio Moro no Ministério foram quase exclusivos de veículos estrangeiros. “Jair Bolsonaro promete alto cargo a juiz que prendeu seu rival”, titulou o londrino Times. O espanhol El País manchetou: “O juiz que encarcerou Lula da Silva aceita ser ministro da Justiça de Bolsonaro”.
O jornalismo mais influente constituiu um palanque acrítico e propagandístico de Moro nos anos recentes, comemorando a condenação do candidato favoritíssimo para derrotar Bolsonaro. Celebrou-se uma tácita sociedade político-editorial. “A imprensa ‘comprava’ tudo”, afirmou à repórter Amanda Audi uma ex-assessora do juiz.
Christianne Machiavelli quis dizer que o jornalismo reproduziu docilmente as versões oficiais da operação Lava Jato: “Talvez tenha faltado crítica da imprensa. Era tudo divulgado do jeito como era citado pelos órgãos da operação”. Bolsonaro reconheceu, sobre o desempenho de Moro: “O trabalho dele […] me ajudou a crescer, politicamente falando”.
O juiz federal e futuro ministro da Justiça Sérgio Moro em palestra sobre a autonomia das instituições brasileiras na 4ª edição do Fórum Mitos & Fatos, promovido pela rádio Jovem Pan, em São Paulo.
Foto: Danilo Verpa/Folhapress
Muito mais do que opinião, farta no mercado para todas as dietas, a informação jornalística perturba Bolsonaro. Como a reportagem de Patrícia Campos Mello sobre a compra ilícita, por empresas camaradas, de pacotes de mensagens de WhatsApp para favorecê-lo.
Já tarda uma investigação jornalística indispensável para reconstituir a campanha: em que instante um emissário de Bolsonaro convidou Moro para ministro? O general Mourão, em nova contribuição à transparência, revelou que “isso [o convite] já faz tempo, durante a campanha foi feito um contato”. Às vésperas do primeiro turno, o juiz tornou pública parte da delação de Antonio Palocci associando Lula à roubalheira na Petrobras. Forneceu matéria-prima para o previsível doping midiático-eleitoral.
A caça às bruxas já está em curso.Altivez jornalística não equivale a impregnar frases com palavras em caps lock, pontos de exclamação e gritos destemperados, retrucando Bolsonaro no mesmo tom. Implica sobretudo informar, descobrindo e contando o que é relevante e oculto no poder. Para impor sua realidade paralela, construída com invencionices disseminadas digitalmente, o presidente tentará fragilizar, desqualificar e no limite eliminar o jornalismo profissional que se mantiver independente dele. A caça às bruxas já está em curso.
A história ensina que às vezes a ruína sucede à relativização do autoritarismo. O golpe de 1964 foi incitado pelo conglomerado midiático dos Diários Associados, cuja decadência se acentuou com a ascensão da TV Globo. O Correio da Manhã instigou a derrubada de João Goulart e não sobreviveu à ditadura. Talvez o mais golpista dos jornais 54 anos atrás tenha sido O Estado de S. Paulo, que logo sofreu com a censura. Bolsonaro pode ser louvado em editorial, mas, se contrariado por notícia, barrará o Estadão em entrevistas coletivas.
Preservar o espírito crítico onde ele não se apagou será um dos maiores desafios do jornalismo e da democracia daqui por diante. Bem como expandir a pluralidade de vozes, reforçada nos últimos tempos pelo Intercept Brasil e outros empreendimentos jornalísticos. Bolsonaro investirá no medo. A imprensa escolherá a coragem ou a covardia.
The post Já está claro que Bolsonaro agirá contra a imprensa. A questão é como a imprensa agirá com Bolsonaro. appeared first on The Intercept.
Uma das primeiras promessas de campanha que o presidente eleito Jair Bolsonaro cumpriu foi anunciar a contratação de Marcos Pontes, tenente-coronel de 55 anos reservista da Força Aérea Brasileira e único brasileiro na história a ter viajado ao espaço. Pontes vai ocupar o Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Comunicações. Nas redes sociais, opositores de Bolsonaro fizeram piada com o fato de o astronauta ter se notabilizado mais por ser palestrante e garoto-propaganda de travesseiros “da Nasa”, a agência espacial americana na qual foi treinado durante sete anos, ao custo de US$ 10 milhões (R$ 37 milhões), do que por suas contribuições à ciência.
Mas nem tudo é folclore no merchandising do astronauta e de seus travesseiros, vendidos nas lojas Havan por dez vezes de R$ 6,99. Pouco antes de ir para a reserva, em 2006, o tenente-coronel da reserva foi alvo de uma investigação do Ministério Público Militar para apurar se ele havia infringido o artigo 204 do Código Militar, que proíbe a militares da ativa qualquer atividade comercial. Na época, ele negou relação com a empresa Portally Eventos e Produções, registrada em nome de uma assessora de imprensa dele. A investigação caducou no STF sem que os procuradores tivessem atendido um pedido de quebra de sigilo bancário e fiscal de Pontes.
Documentos obtidos pelo Intercept na Junta Comercial de São Paulo mostram que em setembro de 2017, após mais de uma década negando relação com a Portally – e já livre de qualquer punição possível –, Pontes se tornou sócio majoritário da empresa, com 80% da participação. A assessora de imprensa que antes era dona da companhia, Christiane Corrêa, manteve 20% de participação, enquanto familiares dela que figuraram como donos minoritários deixaram a sociedade. Apesar de ter se tornado sócio de fato da Portally apenas no ano passado, há outra forte ligação da empresa com Pontes. Em 2014, quando o astronauta disputou uma vaga na Câmara dos Deputados (e perdeu), ele recebeu R$ 20 mil em uma doação da empresa.
Quando Pontes passou para a reserva, quinquilharias e bugigangas galácticas, como bonés, camisetas e chaveiros, já eram comercializadas no site Conexão Espacial, criado em 2001 e que existe até hoje com a chancela e a imagem dele. Em maio de 2006, menos de um mês após ter sido homenageado pelo então presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva no Palácio do Planalto, Pontes, aos 43 anos de idade, deixou a Aeronáutica sem nem mesmo avisar o presidente da Agência Espacial Brasileira, órgão sob o guarda-chuva do ministério que a partir do ano que vem será comandado pelo astronauta. “Minha surpresa foi ficar sabendo da passagem para a reserva pelo Diário Oficial”, disse à época o presidente da AEB, Sérgio Gaudenzi, à Folha de S.Paulo.
Foi então que surgiram os primeiros questionamentos sobre a suposta atividade comercial de Pontes, o que é vedado a integrantes da ativa pelo Código Militar. Em julho daquele ano, a então procuradora-geral da Justiça Militar, Maria Ester Henriques Tavares, pediu a abertura de um inquérito para investigar se o astronauta tinha ligação com a loja virtual e se, portanto, ele havia desobedecido a lei.
A Justiça Militar negou pedido para que houvesse quebra de sigilo bancário e fiscal de Pontes, e o Ministério Público Militar recorreu ao Supremo Tribunal Federal. O recurso se arrastou por mais de uma década, até três meses atrás, em agosto, quando foi engavetado de vez pela ministra Rosa Weber sob o argumento de que o eventual crime já teria prescrito.
Em todas as vezes que se pronunciou sobre a loja online, Pontes negou ligações com o site Conexão Espacial e com a Portally Eventos e Produções. Em 2007, Pontes atribuiu a investigação a uma suposta perseguição por causa da viagem espacial que fez: “Acho que a notoriedade alcançada pode, sim, ter influenciado”, afirmou ao Jornal da Cidade, de Bauru (SP), onde mora. “A minha única participação no site é a cessão da imagem”, completou. Pontes também disse, em nota, que não havia “absolutamente nada de irregular nas minhas atividades profissionais em décadas de serviço ao país como militar”.
Como astronauta, um grande comerciantePontes virou dono de 80% da Portally em 1º de setembro do ano passado, como mostra a alteração de contrato social registrada na Jucesp. Até então, a empresa era dividida entre 55% em nome da assessora de imprensa do astronauta, Christiane Gonçalves Corrêa, e 45% em nome da mãe dela, Maria Olinda, que deixou a sociedade quando Pontes entrou. O documento revela ainda que o site é uma fonte fixa de renda para Pontes, pois os sócios têm “direito a uma retirada mensal a título de pró-labore, em valor a ser fixado a cada mês”. Ainda de acordo com o papel, Christiane é responsável pela administração da Portally.
A empresa está registrada no endereço da Fundação Astronauta Marcos Pontes, cuja diretora-presidente é Christiane. No sobrado ao lado fica a empresa Integra Optics, que fabrica componentes de fibra óptica e é representada no Brasil por Pontes e por Christiane, de acordo com outros documentos da Jucesp. O banco de dados dos contribuintes do IPTU, disponibilizado online pela Prefeitura de São Paulo, mostra que a interligação entre as empresas do astronauta e da assessora de imprensa se estende também aos imóveis. O IPTU da casa nº 189, ocupada pela Integra Optics, está em nome da Portally. E o IPTU da casa nº 195, ocupada pela Fundação Astronauta Marcos Pontes e na qual está registrada a Portally, é pago por outra empresa, a Ngmog Empreendimentos e Participações, que pertence aos pais de Christiane.
Procurado pelo Intercept, a assessoria do futuro ministro afirmou que o assunto foi investigado e, “como não houve nenhuma conduta ilegal de Pontes, nada de errado foi encontrado”. A nota diz ainda que hoje “Pontes é da reserva e, obviamente, pode ter participação em empresas comerciais”. Finaliza o texto: “Portanto, sua conduta continua sendo sempre dentro da lei.”
The post Astronauta e futuro ministro Marcos Pontes negou por anos ser sócio oculto de empresa. Virou dono dela depois que investigação prescreveu. appeared first on The Intercept.
Democratic candidates across the board ran on significantly more progressive platforms this election cycle as compared to the last three election cycles, according to a new analysis of candidates for the U.S. House and Senate by the group Data for Progress.
The percentage of Democratic candidates who endorsed “Medicare for All,” Sen. Bernie Sanders’s signature health care proposal, or a Medicare buy-in surged from 27 percent in 2010 to 58 percent this election cycle.
House Democrats early on decided to pitch health care throughout the campaign season, and after years on the fringe, Sanders’s proposal erupted into popularity on the campaign trail, even in deep-red states like Kansas and Iowa. Even gubernatorial candidates in states like Georgia, Wisconsin, and Florida focused heavily on Medicaid expansion.
The changes tracked by Data for Progress, with support from MoveOn, come from a field of Democratic candidates who are one of the most diverse groups to run in U.S. political history. The 115th Congress is poised to include a number of historic firsts, including the first two Muslim women in the House: Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar and Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s primary victory over 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley in a New York Democratic primary is typically held as the most representative example of the party’s burgeoning progressive shift. At 28 years old, she will likely be the youngest woman elected to Congress, and one of at least two members of the Democratic Socialists of America to be elected this year (Tlaib is the second). On the state level, legislative chambers are expected to turn blue and comprise majority women for the first time. Both congressional and state-level seats are projected to be younger, more racially diverse, and more likely to be LGBTQ.
Just months after 17 people were killed during a Parkland, Florida, school shooting, the field of Democratic candidates reflects a leftward shift in gun control stances, Data for Progress found. In 2010, 36 percent of Democratic candidates had received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, compared to 19 percent that had an “F” rating. This year, 22 percent of Democratic candidates had an “A” rating, while 52 percent had an “F” rating.
At the heart of the most significant change in the Democratic Party is the dramatic rise of small-dollar donations, which has powered a new wave of progressive activism and given candidates a fundraising edge in the midterm elections. Reliance on individual small donors, as opposed to corporate PAC money, has fundamentally changed the way Democrats campaign into a people-powered approach and pushed moderates to the left in the process.
The Data for Progress analysis found that the share of money coming to Democratic candidates from PACs decreased from 11 percent in 2010 and 2014 to 7 percent in 2018. Notably, Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke set a midterm election spending record and raked in $38 million in a single fundraising quarter, thanks to an unprecedented number of small-dollar donations. There’s also been a marked shift on campaign finance reform: In 2010, only 13 percent of candidates supported overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates for political spending; this year, that number jumped to 61 percent.
The analysis also looked at the diversity of the field of candidates. The share of Democratic candidates who are women has increased from 19 percent in 2010 to 50 percent in 2018. The share of first-time candidates (those who had never before run for federal or state office) went from 43 percent in 2010 to 67 percent 2018. The share of white candidates dropped from 86 percent in 2010 to 74 percent in 2018.
The post Democrats Have Moved Significantly to the Left Since 2010, New Study Shows appeared first on The Intercept.
As the polls closed across the United States on Tuesday — starting in parts of Kentucky and Indiana, at 6 p.m. ET, and concluding in Alaska seven hours later — The Intercept followed the vote count and brought readers updates on key races for control of the House, the Senate and governor’s mansions in a number of states.
Pelosi Claims Democratic Victory in the House, Republicans Keep the SenateFollowing a string of Democratic wins in House districts won by Hillary Clinton in 2016, and some unexpected gains in other areas, President Donald Trump called Rep. Nancy Pelosi to congratulate her on the Democrats taking control of the House, according to her deputy chief of staff, Drew Hammill.
President Trump called Leader Pelosi at 11:45 p.m. this evening to extend his congratulations on winning a Democratic House Majority. He acknowledged the Leader’s call for bipartisanship in her victory remarks.
— Drew Hammill (@Drew_Hammill) November 7, 2018
When Pelosi spoke, she claimed her party’s victory would be “about restoring the Constitution’s checks and balances” and “stopping the GOP and Mitch McConnell’s assault on Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and the healthcare of 130 million Americans living with preexisting medical conditions.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi: "Today is more than about Democrats and Republicans. It's about restoring the constitution's checks and balances to the Trump administration…but more than anything, it's about what a new Democratic majority will mean in the lives of hardworking Americans." pic.twitter.com/DihBb5jOA6
— Axios (@axios) November 7, 2018
“Let’s hear it more,” she added awkwardly, “for pre-existing medical conditions!”
There was a more uplifting message for progressives from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at her victory party.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive Democrat, speaks after winning her Congressional election in New York's 14th district. At age 29, she became the youngest woman ever to be elected to Congress. https://t.co/ESbVLxvSCY pic.twitter.com/bCIf0uofOT
— CNBC (@CNBC) November 7, 2018
a Congress with @Ocasio2018 in it is better, period. a moment from her election night party, which was full of joy pic.twitter.com/M7uGT52iIQ
— Bridget Read (@bridgetgillard) November 7, 2018
As votes continue to be counted in many races at the state and local level, Republican control of the Senate was also secure, with the party on track to add to its majority in that chamber.
That concludes our live coverage of election night, but stay tuned for much more analysis of the election results in the days and weeks ahead from The Intercept. — 12:51 a.m.
Beto O’Rourke Concedes Defeat in TexasBeto O’Rourke, the Democratic candidate for Senate who gained a national profile in running a close race against Sen. Ted Cruz without accepting corporate PAC donations, just conceded defeat in El Paso in a speech that saluted the activists who helped him to run a close race in a state where a Democrat hasn’t been elected to statewide office since 1994. “I’m so fucking proud of you guys,” he said to huge cheers.
“I’m so fucking proud of you guys” – Beto O’Rourke #ElectionDay pic.twitter.com/tdmcyR6cXJ
— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) November 7, 2018
“It is the greatness to which we aspire and the work that we’re willing to put in to achieve it,” which will be the campaign’s legacy, O’Rourke added. — 12:15 a.m.
Texas Senate candidate ?@BetoORourke? just came out to meet with his family and closest friends. pic.twitter.com/6JT1fpjVbq
— Bob Moore (@BobMooreNews) November 7, 2018
i’m disappointed about florida & georgia & texas but i also know that organizers in those states have worked their asses off for the past year & have changed the political dynamics of those states in remarkable & potentially paradigm shifting ways that shouldn’t be overlooked
— Clint Smith (@ClintSmithIII) November 7, 2018
.@michaelwhitney had a great piece last month on why Beto winning or losing isn’t really the main point. His race may have been bigger than that — may change how the Dem Party operates https://t.co/fDa1WHEOal
— Amanda Terkel (@aterkel) November 7, 2018
Emotional Victory Speech From Rashida Tlaib, First Palestinian-American CongresswomanRashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman to be elected to Congress, gave a emotional victory speech in which she described her family watching the results come in from the Israeli occupied West Bank, and said that “for so many years, they’ve felt dehumanized.” — 11:56 p.m.
This is History. Watch every second of this.
Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian and Muslim American congresswomen, proclaims victory.
Share widely, and be inspired. #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/oP7qWJyHJK
— Khaled Beydoun (@KhaledBeydoun) November 7, 2018
Andrew Gillum Concedes Florida Governor RaceDemocrat Andrew Gillum, the Tallahassee mayor, has just conceded defeat to Republican Ron DeSantis, a strong supporter of Donald Trump who started his general election campaign by suggesting that the African-American candidate would “monkey this up.”
A Ron DiSantis victory— a true racist becoming governor of Florida – would be a huge disappointment.
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) November 7, 2018
In his victory speech, DeSantis made sure to thank Trump.
Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantisFL): "I'd like to thank our president for standing by me when it wasn't necessarily the smart thing to do." #FLGov pic.twitter.com/UE2RmO4dOk
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 7, 2018
Gillum’s loss was a disappointment to Democrats, but many observers suggested that he could still have a bright future. — 11:11 p.m.
Gillum is a natural born politician. He’ll be back.
— Lydia Polgreen (@lpolgreen) November 7, 2018
First Two Native American Women Elected to CongressThe first two Native American women to have ever been elected to Congress won House races for the Democrats on Tuesday. Deb Haaland, a member of the Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico just gave her victory speech, less than an hour after Sharice Davids, a Ho-Chunk from Kansas who is also a lesbian, claimed her seat.
Tonight, we made history. https://t.co/VC4HNSRc2i
— Deb Haaland (@Deb4CongressNM) November 7, 2018
an openly gay native american woman (@ShariceDavids) just unseated the republican incumbent in kansas and will be the first native woman to serve in congress. I STAN!
— king crissle (@crissles) November 7, 2018
The United States has never sent a Native American woman to Congress. Consider that: The very women whose ancestors were here before the US was even an idea of a country have never represented it nationally. That changed tonight with the election of Sharice Davids.
— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) November 7, 2018
A Native American woman, Peggy Flanagan, was also elected lieutenant governor of Minnesota.
And congrats to our next Lt. Governor @peggyflanagan! With Peggy by Tim’s side, their deep commitment to inclusion and opportunity will be the foundation of their administration.
And we’re especially proud that Peggy will be the nation's highest-ranking Native woman. #DFL2018 pic.twitter.com/nig4hZFyHW
— Minnesota DFL Party (@MinnesotaDFL) November 7, 2018
As Ian Frazier of The New Yorker explained this week, while the federal government gave citizenship to all Native Americans in 1924, some states refused to go along. One of them was New Mexico, which did not allow Native Americans to vote until 1962. — 10:55 p.m.
Kris Kobach, of Voter Suppression Fame, Loses Kansas Governor RaceKris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state best known nationally for his role on President Trump’s bogus voter fraud commission, and locally as a champion of voter suppression, was defeated by Democrat Laura Kelly in the race to be that state’s governor.
My friend and very early supporter Kris Kobach won the Republican Nomination for Governor of Kansas last night in a tough race against a very fine opponent. Kris will win in November and be a great Governor. He has my complete and total Endorsement!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 15, 2018
While the loss is a blow to Trump, it was greeted with joy by supporters of free and fair elections. — 10:29 p.m.
Kris Kobach.
Amendment 4.
Whatever else happens, this is a big night for voting nights.
— Taniel (@Taniel) November 7, 2018
Oh my god Kris Kobach lost I thought my capacity for joy was gone an hour ago but Kris Kobach lost! Kris Kobach lost!
— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) November 7, 2018
Whatever happens tonight, at least Kris Kobach got his racist ass kicked
— Jennifer Hayden (@Scout_Finch) November 7, 2018
Odds of Democratic House Majority Rise With Surprise Democrat Win in Staten Island DistrictIn one of the first upsets of the night, Democrat Max Rose defeated Republican incumbent Dan Donovan in New York’s 11th Congressional District, encompassing Staten Island and part of Brooklyn.
On @ny1 –>Dan Donovan concedes in #ny11
— Joel Siegel (@joelmsiegel) November 7, 2018
That swing to the Democrats came as a series of House races were called in the party’s favor, increasing its odds of controlling the House to a 9-in-10 chance according Nate Silver’s FiveThityEight model.
#VA02: Elaine Luria (D) defeats Rep. Scott Taylor (R). Dem PICKUP. This district voted 48%-45% for Trump in 2016 and @CookPolitical considers this one of the bellwether races for House control.
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) November 7, 2018
#PA07: Susan Wild (D) defeats Marty Nothstein (R). Dem PICKUP. This district voted 49%-48% for Clinton in 2016.
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) November 7, 2018
#PA06: Chrissy Houlahan (D) defeats Greg McCauley (R). Dem PICKUP. This seat voted 53%-43% for Clinton in 2016.
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) November 7, 2018
Democrats Post Gains in House Races, but Lose Indiana Senate SeatWithin the past few minutes, Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Miami has conceded defeat in Florida, handing the Democrats another win in their effort to regain control of the House, while Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly has conceded in Indiana, making it more likely that Republicans will control the Senate. — 9:56 p.m.
Curbelo has conceded. Democrats flip FL-26
— Patricia Mazzei (@PatriciaMazzei) November 7, 2018
Donnelly camp releases a statement: "A few minutes ago, I called Mike Braun and congratulated him on winning a hard-fought race…" #INSEN
— Ali Vitali (@alivitali) November 7, 2018
Curbelo’s loss to Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is the sixth Democratic gain of 25 Republican-held districts won by Hillary Clinton in 2016. — 10:09 p.m.
Florida Votes to Restore Voting Rights to Ex-FelonsWhile Republican candidates in Florida currently cling to narrow leads in the elections for governor and the Senate, media outlets project that voters in the state have approved a ballot initiative to restore voting rights to 1.4 million residents who are currently unable to vote because of prior felony convictions.
Holy moly 1.4 million Floridians just got their voting rights restored!!! ???
Thank you to all my followers who voted for the right to vote ? #YesOn4 #Amendment4 pic.twitter.com/alcbPZAi9l
— Ciara Torres-Spelliscy (@ProfCiara) November 7, 2018
Every discussion of Florida politics should acknowledge that 1.6 million ex-felons, including 500,000 African Americans, were unable to vote today. Even if Amendment 4 passes they were disenfranchised in 2018
— Ari Berman (@AriBerman) November 7, 2018
As my colleague Alice Speri reported, this change “will enfranchise the largest number of people at once since American women won the right to vote in 1920.”
As several observers note, the impact of such a massive restoration of voting rights on future elections could be enormous. — 9:22 p.m.
40% of all black men in the state of Florida just became eligible to vote *today.* Think about that.
— Samuel Sinyangwe (@samswey) November 7, 2018
BREAKING: Amendment 4 in Florida has just PASSED!
YES! YES! YES!
1.4 million former felons who had been banned from voting for life will all now be granted back their voting rights.
A HUGE and hard fought victory.
One of the most important of our lifetime.
— Shaun King (@shaunking) November 7, 2018
1.4M restored votes in Florida won't just change the future of Florida politics – it'll change the future of presidential politics https://t.co/MjGpQJS5eu
— Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere) November 7, 2018
Kim Davis, Kentucky County Clerk Who Refused to Issue Licenses for Same-Sex Marriages, Loses Bid for ReelectionKim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who was jailed in 2015 after defying a federal court order by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015, lost her bid for reelection in Rowan County.
Davis, a Republican, lost to Democratic challenger Elwood Caudill Jr. by about 700 votes.
Virulent homophobe Kim Davis made national news when she tried to stand in the way of marriage equality as a Kentucky county clerk. She's on her way to losing tonight to a Democrat https://t.co/LebwGhP8CS
— Stephen Wolf (@PoliticsWolf) November 7, 2018
“The controversy launched this mostly-rural Kentucky county into the national spotlight,” Will Wright of the Lexington Herald-Leader reports. “It gave Davis a hero’s reputation to some on the right, including Gov. Matt Bevin and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who lauded her decision as a self-sacrificing expression of religious liberty. For many on the left, though, Davis was condemned. Critics called her refusal to sign marriage licenses a bigoted neglect of her official duties.” — 8:16 p.m.
Georgia Voters Ask Federal Court to Block Secretary of State From Presiding Over His Own Race for GovernorA group of voters in Georgia filed suit on Tuesday afternoon asking the United States District Court in Atlanta to issue a temporary restraining order barring Secretary of State Brian Kemp from overseeing the counting of votes in the election for governor, in which he is the Republican candidate. The lawsuit also asks that Kemp play no part in the certification of results, “or any runoff or recount procedures that would normally be exercised by the Secretary of State’s Office or the Board of Elections, on which he also sits.”
Kemp is locked in a close race with Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate, which could go to a runoff if neither of them gets 50 percent of the votes.
Greg Martin, 70, is a native of Atlanta. He says the hour and half he waited to vote is the longest he’s ever waited. “I voted for Stacey Abrams because Brian Kemp is an asshole…and misogynistic piece of shit.” #ElectionDay @guardian pic.twitter.com/g4faT8zWOe
— Khushbu Shah (@KhushbuOShea) November 6, 2018
Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California–Irvine School of Law, called Kemp’s evidence-free, last-minute claim that Georgia’s Democratic Party had hacked into the state’s voter database, “perhaps the most outrageous example of election administration partisanship in the modern era.” As Hasen noted, Kemp even “plastered a headline about it on the Secretary of State’s website, which thousands of voters use to get information about voting on election day.”
Kemp’s campaign has also been criticized for spreading lies about Abrams through automated robocall, including one, recorded by CNN, which made the absurd claim that “radical Stacey Abrams is so extreme that she wants to allow illegal immigrants to vote in this election.”
Kevin Collier of Buzzfeed News points out that any recount in Georgia faces an obvious obstacle — the state uses electronic voting machines which give voters no paper copy or receipt to ensure that their vote was properly cast. — 7:50 p.m.
Saw tweets speculating a recount in Georgia. It certainly could happen, but since it's one of 5 states with no paper ballots, it would be meaningless for all but absentees. It'd be like putting 7+3 in your calculator, then doing that again to see if it gives the same result.
— Kevin Collier (@kevincollier) November 7, 2018
Voting Extended in Parts of Georgia and Texas Due to DelaysAs polling places were scheduled to close across Georgia at 7 p.m. Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate for governor, announced that voting hours had been extended in districts of Gwinnett County where computer problems caused long delays earlier in the day.
BREAKING: Poll hours have been extended in Gwinnett County! ?
Annistown Elementary School NOW OPEN UNTIL 9:25pm
Anderson-Livsey Elementary School NOW OPEN UNTIL 7:30pm
Harbins Elementary School NOW OPEN UNTIL 7:14pm
— Stacey Abrams (@staceyabrams) November 6, 2018
Abrams also reminded voters already in line at other polling places that they have a right to vote even afte the official closing time. “I need folks to know that you need to stay in line,” Abrams said, according to an MSNBC producer. “Do not let trouble push you out of line. As long as you’re in line at 7 p.m. when the polls close, you can cast your vote,” she said.
Her message was echoed by Democrats in other states, including Andrew Gillum, who is running for governor of Florida.
???STAY IN LINE IF YOU ARE WAITING TO VOTE ???
— Andrew Gillum (@AndrewGillum) November 7, 2018
Voting has also been extended in parts of Indiana and Texas, where the polls have not yet closed. — 7:22 p.m.
BREAKING: All Monroe County polling sites will stay open until 7 p.m.
— The Herald-Times (@theheraldtimes) November 6, 2018
WE WON! We sued Harris County for failing to open nine polling places on time. After we filed our lawsuit, the County Judge ruled that those nine polling places must stay open an extra hour, until 8pm. These sites were delayed in opening this morning or had technology issues. pic.twitter.com/8P6cKOSzDO
— Texas Civil Rights Project (@TXCivilRights) November 6, 2018
Errors and Delays Plague Voting NationwidePolling places in parts of Kentucky and Indiana have just closed, but voting continues in most of the nation on an election day that has been plagued, as usual, by reports of malfunctioning equipment, errors on voter rolls and long delays. Eighteen years after the debacle in Florida focused the world’s attention on the patchwork of local election laws and procedures used to elect state and federal officeholders, complaints about how difficult it was to vote in many states piled up throughout the day on social networks. — 6:10 p.m.
Ready to wait? Hundreds of voters stand in line for hours this morning at this SW Atlanta polling place. Only three voting machines! What’s going on here? Live report at noon. pic.twitter.com/lewTPUZnf1
— Tom Regan (@tomreganWSB) November 6, 2018
Happen to know anybody who could do this in Georgia? ????? no voting at my dads polling site pic.twitter.com/zEyQmXwEq2
— DG911 2lite (@_2lite) November 6, 2018
NBC News has confirmed that the issue at Anderson Livsey Elementary in Snellville, GA was indeed a lack of power cords. Gwinnett County Director of Communications Joe Sorenson tells @NBCNews “the machine was not supplied power and was running on battery & the battery ran out” ? https://t.co/YFa45nihXs
— Ayman Mohyeldin (@AymanM) November 6, 2018
There is an official term for this. No offence, dear followers, but were this to happen in my or any other East European country, the U.S. would label this a “voting irregularity”… you know, one of those things that happens in far away places you can’t locate on a map. https://t.co/MZFkBhVN56
— toomas hendrik ilves (@IlvesToomas) November 6, 2018
Voting machine issues are justifiably getting lots of attention today, but don't overlook voter reg problems. We are getting tons of calls from voters who thought they were registered or were previously registered & are not on the rolls. Automatic voter reg would solve that.
— Wendy Weiser (@WendyRWeiser) November 6, 2018
AZ MIDTERMS- POLLING PLACE FORECLOSED- VO TUE0161- Polls in Maricopa County and Arizona opened at 6am but some Valley locations are already experiencing issues. Three polling places are currently down, incl in the Gila Precinct in Chandler. The building was foreclosed overnight. pic.twitter.com/8LSP5iykVD
— CBS Newspath (@cbsnewspath) November 6, 2018
90 yr-old mother of @YaraAllen, our theo-musicologist, was told she had to go to another voting precinct this morning. If she can press on singing, then let us all follow her voice, her vote & her lead. pic.twitter.com/clc3R7yXlP
— Rev. Dr. Barber (@RevDrBarber) November 6, 2018
Here’s the Dodge City, Kansas, polling location that has caused so much consternation after officials moved it to an expo center outside city limits.
Thing that struck me: The city is 59% Hispanic, but almost all the voters I see here now are not. pic.twitter.com/fpeuWTRkOP
— Matt Pearce ? (@mattdpearce) November 6, 2018
Voting in Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn, is a total disaster. 3 of 4 voting machines broken, then the 4th broke. Then the woman in charge didn't know there was an emergency box where ppl can put their ballots. Hours, and then I had to leave before voting.
— Darinstrauss (@Darinstrauss) November 6, 2018
At St. Cecilia’s in Greenpoint, where some voters have been waiting up to FOUR HOURS because of broken machines. To lift spirits, one woman just convinced everyone to do the wave pic.twitter.com/RvdHwLQMQf
— Jake Offenhartz (@jangelooff) November 6, 2018
I just spoke to a poll worker at the Porcupine Community Center @StandingRockST. They have 8 ballots left. The polls are open for another 1.5 hours. The copier is out of toner. She has requested that more ballots be brought there. #NDNativeVote
— Carrie Levine (@levinecarrie) November 6, 2018
The post Here Are the Key Moments from Election Night 2018 appeared first on The Intercept.
Voters are largely free to ignore the wave of television and direct mail ads aimed in their direction every election cycle. But what if the person trying to influence your vote is your boss?
Business groups are increasingly using the workplace as a staging ground to shape the outcomes of elections.
Last month, supervisors at the Phoenix corporate headquarters of the truck rental business U-Haul were told to bring their respective teams to an internal company town hall to hear from Steve Ferrara, the Republican candidate for Arizona’s 9th Congressional District, who ended up posting a picture of his talk with the workers on a campaign Facebook page. An umbrella group of mining companies, according to its own social media postings, has pushed workers to embrace candidates endorsed by company lobbyists — a list that is overwhelmingly Republican.
It’s not a new dynamic. Every year, companies are taking more and more liberties in attempting to influence workers’ political behavior.
“It used to be that voting was more private. Now, the environment is much more fraught with debate and tension and conflict.”“It used to be that voting was more private,” said Paula Brantner, the executive director of Workplace Fairness, a nonprofit employee rights group. Brantner said that increased political polarization intensified employer messages to workers: “Now, the environment is much more fraught with debate and tension and conflict.”
Those efforts by bosses to push employees to certain choices at the ballot box are not just aimed at pushing particular candidates: Businesses are taking brazen steps to coerce workers into taking positions on ballot measures that align with the companies’ corporate interests. The Intercept collected accounts from both publicly available information and employees of several companies.
This year, employees of Western National Group, a privately held apartment building developer, received a letter — which was obtained by The Intercept — from chief executive Michael Hayde to “please join” him in opposing Proposition 10, a California ballot question to allow the expansion of rent control. And nurses at a health care provider, who asked not to be named, told The Intercept that they were bombarded with messages through their employee portal about the importance of voting against Proposition 8 — a California measure that would limit profits at dialysis treatment centers.
In Colorado, ConocoPhillips posted messages through a publicly available employee portal about the importance of opposing the state’s Proposition 112, which calls for banning drilling wells within 2,500 feet of schools, water sources, and other sensitive areas. Similarly, in Montana, mining industry associations are organizing opposition to a ballot measure that would enact new regulations; a source with knowledge of the rallies to support the effort told The Intercept on the condition of anonymity that miners had been pressured into attending.
Many large companies maintain internal political affairs departments devoted to mobilizing employee engagement. Workers are frequently pushed into efforts to help companies lobby lawmakers, influence public opinion, or sway a close election.
In previous elections, companies such as Westgate Resorts, Koch Industries, ASG Technologies, and others have sent messages to employees, warning of dire consequences if Republicans are not victorious on Election Day. But not all such efforts favor Republicans: In his close re-election effort in 2010, then-Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., allegedly received assistance from allied casino companies to bring workers out to the polls for him.
Some companies are pushing back against the moves. Hundreds of them, in a bid to present a more friendly corporate image, have signed up to a nonpartisan effort called “Time to Vote,” designed to encourage voter participation among employees. Some are closing retail outlets early or allowing any worker to get paid time off to vote.
And yet, stories of intimidating workers to vote a certain way persist.
The U-Haul worker said the company provided a bonus after the 2016 election, along with a message that it was doing so because of “all the good work Trump was doing for American business.”
In U-Haul’s case, the company said it was merely providing a platform for its workers to engage in the political process. “U-Haul does not and has not encouraged Team Members to vote for any party or candidate – but rather to exercise their right and duty to vote,” said Jeff Lockridge, U-Haul’s spokesperson. “Attendance for any such event is purely optional, and space only allows for a limited number of Team Members to attend those events. Politicians from both major parties have visited our headquarters.”
One U-Haul employee, however, contacted The Intercept to say that the company has leaned on workers to support Republicans. The worker, who asked not be named for fear of workplace reprisals, said the company provided a bonus after the 2016 election, along with a message that it was doing so because of “all the good work Trump was doing for American business.”
The worker said U-Haul did not tell its employees how to vote in this election, but their intention with the Ferrara event seemed clear. The employees were expected to hear out the Republican candidate and were given free food and drinks if they attended the event.
Coercive political activity in the workplace is illegal in many states. In Arizona, for example — home to the U-Haul headquarters — employers may not “display any notice within 90 days before an election that directly or indirectly attempts to influence employees to support or not support a candidate.”
Brantner of Workplace Fairness said that these laws are well-meaning but give the employee little recourse. “It’s more that we hear about stories as opposed to a developed case law,” she said. “Is someone going to go to a lawyer and take the case and pursue it over the next several years? It’s unlikely.”
The post How Companies Pressure Workers to Vote for Corporate Interests Over Their Own appeared first on The Intercept.
After a season in which pollsters botched a significant number of important primaries, traditional polling is again on the defensive. A project developed by two researchers could provide a supplement to the predictions by using donation data to gauge voter enthusiasm in communities underserved by polls — thereby presenting a clearer view of the electorate.
Bobby Constantino, a former senior program associate at the Center on Sentencing and Corrections at the Vera Institute of Justice, whose work focused on providing data-driven technical assistance to states, was one of the researchers involved in developing the alternative predictive method. He showed The Intercept how the project used donation data and mapping to identify pockets of support for Boston’s Ayanna Pressley and other insurgent primary candidates; he also pointed to the Georgia governor’s race between Stacey Abrams and Brian Kemp, as well as the U.S. Senate race in Texas between Beto O’Rourke and Ted Cruz as areas where traditional polls are missing a chunk of the electorate, and where potential upsets may occur.
“Democrats might be able to gain as many as 20 percentage points simply by running candidates of color who inspire voters in the country’s most historically marginalized communities,” Constantino said.
According to Constantino’s research, Abrams, the Democratic nominee in the Georgia race, could pick up heavy support from poor, black urban areas in Atlanta that aren’t being accounted for in polling. Based on donations to the Abrams campaign from those communities, especially in comparison to 2014 nominee Jason Carter, Constantino believes there’s an upsurge of support for Abrams that’s thus far been missing in polls that show the race in a dead heat.
“We suspect the Georgia gubernatorial race will be telling, absent any vote suppression,” said Constantino.
Constantino looked at three of the areas, by zip code, with the lowest adjusted gross income in the state and found that there is significant support for an Abrams run in those areas. In Atlanta’s 30314, which is 94 percent black, Abrams received 39 contributions to Carter’s one in 2014; in Atlanta’s 30354, which is 66 percent black and 17 percent Hispanic, Abrams received 22 donations to Carter’s two; and in Atlanta’s 30310, which is 90 percent black, Abrams received 106 donations, while Carter had none.
It was a similar situation in the primary: Polls showed Abrams leading by 12 percentage points, with roughly half of voters undecided in the final weeks leading up to the election, and she ended up beating her opponent, Stacey Evans, by 53 points. Of the three zip codes above, Evans only received one donation, from the 30310. The Abrams and Pressley results, Constantino told The Intercept, are why he believes that the results in the general election could outperform the polls by double digits.
“There appears to be a strong nexus between concentration and spread of in-district contributions and election outcomes,” Constantino told The Intercept.
Constantino and his fellow researcher, Kristin Johnson, have already used the method to show how tracking donations can be used to predict outcomes in Massachusetts. When The Intercept interviewed Pressley in July, her campaign said internal polling showed her to be within 4 points of incumbent Congressperson Mike Capuano — polling that was done before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her late June primary race in Queens, New York, and gave Pressley a shout out, increasing the Boston city councilor’s profile. A source inside the campaign, speaking on background, told The Intercept that the campaign’s polling methodology was not different from that of other polls, but that the campaign believed it had a better sense of the electorate and therefore targeted a mix of likely voters they felt confident in.
But traditional polling didn’t show the same results — to their chagrin. In August, local radio station WBUR showed Pressley to be 13 points behind the incumbent. A month later, Pressley beat Capuano by 17 points.
Constantino’s team used data from the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance to map out the contributions to both Pressley and Capuano. By importing the data into Google Maps by way of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, the group was able to place donations within the district map. Donation amounts were less important than demographics, said Johnson, and weren’t used in the model.
“I didn’t think the amount of money was significant; what was significant was that the household median incomes were low,” said Johnson. “They were opening their purse to donate to campaigns, so it wasn’t necessarily the amount that was important, but rather that it identified a household which sought out the ability to provide that support.”
The data bears that out, especially once transferred to the map. Capuano’s in-district cash was clustered around the north end of the district, which is more wealthy but less populated. Pressley, on the other hand, had strong support throughout and far outraised Capuano in the poorer southern end of the district that has a large minority population. Those data points reflected the turnout and the heart of Pressley’s victory.
Such a spread of donations in poorer areas might indicate that the polls are off and that voters in poorer neighborhoods are energized — people who pollsters presume will not have turn out in large numbers, meaning their views are discounted in polls. Large turnout in marginalized communities can prove the polls wrong; areas with a low voter turnout experiencing a mushrooming of donations where there’s traditionally no major campaign investment can be an indicator of an upset.
“Pockets of donations in communities traditionally overlooked by polling may mean that there will be upswell of support the polls don’t catch,” said Constantino.
Brian Schaffner, a professor of civic studies at Tufts University, said that the way Constantino and Johnson employed their data could be a useful tool to help predict election outcomes in primary races. In primaries, polling is at a disadvantage when it comes to predicting what will happen: Few people are voting, and the hard lines of political partisanship are not in play. Schaffner explained, in an interview with The Intercept, how the vote can swing within a short amount of time.
“The main thing that predicts your voting is what party you’re with,” said Schaffner. “But in a primary, everyone’s the same party, so a lot of that is washed out.”
But Chris Tausanovitch, a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, is more skeptical about the methodology. Without a lot of elections to draw from thus far, Tausanovitch said social scientists can’t draw any conclusions from the data alone.
“What we’re being told about why a given map indicates a candidate has a chance of winning is different in each case,” said Tausanovitch. “It’s not always clear.”
Tausanovitch suggested an exhaustive approach to using the data more appropriately, one that would develop a forecasting model that does not rely on what he referred to as “post hoc explanations” for election results. By getting donation numbers from every race and seeing where the money comes from, he says, one could potentially use the financial data to predict outcomes.
“You have to define the data the same way in every case, base it in a firm notion of why it matters, then use it in as many cases as possible and show how that’s predictive,” said Tausanovitch.
Even then, Tausanovitch isn’t sold on the idea that financial data is enough to hang any major prediction on. There are just too many questions remaining, though investigating the correlation between different ways of thinking about donations and election outcomes could be a good starting point for further research.
“It wouldn’t convince me that donations are causing outcomes like enthusiasm,” said Tausanovitch. “But it could be useful for thinking about what factors matter.”
Johnson was careful to emphasize that the methodology she and Constantino used in their project isn’t meant to replace polling. Rather, it’s a supplement to existing predictive methods. “It’s an overall way to analyze data,” said Johnson. “And there’s a benefit to include it in election predictions.”
The post Stacey Abrams Could Have a Hidden Voter Advantage in Overlooked Communities, According to Georgia Campaign Contribution Data appeared first on The Intercept.
No dia da eleição nos Estados Unidos, democratas estão preparados para mudar legislativos e governos estaduais por todo o país. Candidatos estaduais são relativamente desconhecidos na mídia nacional americana, embora suas posições tenham uma tremenda influência sobre a vida cotidiana de milhões de pessoas e uma influência direta sobre qual partido controlará o Congresso na próxima década. Este ano, os democratas aumentaram seus esforços para mudar assentos em níveis estaduais e abrir caminho para voltarem ao poder, lançando mais candidatos do que desde 1982.
Em muitos estados, as câmaras legislativas têm o poder de redesenhar os mapas distritais do Congresso, uma tática usada para beneficiar o partido no controle. Uma onda de vitórias democratas permitiria que o partido revertesse parte da manipulação republicana ocorrida durante o governo do presidente Barack Obama, acrescentando potencialmente dezenas de cadeiras da Casa dos EUA ao mapa. Com o controle de um governo estadual, os democratas poderão combater ataques conservadores ao direito de voto, acesso ao aborto e a cuidados de saúde reprodutiva e leis trabalhistas e sobre controle de armas.
Os republicanos controlam dois terços de todas as câmaras legislativas do país e detêm o controle simultâneo do legislativo e do executivo em 26 estados. Os democratas, entretanto, só detêm o controle simultâneo dos dois poderes em oito unidades federativas. Durante a administração Obama, os democratas perderam quase mil assentos estaduais em todo o país. Estados como Colorado, Nova York e Michigan estão prontos para os democratas assumirem o poder completamente. Até mesmo estados como Arizona e Flórida têm a melhor chance em décadas de ver uma das suas casas legislativas azular. Democratas também estão com boas chances nas corridas eleitorais para o governo de Flórida, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma e Geórgia. Em todo o país, 33 estados têm governadores republicanos, enquanto 16 são governados por democratas. O que se segue é uma lista incompleta de estados onde os democratas podem em breve assumir o poder.
ColoradoO Colorado, por exemplo, está a apenas dois assentos do Senado de conseguir um domínio democrata dos poderes. Cinco mulheres em cinco distritos disputados ferozmente detêm a chave para a maioria do Senado estadual, e os democratas precisam vencer apenas quatro dessas eleições. Das cinco disputas, três dos assentos são ocupados por democratas e precisam ser defendidos para que o partido assuma o controle, enquanto que os outros dois são controlados pelos republicanos. A expectativa é de que o partido domine a Casa estadual e Jared Polis, o candidato democrata a governador, tem uma liderança de dois dígitos nas pesquisas.
Se os democratas conseguirem dominar legislativo e executivo, poderão finalmente aprovar grande parte da legislação que foi destruída pelos republicanos do Senado. Isso também significaria que, pela primeira vez na história, a maioria da bancada estadual do Senado seria composta por mulheres. Algumas das leis que os democratas estão “empolgadas por ver cruzar a linha de chegada”, conforme o Intercept relatou na última terça-feira, tratam de requisitos de licença familiar remunerada, investimento em educação básica e moradia acessível.
Andrew Gillum fala para seus apoiadores no dia 28 de outubro, em Kissimmee, na Flórida.
Foto: Paul Hennessy/NurPhoto/Getty Images
A corrida para o governo da Flórida, uma das mais acaloradas disputas neste ciclo eleitoral, é classificada como incerta. Pesquisas recentes mostram o candidato democrata Andrew Gillum com uma vantagem de um ou dois pontos sobre o republicano Ron DeSantis. Se eleito, Gillum será o primeiro governador negro da Flórida e o primeiro democrata a ocupar o cargo em quase 20 anos. O governador eleito terá o poder de aprovar ou vetar o mapa do Congresso de 2021, portanto, considerando o tamanho da Flórida, esse estado é particularmente crucial para o controle futuro da câmara federal dos EUA.
Quanto à legislatura estadual, virar qualquer uma das câmaras seria uma batalha difícil. Mas os democratas atualmente têm a melhor chance de fazer isso na câmara alta e esperam virar cinco assentos e acabar com o controle que os republicanos mantiveram nos últimos 20 anos.
GeorgiaA democrata Stacey Abrams e seu oponente republicano, o secretário de Estado Brian Kemp, estão cabeça a cabeça na corrida para governador da Georgia, outra das disputas mais observadas neste ciclo eleitoral. Se eleita, Abrams será a primeira governadora negra da história dos Estados Unidos, ao mesmo tempo em que derrubará um dos 26 domínios republicanos.
Espera-se que a legislatura permaneça com o controle republicano, mas Abrams teria o poder de vetar ou aprovar novos mapas do Congresso, influenciando significativamente qual partido estaria no poder na próxima década. Ela também poderia promulgar a expansão do Medicaid, que tem sido um ponto focal de sua campanha e que cobriria quase meio milhão de residentes de baixa renda do estado.
Gretchen Whitmer e sua equipe em Detroit, no dia 19 de dezembro de 2017.
Foto: Ali Lapetina/The Washington Post/Getty Images
Pesquisas recentes mostram que a democrata Gretchen Whitmer ainda tem uma forte vantagem sobre o republicano Bill Schuette na corrida para o governo do estado. No Senado estadual, os democratas precisam conquistar nove cadeiras, o que lhes daria maioria pela primeira vez em mais de 25 anos. O partido tem mulheres concorrendo em sete dos nove distritos alvos do Senado, e 10 mulheres em suas 13 principais corridas pela Casa. (As mulheres representam mais de 50% de todos os candidatos para o legislativo de Michigan.) Para conseguir maioria na câmara baixa, o Partido Democrata precisa conquistar nove assentos. Não apenas o domínio republicano no estado é altamente vulnerável, como existe a possibilidade de ser totalmente transferido para os oponentes.
MinnesotaOs republicanos contam com maiorias apertadas em ambas as câmaras legislativas. Todos os 134 assentos do legislativo de Minnesota estão sendo disputados, e os democratas estão mirando os distritos suburbanos do Partido Republicano que optaram por Hillary Clinton na eleição presidencial de 2016. O comando da câmara superior, no entanto, será decidido por um único assento, e os democratas têm apenas uma chance. A única vaga para o Senado estadual nas eleições deste ano é a eleição especial no distrito 13. O governo do estado tem estado sob controle de partidos separados, mas se o candidato democrata Tim Walz for eleito, a retomada de uma das câmaras do legislativo será fundamental para a implementação da agenda do partido.
Há uma chance, no entanto, que Minnesota acabe elegendo seu primeiro procurador-geral republicano pela primeira vez em quase 50 anos. O deputado democrata Keith Ellison deixou seu lugar seguro no Congresso para se tornar o principal advogado do estado, mas acusações de violência doméstica, que ele negou, corroeram seu apoio. Uma recente pesquisa Star Tribune – MPR News mostra o republicano Doug Wardlow sete pontos percentuais à frente de Ellison. Em uma pesquisa de setembro, Ellison detinha uma vantagem de cinco pontos sobre seu oponente.
New HampshireEm New Hampshire, os democratas precisam conquistar três cadeiras no Senado e 22 na Câmara. Isso pode parecer muito, mas há 400 membros da Casa de New Hampshire. Um domínio completo de legislativo e executivo, porém, não é tão provável, já que o governador republicano Chris Sununu está entre os executivos mais populares do país e vem mantendo a liderança sobre a democrata Molly Kelly há meses. Ainda assim, o estado é alvo do Comitê de campanha legislativa democrata.
Nova YorkUm único assento no Senado estadual impede Nova York de liderar potencialmente o resto do país em políticas progressistas. Existem atualmente 32 democratas e 31 republicanos no Senado, mas um democrata, Simcha Felder, se une aos republicanos para dar a maioria ao Partido Republicano. A disputa entre o candidato republicano Carl Marcellino e o democrata James Gaughran no 5º distrito do Senado é vista como uma das principais oportunidades de recuperação democrata. Em 2016, Gaughran ficou a um ponto percentual de derrotar Marcellino, que não havia sido seriamente desafiado até então. É uma corrida dispendiosa e competitiva, mas há esperança de que o alto nível de entusiasmo democrático este ano se traduza em uma vitória.
Se o Senado virar, caberá ao governador Andrew Cuomo, que deve ganhar a reeleição, decidir em última instância como será o estado. Os democratas não têm controle sobre a câmara alta desde 2009, e a pequena margem impediu o progresso em áreas como regulamentação de aluguel, assistência médica, proteção a imigrantes e reforma das leis de voto arcano do estado.
Richard Cordray cumprimenta apoiadores depois de falar durante um evento noturno em 8 de maio, em Columbus, Ohio.
Foto: Kirk Irwin/Getty Images
O democrata Richard Cordray, que serviu como o primeiro diretor do Departamento de Proteção Financeira ao Consumidor, está conduzindo uma corrida competitiva para governador contra o oponente republicano, o procurador-geral de Ohio, Mike DeWine. Os republicanos mantiveram o domínio sobre o legislativo e o executivo desde as eleições de 2010, e os democratas estão com esperança de encerrar a maioria absoluta do Partido Republicano na legislatura estadual. Cordray também dá aos democratas a melhor chance de reverter parte das manipulações republicanas que tornaram Ohio o lar de alguns dos distritos mais manipulados do país. A think tank de esquerda Data for Progress trabalhou com a Launch Progress e a EveryDistrict para angariar fundos para quatro candidatos da Câmara e três candidatos do Senado como parte de seu projeto “Give Smart”.
Tradução: Cássia Zanon
The post Democratas devem assumir o controle em oito estados americanos appeared first on The Intercept.
On Election Day, Democrats are poised to flip state legislative chambers and governorships across the country. Statewide candidates enjoy relative obscurity in the national media, even though their positions have tremendous influence over the daily lives of millions and a direct influence on which party controls Congress for the decade to come. This year, Democrats ramped up their efforts to flip state-level seats and claw their way back into power, running more candidates than they have since 1982.
In many states, legislative chambers have the power to redraw congressional district maps, a tactic that is used to advantage the party in control. A wave of Democratic victories would let the party reverse some of the Republican gerrymandering that took place under President Barack Obama, adding potentially dozens of winnable U.S. House seats to the map. With control of a state’s government, Democrats could combat conservative assaults on voting rights, abortion access and reproductive health care, organized labor, and gun control laws.
Republicans control two-thirds of all legislative chambers in the country and hold 26 trifectas, or unified control of the state House, Senate, and governor’s seat. Democrats, meanwhile, only have eight trifectas. Under Obama, Democrats lost nearly 1,000 state seats nationwide. States like Colorado, New York, and Michigan are ripe for a full Democratic takeover. Even states like Arizona and Florida have the best chance in decades to see either of their legislative chambers go blue. Democrats are also running competitive gubernatorial races in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Georgia. Nationwide, 33 states have Republican governors, while 16 have Democrats. What follows is an incomplete list of states where Democrats may soon find themselves in power.
ColoradoColorado, for example, is just two Senate seats away from achieving a Democratic trifecta. Five women in five fiercely contested districts hold the key to a state Senate majority, and Democrats only need to win four of those races. Of the five races, three of the seats are occupied by Democrats and need to be defended for the party to take control, while the other two are controlled by Republicans. The party is expected to hold the state House, and Jared Polis, the Democratic nominee for governor, has a double-digit lead in polls.
If Democrats do achieve a trifecta, they could finally pass much of the legislation that has been killed by Senate Republicans. It would also mean that for the first time in history, a majority of the state Senate caucus would be made up of women. Some of the bills Democrats are “excited to get across the finish line,” The Intercept reported last Tuesday, deal with paid family leave requirements, K-12 education investment, and affordable housing.
Andrew Gillum, speaks to supporters at a rally on Oct. 28, 2018 at Osceola Heritage Park in Kissimmee, Fla.
Photo: Paul Hennessy/NurPhoto/Getty Images
The Florida gubernatorial race, one of the most heated contests this election cycle, is rated a toss-up. Recent polls show Democratic candidate Andrew Gillum with a lead of a point or two over Republican Rep. Ron DeSantis. Gillum, if elected, would be Florida’s first black governor and the first Democrat to hold the seat in nearly 20 years. The elected governor will have the power to approve or veto the 2021 congressional map so, considering the size of Florida, this state is particularly crucial to future control of the U.S. House.
As for the state legislature, flipping either chamber would be an uphill battle. But Democrats currently have the best chance to do so in the upper chamber and are hoping to flip five seats and end the trifecta that Republicans have held for the past 20 years.
GeorgiaDemocrat Stacey Abrams and her Republican opponent Secretary of State Brian Kemp are neck and neck in Georgia’s gubernatorial race, another one of the most closely watched races this election cycle. If elected, Abrams would be the first black woman governor in U.S. history, all while taking down one of the 26 Republican trifectas.
The legislature is expected to remain in Republican hands, but Abrams would have the power to veto or approve redrawn congressional maps, significantly influencing which party would be in power for the next decade. She could also enact Medicaid expansion, which has been a focal point of her campaign and that would cover nearly half a million more low-income residents.
Gretchen Whitmer and her team begin call time at their location in Detroit on Dec. 19, 2017.
Photo: Ali Lapetina/The Washington Post/Getty Images
Recent polls show that Democrat Gretchen Whitmer still has a strong lead over Republican Bill Schuette in the governor’s race. In the state Senate, Democrats need to flip nine seats, which would give them a majority for the first time in over 25 years. The party is running women in seven of the nine targeted Senate districts, and 10 women in their top 13 targeted House races. (Women make up over 50 percent of all Michigan state House candidates.) For a majority in the lower chamber, Democrats need to flip nine seats. Not only is the Republican trifecta in the state highly vulnerable, but there’s a possibility it goes entirely blue.
MinnesotaRepublicans hold narrow majorities in both legislative chambers. All 134 Minnesota House seats are up for election, and Democrats are targeting GOP-held suburban districts that went for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. The direction of the upper chamber, however, will be decided by a single seat, and Democrats have only one shot at it. The only state Senate race on the ballot this year is the special election in Senate District 13. The state government has been under split-party control, but if Democratic gubernatorial nominee Tim Walz is elected, retaking either chamber of the legislature will be critical to implementing the party’s agenda.
There is a chance, however, that Minnesota ends up electing its first Republican attorney general for the first time in nearly 50 years. Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison left his safe seat in Congress to become the state’s top lawyer, but allegations of domestic abuse, which he has denied, have eroded his support. A recent Star Tribune-MPR News poll shows Republican Doug Wardlow leading Ellison by 7 percentage points. In a September poll, Ellison held a 5-point lead over his opponent.
New HampshireIn New Hampshire, Democrats need to flip three seats in the state Senate and 22 in the House. That may sound like a lot, but there are 400 members of the New Hampshire House. A trifecta isn’t as likely, as Republican Gov. Chris Sununu is among the most popular executives in the country and has maintained a lead over Democrat Molly Kelly for months. Still, the state is a Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee target.
New YorkA single state Senate seat keeps New York from potentially leading the rest of the country in progressive policy. There are currently 32 Democrats and 31 Republicans in the Senate, but one Democrat, Simcha Felder, caucuses with Republicans to give the GOP the majority. The race between Republican incumbent Carl Marcellino and Democrat James Gaughran in Senate District 5 is viewed as one of the top Democratic pickup opportunities. In 2016, Gaughran came within 1 percent of beating Marcellino, who hadn’t been seriously challenged until then. It’s an expensive and competitive race, but there’s hope that the high level of Democratic enthusiasm this year will translate into a victory.
If the Senate is flipped, it’s going to be up to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who’s expected to win re-election, to ultimately decide how left the state goes. Democrats haven’t had control of the upper chamber since 2009, and the slim margin has hindered progress in areas like rent regulation, health care, immigration protections, and reform of the state’s arcane voting laws.
Richard Cordray shakes hands with supporters after speaking during a primary night event on May 8, 2018 in Columbus, Ohio.
Photo: Kirk Irwin/Getty Images
Democrat Richard Cordray, who served as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is running a competitive race for governor against Republican opponent and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine. Republicans have held a trifecta since the 2010 elections, and Democrats are hoping to end the GOP’s supermajority in the state legislature. Cordray also gives Democrats their best shot at reversing some of the Republican gerrymandering that has made Ohio home to some of the most gerrymandered districts in the country. Data for Progress, the left-wing think tank, worked with Launch Progress and EveryDistrict to raise funds for four House candidates and three Senate candidates as part of their “Give Smart” project.
The post A Democratic Takeover Is Within Reach in These Eight States appeared first on The Intercept.
No comments:
Post a Comment