In-Brief
- It is not clear yet whether President Trump or the Parkland students and the Democrats will control the school-shooting debate. It will not be the NRA.
- Notwithstanding which side controls the debate, history suggests only modest policy changes at the national level are likely. More changes are likely in Florida and some other states.
- Partisan political gerrymandering is a hot topic just now with numerous important court cases percolating. Much more important is MOVING-TRUCK GERRYMANDERING—where different types of Americans decide where they want to live. That gerrymandering has a much bigger impact on election outcomes than does how politicians draw lines to advantage their party.
- The Democrat’s counter-memo to the Nunes memo added little to what we know but did give better context. The counter-memo ensures the issues will be discussed for at least a while longer.
In-Depth
Long-Term
Deciding Elections–Moving-truck Gerrymandering and Surplus Votes
Political gerrymandering is the drawing of electoral districts in an unusual geographic form to advantage one political party over another. Both the Rs and Ds do it when they have a chance.
The US Supreme Court now has cases that consider partisan gerrymanders in MD, NC, and WI, two by Rs and one by Ds. The issues are enormously complicated and fraught with constitutional danger for the courts, inasmuch as anyone drawing political districts is inevitably going to give advantage to one party or the other throwing the courts into the “political thicket”, where they usually don’t want to go. Decisions are expected by June, but don’t expect great clarity from those decrees as the issues are complex with various constitutional principles in conflict.
In my evaluation there is another form of “gerrymandering” that is far more important politically and demographically than partisan gerrymanders. I call it MOVING-TRUCK GERRYMANDERING. Simply put, it is the political effect of different types of Americans CHOOSING to live in different types of communities…urban core…inner suburbs…newer suburbs/exurbs…small towns…rural areas.
Recall from previous blogs that the Democratic coalition now is mostly composed of the poor, minorities, LGBTQ voters, Jewish voters, and upscale voters. The Republican coalition is mostly the white working class, evangelical Christians, the white middle-class, and small-town and rural voters. Both parties are diverse, but those groups represent very substantial majorities at the core of each of the parties.
Think about your own metropolitan area and where those two groups tend to live. Minorities, the poor and upscale voters—the Democratic base—tend to cluster in the urban core and the older suburbs. By contrast most of the Republican base is spread out from the newer suburbs to the outer suburbs as well as in the small towns and rural areas. The 2016 election results show this pattern clearly.
Think in terms of geography… such location choices pack a large majority of Democratic voters in a relatively small area which they dominate totally, competing in those areas with only a small percentage of Republicans. Republicans are spread out very widely across big areas where they are a clear majority, but contest with a sizable minority of Democrats. The percentage of Ds in the R areas is greater than the percentage of Republicans in the urban core. That means D votes are wasted in huge numerical wins in the urban core and more are wasted in the outlying R districts where they can get closer but seldom win.
If you draw political districts that are geographically compact with equal numbers of people you automatically concentrate large percentages of Democrats in a limited number of districts and spread the less concentrated Republicans over far more districts. This is just a natural consequence of where we Americans freely choose to live, not of any political gerrymandering.
Moving-truck gerrymandering often produces election results in states where Democrats win with large [70-80%] majorities in urban areas and Republicans win with much smaller but clear majorities outside the urban core. That phenomenon creates a real advantage for Republicans that has little to do with politics, just the life-style choices of the people making free choices of where to live.
For example, in Ohio in 2016, Republicans got 58% of the two-party vote in US House elections. The Democratic votes were concentrated in the urban cores of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Akron, Toledo, and Youngstown. The Rs and Trump won 81 of 88 counties. Because of the concentration of Democratic votes, the Republicans won 12 of 16 US House seats [75%].
A related concept is that of SURPLUS VOTES. Recall that Hillary Clinton actually defeated Donald Trump in the popular vote by 2.1% [2.9M votes], but lost what counts, the electoral vote, 306 to 232. How that happened is easy to explain. Clinton had huge victories in big states like CA [ 4.3M vote win], NY [ +1.7M], and IL [ +0.9M]. By contrast, Trump’s state-wide and electoral vote victories were spread among more states and only in TX [ +0.8M votes] did he “waste” a lot of votes.
Just as Democratic voters are concentrated in the urban core, so too are they concentrated in the three Pacific coast states and the northeast. Except for VA, IL, CO, NV, and NM, the Republicans dominate all the other regions at the state level. That can be most clearly seen in the partisan compositions of the state legislatures.
In effect, we now have a “coastal” party and a “heartland” party. That is a tremendous disadvantage for the Democrats. In large part this pattern was created by their loss of the white working-class to the Republicans over the last two decades. They drove away the “deplorables”, who are now firmly ensconced in the Republican coalition.
Keep in mind this analysis as we head toward the important November elections.
Elections
PA Gerrymandering
As noted above, both political parties gerrymander when they can. Now the five elected Democratic justices [versus two Rs] on the PA Supreme Court have gerrymandered a Democrat-advantaged map of the 18 PA US House districts. That analysis is from Sean Trende, a well-respected and unbiased analyst. We now have judicial gerrymandering in PA.
Trende’s analysis is informative. Wherever possible, the districts were drawn to advantage Ds. However, he also asserts the new districting will shift only a seat or two in the upcoming November elections.
The tale doesn’t end there. The PA Republicans are suing in federal court on the basis of the US Constitution clearly giving districting authority to the various state legislatures, not the courts.
There are so many legal and political moving parts here I’m not going to speculate on outcomes.
More important are the moving-truck gerrymandering described above, the current gerrymandering cases before the Supreme Court, and which political party is able to energize its voters more fully in the fall.
Media
Don’t forget the Tuchfarber 30 Day test — when you get upset about something in the news, ask if it is likely to be IMPORTANT in 30 days or so. Only seldom will it be so and you can usually ignore it.
The Democrats
Counter-Memo to Nunes
The Democrats on the House Intelligence committee issued their counter-memo to the Nunes/Republican memo. It didn’t effectively counter the facts in the R memo, and, in fact, bolstered some. It emphasized that the FISA Court judges were not informed that the Steele dossier was initiated and paid for by the Clinton campaign. The Democrat’s memo did provide more context and is useful for that. But, bottom line…it didn’t change much.
Critical Political & Economic Measures
This is a new section that will appear weekly. The measures are important in their own right, but also influence electoral politics.
POLITICAL MEASURES
- Right Direction-Wrong Track— This measure is widely used by pollsters, asking in effect if things are going well or badly in the US. Since 2006, it has proven to be a good indicator before elections if the party “in-power” [controlling the White House] was going to do well or badly. If the “wrong -track” reading is 62% or higher, it bodes ill for them. If 58% or lower, they break even or gain. THIS IS MY MOST-PREFERED ELECTION PREDICTION MEASURE. I use dozens, but this one seems to strip out a lot of noise. Using my adjustments to this measure as described in a note below, “Wrong-Track” is now at 55%, up 1% from last week.
- Generic Congressional Ballot—Also used by many pollsters, this indicator measures the current preferences of voters for which party they prefer in US House races. My adjusted measures [see NOTE] are now 46% D and 37% R, a slight widening of the margin for the Ds. Historically, Ds need a solid lead on this measure to win a House majority. They win huge majorities in some states and urban areas while Republican votes produce more wins with smaller majorities—i.e., the R votes are more efficient. This phenomenon is due to both Ds packing themselves into some states and into urban cores as well as political gerrymandering by both parties.
- Presidential Approval—Trump’s approval, using my adjusted measure [see NOTE] is now 43%, down 1%. It is at a below average level for recent Presidents. But, because of his unique and often disruptive style, the Gallup organization and others, including myself, believe this measure underestimates his real approval ratings by 5% or more. Many political science models make heavy use of this measure in their predictions. I will report it, but will use it for trend analysis, not election predictions.
#NOTE: For the survey measures reported here, I will start with the RealClearPolitics.com data reported daily. For greater accuracy and timeliness, I will make the following adjustments:
- Use only polls conducted by non-partisan pollsters.
- Use only polls conducted in the last 14 days or so.
- Use only polls reporting results for registered or likely voters, not polls of all US adults. This is preferable for election prediction as compared to measuring overall public opinion.
ECONOMIC MEASURES
- Unemployment Rate [official: U-3]—The current level is 4.1%, a 17-year low. Low or falling levels of this measure are a positive for the “in” party. It is low and falling now, down from 4.8% a year ago.
- Unemployment Rate [broadest measure including under-employment: U-6]—The current level is at 8.2%. This is a very low level and has fallen from 9.4% a year ago.
- GDP GROWTH—Growth last quarter was 2.6% which is significantly higher than the average growth over the last eight years.
WAR
- The jobs issue and war issue are the 500-pound gorillas of American public opinion. If the economy is bad or there is a major unpopular war, the party in power is in trouble. Unpopular wars, like Vietnam and Iraq, shatter the support of the party in power. Small wars like Afghanistan and Syria are nearly always underway and usually do not have major effects unless they grow substantially in the cost in US lives.
ANALYSIS
Among the Political Punditry, the conventional wisdom for months has been that a Democratic Wave was building that would gain them the House majority and minimize their losses in the Senate where they have many vulnerable seats.
I have disagreed and the predictions in the next section quantify that. I’ve disagreed because my preferred metric [right direction – wrong track] is in territory that predicts success for the Rs. In addition, the economic situation is excellent, and there is no major war.
A poll for the New York Times now shows a majority of Americans approving of the Republican Tax Cut Bill as they see more money in their paychecks.
The measures above could change, but as long as they stay where they are, the Democrats will make only modest gains in November. If the indicators change, so too will my predictions.
Predictions
No Changes this week
Election Predictions
- 70-80%: the probability the Rs will lose seats in the 2018 House elections [CHANGE: 80-90% down to 70-80% based on many factors.]
- 10-20%: the probability that the Rs will lose control of the House in 2018
- 90-95%: the probability that the Rs will still control the Senate in 2019
- 90-95%: the chance that the Ds will lose seats in the 2018 Senate elections
- 50%: the chance the Democrats will lose four or more Senate seats in the 2018 elections
- 90-95%: the chance that Donald Trump will be the 2020 Republican nominee, unless he decides not to run
- 80-85%: the chance that Trump will be re-elected in 2020
Policy & Legislative Predictions
- There is more than a 60% chance pressure on the DACA– “Dreamer” issue will force the Democrats to negotiate a deal with President Trump on the border wall and other immigration issues by this spring. [CHANGE: up from 50% because Senate debate increased pressure for a solution.]
- The chance that Donald Trump will be impeached and removed from office by the Congress in the next three years is less than 1%. *
- The chance that Trump will be removed from office in the next seven years is less than 5%.
*NOTE: Remember that after being impeached by a Republican controlled House in 1998, not one Democratic Senator voted to remove Bill Clinton from office. It takes 67 votes and is more of a political process than a legal one. NO President has ever been impeached and removed. Richard Nixon resigned before the House and Senate could impeach and remove him from office.
Musings
The Florida School Shooting
I’m not going to pretend I know how gun rights legislation, mental health procedures, or politics is going to change because of this latest school shooting. It’s much too early to tell. The history during the Bush and Obama administrations would say not much would change, but we’ll see what Trump does and what Congress does and what the states do.
Trump is pushing a variety of changes such as encouraging the states to allow arming of teachers, bump-stock bans, tighter mental health procedures and background checks, and raising the age for long-gun purchases to 21. The students, Democrats, and most of the media say that is not nearly enough. Many conservatives will say some of those changes are a slide down a slippery slope to more draconian restrictions on the right to bear arms.
Students, the Democrats, Trump, the NRA and many others are trying to get control of the political and social angst resulting from the shootings but there are yet no clear follow-up steps.
The shootings were an absolute tragedy and cry for redress, but there are no easy answers to preventing more than a few such shootings. Even if EVERY proposal were enacted there are going to be sick or evil kids or adults using weapons to kill in schools and elsewhere in the future.
Huge mistakes were made by the adults in the home where he had moved, by the school authorities, local police, and by the FBI.
Neither the left nor the right seems willing to step back and have a completely open debate about how we need to “fix” our culture, mores, laws, mental health systems, and legal procedures to avoid most such incidents. That is what we need.
Think about it…
Curious Communication Strategies by Both Parties
Both parties have muddled communication strategies just now.
The Republicans and conservative press are touting the fact that President Trump’s approval rating now is higher than that of President Obama at the same point in his presidency, Feb. 2010 v Feb. 2018. Political analysts will note that Obama’s low rating in early 2010 foreshadowed huge losses in the November Congressional elections that year. I note above other indicators about the 2018 Congressional elections, but still find the Republican’s communication choice short-sighted.
The Democrats and mainstream press are touting their counter-memo to the Nunes Republican House Intelligence committee memo on political corruption in the FBI and DOJ. Their memo does provide some context but doesn’t obviate the basic points of the Nunes’ memo. Worse for the Democrats, it reminds everyone interested about the corruption and incompetence issue and keeps it on the front page. A curious communication strategy…
Until next week…
Al Tuchfarber
Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Cincinnati
Al.Tuchfarber@gmail.com
Tuchfarber Political-Economics LLC, Inc.
Dr. Tuchfarber founded the Ohio Poll, one of the nation’s most accurate, while directing the social science Institute for Policy Research from 1975 to 2004. He also founded and directed the Institute for Health Policy from 1996 to 2004. He is an engaging and dynamic speaker and has published over 100 articles and papers about politics, society, and research methods.