Why I anticipate a blue wave
My main reason for expecting a very substantial Democratic win is straightforward. Since the Dobbs decision, I have believed that this election will be dominated by the abortion-rights issue, and nothing that has happened since then has given me any reason to change that assessment. The need to restore and protect abortion rights will lead some Republicans (mostly women) to vote for Democrats, and will motivate many people to vote who would not otherwise have bothered. These effects will swamp and overwhelm all other factors and will determine the outcome.
My supporting evidence for this claim is the results of all the abortion referenda, and almost all the elections, held since the Dobbs decision. Every time abortion rights have been put to a public vote, they have won overwhelmingly, even in very red states. Moreover, turnout in these referenda has been high, suggesting both that many Republicans are voting for abortion rights, and that many new voters are being motivated to participate. As for the elections, in case after case since Dobbs, Democratic candidates have done ten or fifteen points better than the historic norm for the state or district involved. Sometimes that shift has been big enough to allow the Democrat to win in a "red" district, sometimes not, but the point is that the shift is almost always there. This recent election in Alaska continued the pattern. Voters are well aware that Democrats in office will uphold abortion rights, while Republicans will attack them.
Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. This axiom applies to voting as much as to anything else. I can't think of any reason why the abortion-rights factor would not dominate the federal election just as much as it has dominated other elections since Dobbs (if anything, it's increasing in importance). Moreover, most of those surprising election and referendum results since Dobbs were not anticipated by polling, which predicted much closer, more "normal" outcomes. This shows that the Dobbs effect is not being captured by polling. That may be because many Republicans are telling pollsters they expect to vote Republican again and only changing their minds at the last moment, in the voting booth; it could also be that the pollsters' turnout models are not capturing the effect of so many new voters participating. It's likely that the current polling we're seeing for the federal election is similarly missing the Dobbs effect, for the same reasons.
(I suspect there is another factor at work too -- most polling agencies are run by men, and view abortion rights as a mere "female issue", not to be taken quite as seriously as the "real" issues like the economy and immigration.)
Current polling suggests, for example, that Democrats will lose the Senate. Assuming that the West Virginia seat is unwinnable without Manchin, a net loss of even one more seat would give the Repubicans the majority. Polling suggests that Montana will be that one more seat. However, it also shows Senate races in Texas, Florida, and even Nebraska surprisingly close -- close enough that the Dobbs effect could flip any or all of them, as well as perhaps saving the Montana seat. Thus the Democrats could hold or even expand their majority. The same effect, replicated in close House districts across the country, would certainly be enough to reclaim the House majority. As for the presidency, most polling shows a close race, with Harris holding a small lead, perhaps too small to overcome the standard Republican advantage due to the Electoral College. But the Dobbs effect should enable her to sweep the swing states and win at least as comfortably as Biden did in 2020.
Again, this is not just speculation or wishful thinking. It requires only that the voters behave as they have done in every election since the Dobbs ruling, and that the polls fail to predict this effect just as they failed to predict it in all those earlier cases. Imagine if this November every state and district votes ten percent more Democratic than it historically has, or even just five percent. A swing of five percent would mean a landslide; ten percent would be an annihilating tsunami. I'm not saying something like that definitely will happen, but it would be consistent with the pattern of the last two years.
Could some other factor cancel out the Dobbs effect? I can't think of any factor that could do so. The Republicans have become aware of the problem and many, including Trump, are frantically backing away from their former extreme forced-birth positions -- rhetorically, and in the party platform. But the majority of voters are not being fooled by this. Decades of Republican hostility to abortion rights are baked in to the party's identity. Any claim that they are becoming more moderate on abortion has no credibility until they start actually repealing the forced-birth laws in the states they control. And that isn't happening. The rhetorical shift might mitigate the Dobbs effect a little, because some Republicans who only grudgingly vote Democratic to defend abortion will feel reassured enough to go back to voting Republican, but it certainly won't cancel out the entire effect.
If anything, most other factors likely to affect the outcome favor the Democrats. They have raised far more money than the Republicans, and are using it to run an effective and professional GOTV operation, whereas the Republicans have largely outsourced GOTV to various ramshackle private-sector outfits (including one set up by arch-bungler Elon Musk), which are not up to the job (and some of their employees are even actively avoiding work). Harris is fighting to expand the Democratic tent, appealing to moderate conservative voters by going on right-wing media like Fox and highlighting endorsements from anti-Trump Republicans, while Trump is making no effort to broaden his appeal beyond his cult base, and has even started calling his own voters "dumb" and "fat pigs". Harris is energetic and articulate, while Trump seems to deteriorate mentally from one day to the next. It doesn't hurt that she's been endorsed by the world's most popular celebrity -- an endorsement, one might say, taylored to produce swift results in terms of new voter registrations.
Republicans' rhetorical climb-down on abortion seems to be alienating a lot of the Christian Right vote; Muslim voters are similarly turning against the Democrats, but there are not enough of them to make a difference except in Michigan, and even there, many will eventually sober up to the fact that Trump is far more hostile to "Palestine" than the Democrats are. (There are positive trends in Michigan too.) There are a lot more fundamentalists and hard-line Catholics in this country than Muslims. If the Republicans ultimately lose, say, 10% of that vote and the Democrats lose 10% of Muslims, the impact on Republicans will be much greater.
Some worriers fear the Republicans will steal the election by various legal shenanigans. In fact, this would be close to impossible. Trump tried like hell to steal the 2020 election and failed abjectly. Further legal safeguards have been added to the system since then. In 2020 Trump was in office, wielding the power of the presidency; this time he won't be.
Polling does create its own expectations, and people see what they want to see (on both sides, people routinely cite the polls that tell them what they want to hear as evidence of good news, while dismissing polls that say the opposite as worthless junk). Many Republicans, like many Democrats, refuse to look at any source of information that doesn't support their existing views, and are incredulous that any sane person could even consider voting for the opposite party. Here is a sober and rational right-wing assessment of the state of the race; it's generally optimistic (for their side). The rank-and-file right wing is expecting to win this one. If, as I believe, the actual result is a massive blue wave, only the smartest and best-informed of them will realize that abortion rights were the determining factor; those most deeply committed to their alternate-reality bubble will insist the election was rigged, stolen, swayed by millions of illegal aliens voting, etc, etc, etc. There may even be sporadic outbreaks of violence, for which the authorities need to be prepared. But I don't expect much of that.
Finally, nothing I say here should be taken as an excuse for inaction, complacency, or voting third party to "send a message". I could, after all, be wrong. It might be that the polls are correct and this election, for some reason, will not follow the pattern of the last two years. We were confident of winning in 2016 and it led to votes being thrown away on third candidates, votes that turned out to be critical. Every vote matters. Even if we do win by a landslide, the bigger the better -- to drive home the strength of the Democrats' mandate, to swamp any efforts at vote suppression, and to crush the stolen-election drivel that Trump is sure to start spewing forth yet again. To get Supreme Court enlargement or Puerto Rican statehood or a billionaire tax through the House, we'll need not just a majority, but a large enough one to work around the small-thinkers among the Democrats who balk at such steps as too radical. To get rid of the filibuster, we'll need a Senate majority big enough to bypass one or two similarly timid souls there. And sane Republicans will be less likely to obstruct Harris if she won the popular vote by fifteen million instead of two million, and carried some of "their" states, not just the blue ones. Every vote is vital.
Update: These reports about the experiences of actual voters are just anecdotal evidence, of course, but they're encouraging.
23 Comments:
Infidel, it is entirely possible that Kamala will win; however, I doubt it will be a landslide. The bottom line is that most people will vote with their pocket book, as the old axiom goes. A VAST majority of people were better off with the economy under Trump than they were under the Biden/Harris administration.
I think that the solid Democratic core 33% was always going to vote for Harris and that the Right 33% was going to go for Trump. It is the independents in that middle 33% that will ultimately determine the outcome. At the end of the day, I think more of them will succumb to voting for the candidate(s) that makes their lives more affordable rather than who will support unfettered abortion rights. In other words, it comes down to "Are you better off now then you were four years ago?"
I could be wrong though. It has been known to happen. ;) Regardless, I don't suspect a red or blue wave is in our near future, my friend. Hope you are doing well personally.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you aren't addressing the reasons why I came to the conclusion I did -- mainly all those referendum and election results since the Dobbs ruling. Even if it were true that most people were better off economically under Trump (which it isn't -- job growth during Biden's term has been much better, for example), many people consider that a huge reduction in personal freedom -- such as the post-Dobbs restrictions on abortion -- outweighs economic considerations.
But the main point stands. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. I'm simply betting that voters will continue to behave as they have for the last two years.
I hope that you are right. Here in the deeply red Midwest, I have my doubts that there will be a huge blue wave. Missouri does have an abortion rights amendment on the ballot that will hopefully bring more people to the polls. Unfortunately, I am not sure that it will change much of the voting when it comes to the candidates.
I am pretty certain that MO's 11 electoral votes will go to Trump. I'd really like to see VP Harris have enough of an effect to push Kuntz ahead of Hawley and flip that Senate seat.
I voted yesterday. I will say putting the ballot in the envelopes wasn't as satisfying as feeding it into the machine. And the envelope has no immediate feedback for something filled out wrong like voting for too many for one office, or the ovals being not readable due to the wrong pen used.
For president, voting for T was a "no way" in 2016, and the chances I'd vote for him went down further in 2020 and again this year. No senate races for us this year. It's amazing how fast people forgotten (forgiven?) what happened when all those tariffs hit, not to mention who really paid for them - shortages, price increases, corn/bean prices tanked, trade agreements trashed, etc.
For state, voting for things that will affect toddler GD's future took priority. Her right to full medical decisions and the diversion of tax money from public schools to private.
As you say, I can't trust the current crop of office holders, not when their vote went against a majority of the voters, including their staunch supporters, in the state that opposed the 6 week abortion ban and school voucher program by a large margin. I'm hoping that a big reason for the close polling is that those of us who have or will be voting blue this time are simply not telling our voting plans.
Infidel, I think that most of the people that were going to cast their vote based primarily on being pro-abortion were always going to vote for Harris anyway. Will Harris pick up some additional votes from liberal Republicans and Independents based on this issue alone? Probably. Will it be enough to sway the outcome as per the evidence you cited? I am unsure in this election cycle. That said with the instability and dangerous foreign affairs climate ushered in and the astronomical inflation created under the Biden/Harris administration, I still don't believe that abortion will be the main deciding factor. By the way, job growth under Biden is a fallacy, sir. The job growth was simply a recovery of previously existing jobs that were shuttered during COVID to a huge extent.
Personally, if the right loses this election based on the abortion vote, then so be it. I see it as a moral issue. The "freedom" to intentionally kill the unborn is not a moral right. I am fine dying on that hill and staying true to my conscience and objective fact that the aborting of an unborn child is the intentional killing of a human life with its own unique DNA, and not simply the removal of unwanted "tissue" from the mother's womb. This can be couched in euphemisms or justified with a myriad of excuses, but at the end of the day, it does nothing to counter the truth that it is the taking of a human life.
As always, thanks for the rational analysis.
I believe Kamala will win, too. Not based on science or past events, but because he's losing his fan base. Mostly empty venues. Resorting to lie after lie after lie about things that are easily checked. Yes, he still has his chain of idiots following behind him, but there aren't nearly as many.
I can't wait until Felonious Chunk is no longer everywhere, spouting lies from the sphincter in the middle of his melting face.
Regarding women's rights, the Republican party has overstepped badly and they're not able to correct it before the election if they wanted to. Which they don't, the white "Christian" men think they are finally getting their chance to rule over the women. Put us in our place.
Pretty sure Kamala's place is in the White House.
Darrell: But the election and referendum results since the Dobbs ruling show that that ruling changed the calculation for a lot of people. There are a lot of voters who are Republicans and align with the party on most issues, but favor abortion rights. As long as Roe stood, they could vote Republican without hesitation, because there was no real threat to abortion rights. Since Dobbs, many of them are voting to stave off a threat that has become very real now.
Similarly, given the apparent wave of new voters, many people who support abortion rights formerly felt no need to vote since those rights would be safe regardless of who was in office. Now, since Dobbs, they do feel the need to vote.
Again, this is not just speculation. It's what voters have actually been doing for the last two years. I can't think of any reason why the large shift to the Democrats in all those elections won't also be seen in the federal election.
The inflation under Biden was partly due to the cash payments sent out to everyone during covid, which were necessary, and has been continued due to corporate price-gouging, as Kroger (to name one) has pretty much admitted. Harris has promised to push for a law against price-gouging, something everyone knows Republicans would never do. On the claim that job growth is merely recovering jobs lost under covid, over the last few months the link round-ups have included at least a couple of links proving that that isn't the case. Certainly the US economy has recovered from covid far better than any other developed economy. We're booming while most other countries grow only slowly.
As to foreign affairs, Trump has made it clear that he would cut off aid to Ukraine, which could lead to the Russian conquest of that country and face the West with a full-blown September-1939-level crisis. That's by far the most dangerous foreign-affairs risk on the table at the moment.
John: Depending on how red a state is, even a five- or ten-point shift toward the Democrats might not be enough to win a majority for Democratic candidates there. But nationally, there are plenty of states and districts where it would. Kunce is the kind of pragmatic Democrat I want to see more of; he might even do better in Missouri than Harris does.
JustGail: Thanks for voting. Trump still refuses to understand that tariffs are taxes paid by Americans, not by foreign companies. I'm sure he'd double down on them if he were back in office.
I think many people voting to save abortion rights are thinking not only of themselves, but daughters, granddaughters, and others they care about. It's part of why the issue seems to be having such a huge impact.
Ami: Thanks. Trump certainly seems to be losing the enthusiasm contest this time, compared to 2016. I keep hearing about shrinking crowds and people leaving early as he rambles more and more incoherently.
I'm definitely looking forward to never hearing about Trump any more!
After the Dobbs ruling, I remember thinking, "They have awakened a sleeping giant and filled her with a terrible resolve." The time may finally be coming for them to pay the price.
Oh, and as for people voting their pocketbook, let me use myself as an example. As I pointed out in my earlier post, Trump repeatedly tried to destroy Obamacare, without which I couldn't afford health insurance, and Republicans in general keep attacking Social Security in various ways, and I couldn't survive without Social Security. Tens of millions of people are in a similar situation. Harris has endorsed raising the minimum wage to $15/hour, more in line with what most developed countries have, something we know Republicans would never do. Of course, she could only do that with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, which is why I keep hammering away at the importance of voting for Congress, not just the presidency. It's the Democrats policies that benefit ordinary people. Republicans just keep cutting taxes on the oligarchs.
I'm really hoping for a blue wave. My daughter and I just voted so that's done.
*Kunce
Thanks for doing your part!
A good reasonable analysis. One I hope happens. Here in the Badger state, I’m getting arthritis in my fingers keeping them crossed. What was a pretty good match up with Baldwin and Hovde, has turned into a nail biter, but Hovde’s ads are landing pretty solidly, which I think mirrors the National contest. It amazes me that people think 2016-2020 were the best years of their lives, and that a majority of Trump voters don’t really care what happens as long as “Those people” get what’s coming to them. They don’t mind suffering. Just that others suffer more.
Thanks. We'll see. Always remember that men tend to be more outspoken about their opinions and to dominate the public space, but more women than men vote.
Infidel:
Yes I think the people are correct about the inflationary actions of Biden during the PANDEMIC when the nation shut down and people were not working. The administration should not have doled out money during the pandemic:
- money to state and local governments to fight the spread of the virus
- money for families who rely on free school lunches in light of widespread school closures
- companies with fewer than 500 employees provide paid sick leave for those suffering from COVID-19, as well as providing a tax credit to help employers cover those costs
- Provide nearly $1 billion in additional unemployment insurance money for states, as well as loans to states to fund unemployment insurance
- Funding and cost waivers to make COVID-19 testing free
- implemented foreclosure and eviction moratoriums for single-family homeowners whose mortgages were FHA-insured or backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
- direct cash payment of $1,200 per person plus $500 per child
- Expansion of unemployment benefits to include furloughed people, gig workers, and freelancers
- Additional $600 of unemployment per week
= Waiver of early withdrawal penalties for 401(k)s for amounts of up to $100,000
- $500 billion in government lending to companies
- $349 billion in loans and grants to small businesses through the PPP
- $175 billion for hospitals and healthcare providers
- $150 billion in grants to state and local governments
- $30.75 billion for schools and universities
- etc.
Yep, they are right, none of this should have happened because it was inflationary in the end. It took a couple of years to ride the impact of these programs doled out in the first three packages of economic stimulus. There were three more stimulus packages to come, much of which dealt directly with people and without would have led to a full-fledged recession.
Sure there was inflation afterwards. What was the alternative? Get sick and end up in a covid infested hospital, die, etc.
It is hard to believe people fall for a narrative which comes from an orange-faced freak, a Republican party, and a bunch of naive voters who benefited from these programs during the pandemic. Don't drink the kool-aide.
One more comment, similar inflation occurred in 2008 because companies decided to increase their prices only because they could. I remember those conversations with the supply base.
Sorry for the length of this Infidel. This economist says BS.
That's what so many people have forgotten. The mass mailing of those payments was necessitated by an emergency. The fact that they would probably lead to inflation down the road was less important than addressing the immediate crisis.
As for corporate price-gouging, people can spout theoretical arguments all they want, but we need to go by what's happening in the real world.
This is a lucid, fact-based, excellent essay, Infidel. Thank you for the time you spent on it. I am hoping for a landslide, but even if the vote doesn’t reach those proportions, I have been increasingly confident that Harris will win, comfortable that Democrats will retake the House, and encouraged that the Senate majority will continue.
Last night, I watched Harris at a mega rally in Texas—Ground Zero for the abortion cruelties. The stadium was packed with a wildly enthusiastic crowd, with many men, and many first-time voters. Harris asked the new voters to identify themselves, and they received cheers.
Harris is unlikely to win Texas, though I think she narrowed the gap, but I believe this clever move will help Colin Allred defeat the odious Ted Cruz. As Harris said, we need Allred in the Senate to start the work of repairing the damage done by Dobbs. Women were present in person and on video telling their dreadful stories.
One last point: Liz Cheney, who is now appearing with Harris, speaks about her pro-life position, but says Dobbs has shown her that we are talking about women’s healthcare and freedom. Many women and men have come to see the Draconian nature of these laws differently as the reality has become better known.
I would like to post your essay on my blog, Infidel.
Annie: Thanks! I tried to cover as much as possible, and as clearly as possible, in this one. Of course I know I'm sticking my neck out making a prediction which can be proven or disproven in less than two weeks. But so far all the further evidence I've seen seems consistent with it.
It's notable that the same Republicans who were convinced Trump was winning in 2020 because he got so much bigger crowds at his rallies (in fact, because Democrats were taking covid seriously and not going to events like rallies) are now ignoring the signs of an enthusiasm gap in Harris's favor.
The polling for Allred has certainly looked encouraging. If there's a Dobbs shift at all, his chances of winning look very good. I'm sure Harris wouldn't be in Texas unless the campaign had good reason to expect it to accomplish something.
Cheney probably exemplifies what I think is going on with a lot of Republican women, often at the last minute, when they're about to vote -- it's easy to be against abortion as an abstraction, but faced with the real-world horror stories we've seen since Dobbs, basic human compassion begins to assert itself.
You're welcome to repost. Thanks for your interest.
After reading this, I feel more hopeful about the outcome. Thank you.
Good! And I'm sure you've voted already.
Infidel - Absolutely!
Just to note two things: 1) I voted already, and I voted for every Dem candidate from Harris on down the ballot here in Florida, and especially voted YES on Amendment 4 for abortion rights, and 2) I quoted this article on my own blog article hoping for a strong Blue Wave, I did provide links and proper citing, hope that's okay.
It's fine with me that you excerpted my post -- thanks for letting me know. It's probably my most-reposted post ever. Well, if I turn out to be wrong, everyone will know.....
Glad you got your vote in early. Hoping the blue wave reaches Florida.
Post a Comment
<< Home