Neo-Liberals Are Not Republicans

Statement (from my Facebook feed):

bennett legislates pretty much like a republican! Horrible choice! I’d NEVER vote for him! EVER!!!

My Response: 

This isn't accurate. 

U.S. Senator Michael Bennett (D-CO) Does Not Legislate Pretty Much Like A Republican

U.S. Senator Michael Bennett (D-CO) votes with D's on issues with a partisan divide about 92% of the time.  

Bennett has a more liberal than conservative voting record on every kind of issue, but is more conservative on economic issues than on social issues and foreign policy. See the National Journal's analysis from 2013 and a summary of issue by issue single issue voting scores for Bennett from myriad organizations. 

Bennett is a comparative moderate within the Democratic caucus in Congress, but he is to the left of even the most moderate Republican in either the House or the Senate.  

Inaccurate Hyperbole Like This Is Actively Harmful To A Liberal Agenda

The kind of inaccurate hyperbole that says that Bennett "legislates pretty much like a republican", undermines everyone on the left, from the most progressive to the most moderate, and helps Republicans, by ignoring the meaningful differences that exist between candidates from the two parties, causing people with solidly liberal political views to fail to participate in keeping unequivocal conservatives who actively and fiercely oppose everything that they believe in, out of power. 

Ultimately, I'd prefer to have more reliably liberal voting elected officials who are Democrats to moderate Democrats, and it is legitimate to work to make that happen. 

But, that cause is not well served by inaccurately describing the facts about any particular moderate/neo-liberal/corporatist/conservative Democrat's voting record. Using inaccurate statements to eat our own only helps the bad guys.

Few Democrats Overlap Republicans In Political Ideology, Especially After The 2018 Election

There are only 2 actual Democrats in the Senate (and one independent who caucuses with the Democrats) whose voting records overlap with any Republicans in the House or the Senate: Joe Manchin (D-WV), Jon Tester (D-MT), and finally Angus King-I-ME who caucuses with the Dems. Tester and King are to the left of every Republican in the Senate except Senator Susan Colins (R-ME). But, Michael Bennett (D-CO) absolutely isn't one of them. And all three of these moderates are more liberal than the Republican candidates that they have faced in elections in their home states. Collins is much less conservative the the runner up as the most moderate Republican in the U.S. Senate, who is Sen. Robert “Rob” Portman (R-OH).

In the House, there are 7 Democrats who more conservative than even one Republican in the House or Senate. They are from most conservative to less conservative are: Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN7); Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ); Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX28); Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI3); Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ5); Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA16); Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR5). And, all seven of them are more liberal than the Republican candidates that they have faced in elections in their House Districts. The least conservative Republican in the House is Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA23). The runner up to McCarthy in the House GOP caucus with an almost identical political ideology is Rep. John Curtis (R-UT3). Four of the seven "overlap" moderate Democrats in the House are more liberal than every Republican in the House except for these two men.

The Democrats and Republicans became significantly more distinct as legislative parties in terms of political ideology in the 2018 election because moderates on both sides, died, retired, lost in a primary, or lost in the general election. The Senate lost a total of six Senators who could arguably be considered moderates (some from both parties). The House lost 53 moderates (some from both parties). Essentially no freshmen in the House or the Senate from the 2018 election are fairly described as having moderate voting records so far.

Elected Officials Are More Partisan Than Democrats

It is also worth noting that while the political ideology of elected officials in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate is bimodal, with one peak in the middle of the GOP caucus and the other in the middle of the Democratic caucus, that the political ideological of voters nationwide is a single bell curve with a peak between the GOP and the Democratic party peaks. 

The median U.S. voter is closest to Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR5) in the House (only three Republicans in the House are less conservative than him and only five Democrats in the House are more conservative than him) and in the Senate the median U.S. voter is closest to Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) who is the least conservative Republican in the Senate (two Democrats and one independent caucusing with the Democrats are more conservative than her). Bennet votes well to the left of what would be expected for a Senator from Colorado in a model based on voter political leanings in each state. 

Footnote

I'm not naming the person who made the statement or linking to it because many people say similar things and calling someone out for saying something like this isn't the point. But, to avoid a "straw man" argument I'm quoting a real FB comment rather than my own paraphrase of one.

The Balance of Power In The Federal Government As Of 2019 With A Quick Civics Lesson

How will the balance of power be in the U.S. federal government as a result of this year's recent midterm elections?

The U.S. Senate

The Midterm Election Results

As a result of today's election, in January of 2019, there will be 53 Republicans and 47 senators who caucus with the Democrats in the U.S. Senate. In the event of a tie vote, Republican Vice President Mike Pence, would vote with the Republicans, so Democrats need to win over 4 out of the 53 Republicans to secure a majority vote on anything. This represents a net loss of two Democratic party held U.S. Senate seats. To a great extent, this setback was a naturally expected consequence of the fact that more red states had Senate elections scheduled for the midterm elections in 2018 than blue states. 

The closest U.S. Senate race this year was the U.S. Senate race in Florida, which incumbent Senator Bill Nelson (one of the most conservative Democrats in the U.S. Senate, first elected in the year 2000) lost by a fraction of a percentage point in the face of significant voter suppression by the Republican Secretary of State, significant election administration irregularities, and the largest proportion of voters in the nation disqualified from voting due to prior felony convictions (about 1.4 million voters, who are disproportionately black).

The Lame Duck Session

This result removes pressure on Republicans to ratify Presidential nominations before the next session of Congress, since they will have a stronger majority then than they have now.

Unless the Senate exercise the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster for ordinary legislation during the lame duck session, to take advantage of the brief period when Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Presidency before the representatives elected in November take office, it will not be able to pass any new legislation in the lame duck session without bipartisan support. Legislative filibuster reform will provide Republicans with little practical advantage, however, once Democrats control the House in January of 2019.

The 2020 Elections

A third of U.S. Senators face voters in 2020.

Senate races can't be gerrymandered, but the U.S. Senate has a built in red state advantage, so Democrats need significantly more than a majority of the national popular vote in U.S. Senate elections to win a majority of seats in the U.S. Senate.

The End Of The Filibuster

Also, it has become much more important to have a majority in the U.S. Senate over the last four years, as the filibuster, which used to require the de facto approval of 60 Senators to approve almost any legislation was eliminated for votes on Presidential nominations. And, the precedent, invoked once by each party now, of the mechanism by which it was eliminated in those cases, means that the filibuster could be eliminated in any other circumstances by any future majority determined enough to do so. Prior to this reform in the Senate rules, it was almost impossible to pass any legislation or nominations in the Senate without bipartisan support except in the rare years where one party had a 60 seat plus majority in the Senate, providing a significant check on the ability of either party to take any actions without bipartisan support. So, the Senate provides much less of a check on the majority party which also holds the Presidency than it has for almost all of living memory. 

Changes in 2013 and 2017 now require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on nominations, although legislation still requires 60 votes. On November 21, 2013, the Senate used the so-called "nuclear option," voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. On April 6, 2017, the Senate eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (after the Republican controlled U.S. Senate refused to hold hearings on or vote upon President Obama's U.S. Supreme Court nominee, despite teh fact that the nomination was made well before the end of the Congressional session and this had never been done before in the history of the Congress). The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines. The same rule was later used to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

The Demise Of Moderate Senators

The mere party labels also obscure the fact that the partisan divide between the Republican and the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate will be deeper in 2019 than it was in 2017, because many of the most moderate Senators in both parties have been replaced by solidly partisan Democrats or Republicans. Also, there are fewer Democrats in the Senate serving from red states and fewer Republicans serving from blue states.

This trend is likely to continue in 2019, because the most vulnerable incumbent Senators in those races will be incumbent moderates in their respective parties, especially moderate Republicans like Susan Collins of Maine, the sole remaining Republican in either house of Congress from New England, who has taken a more conservative stance in her Senate voting record in the last year.

Other Senate Powers

The Senate has unilateral power to approve Presidential nominees for judgeships and senior executive branch positions in the federal government, mostly without having to worry about filibusters.

The Senate also has the power to approve treaties without U.S. House participation, although this requires a two-thirds majority vote. This means that if the Republicans are united in wanting to ratify a treaty proposed by the President, they need at least 14 out of 47 Senators who caucus with the Democrats to support the treaty for it to be approved. In practice, this means that any new U.S. treaty will require support from the Democratic party.

To try impeachments, although an official impeached by the U.S. House by a majority vote there can only be removed with a two-thirds majority vote of the U.S. Senate. So even if the Democrats are united in wanting to impeach the President or a lower executive branch or judicial branch official, they need 20 out of 53 Republicans to vote to remove that person from office following a Senate trial of the impeachment. In practice, this means that it will take support for the Republican party to remove any federal official from office following a trial on an impeachment made by the House. While this is a quasi-judicial function, in practice, Republicans would block any impeachment of a strong conservative partisan in the absence of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing inconsistent with that person continuing to hold office. In particular, it makes removing Donald Trump or a conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice from office via impeachment virtually impossible.

Because an override of a Presidential veto takes a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate, it takes only 34 of the 53 Republicans in the U.S. Senate to uphold a Presidential veto. So, even if two-thirds of Representatives in the House vote to override a Presidential veto, all 47 Senators who caucus with the Democrats in the Senate are united, and 19 Republicans in the Senate break ranks with the President to attempt to override his veto, the veto will be sustained. In practice, this means that no veto can be overridden without support from both the Republican party and the Democratic party.

It also takes a two-thirds majority of each house of Congress to propose a new constitutional amendment, so this requires support of both Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats. The equal rights amendment, however, which would prohibit discrimination based upon sex as a matter of the express provisions of the U.S. Constitution, is still open for the states to ratify without further Congressional action, and will take effect if three-quarters of states ratify it.

The U.S. House

The Midterm Election Results

In the U.S. House elections this year, Democrats won 234 seats and are leading by a small margin in CA-21, while Republicans won 200 seats. Assuming that Democrats win a total of 235 seats, they will have had a net gain of 40 seats in the House. This is on the high end of expected range of Democratic seat pickups in this year's midterm elections, and would have been even higher were it not for significant gerrymandering in states such as North Carolina and Texas, and voter suppression efforts in many red states, especially in the South.

Notable Geographic Features Of The Midterm House Races

In California, assuming that the Democrats win CA-21, Democrats will control 46 out of 53 U.S. House seats in California (as well as both of its Senate seats). Five of the seats still controlled by Republicans are inland, in a contiguous block of territory mostly east of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Two of the seats held by Republicans, including the seat of Duncan Hunter who is currently under indictment for various felonies, are adjacent districts in the suburbs of San Diego. None of these seven seats, interestingly, have any of the Pacific coastline. The two swaths of Republican controlled House districts are separated by just a few miles from each other at their nearest point. Republicans won six of these seats by wide margins and probably would have won Duncan Hunters southern suburban San Diego seat by a more secure margin than the 51.8% of the vote that he received had their candidate in the district not been under indictment and personally compromised as a result. The Democratically controlled House District in California form a single contiguous block that continues up the entire Pacific coast of Oregon. The only seats that Republicans control on the entire Pacific coast are its one seat in Alaska and one seat in Southwest Washington State.

On the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Delaware in the Northeast, Republicans also hold only two U.S. House districts, one on the eastern part of Long Island (NY-1), and one in New Jersey (NJ-4). On the other hand, however, Democrats control only three U.S. House District on the Gulf Coast. One in Key West (FL-26), one in Tampa, Florida (FL-14), and one at the southern tip of Texas (TX-34). Likewise, Democrats control only four seats on the Atlantic Coast south of Delaware, unless you count the sheltered coasts in Maryland: VA-2, VA-3, SC-1 and FL-20.

There is more geographic analysis of the midterm election results here.

Practical Implications

In 2019, the House will be the sole source of Democratic power in the federal government (something it entirely lacks now), although it is a significant one. Among other things, all ordinary legislation must pass the U.S. House and all appropriations must be initiated with a U.S. House bill. The power to control appropriations, moreover, because it must be exercised on an annual basis to prevent a federal government shutdown, can be used as leverage to obtain agreements from the President and Republicans in Congress on pretty much anything, to the extent that they want the federal government which they control to remain open for business, and Democrats are wiling to credibly threaten to do so.

The Lame Duck Session

Up until January 3, 2019, Republicans in the lame duck Congress can still pass legislation that they will not be able to pass when they lose the majority in the U.S. House at that time. But, since Democrats could filibuster legislation in the U.S. Senate unless Republicans exercise the "nuclear option" to eliminate that element of the filibuster as well (even though eliminating it will provide Republicans with little short term benefit after Democrats regain control of the House).

The 2020 Elections

All of these Representatives will face voters again in 2020, the last Congressional election before House seats are re-allocated between states and Congressional Districts are redrawn in 2022 based upon the results of the 2020 census, which will be conducted by Donald Trump's administration.

The Demise Of Moderates In The House

The mere party labels also obscure the fact that the partisan divide between the Republican and the Democratic caucus in the U.S. House will be deeper in 2019 than it was in 2017, because many of the most moderate Representatives in both parties have been replaced by solidly partisan Democrats or Republicans. Also, there are fewer Democrats in the House serving from red states and fewer Republicans serving from blue states.

Other House Powers

Because an override of a Presidential veto takes a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate, it takes only 146 of the 200 Republicans in the U.S. House to uphold a Presidential veto. So, even if two-thirds of Senators vote to override a Presidential veto, all 235 Democrats in the House are united, and 54 Republicans in the House break ranks with the President to attempt to override his veto, the veto will be sustained. In practice, this means that no veto can be overridden without support from both the Republican party and the Democratic party.

It also takes a two-thirds majority of each house of Congress to propose a new constitutional amendment, so  this requires the support of both House Republicans and House Democrats. The equal rights amendment, however, which would prohibit discrimination based upon sex as a matter of the express provisions of the U.S. Constitution, is still open for the states to ratify without further Congressional action, and will take effect if three-quarters of states ratify it.

The Presidency

President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence are Republicans, of course. 

The Powers Of The President

The President has the power to veto any legislation (which is impossible to override without strong Republican support in both the House and the Senate), the power to nominate candidates to fill all judicial vacancies and all significant executive branch officials, many (but not all) of whom serve at the pleasure of the President  and are obligated to follow his orders. 

The President is also the power to act as commander in chief of the U.S. military, has broad (but not unlimited) power to conduct U.S. diplomacy, and has broad (but not unlimited) power to issue regulations interpreting federal law, and broad (but not unlimited) to determine how the federal bureaucracy will enforce federal laws. The main checks on these powers are judicial review (which may ultimately be weaker when conservatives control the U.S. Supreme Court) and Congressional action primarily in the form of appropriations bills limiting his ability to spend money in a way that furthers particular items of the President's agenda with respect to carrying out and enforcing federal laws.

The President also proposes an annual budget for the federal government, which is routinely significantly reworked by Congress, that nonetheless serves as a starting point for annual budget negotiations and benefits from the President's greater access to information about what funding various federal agencies need, want and can use.

The 2020 Election

President Trump and Vice President Pence must win both a Republican party primary and the general election in order to be re-elected for a second four year term in 2020. 

Despite the fact that President Trump is very unpopular with the general population of likely voters in the United States he still has very strong support among the members of the Republican party who decide who the Republican party nominee for President will e in 2020, so his re-nomination, either with Vice President Pence, or a different Vice Presidential running mate of his choice, is virtually guaranteed in the Presidential primary season in 2020, assuming that he chooses to run for re-election (he will be 74 year old at that point and is not a picture of good mental or physical health).

If the Presidential election were held today, Trump would lose to a generic Democratic Presidential candidate in a landslide. In 2016, Trump eked out a victory with wins in three critical states (Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania) by the slimmest of margins, and support for him has fallen significantly since then. But, the next Presidential election is not for two more years, and the  Democratic candidate will be someone in particular, who may exceed expectations, or underperform, relative to a generic Presidential candidate.

Presidential races can't be gerrymandered and electoral vote counts for each state will not change in 2020 from 2016, but the electoral college has a built in red state advantage (due to the unequal division of U.S. Senate seats relative to population which, in practice, favors red states), so Democrats need significantly more than a majority of the national popular vote to win a Presidential election.

The U.S. Supreme Court

Five of the nine justice on the U.S. Supreme Court are solidly conservative leaning. Four of them Thomas (age 70), Alito (age 68), Gorsuch (age 51) and Kavanaugh (age 53) are very far right Republicans. Chief Justice Roberts (age 63) is still solidly conservative but not quite as extremely conservative leaning as the other four.  And, none of them are likely to need to be replaced on account of old age or death, for many years.

Moreover, one of the liberal leaning justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, is 85 years old, and needs to stay on the bench at least another 25 months to have any chance of being replaced by another liberal justice, and liberal leaning U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Beyer is 80 years old.  The other two liberal leaning U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Sotomayor (64) and Kagan (58) are significantly younger.

The odds the President Trump will have an opportunity to appoint an unprecedented third justice to the U.S. Supreme Court replacing at least one of the four remaining liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, most likely one or its two oldest justices, giving conservatives a six to three majority on the high court, is significant, even if he is not re-elected in 2020.

The lower federal courts currently mostly lean left due to eight years of President Obama's judicial appointments and appointed by earlier Democratic Presidents. But, there are plenty of conservative justices in the lower federal courts and that number rises as Donald Trump makes more appointments.

Also, of course, all courts in the United States, both state and federal, must follow precedents established by the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of an individual judge's liberal or conservative leanings, so the partisan composition of the U.S. Supreme Court is a huge prize.

Overall

In The Short Term

Basically, at this point, after January of 2019, no new legislation changing the status quo can be passed without bipartisan support, and the only real leverage Democrats have to influence the status quo or to force Republicans to compromise and accept some of their legislation, is their ability to shut down the federal government by refusing to approve new appropriations bills if their demands are not met.

So, any conservative legislation that Trump or the Republicans want to pass has to clear Congress by the end of the year during the lame duck session. And, because the Republicans currently hold only 51 seats in the Senate, and the filibuster is still in place with respect to ordinary legislation, they will be hard pressed to pass much legislation in this way.

In the 2020 Election

The 2020 election could (and have a decent chance of) allowing Democrats to retake the Presidency and the U.S. Senate. And, the 2020 Census will almost probably result in a modest shift of House seats from red states to blue states, and from red areas within states to blue areas within states as they redistrict (in some cases subject to strictly anti-gerrymandering regulations adopted at the state level or via federal court cases).

Ironically, one of the greatest failures for Democrats in the last two years, the establishment of a very conservative U.S. Supreme Court majority, may also defuse a major issue that has been used to rally social conservatives behind Republicans for years, which is the need to secure a conservative U.S. Supreme Court majority in order to accomplish goals like narrowing or ending the abortion rights created by Roe v. Wade.  Populist social conservatives have far less of an incentive to go along with Republican economic policies that they are not strongly committed to, now that they have accomplished this goal.

In the same way, in Colorado, the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, a.ka. TABOR, while it has been horrible for good governance, has also made it much easier for affluent moderates on social issues to vote for Democrats without worrying that their taxes will go up as a result, defusing the "tax and spend liberal" arguments used against Democrats in elections before TABOR was adopted and elsewhere in places where TABOR does not exist.

The Long Term Implications For The U.S. Supreme Court

But, these victories will not change the long term secure hold that conservatives will have on the U.S. Supreme Court short of a Kavanaugh indictment or impeachment, or a court packing plan that increases the size of the U.S. Supreme Court creating enough vacancies for a Democratic President and a U.S. Senate controlled by Democrats to give the court a liberal majority (i.e. at least two more seats, and possibly more). The legislation necessary to pack the court would also require Democrats to control the U.S. House and might require them to exercise the "nuclear option" to overcome a filibuster of this legislation.

Until Democrats reach that level of complete control of the elected offices of the federal government, however, the conservative domination of the U.S. Supreme Court will remain in place fro a very long time, possibly decades. And, it has been a very long time since there was a liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. For most of recent memory, the swing vote on the U.S. Supreme Court has been, effectively, a very moderate Republican vote (something that is virtually an endangered species everywhere).

Those poses a host of potential problems for Democrats seeking to regain power and exercise it, both at the federal level and the state level, and will probably have the practical effect of substantially curtailing many constitutional rights and of invalidating some kinds of liberal legislation (for example, on the subject of gun control, election law, and religious exemptions to discrimination laws).

Since liberals have few avenues for recourse to restrain executive branch excesses other than the courts at this point, they have no choice but to enter this forum even though the justices at the top are inclined to disfavor their efforts.

One approach liberal public law and social and economic justice oriented litigators can use is to try to stay within settled precedents as much as possible, rather than pushing the envelope, to reduce the likelihood of negative U.S. Supreme Court intervention. Also, as a legislative matter, Democrats can work to narrow the jurisdictional scope of the federal courts, which will increasingly be an unfriendly forum to be used only when absolutely necessary relative to state courts, an agenda for which they may be able to receive bipartisan support, because this also shifts litigation in red states to conservative leaning state courts.

Another approach is to litigate in friendly state courts in blue states, pushing for recognition of state constitutional rights that are stronger than those under the federal constitution even when the texts have identical wording, and utilizing state legislation that is more liberal than any federal legislation in place on the same subject.

Race And The Mississippi Senate Race Runoff Results

The Results

Cindy Hyde-Smith, a Republican won the runoff election for the U.S. Senate held today in Mississippi.

The results in the runoff election for U.S. Senate in Mississippi:

Candidate	Party	Votes	Pct.
Cindy Hyde-Smith*	Republican	453,468	54.0%
Mike Espy	Democrat	386,424	46.0

839,892 votes, 97% reporting (1,737 of 1,797 precincts)

* Incumbent

In the first round, the results were:

Candidate	Party	Votes	Pct.
Cindy Hyde-Smith*	Republican	368,536	41.5%
Mike Espy	Democrat	360,112	40.6
Chris McDaniel	Republican	146,013	16.5
Tobey Bartee	Democrat	12,707	1.4

Thus, Hyde-Smith gained 12.5 percentage points, compared to 16.5% of the vote won by Republican Chris McDaniel in the first round. Naively, this suggests that about 24% of Chris McDaniels voters (almost one in four) favored Mike Espy instead of Cindy Hyde-Smith, assuming that all Tobey Bartee voters in the first round supported Espy in the second round.

On the other hand, while the vote totals aren't quite all in from this race yet, Republican voter turnout is about 63,000 votes less than it was in the first round, while Democratic voter turnout was up by about 13,600 (presumably mostly McDaniels voters). So, many McDaniels voters either voted for Espy or abstained from voting entirely, rather than vote for Hyde-Smith.

So, rather than voting for the Democrat, it appears that many Chris McDaniels supporters simply abstained from voting in the runoff election all together.

One of the reasons to prefer actual runoff elections like this one to "instant runoff voting' is that it gives voters a chance to contemplate their second choices more seriously, with more information now that the choice is real, something that doesn't necessarily happen to the same extent when the second choice decisions are merely hypothetical.

But, while some McDaniels voters clearly were unwilling to vote for openly racist, neo-Confederate Cindy Hyde-Smith, in this election, it wasn't enough to make a difference.

Race and Political Affiliation In Mississippi

Mississippi is about 37% black and about 4% Hispanic. In Mississippi, both of these groups overwhelmingly favor Democrats, while whites overwhelmingly favor Republicans, a phenomena sometimes called "racial block voting" in political science and election law circles.

Compared to the national averages, blacks in Mississippi are a bit more likely to be Democrats (the national average is about 90%), and whites in Mississippi are much more likely to be Republicans (the national average is about 55%), than in the nation as a whole.

Almost all of the people who voted for Espy in the first round were black or Hispanic. Roughly 88% of the voters who voted for Democrat Mike Espy in the second round were black or Hispanic, and almost all black and Hispanic voters who voted, voted for Espy each time. Actually, it was probably a bit less than that in both cases, because not every single black or Hispanic voter voters for the Democrat. It is also a bit less than that in the second case, because voter turnout in Mississippi is probably a little bit lower for blacks and Hispanics as a percentage of the voting age population than for whites, both due to felony disqualification from voting in Mississippi, lack of U.S. citizenship among Hispanics, and from lower voter turnout among those blacks and Hispanics who are eligible to vote.

Many of the whites who voted for Espy (who is black) in the second round (indeed, probably most of them) voted for McDaniels or Bartee in the first round, but couldn't stomach voting for openly racist and neo-Confederate Hyde-Smith (who, notably, started her political career as a Democrat, where her views made her unwelcome) in the second round.

It is also almost certain that whites who voted for Espy in the runoff election were disproportionately mainline Christians, and were even more disproportionately non-religious.

Almost all of the voters voting for Cindy Hyde-Smith were white, and roughly 92% of white voters voted for Cindy Hyde-Smith in the second round (probably a modest overestimate on both counts for the same reasons, but not far from the truth).

It is also almost certain that whites who voted for Hyde-Smith in the runoff election were disproportionately Evangelical Christians (which means significant more than 69% of Hyde-Smith voters were white Evangelical Christian Republicans).

In most of the U.S. there is a strong gender gap, with women more likely to vote Democratic, and men more likely to vote Republican. But, racial block voting in Mississippi tends to mute this gender gap, and the fact that Hyde-Smith is a woman running against a male opponent also tends to mute this gender gap. So, it isn't obvious, in the absence of exit polling, how much of a gender gap, if any, there was in this U.S. Senate election.

The Other Senate Race In Mississippi This Year

Mississippi actually had two U.S. Senate races this year, one an ordinary race and one to fill a vacancy. The Republican in the other race won 58.8% of the first round vote, almost the same percentage that voted for any Republican in the race that has now entered a runoff. This again illustrates that about 8% of white Mississippians who would normally vote Republican did not support Hyde-Smith.

Candidate	Party	Votes	Pct.
Roger Wicker*	Republican	517,475	58.8%
David Baria	Democrat	344,225	39.1
Danny Bedwell	Libertarian	12,148	1.4
Shawn O'Hara	Reform	5,541	0.6

Religion in Mississippi

The overwhelmingly Republican whites in Mississippi are atypical of the nation in their religious affiliations as well.

Mississippi has the lowest percentage of Roman Catholics of any U.S. state (4%), about two-third or more of whom are Hispanic (the white Catholic population of Mississippi is on the order of 1%). Mississippi also has very few Mormons (0.73%). It has a negligible percentage of Jewish adherents (about 0.1%).

Mississippi also has a low proportion of mainline Christians, excluding historically black denominations (12% of  the population, of whom two-thirds are mainline Christian Baptists or Methodists, and some of whom are not white) to white Evangelical Christians (41% of the population, mostly Baptists or non-denominational Evangelical Christians).

About 15% of the population of Mississippi is not religious (the largest non-Protestant population in the state), and about two-thirds of them are neither atheists nor agnostics, while about 5% are atheists or agnostics (roughly equal to the percentage of the population of Mississippi that is religious but not Protestant Christian).

About 69% of whites in Mississippi are Evangelical Christians. About 3% of whites are Roman Catholic or Mormon. The rest are almost all either non-religious or mainline Christians, probably about 12% mainline Christian and 16% non-religious. The atheist and agnostic proportion of non-religious whites is probably a bit more than a third. The last two percentages, however, involve some guesswork.

Blacks in Mississippi are mostly (about 70%+), adherents of historical black Protestant denominations (mostly Baptist), with the remainder being mainline Christians (about 12%) or non-religious (about 14%). The atheist and agnostic proportion of blacks is probably a bit less than a third. These percentages, however, involve some guesswork.

Blue Zones After The Midterms

Economic Clout

Blue America is much more economic productive and successful than Red America. The seats won by Democrats have about 54 percent of the U.S. population (the Democratic party share of the popular vote in House of Representatives elections is significantly greater). But, they are home to a far larger share of the U.S. economy.

With a few races still undecided, districts won by Democrats account for 61 percent of America's gross domestic product, districts won by Republicans 38 percent. 

That economic separation underpins cultural divisions that usually command more attention. Says Brookings researcher Mark Muro: "The Democratic Party and Republican Party, at this point, really do occupy different economic worlds and represent different economic worlds."

Analysis by the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program documents the gap between them. Residents of districts won by Democrats generate 22% more output per worker, and have a 15% higher median household income.

From here.

State Government Control

Democrats control 18 state legislatures. Republicans control 31 state legislatures, and one (Minnesota) is split between the Democratic party controlled state house and a Republican controlled state senate.

Democrats now hold the governorship and both houses of the state legislature in Hawaii, Washington State, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maine (14 states) (the New England and Pacific States discussed below are in bold).

There are Republican governors, but Democrats hold both houses of the state legislature in Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire (4 states).

Minnesota's Governor is a Democrat. Minnesota's state house is controlled by the Democrats, but its state senate is controlled by the Republicans. Minnesota is now the only bicameral state legislature in the U.S. with divided partisan control. Before the 2018 election, the 67 seat Minnesota State Senate has 33 Democrats, 33 Republicans and 1 vacancy, and all of them were up for election this year.

Republicans now hold the governorship and both houses of the state legislature in Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska (unicameral legislature), Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida (23 states).

There are Democratic governors, but Republicans hold both Houses of the state legislature in Montana, Kansas, Louisiana, Wyoming, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania (8 states).

Democrats also control the districtwide elective offices (Mayor and Attorney General) and the City Council (thirteen seats) in the District of Columbia, although the posts are formally non-partisan.

New England

The six New England has 33 of the 535 seats in Congress, 11 of 12 U.S. Senate seats and all twenty-one U.S. House seats are held by Democrats. Just one of these seats is held by a Republican, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine (who wasn't up for election this year) is pretty much the sole Republican left in the Senate who can pass for being a "moderate".

Every single house of every single state legislature in New England is controlled by the Democrats. Three of the six Governors in New England are Democrats and three are Republicans who are moderate by national Republican party standards.

Rank choice voting helped flip the last GOP controlled House seat in New England, Maine's second Congressional District, this year - the Republican would have won more first choice votes, but when the second choices of the 8% of voters who chose as third-party candidate were considered, the Democrat won a narrow majority of the vote.

Pacific States

Hawaii, Washington State, Oregon and California and Nevada are a block of blue states (Alaska, while it could be considered a Pacific state, clusters with the mountain states in the Great Basin in most respects). All ten state legislative houses in these states are controlled by Democrats, and all five of their Governors are Democrats. In Hawaii and California, the Democrats have supermajorities and in the other states they are close to supermajorities.

All 10 of the U.S. Senators in these five states are Democrats. Of the 74 members of the U.S. House from these five states, 61 are Democrats and 13 are Republicans. Overall, only 13 of the 84 legislators representing these five states in Congress are Republicans.

* Nevada Both U.S. Senators from Nevada and three of its four members of the U.S. House of Representatives are Democrats, while it has one member of the U.S. House of Representatives (representing Northern Nevada including Reno) is a Republican.

The Governor of Nevada and both houses of its legislature are controlled by Democrats. The 42 seats in the state house are now divided into 29 Democrats and 13 Republicans.

This year the 11 contested state senate seats were split 6 to Democrats and 5 to Republicans, so there are 13 Democrats and 8 Republicans in the state senate. Before the election, Democrats held 10 seats to eight for the Republicans, with one seat held by an independent and two vacancies.

* California The Republican party in California is in a shambles. Republicans holds just 39 of 182 state and federal level elected non-judicial offices (21.4%) in California.

In California, both U.S. Senate seats and 45 out of 53 U.S. House seats are now held by Democrats. Republicans lost five of thirteen seats in the House that they held before the election (including every single House seat in historically conservative Orange County). One of those Representatives (Duncan Hunter in suburban San Diego) was reelected with 53% of the vote, despite the fact that he has been indicted for a felony. Another one of those Republicans, David Valadao in CA-21 on the western fringe of California's "red zone" near Fresno, won with just 51% of the vote. Six of the eight House seats held by Republicans are eastern California, mostly east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, while two are in San Diego suburbs.

All seven state level statewide elected officials in California (the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Controller, State Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner, State Superintendent of Public Instruction) are Democrats.

Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of the California legislature. In the California State Assembly, Democrats won 60 of 80 seats (including three close races where Democrats are leading Districts 16, 38 and 60) gaining seven seats, while Republicans won 20 seats (all incumbents); a super-majority in the California Assembly is 54 seats. In the California State Senate, Democrats hold 29 of 40 seats while Republicans have 11 seats; a super-majority in the California Senate is 27 seats. This year Democrats won 13 of 20 seats that were contested, gaining two seats, while Republicans won 7 (including 3 open seats). Republicans hold just 31 of 120 state legislative seats in California.

* Oregon In Oregon, four of the five U.S. House seats are held by Democrats (the only Republican seat is east of the Sierra Nevada mountains), as are both of its U.S. Senate seats.

Oregon's Governor is a Democrat. Democrats hold 38 of 60 seats in the Oregon State House. Democrats won 11 of 17 Oregon State Senate races this year (9 Democratic winners and all 6 Republican winners were incumbents, 2 Democrats won in open seats, one of which was uncontested). Before the election, Democrats controlled the State Senate 17-13. Now, the split is 19-11. In both cases, Democrats control just short of two-thirds of the houses of the state legislature.

* Washington State In Washington State, both U.S. Senators and seven of ten U.S. House members are Democrats. Two of the seats are in eastern Washington. One is south of Seattle and south of Olympia around Vancouver, Washington, and was closer (the Republican won with less than 53% of the vote).

Washington State's Governor is a Democrat. Democrats control both the Washington State House and the Washington State Senate. In the 98 seat state house, it looks like the partisan split will be 57 Democrats to 41 Republicans; before the election the split was 50 Democrats and 48 Republicans, so Democrats picked up 7 seats. Democrats won 16 of the 25 (out of 49) state senate seats contested this year while Republicans won 9 of them, a gain of two seats in the state senate. Before the election, Democrats has 26 state senate seats and Republicans had 23. After the election Democrats will hold 28 while Republicans will hold 21 seats in the state senate.

* Hawaii. There is no U.S. state where the Democratic party is more dominant than Hawaii. Only 5 of the 81 significant state and federal elected officials in the state are Republicans.

In Hawaii, both U.S. Senators and both members of the U.S. House of Representatives are Democrats. None of the three Democrats running for federal office this year in Hawaii received less than 71% of the vote.

The Governor is a Democrat. Democrats won seven of eight contested state senate seats and five uncontested seats, while Republicans won one seat (with 51% of the vote). Going into the election all 25 seats in the Hawaii state senate were controlled by Democrats, so now the  partisan balance in the Hawaii state senate is 24-1, a loss of one Democratic seat. Going into the election, there were 45 Democrats and 6 Republicans in the state house. This year, Democrats won 32 uncontested seats and 15 contested seats, while Republicans won 4 contested seats, a gain of two seats for the Democrats.

Elsewhere

The states not mentioned above where Democrats control both houses of the state legislature are Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland. Two are in the Mountain West, one is in the Midwest, and four are in the Mid-Atlantic. Democrats control one house of the legislature, the Governorship and are on seat short of state senate control in Minnesota, which also in the Midwest 

* Minnesota Both of Minnesota's U.S. Senators are Democrats (strictly speaking Democrat-Farm-Labor) as are five of its eight U.S. House members (one of whom, Jim Hagedorn in MN-1 won with less than 51% of the vote).

Minnesota's Governor is a Democrat, as is the Attorney General, the Secretary of State and the State Auditor.

There are 134 seats in the Minnesota State House and 67 seats in the Minnesota State Senate, all of which were up for election this year. There are exactly two state house districts in each state senate district. Democrats now control the State House 74-59 with one race still too close to call (in District 5A in Hackensack, Democrat Persell lead Republican Bliss by eight votes); a majority is 68 seats. Republicans now control the State Senate 34-33 with the barest majority.

Before the 2018 election, Republicans held 77 seats in the state house, while Democrats held 57 seats (losing a net 18 seats in this year's midterms), and in the Minnesota state senate, there were 33 Democrats and 33 Republicans with 1 formerly Republican seat vacant, so Democrats made no net gains in the state senate. It is a bit odd that there was an eighteen seat swing in one house of the state legislature while no change in the other, in the same year.

* Colorado Colorado has historically been a "purple state" where both political parties are competitive but is leaning blue. One of Colorado's two U.S. Senators and four of its seven U.S. House seats (District 1, 2, 6 and 7). Colorado has supported Democratic Presidential candidates in the last three Presidential elections (Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Barack Obama in 2012 and 2008).

Democrats hold all five of Colorado's statewide elected executive branch officials (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State and State Treasurer), and four of the seven state school board members in Colorado are Democrats (matching the partisan lineup of Colorado's Congressional Districts). Democrats have majorities (but not supermajorities) in both the State Senate and State House. 

But five of nine of the CU Regents are Republicans (each party has one CU Regent at large, the seven Congressional District Representatives match the partisan lineup of Colorado's Congressional District, except that a Republican holds the 6th CU-Regent district seat which wasn't up for election this year and which will next be before voters in 2020).

The only Republicans holding statewide elective office in Colorado at this point are U.S. Senator Cory Gardner and and Heidi Ganahl, C.U. Regent at Large (who didn't face elections this year; Gardner next faces voters in 2020, Ganahl faces voters next in 2022).

A Two Year Plan For Democrats

Ballots are still being counts and close races are still being decided. But, soon enough, it will be time to return to governing, instead of running for office. 

What should Democrats do when that time comes?

* Advance a broad, dynamic, progressive agenda in every state where Democrats have control of the entire state level legislative process. A lot can be accomplished in two years with total control.

* Develop a package of initiatives in states where Democrats have no control over the legislative process or only partial control of the legislative process that advance pocket book issues with wide popularity like Medicaid expansion and minimum wage initiatives did this year. Start early to have organized campaigns to get these measures on the ballot and to fund campaigns for those issues.

* Take Secretary of State and County Clerk jobs seriously, make extraordinary efforts to continue to register voters in the offseason in states where this is necessary, and to have a voter friendly environment that is well planned in 2020.

* Use control of the House to insist upon tax increases on the rich and corporations to make up for the deficit exploding revenue shortfalls caused by Republican tax cuts for them in 2017, and stand strong to protect the social safety net and Obamacare. Identify select big ticket defense expenditures that are wasteful, like more destroyers and attack submarines, and push for spending cuts in those areas.

* Narrow the scope of federal court jurisdiction over non-governmental parties in both diversity and federal question cases.

* Don't relent in punishing people socially and economically and sullying their reputations for abhorrent conduct even when there are no other legal consequences for it.

* Identify and push issues that have widespread popularity. For example:

Reproductive Health and Children

1. Support government funding for long term birth control, especially for teen moms and teens at risk of becoming teen moms, like a Colorado pilot program did. Call out birth control opponents for being out of the mainstream.

2. Support public health campaigns to urge universal vaccination, including for HPV.

3. Establish nurse visits for all newborn children an provide mentors for first time moms.

4. Subsidize preschool and provide family support for families with preschoolers that relieves pressures on parents that can lead to child abuse and neglect. In Colorado, eliminate disproportionate penalties relative to mens rea for crimes against children and neonatal homicides by mothers in the throes of labor and delivery alone.

5. Provide universal all day kindergarten.

6. Provide quality food to children at schools without regard to need.

7. Do not use the criminal justice system to address school discipline problems except at the greatest extremes.

8. Make juvenile justice more transparent and humane, while sacrificing privacy. Don't shackle or handcuff children.

9. Legally establish and widely publicize the duty of gun owners to keep guns secure and out of the hands of children. Train nurses and mentors to inquire about children's access to guns.

10. Don't put children into the juvenile justice system for status offenses, and presume that children may have run away for good cause.

11. Prefer guardianships for minors by family to foster child arrangements. Spend what it takes to do right by foster children even after they turn eighteen, to provide greater stability, and to keep siblings together or at least in touch with each other.

12. Establish a right to right of each adult party and each older child to the assistance of a legal paraprofessional at state expense if you can't afford a lawyer in any case involving private parties presenting an issue of child custody or paternity.

Drugs, Substance Abuse and Mental Health

1. Mobilize a large, grassroots program to medically treat opioid addictions with proven methods including opioid addiction drugs, greatly expanding the corps of people who can prescribe these drugs. 

2. Widely distribute and train people to use Narcan.

3. Train physicians and other prescribers to be more cautious in prescribing opioids, with greater oversight of these prescriptions to discourage abuses.

4. Fund inpatient mental health and substance abuse rehab beds that will keep people who have trouble controlling their conduct out of jails and prisons and that will prevent vagrancy. Keep people on mental health holds out of jails. Establish "mental health crisis living rooms" where people can go.

5. Legalize recreational and medical marijuana nationwide. Push at the federal level to repeal Internal Revenue Code 280E that taxes marijuana businesses as unfairly high rates.

6. Eliminate crimes for personal drug possession and vacate the sentences of everyone serving time for felony drug possession; instead impose mandatory treatment where appropriate. 

7. Punish other drug crimes at levels reflecting the economic benefit received by the violators on scales similar to non-violent theft crimes and responsibility within an organized crime group, rather than based upon drug quantity.

Housing

1. Spend whatever it takes to make sure that no veteran is homeless, or hungry, or without medical care for either physical or mental health.

2. Take a housing first approach to homelessness. Move away from public housing projects as a tool. Eliminating waiting lists for people eligible for Section 8 and make it easier for landlords to qualify for Section 8.

3. Fight NIMBY regulations that make housing unaffordable. Permit the good to be built, even if it is not the best (e.g. single occupancy hotels, tiny homes, camp grounds, accessory dwelling units, rentals in single family homes). Prefer changes that permit affordable housing to co-exist with existing unsubsidized housing like accessory dwelling units. Move away from rent and price controls as a tool. 

4. Strengthen protections for homeowners in HOAs from abuses by the HOAs.

General Criminal Justice

Stop Incarcerating People Because They Are Poor

1. Greatly curtail the use of cash bonds in the criminal justice system.

2. Stop imprisoning people for an inability to pay court costs and fines, and create far more due process for people who are not paying child supports to limit contempt sanctions for non-payment to people who are able to pay but willfully refuse to do so despite a present ability to do so.

Curtail Criminal Justice Misconduct

1. Bring "takings" jurisprudence to the civil rights context with more of a focus on the victims of violations of rights and less on the intent of the perpetrator.

2. Screen law enforcement officers strictly for histories of civil rights violations, domestic violence, etc.

3. Require better internal discipline for bad cops and make bad cops easier to fire.

4. Give judges in civil rights cases the power to deny civil rights violators the right to be employed by the government in all or certain kinds of positions as a remedy.

5. Vigorous discipline prosecutors for Brady violations and other unethical conduct.

6. Forfeit absolute immunity in cases where prosecutors or judges have been adjudicated to have committed ethical violations or crimes.

7. Narrow the circumstances under which law enforcement officers are allowed to lie.

8. Establish a per se prohibition against sex with suspects or incarcerated persons while on the job.

Re-Entry

1. Find alternatives to re-incarceration in prison for technical parole violations.

2. Eliminate felon disenfranchisement. 

3. Address occupational disqualifications globally, not piecemeal, so that there are job options upon re-entry.

4. Avoid sex offender registry overkill.

Prosecutions and Trials and Penalties

1. End non-unanimous juries in felony trials in Oregon.

2. Allow all criminal defendants to testify not under oath at trial, without fear of having their criminal records revealed.

3. Cap trial penalties when plea bargains have been offered to a maximum multiple of the offered deal.

4. Limit mandatory minimums to violent crimes with specific victims, in cases where the victim (or a representative of a murder or incapacity induced victim) objects to a lesser sentence. Don't allow prosecutors to control when mandatory minimums are invoked, and don't allow mandatory minimums for non-violent crimes or crimes with no specific victim.

5. Don't over punish "child porn" or use child porn statutes to criminalize adolescent sexuality.

6. Decriminalize prostitution prosecutions of prostitutes. They aren't criminals and are frequently victims.

Access To Firearms

1. Proactively and swiftly remove firearms for many people under protection orders, released prior to a criminal trial, on probation or on parole.

2. Expand the roster of offenses that disqualify someone from possessing or purchasing a firearm either for a period of time or permanently or until cleared affirmatively to do so again.

Miscellaneous

1. Limit general public access to arrest records for background check purposes.

2. Find ways to make driver's license revocations more meaningfully enforceable.

3. Remove incarceration as a default punishment for municipal ordinance violations.

4. Replace criminal penalties with civil penalties whenever possible.

Immigration

1. Guarantee that no one with an American citizen spouse, and no one who grew up in the United States since they were children, will ever be denied entry to the U.S. or deported. 

2. Establish a ten year statute of limitations from falling out of status within which a deportation can take place.

3. Do not separate children from their parents in the immigration system, ever.

4. Allow people who get higher educations in the U.S. to stay.

5. Replace distant relative legal immigration with work and education related immigration.

Infrastructure and Governmental Basics

1. Invest in maintaining and improving roads, bridges, bike paths, pedestrian paths, transit, and electric car infrastructure.

2. End "security theater" that isn't enhancing real safety for airline passengers.

3. Spend the small amount of extra money it takes to make ordinary government bureaucracies that don't spend lots of money, like the DMV, permit and licensing offices, and the state judiciary, the best funded in the nation. Push the notion that red tape is a necessity of life and that the pro-business thing to do is to do it well, rather than skimping on funding and doing a half-assed job.