Category: Politics

Running Mates: Episode 9 – 2000 – Cheney v. Lieberman (Part 1)

In the part one of our 2000 election episode, the impeached president Bill Clinton’s Vice President Al Gore runs for the presidency and picks Joe Lieberman to try and distance himself from Clinton. Meanwhile, Republicans seek a compassionate conservative and land on George W. Bush, who tasks Dick Cheney with finding a vice presidential candidate for him, but Bush ultimately decides on Cheney himself. Two running mates who offer relatively little strength in the one state that matters: Florida.

Trump is Considering Hosting Campaign Events at Drive-In Theaters, How Effective Would That Be?

President Donald Trump loves his rallies; big crowds full of spectacle and  fanfare where he can go on and on to thunderous applause. He’s continued doing them since his election, keeping the momentum alive and his crowd-roiling skills sharp for his reelection campaign. But, with the coronavirus crisis in 2020, large assemblies such as Trump rallies are untenable, and the ever-present candidate Trump has his eyes on how to keep his base engaged.

It started with the White House Coronavirus Task Force briefings, a near-daily occurrence in which Trump and his advisers would hold something resembling a press conference (a rarity in the Trump White House) to drum up coverage, take questions, and respond to the issues at the top of the president’s mind. These briefings were wound down at about the same point they began to appear as a liability — most notably after Trump “suggested that people might be able to inject household cleaning items or disinfectants to deter the coronavirus.”1Trump has since claimed that remark was “sarcastic” in nature. Then Trump resumed embarking on his official travels in response to the crisis by venturing to convenient swing states. These have also given him more opportunities to do his favored “chopper talks” where the president, on his way to or from somewhere aboard Marine One, will briefly drop by the press gaggle and make comments over a roaring helicopter engine.

At some point in late April and early May, as Trump planned on suspending the Coronavirus Task Force briefings and was beginning to resume traveling to swing states for not-quite-campaign events, it emerged that Trump advisers had been brainstorming an alternative to rallies for the coronavirus era. Some way by which he could engage his large groups of supporters, rile them up, and show up his rival, Joe Biden, who has been more or less restricted to campaigning from his basement. According to reports, one of the most popular ways they suggested was to utilize drive-in movie theaters. Speaking on the logistics, The Daily Beast reported that “Trump-loving attendees would roll up in their cars and be required to mostly remain in their respective vehicles as the president addressed them in-person from the outdoor stage,” which sounds like a decent compromise to maintain both social distancing and in-person (though smaller crowd) events.

This begs the question, how effective would these be in substituting Trump campaign events in key swing states? To find out I created a metric based on the number of available drive-in movie theaters per swing state electoral vote, in order to calculate which states this would proportionally benefit Trump more in. First, to be generous, I took swing state as any state that the consensus race ratings took to be anything other than “safe”. This is 16 states and two independently-voting districts in total, representing a combined 230 electoral votes.2To be specific, the states included are: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin. Plus the Maine 2nd Congressional District and Nebraska 2nd Congressional District, both of which are considered swing districts and cast electoral votes independently from the state totals. Note that this intentionally counts several of the theaters in Maine twice, once for the at large vote (2 electoral votes), and once more for the theaters specifically within the 2nd Congressional District (1 electoral vote). Then, using statistics provided by the United Drive-In Theatre Owners Association,3I reached out to the United Drive-In Theatre Owners Association several times to clarify some data on their site and inform them I was using their data, as well as to ask for any thoughts but did not hear back. I built out a list of the number of drive-in theaters (not screens, mind you, as, per the reported plan, Trump would appear in person to a crowd of cars at one screen at one theater) in all potentially competitive states. Then I divided the number of drive-in theaters by each state’s number of electoral votes to determine the relative electoral strength a state has in… well, having drive-in theaters.

State Electoral Votes Drive-In Theaters Theaters per Electoral Vote
Arizona 11 1 0.09
Colorado 9 7 0.78
Florida 29 7 0.24
Georgia 16 5 0.31
Iowa 6 4 0.67
Maine 2 7 3.5
Maine-2nd 1 4 4
Michigan 16 9 0.56
Minnesota 10 6 0.6
Nebraska-2nd 1 0 0
Nevada 6 2 0.33
New Hampshire 4 3 0.75
New Mexico 5 2 0.4
North Carolina 15 5 0.33
Ohio 18 24 1.33
Pennsylvania 20 28 1.4
Texas 38 12 0.32
Virginia 13 6 0.46
Wisconsin 10 8 0.8

The higher the theaters per electoral vote, the more relative campaign strength there is in using the drive-in theater campaign strategy in a given state. So, in a state like Pennsylvania, which has 28 drive-in theaters and 20 electoral votes, Trump has ample opportunity to campaign in many places adjusted for electoral votes. Whereas a state like Texas, while quite a bit larger than Pennsylvania, has fewer campaign options because it only has 12 drive-in theaters, so it would be less strong compared to many other swing states if using this strategy.

An advantage in using this strategy is that, on average, these swing states and districts actually have a higher score overall after adjusting for electoral votes, at 0.89, than the average of all states, at 0.75. Which is to say, there are more venues per electoral vote in which to capitalize on this strategy. So, using the national average theater per electoral vote of 0.75, we can roughly estimate the effectiveness over the national average in utilizing this strategy for the swing states in districts.

Here you can see that this strategy is strongest in the midwest and in Maine, which punches far above its weight in drive-in theaters adjusted for its electoral size. So employing this strategy in states like Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin is compelling relative to states like Florida, Arizona, and Georgia. And, if the campaign were desperate to get just the one electoral vote available in Maine’s Second Congressional District, there is ample opportunity with four theaters to campaign at. These count towards the Maine at-large electoral votes as well, so there’s a lot of opportunity in Maine in general. 

This midwestern play is also the easiest path for Biden to defeat Trump in the fall, so having access to a wide array of theaters in these states is beneficial for both campaigns in general. Unfortunately for the strategy’s down-ballot implications, the midwestern states where this campaign method has the most opportunity are also those with no senator up for election this cycle. Nevertheless, the 2020 campaigns will need to innovate, as many campaigns before them did, and this may be a captivating, novel, and pleasantly nostalgic way to do that; perfect for a campaign aiming to take America back to its self-perceived heyday.

Running Mates: Episode 8 – 1996 – Kemp v. Gore

President Bill Clinton and his vice president, Al Gore, are up for reelection and after a bruising midterm two years prior, Democrats have moved decisively to the center. Republicans face a crisis of confidence and their candidate, Bob Dole chooses throwback Jack Kemp as his running mate to try and remind Republicans of their past, while Clinton and Gore look to the future.

Catherine Cortez Masto Would Have Been a Great Running Mate for Biden

Unless you’ve been following this website and our obsession with vice presidential picks, you’re probably not very familiar with Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. Cortez Masto’s name started to make headlines after Joe Biden made a pledge to select a woman as his running mate, but she was still largely overshadowed by more widely-known senators like Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, or Kamala Harris of California — all of whom, of course, ran in the primary against Biden for the Democratic nomination.

Cortez Masto’s relegation to the second tier of vice presidential hopefuls is somewhat odd. We’ve talked before about how infrequently nominees choose someone who ran against them in the primary, which should make the assumption that Biden’s former rivals would be so high on his list historically unusual.1It has occurred in only three of the last fifteen open presidential tickets: Reagan-Bush, Kerry-Edwards, and Obama-Biden. Warren’s Massachusetts and Harris’ California are also solidly Democratic voting states in presidential elections, which makes them less compelling in a competition at the margin for a select number of swing states. And while potential vice presidential choices like Harris or former UN Ambassador Susan Rice are women of color, and may add diversity to the ticket representative of the Democratic Party at large, Warren and Klobuchar are not. Warren’s base of college-educated voters and former Georgia House of Representatives Minority Leader Stacey Abrams’ appeal to African-American voters don’t complement the ticket well, as Biden has already demonstrated he is well poised to win these voters. However, Biden does have weaknesses among young voters and Latino voters, two vulnerabilities that played out in his primary loses in California, Colorado, and, yes, Nevada. Cortez Masto is the first Latina Senator from a state that is likely to be closer than most expect, from a region that is increasingly competitive for Democrats, and unmarred by a gruelling primary. Her name is ripe for the shortlist, and yet, on May 28th, she withdrew her name from consideration.

This may not be entirely surprising, as Nevada, whose largely service and tourism-based economy relies heavily on the service and tourism sectors, has suffered disproportionately from the coronavirus, and may never return to what it was. Cortez Masto said as much in justifying her decision, noting that “Nevada’s economy is one of the hardest hit by the current crisis and I will continue to focus on getting Nevadans the support they need to get back on their feet.” 

We’ve highlighted Cortez Masto several times over the course of the primary as an incredibly strong running mate for Biden, and she has consistently ranked in the top five picks overall. She brings a combination of federal experience and state experience, having served as Nevada’s senator since 2017 and its attorney General for eight years prior, and has also demonstrated an ability to lead as a key Democrat in the Senate, currently serving as the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Her close relationship with former Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid — whose Senate seat she now holds — and her record of seeking accountability from financial institutions in the follow-up to the mortgage crisis are both huge assets for Biden. 

Cortez Masto holds credibility on environmental issues, women’s issues, and was an outspoken advocate for increased gun control after the Las Vegas shooting in 2017. She is a vocal member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and has routinely criticized and challenged the Trump administration’s housing policies. Perhaps most beneficial for Biden though is her record on immigration issues, as she has been persistent in calls to repair the immigration system that can appease both advocates for immigration justice and moderate voters. She has championed immigrant health workers and recommended pragmatic immigration actions during the coronavirus crisis, making a positive case for how improved immigration policies and immigrants themselves can help during the health crisis. By speaking out on these issues but never rising to the spotlight of contemporaries like Kamala Harris (who was elected to the Senate at the same time), Cortez Masto has cultivated a reputation untainted by national politics or ambition, tuned into the Democratic mainstream, and maintained a track record of governing and advocating instead of campaigning. At the time of her campaign for the Senate in 2016, Latino Victory Fund president Cristobal Alex noted, “She represents the future of the country, she’s incredibly brilliant, has a great story… in a state where, really, Latinos will make the difference in the election.” It’s worth noting that Alex is now a senior advisor to Biden’s campaign, and Biden is eager to make inroads with Latino voters in the general election and compete in Sun Belt and heavily-Latino states like Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Florida. Cortez Masto could have been a significant electoral partner.

Cortez Masto’s avoidance of this year’s contentious primary is also helpful, as her understated record in hunkering down and working on issues is a benefit that is easy to overlook. Other vice presidential front-runners represent uncompetitive states and have made bruising statements about Biden, lack regional strength, and could even cost Democrats a Senate seat, or have records that may be uninspiring or even alienating to many voters. Cortez Masto is one of the few candidates who had relatively few electoral trade-offs; she would have been a steady, representative, and responsible pick, able to elevate the ticket and bring complementary strengths to Biden.

Catherine Cortez Masto is also, most importantly, qualified to be president, having served two decades worth of public service at every level of government. Descendants of immigrants, her family became key players in Las Vegas politics, and her father sat on the Clark County Commission and eventually served as the president of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, markedly improving the Las Vegas strip. Her exposure to prominent Nevada Democratic politics and politicians inspired her to pursue public service herself. She served as Chief of Staff to Nevada Governor Bob Miller, as Assistant County Manager in Clark County and as a federal criminal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in DC before serving as Attorney General for the State of Nevada. This range of hands on, managerial, operational, and now legislative roles at both the larger federal level and in the intimate politics of a smaller state like Nevada showcase a background, wide-ranging expertise, and adaptability that the vice presidency and the presidency require. Her tact and resolve during congressional hearings demonstrate a seriousness and insight on the issues that rivals more visible colleagues like Elizabeth Warren, while appealing to a wide range of Americans outside of the wonkish niche that Warren embodies.

Her withdrawal from consideration is a shame, because her political, personal, and professional strengths make for a vice presidential pick that would have been both historic and competitive. And while the citizens of Nevada are fortunate to have an advocate for them with the attentiveness and insight that she has, the nation is weaker for her withdrawal from presidential politics.

Running Mates: Episode 7 – 1992 – Gore v. Quayle

The Cold War has ended and President George H.W. Bush and his vice president, Dan Quayle, are running for reelection in a tough economy. Republicans push Bush to drop Quayle from the ticket but he stays the course to take on Bill Clinton, who makes the unusual choice of naming neighboring southern Senator Al Gore as his running mate.

There are Three New Faces on the VP Tracker, One of Them is Now Biden’s Strongest Running Mate

Veepstakes season may have come early this year, but as you may know, we’ve been tracking the strongest vice presidential picks for all of the potential Democratic candidates for some time. This week, we’ve added a few new names to the tracker based on recent speculation and media attention.

The highest profile name has been talked about quite a lot in the last month as a Biden pick. She was not included on our tracker initially because she is a relatively fresh face in the larger political scene, but her management of the COVID-19 epidemic has garnered her a lot of attention. This is, of course, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who has become a popular VP choice among some pundits. Despite having no federal experience, Whitmer does relatively well in the tracker and she is currently listed as the sixth strongest pick for Biden. This makes sense, since she’s not up for reelection until 2022 and represents a large (16 electoral votes) state with a Democratic lean of just one point. Her wealth of state experience is an asset to someone like Biden who has enough federal experience to more than make up for her lack thereof.

The second name added is Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor and UN Ambassador for Obama. She’s a national security and foreign policy pick, as well as a former administration pick, and has been floated as someone Biden might consider. She does not do particularly well in the tracker with Biden due to their similar levels of federal experience and her geographic proximity to Biden (we’ve listed her as being from DC, and Biden from Delaware, both of which are in the tracker’s “Mideast” region).

Finally, the most important addition to the tracker is former Secretary of Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano, who Jonathan Rauch of The Atlantic made a compelling case for. And perhaps that’s fair, she — just barely — is now Biden’s top pick overall. She ekes out former #1 pick California Senator Kamala Harris, only slightly and primarily due to recent changes in the generic ballot (the relative competitiveness of Arizona is far greater than that of California). If the generic ballot narrows a bit more to give Democrats less of an edge, Napolitano may not be as strong of a choice in Republican-leaning Arizona. Even so, she remains a strong candidate for Biden as her surfeit of both state and federal experience, distance from Delaware, and lack of electoral vulnerability (she is not up for reelection to anything) make her more advantageous than many other picks. She is a governance, competency, and pragmatism pick, lacking in pizazz to be sure, but the race is also crying for these qualities as national and global crises draw focus.

As always, drop us a line on this page if you want us to add someone else to the tracker, and I hope you’re enjoying the quadrennial veepstakes as much as we are!

Running Mates: Episode 6 – 1988 – Bentsen v. Quayle

The Reagan years are coming to an end and his vice president, George H.W. Bush is running for president himself against Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis. Lars and Michael discuss Bush’s pick of young Indiana Senator Dan Quayle as his running mate and Dukakis’ selection of the more mature Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen in what proves to be a showdown over smarts, experience, and who knew Jack Kennedy.

What Would the Senate Look Like If We Repealed the 17th Amendment?

This past April marked the 107th anniversary of the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. As far as amendments go, it’s not exactly one of the better known — people invoke their First, Second, and Fifth Amendment rights all of the time, but you don’t hear much about the 17th, even if its absence would vastly alter civic life in America. That’s because the 17th Amendment allowed for the popular election of United States Senators directly by the citizens of each state, a right that was previously held by each state’s legislature instead. 

As originally laid out in Article I of the Constitution, it was the state government, and not the state populace, who elected senators. The original purpose of this provision was to draw a clearer contrast between the Senate and the House of Representatives, the latter of which has always been elected by popular vote.1Even this right evolved over time as well. Initially only white, land owning males were granted the right to vote, but this eventually grew to include all white males, and then (ostensibly) all males regardless of race, and then all adults over the age of 21, to almost all adults over the age of 18 today.
By being selected by a state’s legislature, the Framers envisioned that the Senate would become a true upper house composed of, in the words of Constitutional scholar Todd Zywicki, “better men” who would expertly steer legislation when the lowly, directly-elected House became too influenced by special interests to govern properly. Information on how exactly each state selected their senators is scant, but according to the Constitution Center, it began with each chamber of a given state’s legislature nominating a candidate for the Senate. If both chambers nominated the same candidate, then the new senator would be sent to Washington. But if they each nominated a separate candidate, they met in a joint session to compromise on a choice.2Nebraska is the only state that has a unicameral nonpartisan legislature. Presumably whoever won the first vote in the Nebraska Legislature would be elected senator. This system worked fine for the most part, but as time wore on its flaws became more evident. According to UNLV law professor J.S. Bybee, one of Delaware’s Senate seats was left unoccupied from 1899 to 1903 due to a deadlock in the state’s legislature, while in 1897, one-third of the Oregon state legislature refused to take the oath of office due to a dispute surrounding an open Senate seat. These disputes dominated the business of the legislatures; in 1895, the Delaware State Legislature cast 217 ballots, and yet still failed to fill their open Senate seat. Sometimes the seats that were filled were done so illicitly, such as when Montana Senate hopeful William A. Clark bought legislators’ votes, a crime that resulted in his removal from office. Calls for reform started relatively early in the young republic, but came to a head during the Progressive Movement at the turn of the century. After several states found workarounds by holding public non-binding primaries to inform their state legislatures and the House of Representatives began to press for change, in 1911, Congress passed a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment for the direct election of senators, and two short years later 36 states ratified the amendment to make it law. 

And yet, there are still some who think that the ratification was a mistake. In 2016, the Utah legislature passed a resolution asking Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment,3 In a nice bit of symmetry, Utah was also the only state to reject the 17th Amendment back in 1913.
and a quick Google search will reveal that there’s a faction of conservative and libertarian thinkers that support giving the power to elect senators back to the state governments. The stated goal of most of these efforts is to restore the balance of power between the federal government and the states, with the added bonus that investing such power in a state’s legislature may even encourage renewed interest in state level elections and, in the words of Utah State Senator Al Jackson, ensure that senators would no longer be “more beholden to special interests than their states.”

Fringe as these opinions may seem, they did get me to thinking about what exactly the Senate would look like if the 17th Amendment were never ratified. Using Ballotpedia’s record of each state legislature’s composition going back to 2014, I created a massive spreadsheet that compared the composition of our current Senate with the composition of each senator’s respective state legislatures at the time, and figured out who would be in and who would be out if the state legislatures still chose the senators. More than just a fun thought experiment, it seemed like the best way to grapple with the arguments of those who would want to see the 17th Amendment repealed. Maybe by modeling what the Senate would look like if that did happen, I would come around to seeing their point of view, or at the very least, have a more substantive reason for disregarding it.

In order to figure out what the Senate would look like in a world where the 17th Amendment never happened, we have to make a few big assumptions, namely: 

  1. We must assume that each state legislature elects senators through the same process. We’ll assume that each chamber holds a vote to fill the position, and if the same person wins a plurality of votes in each chamber, they are elected to the Senate. In the event that the chambers select two different people to serve as senator, a special joint session is convened wherein the bodies vote together. Whichever candidate has the most votes after this joint session is elected to the Senate. 
  2. This also means that we’re assuming that votes are being cast along strict party lines. That means no West Virginia Republicans crossing the aisle to vote for Joe Manchin or any Maine Democrats voting for Susan Collins. I’d love to poll every state legislator in America and find out who they’d actually vote for, but I’d also like to finish writing this piece before I turn 50, so this assumption is a necessity. One trickle down effect of this assumption is that a joint session is only necessary when the two chambers of a given state legislature are controlled by two different parties. 
  3. We’re also assuming that legislators will be voting for the candidates who ran for the Senate seat in question in real life. This is probably the most unrealistic assumption we’re making. In an actual 17th Amendment-less world, outsider politicians with ideologies that lean further to the right or left, such as former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore or Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, would probably be passed over by state legislators in favor of less controversial figures. But since I can’t figure out a way to find out who those less controversial figures would be, those candidates who occupy the furthest reaches of either side of the American Overton window will have to do for now.
  4. We’re also assuming that senators are elected after a new state legislature is sworn in. In other words, if a state legislature holds elections every two years, the group of legislators elected in 2018 would determine who fills the Senate seats up for election in 2018. Otherwise, you would have a scenario in which a group of legislators elected in 2016 would be voting to fill a Senate seat in 2018 while their own seats are up for reelection. If states elect their legislatures in years that don’t run concurrent with Senate elections, we’ll assume that the legislature in office at the time of the Senate election will elect a senator (i.e. the Virginia State Assembly elected in 2017 would vote to fill the Senate seat up for election in 2018).
  5. There are two independent senators in the 116th Congress: Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. Both independents caucus with the Democrats, but only Sanders was endorsed by his state’s Democratic Party. During the 2018 election, King had to face both Republican Eric Brakey and Democrat Zak Ringelstein, the latter of whom was the only major party senate nominee to be a dues-paying member of the Democratic Socialists of America. So while it may seem more likely that the Democrats in the Maine State Legislature would choose to back the centrist former governor, for the sake of simplicity we’re going to assume that their votes will be going to Ringelstein instead. Since no Democrat ran for Sanders’ Senate seat in Vermont, we’ll assume that the Democrats in the Vermont State Legislature will have voted for Sanders.

All of that make sense? All right then, let’s fire up the ol’ spreadsheet and take a look at some tables!

Right off the bat, 84 of the 100 elections (or in the case of the governor-appointed Arizona Senator Martha McSally and Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler, selections) that make up the current Senate would go the same way no matter if the 17th Amendment did or did not exist. Of those 84 senators elected in both scenarios, only seven faced a split legislature and had to be elected through a joint session:

 

State Year Lower House Vote Upper House Vote Joint Session Vote Winner Loser
AL 2016  22-18-1 14-6 32-28 Lisa Murkowski (R) Joe Miller (L)4Joe Miller, the Libertarian nominee for Alaska’s Senate seat in 2016, came in second. Independent candidate Margaret Stock came in third, while Democrat Ray Metcalfe came in fourth.
IA 2014 57-43 26-24 81-69 Joni Ernst (R) Bruce Braley (D)
KY 2014 54-46 26-12 72-66 Mitch McConnell (R) Alison Lundergan Grimes (D)
MN 2018 75-59 34-33 108-93 Amy Klobuchar (D) Jim Newberger (R)
MN 2018 (Special) 75-59 34-33 108-93 Tina Smith (D) Karin Housley (R)
NM 2014 37-33 25-17 58-54 Tom Udall (D) Allen Weh (R)
NY 2016 106-43-1 39-24 130-82 Chuck Schumer (R) Wendy Long (R)

Even though the end results of these elections are the same as the ones in our universe, the votes still break down in interesting ways. Tom Udall, who defeated Allen Weh in the 2014 New Mexico senate election by 11 points, just squeaks past him by a measly four votes in our model, or just over a 3.5% margin. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who in real life won Kentucky’s seat by a comfortable 16 points against challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes, bests her by only six votes here, a little over a 4.4% margin.

What could explain this discrepancy? Well, all of these senators were incumbents at the time of their reelection, so that puts them at a natural advantage. But a more likely explanation seems to be that post-17th Amendment elections are decided by population, while pre-17th Amendment elections would be determined by representation. Think all the way back to your middle school civics class and the Connecticut Compromise. In the popular understanding, during the Constitutional Convention, smaller states like New Jersey wanted states to be represented equally in the national legislature regardless of size or population, whereas larger states like Virginia wanted the number of a state’s representatives to be doled out proportionally, so that those with a larger population had more sway. Eventually, the Connecticut delegation presented a compromise of the two plans that provided us with our current bicameral legislature, consisting of a Senate in which each state gets two senators, and the House of Representatives where each state is allocated a number of representatives based on population.

Even though Americans have been living with the House and the Senate since the Constitution’s ratification, the Connecticut Compromise still remains controversial for its unintended consequences. Former Michigan Congressman John Dingell, the longest serving congressman in American history, argued for the Senate’s abolishment in 2018. His reasoning? By giving Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of senators as California, the Senate provides “sparsely populated, usually conservative states” with an outsized role in shaping legislation in a way that may run counter to the wishes of the majority of the American people. For example, in the 2018 Senate elections, Democratic candidates received almost 20 million more votes than their Republican counterparts. But because senators are elected to represent a population within an arbitrary border drawn decades or even centuries ago instead of districts of roughly equal size, the Democrats still posted a loss of two seats that same year. Whether you agree with Dingell’s proposal or not, it’s hard to argue that smaller states aren’t overrepresented in the Senate, and that this is neither liable to change nor unintended. The House’s method of representation is prone to abuse in the form of gerrymandering, sure, but at least the courts can force districts to be redrawn. No court has the power to redraw a state.

This is all a long-winded way of saying that I suspect the phenomenon described by Dingell is likely also manifesting at the state level, and therefore having an effect on our hypothetical Senate elections. The post-17th Amendment election process allows large, liberal population centers such as New York City and the Twin Cities to tip the scales in favor of Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Amy Klobuchar. But when you reduce the size of the electorate from 19 million people to only a couple hundred, the relative power of those smaller, more conservative districts grows, making the election much closer.

Ernst and McConnell ran into a different version of the same problem. While they may have trouble competing in Democratic enclaves like Iowa City or Louisville in their respective home states, these cities aren’t large enough to swing an election towards their Democratic opponents. But these municipalities’ influence is stronger within the state legislature, allowing them to make a pre-17th Amendment Senate race more competitive.  

So we can already learn a little bit about the pre-17th Amendment electoral process’ advantages and disadvantages by looking at elections that would have been a bit tighter but still ended with the same result. But that’s not why you came here, so let’s get to the good part: What seats would be flipped if we lived in a pre-17th Amendment world?

Before I show you this, I have to ask, if you’re a Democrat, if you really want to see the results. I can assure you that it’s interesting and that my analysis is excellent, but I will not be held responsible for any heart attacks or depressive episodes that occur as a result of looking at the following table. 

You’re still sure you want to see it? Alright, here it is: 

 

State Year Lower House Vote Upper House Vote Joint Session Vote Hypothetical Winner Real Life Winner
AL 2017 (Special) 72-33 26-8 98-41 Roy Moore (R) Doug Jones (D)
AZ 2018 31-29 17-13 48-42 Martha McSally (R) Kyrsten Sinema (D)
CO 2014 34-31 18-17 51-49 Mark Udall (D) Cory Gardner (R)
ME 2014 79-68-4 20-15 94-88-4 Shenna Bellows (D) Susan Collins (R)
ME 2018 89-57-5 21-14 110-71-5 Zak Ringelstein (D) Angus King (I)
MI 2014 63-47 27-11 90-58 Terri Lynn Land (R) Gary Peters (D)
MI 2018 58-52 22-16 80-68 John James (R) Debbie Stabenow (D)
MT 2018 58-42 30-20 88-62 Matt Rosendale (R) Jon Tester (D)
NH 2014 239-160-1 14-10 253-170 Scott Brown (R) Jeanne Shaheen (D)
NH 2016 227-173 14-10 241-183 Kelly Ayotte (R) Maggie Hassan (D)
OH 2018 61-38 24-9 85-47 Jim Renacci (R) Sherrod Brown (D)
PA 2018 110-93 29-21 139-114 Lou Barletta (R) Bob Casey Jr. (D)
VA 2014 67-33 20-20* 87-53 Ed Gillespie (R) Mark Warner (D)
VA 2018 51-49 21-19 72-68 Corey Stewart (R) Tim Kaine (D)
WV 2018 59-41 20-14 79-55 Patrick Morrisey (R) Joe Manchin (D)
WI 2018 63-36 19-14 82-50 Leah Vukmir (R) Tammy Baldwin (D)

For those of you keeping score at home, 16 seats have changed parties. And of those 16 seats that were flipped, a whopping 13 were won by Republicans, with only three going to Democrats.5And only two of those seats would represent true gains for the party. As I mentioned in our list of assumptions before, Maine’s Zak Ringelstein takes the place of Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. The result is a net gain of zero for the party. That gives the Republicans an edge in the upper chamber by a count of 64-36 — in other words, a filibuster-proof supermajority that would also represent the largest Republican Senate majority since Reconstruction. It also leaves the GOP only three votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto, so even if Donald Trump were to lose reelection in 2020, they could still make his replacement miserable if they made some gains in this year’s state legislature elections.

As far as why we’ve ended up with such a strong swing towards the Republicans, it’s likely that the same logic we applied to the first table applies to this one as well. The over 1.5 million Philadelphians who may have put Bob Casey Jr. over the top in 2018 outnumber their more rural and conservative neighbors in the event of a simple head count, but when the folks who draw up Pennsylvania’s legislative districts try to balance the two regions, urban centers will have a disadvantage. The same could be said of Democratic losers from Arizona, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin who see the strength of their metropolitan bases blunted in their state legislatures.

The losses of red state Democrats like Montana’s Jon Tester or West Virginia’s Joe Manchin likely have simpler, more qualitative explanations. Tester won by casting his opponent as an outsider and a carpetbagger, whereas Manchin had the benefit of being one of the most Trump friendly Democrats in the Senate. Those qualities helped make them appealing to Republicans and right-leaning independents, but in a straight party line vote they become functionally irrelevant. So repealing the 17th Amendment not only levels the playing field in terms of urban/rural divide, it also flattens out the idiosyncrasies of individual campaigns and candidates as well. Again, we’re making a lot of assumptions here — there’s a good chance that the realities of a 17th Amendment-less world would push a conservative Democrat like Manchin to become a Republican instead — but our results so far point to a Senate whose composition is much more predictable, and much more red.

So we (kind of, sort of) know what the Senate would look like if we repealed the 17th Amendment. But there’s still one last question I’d like to try and answer: would repealing the 17th Amendment be a good idea?

Based on our hypothetical scenario alone, the answer would seem to be an easy yes for Republicans and a strong no for Democrats. But let’s take the politics out of it for a moment and think about whether or not the pre-17th Amendment system is a fair way to decide an election. Those who think we should repeal the 17th Amendment argue that it gives the states a certain degree of power over a federal government that holds an inordinate amount of power over them and would also weaken special interest groups. Those who think we shouldn’t would point to past corruption and inefficiency, not to mention a clear violation of the democratic ideals the country was founded on, as reason enough not too. But I think there’s an even more important question to ask: is the way we choose state legislators — and by extension in this hypothetical situation, senators — fair as well?

Virginia offers a fascinating case study in the way we elect these bodies. Following the state’s 2011 state senate elections, the chamber was split evenly among party lines, with 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats taking office. Just as the Vice President is the President of the United States Senate, so is the Lieutenant Governor the President of the Virginia Senate, and since Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling was a Republican, that gave the GOP an effective majority of one. And in a world without the 17th Amendment, that means that only one vote, cast by a man who wasn’t elected to the state legislature, would determine that chamber’s nomination and, since Republicans also controlled the House of Delegates, who would represent Virginia in the Senate (in this case, former counselor to George W. Bush and eventual gubernatorial nominee Ed Gillespie). To be fair, under our rules even if Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor at the time was a Democrat, a Republican would still win the seat by virtue of gaining more votes in a hypothetical joint session. But if we step outside of our experiment for a bit, and consider a world where state legislators are allowed to cross the aisle and vote for candidates outside of their party, the prospect of a Lieutenant Governor tipping the balance of a Senate election begins to call the legitimacy of the system into question.

The 2018 Senate election offers an even more chastening example of a state legislature’s questionable ability to accurately represent the electorate. The 2017 Virginia House of Delegates election — which, according to our rules, would elect the body that would elect a senator in 2018 — was perhaps one of the most fraught in recent history. A number of election results were challenged amid allegations that provisional ballots were not counted in certain districts and that some voters had been assigned to incorrect districts entirely, leading to a situation where the very integrity of the election was cast into doubt. The closeness of the elections and their alleged irregularities spawned five recounts, one of which took place in the race for the 94th District, which was being contested between Democratic challenger Shelly Simonds and Republican incumbent David Yancey. The recount showed Simonds defeating Yancey, but the relevant courts declined to certify it, meaning that no winner was declared. The Virginia House of Delegates’ solution for breaking such a tie? The drawing of a random lot, which Yancey wound up winning. As if reducing an election to a coin flip wasn’t bad enough, it was for a seat that determined the balance of power in the House of Delegates, giving the Republicans a one vote majority. So according to our model, the Virginia House of Delegates would’ve elected Corey Stewart — a former chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors perhaps best known for his staunch opposition to the removal of Confederate monuments and symbols and courting of far right groups — to the United States Senate.

Of course, there’s an argument to be made that someone like Stewart — an insurgent who took as many shots at Republicans as he did Democrats — would never have been a viable candidate in a non-17th Amendment world. But even if state legislators would be a moderating force in Senate elections, there’s still no guarantee that they’d act in the best interest of the people. After Democrats Roy Cooper and Tony Evers were respectively elected governor of North Carolina and Wisconsin, each of their Republican controlled legislatures passed a series of laws that weakened their executive powers. This blatant circumvention of a popularly decided election is bad enough, but imagine how it might play out in the context of electing a senator. Sure, Mitt Romney would probably have had little trouble convincing the heavily Republican Utah State Legislature to elect him to the senate seat Orrin Hatch vacated in 2018. But if Romney were beholden to what is essentially a collection of low level party elites instead of the voters of his state, would he have felt free to act on his conscience and  vote to remove Donald Trump from the presidency as he did earlier this year? Even if he had, isn’t it more than likely that the legislature wouldn’t elect him back to the Senate in 2024? We can only speculate, but given how willing the North Carolina and Wisconsin legislators were to push the limits of their authority when they felt threatened, it seems more likely than not that Romney’s vote in February would have cost him his political career, and as such, may not have even happened in the first place.

And, to be fair, Romney may still lose either renomination or reelection four years from now. But the beauty of our current system is that it’ll be a population of over 3 million Utahns, instead of 104 state politicians, that will decide Romney’s fate. It’s true that the wisdom of crowds can at times be anything but wise — for every Roy Moore defeat, there’s a victory for the publicly admonished New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, or for segregationist senators like John C. Stennis and Jesse Helms who held onto Senate seats long after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were law. But, barring an expulsion-worthy offense, it should be the voters themselves who determine when a senator no longer deserves their office. The voters should be allowed to break out of the narrow and partisan parameters of the pre-17th Amendment system and feel free to elect an independent candidate like Angus King, or, happened in Alaska in 2010, reject the results of the party primary all together.

After losing the Republican primary to Tea Party Activist Joe Miller,6Yes, the same Joe Miller who ran against Murkowski six years later as a Libertarian. Apparently the guy held a grudge.
incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski ended up winning the general election through a write-in campaign, a result that would have been impossible (and I will grant, perhaps unnecessary) had the 17th Amendment never been ratified. In such a world, the writer in me would’ve lamented the loss of a great story, that of an electorate choosing to correct its own decision through one of the most directly democratic actions they could take. But the citizen in me would have lamented the fact that the people of Alaska were denied the opportunity to choose between Miller, Murkowski, and their other opponents in the first place. Limiting who elects a senator limits who can become a senator and, were such a system to be reinstated, our civic life and government would be far poorer for it.

Running Mates: Episode 5 – 1984 – Ferraro v. Bush

Walter Mondale figures he needs a game changing vice presidential pick to have any chance against the Reagan-Bush reelection in 1984. Lars and Michael discuss how Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman on a major party presidential ticket, holds up as a running mate, and the long odds Mondale faced regardless of his vice presidential pick.

You Can Now Look at All of the Possible 2020 Presidential Nominees in the VP Tracker

Now that Joe Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee, tracking the strongest vice presidential picks for each potential candidate has lost a bit of its luster. I put out a piece regarding the strongest picks for Biden, but because all of the code was still lying around, we’ve reverted the vice presidential tracker back to its original state and added some extras to play with for posterity’s sake.

Originally the tracker gave you the option to choose from one of the eight qualifying candidates running in the Democratic primary:

  • Biden
  • Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
  • Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
  • Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar
  • Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
  • Businessman Tom Steyer
  • Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren
  • Businessman Andrew Yang

After you made your selection, it would run whoever you selected through every single potential vice presidential candidate in the system, allowing you to explore who could get the highest potential score, who Warren’s strongest VP picks might be, or whether former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz (yes, he’s actually in there) was a good VP match for anyone (he’s not). I have stood this back up so that all of these former candidates are included — and as an added bonus, I’ve added every other major candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.1 So, if you’re curious about who Montana Governor Steve Bullock should have chosen if he’d have just listened to me, or how strong that Marianne Williamson – Beto O’Rourke ticket really would have been (not strong at all), or just want to see if anyone ought to have chosen Hillary Clinton as their running mate (there are two, and I love them), check it out.

Finally, now that the primary is effectively over and Biden is the last man standing, we’ve moved Biden’s top picks over to where the universal ranking was. You may recall that this was previously illustrating who the strongest vice presidential picks were given each primary candidate’s odds of winning the nomination. Now that Biden’s odds are 100% this will reflect solely Biden’s strongest potential running mates, and we’ve renamed it accordingly for a quick glance at who Biden should consider. Remember this is a strength rating, not a prediction, but I talk a bit more about that and why they still fall in line with a lot of predictions in my last piece on Biden’s strongest picks.

So, enjoy — don’t expect Biden’s top picks to change much unless there are big swings in the generic ballot; and have fun finding your dream 2020 Democratic ticket.

Page 2 of 5