Those who were hoping for a groundswell of popular opposition to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court are not going to like polling nuggets flagged by Dhrumil Mehta and Janie Velencia at FiveThirtyEight: “A C-SPAN/PSB poll found that 35 percent of likely voters can name President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, when asked in an open-ended question. Relatedly, an AP-NORC poll found that a plurality of Americans don’t have strong feelings about Kavanaugh as a nominee one way or the other.” But what will matter more to Senators in deciding if they will vote for confirmation of Kavanaugh is how the registered voters in their states feel about him, and there little or no data available for that. The Kavanaugh nomination is of such overarching importance that Democrats should still do everything they can to defeat it, without sacrificing too much of the time, energy and money resources needed for the midterm campaigns – a highly problematic challenge at best. Meanwhile, much of Kavanaugh’s history is being hidden from the public by his GOP handlers. The question for investigative reporters is, “Why?”

And speaking of the Kavanaugh cover-up, Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in The New York Times that ” The Trump White House, citing executive privilege, is withholding from the Senate more than 100,000 pages of records from Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s time as a lawyer in the administration of former President George W. Bush…The decision, disclosed in a letter that a lawyer for Mr. Bush sent on Friday to Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, comes just days before the start of Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Tuesday…Senate Democrats said this was the first time that a sitting president has exerted executive privilege under the Presidential Records Act in order to prevent documents from going to Congress during a Supreme Court confirmation process.”

The New York Times editorial “The Supreme Court Confirmation Charade” observes that “Republicans aren’t even pretending to do their constitutional duty. Senator Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is refusing to let his colleagues or the American people see millions of documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time as White House staff secretary to President George W. Bush — a job he has called the most influential of his career in terms of his approach to judging. And in recent weeks, multiple senators have been personally helping the judge prepare by holding mock hearings…Republicans are licking their chops. Out with squishes like Anthony Kennedy, the court’s last true swing justice, and in with reliable soldiers like Judge Kavanaugh, who is likely to provide the key fifth vote to reshape large portions of constitutional and statutory law in a deeply conservative mold. That means, for starters, making it harder for minorities to vote, for workers to bargain for better wages and conditions, for consumers to stand up to big business and for women to control what happens to their bodies. It also means making it easier for people to buy and sell weapons of mass killing, for lawmakers to green-light discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender Americans, for industries to pollute the environment with impunity, and for the wealthy to purchase even more political influence than they already have.”

Labor Day seems like a good time to consider what little is known about Kavanaugh’s views on worker rights, which Steven Greenhouse does in his op-ed, “How Trump Betrays ‘Forgotten’ Americans” in The New York Times: “It doesn’t look as if Mr. Trump’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, will be a friend to workers or unions. In an astonishingly anti-worker opinion in a case involving a SeaWorld trainer killed by an orca whale, Mr. Kavanaugh wrote in 2014 that the Labor Department was wrong to fine SeaWorld. Dissenting in a 2-to-1 case, he suggested that the Labor Department should not “paternalistically” regulate the safety of SeaWorld’s trainers because they, like tiger tamers and bull riders, were sports and entertainment figures who accepted the risk of injury in hazardous businesses that usually regulated their own dangers. His opinion had echoes of 19th-century state court rulings that factory workers assumed the risk of injuries from machinery that cut off their hands.” In other words, do owners of hazardous businesses have an obligation to protect their workers?  If Kavanaugh’s emails and records as white house staff secretary are ever released, no one should be shocked if they indicate his support of anti-worker legislation and nominees, as well as voter supression projects based on race.

Jonathan Chait’s “Trump Is a Snob Who Secretly Despises His Own Supporters” at New York Magazine explores a meme that may have utility for the 2020 campaign, if Trump stays in office that long. As Chait writes, “Conservatives have spent decades depicting liberals as coastal snobs. Entire campaigns were built from this theme, from Michael Dukakis’s “Harvard Yard boutique” to various Democrats failing to display the requisite enthusiasm for Nascar.” And yet, for all of Trump’s “vaunted populism, he is filled with contempt for average people in general and his own supporters in particular…Trump is the ultimate snob. He has no sense that working-class people may have equal latent talent that they have been denied the chance to develop. He considers wealthy and successful people a genetic aristocracy, frequently attributing his own success to good genes.” Chait is on to something here. The ‘Democrats are snobs’ meme has worked well for the GOP, and for Trump in particular, and yes some Democrats have helped it along, as in HRC “deplorables” comment — even though Trump and the Republican elites practice snobbery as a way of life. Successfully branding a political adversary as a snob provides powerful leverage because  everyone hates a snob. Democrats really ought to develop an ad campaign presenting Trump as the elitist snob stereotype he fits so well.

“There was always a false element in Trump’s common-man appeal. (The gender reference in that sentence is not an accident.) Limiting the working class with the adjective “white” is a large part of it,” writes E. J. Dionne, Jr. in his Washingon Post Labor Day column. “The core of Trump’s ideology, such as it is, has never been about class; his passion has always been for race, culture and immigration. Many post-election studies suggested that Trump’s voters were much more energized by these issues than by economics. Watch the typical Trump stump speech, and you will find that fear-mongering smothers any uplift and that falsehoods about immigrants outnumber truths about the challenges to middle-class living standards…Any politician who is serious about the working class needs to think about it as a whole — which means remembering how many wage-earners are African American and Latino. They have been hit as hard by deindustrialization as white workers and, in many places, harder…As David Cooper noted this summer in an analysis for the Economic Policy Institute, while 8.6 percent of white workers were paid poverty wages in 2017, the figures were 19.2 percent for Hispanic workers and 14.3 percent for African American workers.”

At The Plum Line, Paul Waldman touches on an often overlooked group conflict that influences today’s politics: “The version we live through, however, has its most direct roots in the 1960s, when liberals grew their hair long, danced to rock music, took drugs and had all the fun, while conservatives looked on in horror, contempt and more than a little envy…Ever since, barely a campaign goes by when we don’t replay the conflict between the hippies and the squares in one form or another. And it has often worked to the benefit of Republicans, who get strong support from older voters, including baby boomers of the Jeff Sessions variety, who ground their teeth in rage as they watched their free-spirited peers pile into vans and head off to Woodstock, vowing that one day they’d be in a position to lock those pot-smoking degenerates behind bars.” Ironically, an unknown, but probably substantial portion of the hippie generation actually became conservative Republicans over time– many, if not most of them, are now in their seventies. But the perception and it’s attendant resentments linger on in the likes of Jeff Sessions. The good news, as Waldman notes, is that today’s younger voters “can’t stand the GOP. According to a recent NBC/GenForward poll, only 26 percent of millennials have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, while 60 percent have an unfavorable impression. (The numbers for the Democratic Party were 44 percent favorable and 42 percent unfavorable.)” But there is reason to hope that today’s younger voters will turn out in more impressive percentages than did their predecessors.

In “Where did our raises go? To health care,” Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson flags a new study co-sponsored by the firm Willis Towers Watson and the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, a business group, which finds that “For the bottom 60 percent of U.S. workers, wage gains have been completely wiped out by contributions for employer-provided health insurance…The study focused on full-time, year-round workers from 1980 to 2015. It did not cover people who were unemployed or had government insurance (Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act)…For the bottom 50 percent of workers, employers’ health insurance contributions averaged 30 to 35 percent of companies’ total compensation packages. Companies also increased the premiums that workers themselves must pay to get coverage. From 1999 to 2015, worker premiums for a family plan more than doubled in inflation-adjusted dollars, from about $2,000 annually to almost $5,000…The problem is plain: We’d all like both cheaper health insurance and higher wages, but the way the health-care system is operating today, we might get neither. As insurance premiums get more expensive, inflation-adjusted (“real”) wages will continue to stagnate or decline.”

An oldie, but more relevant than ever bumper sticker:

If you know anyone who doubts the bumper sticker’s premise, direct them to this 2012 article in Forbes, ‘The Capitalist Tool.’

All sorts of big things begin happening in election cycles around Labor Day. I discussed one of them at New York:

There comes a time in any campaign cycle when parties and the donors affiliated with them review their investments and cut their losses. It can be an especially painful process in a potential “wave” election year, particularly a midterm when the party in power knows it’s going to lose House seats but is focused on maintaining control.

For Republicans right now, that means holding the line at 22 net lost House seats at worst. Since there are very, very few vulnerable Democratic seats that could offset GOP losses (of the 66 House races the Cook Political Report considers competitive, only four are in districts held by Democrats), Republicans must triage their most afflicted incumbents. And as Politicoreports, the process is fully under way:

“Behind the scenes, senior party strategists have begun polling to determine which incumbents may be beyond saving. Among those most in jeopardy of getting cut off, they say, are Virginia Rep. Barbara Comstock, Pennsylvania Rep. Keith Rothfus, and Iowa Rep. Rod Blum, all of whom are precariously positioned in their districts.

“The party has to date reserved millions of dollars of future advertising time to buttress Comstock and Rothfus. Yet those funds are not guaranteed — they still might be diverted to other incumbents viewed as more likely to win in the fall.”

Cook rates the Comstock and Rothfus races as “Lean Democratic,” but still has Blum’s race as a toss-up. The three districts are illustrative of the range of problems the GOP is having this year. Comstock’s district is a classic suburban enclave loaded with college-educated voters who are hostile to Donald Trump. Rothfus was stricken by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s remapping of the state’s congressional districts to erase the effect of an earlier GOP gerrymander. He was tossed into a district with Democrat Conor Lamb, fresh from his astonishing special election win in more difficult terrain. And Blum is a conservative ideologue who won and was reelected in Iowa’s very good Republican years of 2014 and 2016, but is endangered by what appears to be a Democratic comeback in that state.

But these incumbents are just the low-hanging spoiled fruit, and others may soon get the financial heave-ho:

“The anxiety is already rising among lawmakers and their allies. Kansas Rep. Kevin Yoder, an imperiled suburban congressman whom Democrats are spending heavily to defeat, has recently complained to allies that the national committee hasn’t done enough to help him in his reelection bid, according to four people familiar with the conversations.”

Such complaints, however, go in both directions:

“During a House GOP Conference meeting this spring, NRCC [the party’s House fundraising committee] Chairman Steve Stivers told members not to expect the party to bail them out later in the campaign if they failed to pull their weight. He pointed out that the party had already waged a costly and ultimately unsuccessful effort to rescue an underperforming candidate in a Pennsylvania special election.

“As proof of that approach, the House GOP campaign arm has barely budged despite pleas for additional financial support from endangered Iowa Rep. David Young and his campaign team — at least partly because they view him as a sluggish campaigner, said two senior Republicans familiar with the party’s deliberations.”

It’s true that incumbents are likely to get a thumb on the scales in such calculations as opposed to open seat candidates or those challenging Democrats, since the party committees are supervised by incumbents and the “outside” groups tend to follow their lead. But when all those chairmanships and other perks of the majority are in danger, collegial solidarity will only go so far:

“‘The NRCC isn’t going to be able to help those who haven’t helped themselves,’ said former Pennsylvania GOP Rep. Phil English, who was involved with the committee during his House tenure. ‘These are very Darwinian decisions. It means selection of the fittest.'”

Donald Trump’s party can’t expected to do too much for “losers.”

 

At The Atlantic, Ronald Brownstein’s “How the Democratic Party Can Turn the Sun Belt Blue: From Florida to Texas, November’s elections provide an opening for Democrats to shift the balance of power—and make up for lost ground in the heartland” provides the outlnes for a new Democratic strategy in the Sun Belt. As Brownstein explains:

Can Democrats overturn the Republican advantage in the rapidly growing Sun Belt?

In the coming years, Democrats will likely face a growing need to expand their inroads in the Sun Belt states—which tend to be younger, racially diverse, and white-collar—as Republicans strengthen their position in older, predominantly white, and blue-collar states across the Midwest and Great Plains.

Brownstein cites increasing “pressure on Democrats to post deeper gains in Sun Belt states—such as Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and perhaps even Texas—that more reflect their modern coalition.”

Brownstein sees a two-pronged transformation, including the erosion of Democratic strength in the Rust Belt states of the midwest and an uptick in the growth of pro-Democratic constituencies in the Sun Belt. Regarding the aging of the heartland, Brownstein writes:

The shift toward the GOP among older whites threatens the long-term position of Democrats in a wide array of states across the country’s heartland, where those adults constitute a critical mass.

…The resilience of industrial-state incumbents such as Brown, Stabenow, and Casey makes clear that Democrats aren’t facing imminent extinction in the heartland; they are even well positioned to potentially recapture several governorships there this year. But the potential losses among the second group of senators, who are defending more rural states, underscore the likelihood that the Democratic position in the heartland will continue to erode over time, particularly as the GOP appeals more overtly to white anxiety over demographic and cultural change.

As for the other transformation, the growth of pro-Democratic constituencies in the Sun Belt, Brownstein writes,

…Democrats through the 2020s will need greater gains in the Sun Belt to fill the gap at every level—in contests for the House, the Senate, and the Electoral College. Since 2008, Democrats have already brought into their camp two Sun Belt states that reliably leaned Republican through the early-21st century: Virginia and Colorado. New Mexico, a longtime swing state, has also tilted blue, with Clinton carrying it comfortably, Democrats holding both Senate seats, and Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham, the party’s nominee, in a close contest to recapture the governorship

But the Democrats’ status has been much more tenuous in six other pivotal states across the Sun Belt: Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia in the Southeast; and Nevada, Arizona, and, more distantly, Texas in the Southwest. Except for Nevada, Trump won all of those states in 2016. Republicans control the governorship in each except North Carolina, and hold all 12 Senate seats except for the lone Democrats in Florida and Nevada.

November offers Democrats an important opening to begin shifting that balance. Their best two opportunities nationwide to win Republican-held Senate seats are in Nevada, where Democratic Representative Jacky Rosen is challenging the incumbent Dean Heller, and Arizona, where voters on Tuesday nominated the Democratic congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema to face her Republican colleague Martha McSally. In Texas, Democratic Representative Beto O’Rourke has mounted an unexpectedly strong challenge to the GOP incumbent Ted Cruz. On the other side of the ledger, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is facing a formidable threat from outgoing GOP Governor Rick Scott.

All of these states, except for North Carolina, are also picking governors this year. The Republican Greg Abbott appears to be cruising to reelection in Texas, but the other four contests look highly competitive. Especially revealing may be the races in Florida and Georgia, where Democrats picked African American nominees (Andrew Gillum, who beat a more centrist alternative, and Stacey Abrams, respectively), and Arizona, where they chose the Hispanic educator David Garcia.

Brownstein adds that “Two dynamics will likely determine Democratic prospects in the Sun Belt. One is whether they can replicate their improvement in other regions among college-educated whites; in the Sun Belt, those voters have leaned more to the right, especially on social issues, than elsewhere. But there are signs that some, especially women, are recoiling from Trump’s definition of the GOP.”

But, much depends on whether the Democrats can mobilize younger voters of color in the south.  And Democrats are going to need a more aggressive approach to registering and mobilizing eligible Latinos across the Sun Belt. Brownstein adds:

Even more important over the long term may be whether Democrats can energize the region’s huge population of young minorities. All of the Sun Belt states are defined by the same stark demographic divergence. Their youth populations are heavily nonwhite: According to projections by the Brookings Institution demographer Bill Frey, by 2020 minorities will constitute a clear majority of the under-30 population in Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas, and more than two-fifths of that population in North Carolina. Meanwhile, older generations in the same states remain preponderantly white: In 2020, the population aged 65 to 69 in each of these states (save for Texas) will be roughly two-thirds white. In Texas, whites will represent about three-fifths. The white share of the 70-plus population in all six states is even higher.

…For Democrats across the Sun Belt, the diverse younger generations resemble a cavalry that always remains just over the hill: Despite their big numbers, their turnout has consistently disappointed, especially in midterm elections.Will that change this year? “At this point, I don’t see [young people] any more or less engaged than I have in past midterm elections,” says the Texas-based Republican pollster Mike Baselice. That’s an ominous forecast for Democrats, particularly in the Sun Belt, given that turnout among young people has sagged badly in the past two midterms.

…Across the Sun Belt, Democrats this year have bet heavily on diversity (the African American nominees Gillum and Abrams, the Hispanic nominees Garcia and Lujan Grisham, and Sinema, who is openly bisexual) and youth (Gillum is 39, and Sinema, Abrams, and O’Rourke are in their 40s). These candidates have provided a jolt of energy for state Democratic parties in the Sun Belt that have sometimes slumbered through recent elections. But unless these fresh faces can mobilize more young people of color to vote, many of them may fall just short in November. That need may be especially acute for Gillum, whose Bernie Sanders–style agenda could limit his opportunities in white-collar suburbs. In Texas, O’Rourke faces the challenge that a substantial minority of Hispanics there—perhaps as many as two-fifths—have consistently voted Republican in recent years.

Enormous obstacles remain for Democrats as they struggle to take advantage of favorable demographic trends in the south, including weak unions, gerrymandered sunbelt congressional districts, Latino citizenship issues and widespread voter suppression, along with the stubborn conservatism of the region’s high-turnout senior voters. But the trends are all in the right direction for Democrats. As Brownstein concludes, “Democrats can now see a clear path to greater inroads in the Sun Belt, centered on persuading more white-collar whites and mobilizing predominantly nonwhite younger generations.”

Florida’s Democratic nominee for Governor Andrew Gillum responded to the race-baiting “monkey this up” comment by his opponent, Republican Rep. Ron DeSantis, with the kind of high-road dignity that the GOP has lost. As Dartunorro Clark and Ali Vitali of nbcnews.com quote Gillum: “We’re better than this in Florida. I believe the congressman can be better than this. I regret that his mentor in politics is Donald Trump, but I do believe that voters of the state of Florida are going to reject the politics of division…In the handbook of Donald Trump, they no longer do whistle calls — they’re now using full bullhorns,” Gillum said. “I’m not going to get down in the gutter with DeSantis and Trump, there’s enough of that going on, I’m going to try to stay high.”…He added, “It’s very clear that Mr. DeSantis is taking a page directly from the campaign manual of Donald Trump, but I think he’s got another thing coming to him if he thinks that in today’s day and age Florida voters are going to respond to that level of derision and division.”

“Is Being Authentic, Progressive, and Inclusive a Winning Strategy for Democrats?,” asks Nancy LeTourneau at The Washington Monthly. Commenting on the Democratic gubernatorial primary victories of Stacy Abrams, David Garcia and Andrew Gillum in Georgia, Arizona and Florida, LeTourneau writes, “Both Gillum and Garcia are running unapologetically progressive campaigns. And just like Stacey Abrams, they are being bold in embracing their heritage. As an example, Gillum has a long history of fighting against the gun lobby in a state that has been mobilized on the issue ever since the Parkland shooting. He’s also running on a strong platform of criminal justice reform, which is a priority for African American voters. Meanwhile, Garcia is focusing on public education.” LeTourneau notes that “Democrats came closer to winning in Florida, Georgia, and Arizona than in Ohio. They are closer to winning in Texas than in Iowa…It’s not about insurgents vs establishment or mobilization vs persuasion. It’s also not about furthering the racial divide or the one between Democrats and Republicans. It is about whether being authentic, progressive, and inclusive is a winning strategy for Democrats.”

At The Nation, Andrea Cristina Mercado, Director of the New Florida Vision PAC, explains why “Andrew Gillum’s Upset Reveals a Winning New Progressive Strategy: The results of Florida’s gubernatorial primary should serve as a lesson for the Democratic establishment,” and observes “Gillum’s primary night victory has upended the world of Florida politics for its symbolism, its political platform, and the highest voter turnout in the past 10 years that came with it…He ran on an unapologetically progressive platform, and focused on “anyone who’s ever been told they don’t belong.” He spoke to voters whom his party ignored, and aimed to expand the electorate instead of exclusively trying to sway returning or longtime voters…He offered policies to expand access to health care for all, invest in public education, make sure workers live with dignity, and protect families from “stand your ground,” gun violence, discriminatory policing, or rogue deportation agents.

Mercado adds that “Black voters in Florida and beyond have stood behind Democratic victories in every race. They’re increasingly joined by Latinos, who have inverted their party affiliation in Florida from 37 percent Republican, 33 percent Democrat, and 28 percent independent in 2006 to 37 percent Democrat, 35 percent independent, and only 26 percent identifying as Republican in 2016…We cannot underestimate what will be done to suppress and disenfranchise black voters and intimidate immigrants to protect the Republican hold on the state. To win in November will take more vigilance and deeper commitments than what got us through the primaries.”

While reading about the debacle involving Randolph County, Georgia’s, efforts to close polling places, the most important point about it occurred to me, and I wrote about it at New York.

Literally “seconds” into a special Friday meeting on the subject, the two-member Elections Board of Randolph County, Georgia, responded to a firestorm of internal and external criticism by scrapping a plan to close seven of the small jurisdiction’s nine polling places. As Sam Levine reports, the board offered a bit of a lame-o rationalization for its prior action but acknowledged it had stepped into a rattlesnake next:

In a statement released after the meeting, the board of elections said the county’s population and tax base had declined in recent years and said there had been discussions about the number of polling places for years as a way to save money. Still, it acknowledged the controversy prompted by the proposal and said it would not approve it.

At different points in the brief but intense and nationally renowned controversy, the election board or the “consultant” working for it cited cost concerns, Americans With Disabilities Act compliance, or the availability of early and absentee ballot option as reasons for shutting down the precincts, which enraged African-American residents in the majority-black county and attracted the attention of voting-rights activists. The case developed a particularly lurid political dimension when it transpired that the consultant had been recommended by the office of Georgia secretary of State Brian Kemp, now the GOP nominee for governor, who has a reputation for being cavalier about if not actively hostile toward voting-rights concerns. The consultant also suggested that Kemp favored the kind of polling-place consolidations Randolph County was pursuing, which motivated Kemp and his office to very quickly join the whole world in urging the county to back off its plans.

But the big takeaway is that this is precisely the sort of change in voting procedures that would have until recently triggered an automatic review by the Justice Department, which would conduct an investigation and then either grant or deny a “preclearance” before it could be implemented, under the provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 2013, however, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Shelby County v. Holder decision, basically gutted Section 5 (by voiding Section 4, which identified the jurisdictions subject to preclearance), liberating the mostly former Confederate jurisdictions involved from having to get the Feds’ permission for voting changes potentially affecting minority voters.

So instead of a set process with national guidelines, and a pretty strong disincentive for mucking around with voting rights, you have the kind of situation the Randolph County case epitomizes: questionable decisions made by individual jurisdictions with little or no transparency, requiring an army of lawyers, activists, journalists, and local citizens to flush it all out into the light of day

Andrew Gillum’s upset victory in the Florida gubernatorial primary is being hailed by progressives as a win for the Democratic left, complete with Bernie Sanders endorsement. Although there are no available exit polls that pinpoint his level of support with various demographic groups, there are some clues worth considering. In Isaac Stanley-Becker’s “‘The young people will win’: Post-Parkland vote in Florida tests youth power” in the Washington Post, he observes:

Gillum’s pitch to African Americans and young people was at the center of his primary campaign, spokesman Geoff Burgan told the Tampa Bay Times, saying these groups represent “people who have typically dropped off.”

In fact, his youth has long been a focal point of his political career. Born in Miami to a school bus driver and a construction worker, Gillum, at 23, became the youngest person ever elected to Tallahassee’s city commission. He went on to help found the Young Elected Officials Network, part of the liberal advocacy group People For The American Way. He became the group’s director, working to support politicians 35 and under.

Though vastly outspent by his primary opponents, Gillum did net the endorsement of billionaire Tom Steyer, whose political action committee, NextGen America, ran a digital advertising campaign targeting young voters on social media. The 30-second spot, emphasizing progressive issues such as corporate taxes and a “Medicare-for-all” health-care system, advised, “For anyone who’s been told to quiet down, to wait their turn, that it’s not their time, Gillum is our guy.”

Put together Gillum’s evident appeal to young voters with some recent statistics noting an uptick in young voter registration and in Florida, and the case for young voters having a pivotal influence on the primary outcome becomes stronger. Noting also that a “ruling from a federal judge last month invalidated a Republican-imposed ban on early voting on college campuses,” Stanley-Becker writes,

Data suggests that the deadly shooting in the South Florida suburb was politically energizing. An analysis released last month by TargetSmart, a Democratic data firm, revealed that registration rates for people under 30 increased significantly in swing states during the last seven months. In the several months before the Valentine’s Day shooting, voters between the ages of 18 and 29 accounted for more than 26 percent of new voter registration in Florida, according to TargetSmart. The data showed an increase close to eight percentage points in the months after the shooting.

Despite these clues, we don’t have enough hard data to firmly attribute Gillum’s victory to young voters and those who want stronger gun safety measures. And African American turnout and support of Gillum could well have been pivotal in the largest swing state.

What is certain, is that the GOP is going to go all out to defeat Gillum. Democrats should prepare for record level donations from Republican sugar-daddies to Gillum’s opponent, Ron Desantis, and, given Florida’s history, aggressive voter suppression.

Most of the media attention will stay focused on the battle for a House of Representatives Majority. But Andrew Gillum’s victory in the Florida Democratic primary sets up what is likely to be the marquee governor’s race. Slide up the sound icon and get acquainted:

The following article by Ruy Teixeira, author of The Optimistic Leftist and other works of political analysis, is cross-posted from his blog:

Vanessa Williamson of Brookings has a good piece out on their website about the political effects (or lack thereof) of Trump’s tax cut. This is a solid article which, in passing, concisely and fairly summarizes a lot of the political science research relevant to this issue. Recommended, though I guess I’m less sure Democrats could make a big issue of this even if they wanted to. Perhaps they should be satisfied with the fail of the issue for the GOP.

Perry Bacon, Jr. explains “What John McCain’s Death Means For The Senate” at FiveThirtyEight: “…his Arizona Senate seat probably won’t stay vacant for long. Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona will appoint McCain’s replacement, and the Republican can select someone as soon as he wants. I expect him to land on a replacement within the next two weeks, maybe even sooner…I expect Ducey to pick a caretaker because the Arizona GOP is dividedbetween a more establishment wing (Ducey) and a more tea party one (former sheriff Joe Arpaio). It would be smart politics for Ducey to avoid irritating one of those groups by choosing someone not seeking a long-term Senate career…there has been little evidence that any Republican senator is willing to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination, so he probably already has the 50 votes required.”

PowerPost’s David Weigel spotlights the primaries in Arizona and Florida today. With respect to the Democratic contenders for the Florida governorship, Weigel writes, “Democrats, who lost two close, bitter races to Scott, have their most crowded primary in decades. Two wealthy candidates, former Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine and investor Jeff Greene, have led the field in spending, with Greene promising Democrats that he could pour millions of dollars into down-ballot races…Polls, however, have shown a close three-way contest between Levine, former congresswoman Gwen Graham and Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum. Graham, who built a moderate record during one term in Washington, has been the focus of the most negative ads; Gillum, who is running to the left of the field and who rallied with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has surged in the final days. But at least 1.6 million voters cast ballots before Election Day, which could help Graham.” Regrding House races, Weigel notes that “there are tight races in four districts where Republicans have retired or left to seek other offices…Democrats are cautiously optimistic about competing for the 6th and 15th, which Barack Obama lost narrowly in 2012 but which swung toward Trump in 2016. But Democrats are most bullish on their chances in three South Florida districts where Latino and suburban voters, once reliably Republican, abandoned the GOP in 2016. Their top target is the Miami-based 27th District, where Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is retiring and where voters rejected Trump by 20 points.”

Arizona is more of a mess, dealing with the fallout of Sen. McCain’s death and President Trump’s diss of the late senator. Weigel observes that Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is likely to win the Democratic nomination for Senate. However, “The Democrats’ gubernatorial primary has been more fractious, with former state education official David Garcia favored after a campaign in which he has talked about creating statewide universal health care and “replacing ICE with an immigration system that reflects our American values.” As for the House contests, Weigel cites a bitterly fought Democratic primary for the 2nd district. In Oklahoma, most of the Democratic interest is in the 5th congressional District, “which overlaps some of the areas where they [Democrats] have made surprising special election gains since 2016 — and where Trump won just 53 percent of the vote.”

University of Southertn California professors Abby K. Wood and Christian R. Grose have a post  “How will the Michael Cohen and Duncan Hunter scandals affect the November election? Here’s what our research finds” at The Monkey Cage. Among their findings: “Do voters care about campaign finance violations? Yes. In new research, we argue that campaign finance violations inform voters’ views about the elected official’s character. Members of Congress who were randomly audited and found to have violated campaign finance law fared about 5 percentage points worse in their general elections than incumbents who were not. So it may be no surprise that once elected officials are tarred with campaign finance violations, they also attempt to win back voters’ trust…The FEC’s randomization is key to our study, as it creates an ideal natural experiment for empirical analysis. Randomization allows us to say that the campaign finance revelations violations caused the change in vote share.” The authors acknowledge that “since Watergate involved campaign finance shenanigans — may have been sensitive to those violations in particular.” However, “Our current political climate has enough parallels to the Watergate era that we suspect voters will react negatively to campaign finance violations again. We will find out Nov. 6.”

Some perceptive and very troubling insights from NYT columnist/Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, which ought to energize Democratic voter registration and turnout campaigns coast-to-coast: “The fact is that the Republican Party is ready, even eager, to become an American version of Law and Justice or Fidesz, exploiting its current political power to lock in permanent rule…the modern G.O.P. feels no allegiance to democratic ideals; it will do whatever it thinks it can get away with toentrench its power…if Republicans retain control of both houses of Congress in November — we will become another Poland or Hungary faster than you can imagine…Now it’s clear that there are no limits: They’ll do whatever it takes to defend Trump and consolidate power…We’re suffering from the same disease — white nationalism run wild — that has already effectively killed democracy in some other Western nations. And we’re very, very close to the point of no return.”

Jennifer Hansler has a cautionary note for Democrats in her post, “Influx of Puerto Ricans in Florida may not turn the tide for the midterms, experts say” at CNN Politics: “Hispanic voter registration has increased by more than 100,000 voters since the 2016 election, although it is unclear how many of those are Puerto Ricans. The Florida Division of Elections told CNN it does not have specific statistics on Puerto Rican voters…What is less clear is if and how Puerto Ricans who have resettled in Florida will vote in Florida’s primary election on Tuesday and then in the general election in November.” However, “We are nearly seeing presidential election year numbers of Latinos registered,” he told CNN. Of the 22,600 people Mi Familia Vota said it has registered this season, more than 11,500 are of Puerto Rican descent…We would not be able to hit these numbers in a midterm year without the influx of Puerto Ricans to Central Florida,” [Mi Familia Voa field director Esteban] Garces said.

Harry Enten explains why “Win or lose, Beto O’Rourke will help Texas Democrats,” also at CNN Politics: “If you look at the House map, there are arguably at least six Texas House races that are going to be competitive this fall. These include Texas 2nd, Texas 7th, Texas 21st, Texas 23rd, Texas 31st and Texas 32nd…It’s been shown in academic literature that states where there are competitive Senate races tend to have higher turnout in House races than states that don’t (once you control for other factors)…Texas could use the turnout boost. With the exception of Hawaii, no other state had a lower turnout rate of its voter eligible population in 2016 than Texas. Just 52% of all eligible voters cast a ballot two years ago.”

In his Washington Post article, “Democrats need to start taking voting rights seriously,” Noah Beriatsky makes a case for a national ‘big package’ voting rights reform bill which includes measures like lowering the voting age, automatic voter registration, standardizing early and mail voting, full voting rights and representation for Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, prevent politically-motivated closing of polling places, ex-felon enfranchisement and other needed measures. “While such policies have been discussed here and there, Democrats could find new focus by grouping them under a single comprehensive umbrella. Policy proposals aren’t just concrete plans, they are statements of values and statements of purpose. The point isn’t just to pass any one law. It’s to set benchmarks and moral standards. Right now, the United States behaves as if it doesn’t believe that every person has the right to vote. We need ambitious policy proposals not just to change that but also to help convince people that it needs to change.” Eventually, when Democrats regain congressional majorities and the White House, the time may be ripe for passing a comprehensive voting rights reform package. The idea would be to better brand Democrats as the party that actually values democracy. Until then, Democrats should eagerly pass whatever piecemeal voting reforms are possible.

Kyle Kondik has a Sabato’s Crystal Ball update on races for the U.S. House, nationwide: “We are making 12 ratings changes; 10 in favor of Democrats, two in favor of Republicans… if one believes the Democrats are favored in the race for the House — and we do, although we don’t think the result is locked in concrete — then something in the political environment needs to change, in a positive way, for Republicans to regain the advantage. The Cohen/Manafort news was not that…After today’s changes, there are 205 seats rated Safe/Likely/Leans Democratic, 198 Safe/Likely/Leans Republican, and 32 Toss-ups, of which 30 are currently controlled by Republicans and two are currently controlled by Democrats…With 205 seats now at least leaning to the Democrats, that essentially means the floor for Democratic gains this year would be 11, and that’s assuming Republicans win every Toss-up, which we’re reasonably confident won’t happen.”

At Bloomberg, Margaret Newkirk has a post that outs the GOP’s phony “get tough” on undocumented workers policy. As Newkirk writes in “E-Verify Laws Across Southern Red States Are Barely Enforced“:

In 2011 states across the Southeast passed laws that threatened private employers with dire consequences—including losing their license to do business—if they didn’t enroll with a federal data service called E-Verify to check the legal status of new hires. Modeled after 2008 measures in Arizona and Mississippi and billed as a rebuke to a do-nothing Obama administration, the laws went further than those in the 13 states that required checks for new hires only by state agencies or their contractors.

Seven years later, those laws appear to have been more political bark than bite. None of the Southern states that extended E-Verify to the private sector have canceled a single business license, and only one, Tennessee, has assessed any fines. Most businesses caught violating the laws have gotten a pass.

In Georgia the department charged with auditing compliance with the E-Verify law has never been given money to do so. In Louisiana, where the law against hiring unverified employees can lead to cancellation of public contracts or loss of business licenses, no contract has been canceled, no licenses have been suspended, and the state reports zero “actionable” complaints since the mandate went into effect in 2012. In Mississippi no one seems to know who enforces the E-Verify law. The mandate appears to give that job to its Department of Employment Security, which knows nothing about it and referred questions to the attorney general’s office, which says it doesn’t know who’s responsible.

The same is true in Alabama, where the state labor department points to the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, which neither enforces the law nor knows who does. District attorneys, who field complaints under the mandate, say enforcement falls to the state attorney general’s office, which hadn’t heard that. “What is it we’re supposed to be doing?” spokeswoman Joy Patterson asks. “I’m not aware of anything like that.”

No doubt many Republican voters in these states are unaware that they have been hustled by their state legislators and governors, especially from those who bellow the loudest about “getting tough” on undocumented workers. As the conservative Cato Institute’s analyst, Alex Nowrasteh puts it “These are states that very much want to enforce immigration laws, where the electorate is solidly behind it and the politics is behind it, and even there they don’t want to enforce it.”

Advocates of The Legal Workforce Act, a bill that would institute a national E-Verify system know this to be the case. Still, they hope to put on a big show about it, when the bill comes up for debate in September, and reap support from voters who have been deluded that undocumented workers are a threat to their jobs.

Federal contractors have been required to E-Verify since 2009. Newkirk points out that, while “knowingly” hiring undocumented workers has been against the law since 1986, employers have finagled their way around the law in various ways:

The “knowingly” language spawned a cottage industry of fake documents, layered hiring—subcontractors who hire subcontractors who hire subcontractors—and the use of temp agencies and independent contractors, all shielding employers from knowledge of a worker’s status. Critics say E-Verify encourages discrimination and is filled with loopholes. It failed to flag the illegal status of Cristhian Rivera, who was accused in the recent death of Iowa college student Mollie Tibbetts.

E-Verify enforcement is largely a missing issue in the midterm campaigns. Newkirk notes that:

…the E-Verify laws were absent from Georgia’s recent GOP gubernatorial primary. Despite campaigning on how tough they would be on immigrants, neither candidate referred to the laws. The winner, Brian Kemp, ran ads saying he’d haul illegals away in his pickup. “They talked about sanctuary cities and rounding up criminal aliens in a truck, all these distractions,” [president of the Dustin Inman Society D. A. ] King says. “The root cause of illegal immigration is illegal employment. And none of our candidates made a peep about that.”

Obviously, the Republicans want to have it both ways — strut around as tough on undocumented workers, while giving employers, who are the key to E-Verify, the old wink-wink free pass. Kemp is probably the poster-boy for the two-faced scam. His bet is that the media will let him get away with it. We’ll know if that has been the case on November 6th.