We made it! We
survived one of the craziest, most divisive election cycles in American
history. Regardless of your political
viewpoints, the results probably aren’t what people expected or were hoping for. While some of you reading this may protest
and say that the presidential election isn’t over and is still up for grabs, I
beg to differ. They should count all the
votes and determine those final counts, but I’m confident that the presidential
race has been decided and a new president will be inaugurated in January.
Having said that, I wanted to share some of my observations,
thoughts and analyses of what we all just witnessed and lived through. I realize that some of you will likely
disagree with some of my takes – perhaps even vehemently so – but that’s
okay. I have the right to speak my mind
and you have the right to agree or disagree with me. That’s one of the many things that makes this
country so great.
Here we go…
Increased turnout
and participation in democracy is a beautiful thing! Put aside your thoughts on who won the
election and whether or not mail-in voting should be allowed (it absolutely
should). We’ll deal with some of those
topics later. But let’s start on a
positive note by reveling in the fact that a record number of voters
participated in this year’s election.
While I doubt there’s any way to truly count the number of ballots that
were turned in for all of the various races, proposals and amendments up and
down the ballots from sea to shining sea, we know that more than 150 million
ballots were cast for president. That is
OUTSTANDING. People of all political
parties and persuasions and backgrounds took the time to exercise their right
to vote. Folks from both the left and right
were successful in turning out their supporters, not to mention those of us
independents participating as well.
Whether people voted by mail, by absentee, in person early or in person
on election day, everybody should be happy that the populace was so engaged in
this election and exercised their right to vote.
We are truly a
nation divided. 150 million
ballots for president and the overall results were 51/49 or close to
50/50. The Senate will continue to be
split almost 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. The House will still favor the Democrats, but
only by one of the slimmest margins in years.
However you want to look at it, there’s roughly 50% of the country that
leans or votes Democratic and there’s roughly 50% of the country that leans or
votes Republican. There’s always been a
split, but it also seems like the pendulum has swung back and forth over the
years. For the past decade or so,
however, it seems like the two sides have pushed outward from the middle and
created a division as great as anything we’ve experienced in the last 150
years. Outside of a handful of states –
and if you’ve been paying attention at all over the past few weeks, you know
which states I’m talking about – things are divided. States are either ruby red or royal blue. There seem to be very few exceptions. My home state of Missouri is a perfect
example. For decades, Missouri was the
consummate bellwether state – swinging back and forth between red and blue,
voting for the winner of the presidential contest in all but one presidential
election between 1904 and 2004. Over the
past 15-20 years, however, that has changed noticeably. Every statewide office (governor, lieutenant
governor, auditor, attorney general, etc.) is held by a Republican. Both of our senators are Republicans, as are
6 of our 8 representatives in the House. It didn’t use to be like that, but now
the few urban areas (St. Louis City and County, Kansas City area, Columbia) are
pockets of blue in a sea of red. There
are frequent battles for funding between urban and rural interests and things
sometimes get very hostile. The recent
gubernatorial election is a perfect example.
The Republican candidate was a high school graduate who is a farmer and
former county sheriff. He hails from a
rural area and his campaign ads tried to make him seem down to earth. (“It all started on a farm.”) The Democratic
candidate was a female who has both a bachelor’s degree and an MBA and has been
the state auditor. She’s from the St.
Louis area. The end result was predictable. The more educated, urban and suburban folks
largely voted for the Democratic candidate, while the less educated, rural and
small town folks overwhelmingly voted for the Republican candidate.
The much talked
about “blue wave” didn’t really happen.
Yes, it appears that Trump got voted out of office and a Democrat will
be back in the White House, but the races down ballot were a decidedly mixed
bag for those clamoring for a blue wave.
The Democrats may have picked up a seat or two in the Senate, but they
didn’t flip it like they’d hoped. At the
same time, the Democrats actually LOST seats in the House, something else that
they did not anticipate. So while the
voters have ousted Trump from the Oval Office, the overall election results
were more inconclusive. Why is
that? For one, it goes to show how
unpopular President Trump was. Looking
at the overall results of all contests, we have to assume many people voted for
Biden as president while voting for other Republicans down ballot. In other words, Trump himself was rejected
more so than the Republican platforms in general. This is a very
important point. For many years now,
we’ve heard the media and talking heads telling us how the demographic changes
in the country favor the Democrats and that Republicans need to adjust or else
they will nearly become extinct. On
paper or in looking at demographic data, that may appear to be true. But that has still not necessarily been the
case in practice. One could argue that
these past two general elections have been more about the top of the ticket
than anything else. In 2016, Trump beat
Hillary at least in part because a lot of people REALLY didn’t like her. The argument could be made that potentially
any other Democratic candidate besides Hillary would have beaten Trump. By the same token, in 2020, Biden beat Trump
likely largely in part because a lot of people REALLY didn’t like Trump. It’s more a repudiation of Trump than an
embrace of Biden. Outside of the
presidential race, I have to believe that some of the things advocated by
Democratic candidates and campaigns – things like “defunding the police” and
“Medicare for All” – are not as popular amongst the general electorate as Democrats
would like. As a result, that may have
cost the Democrats some races at the Senate, House and Governor levels and
Democrats need to circle the wagons and find better approaches or better
messages if they want to country as a whole to embrace some of the items in
their platform.
Republicans still
have problems at the top of the ticket. Going back to 1992, the Republican
presidential candidate has lost the popular vote seven times in the last eight
presidential contests. They have won the
electoral college on three occasions but they’ve only won the popular vote
once. That should be considered a
concerning trend for Republicans, especially as there becomes more of a push to
abolish the electoral college or more states are considering awarding their
electoral votes to the winner of popular vote nationwide. If a baseball player was only batting .125,
he’d be benched and likely working very hard to find ways to increase his
success at the plate. I think the
Republicans need to take the same approach.
If we’re going to
talk about election shenanigans, let’s be holistic about it. Much has been made over the past few weeks
about election fraud. Most of it has
been levied by the Republicans claiming that the Democrats are trying to steal
the election via mail-in voting, votes by dead people, etc. Most of those accusations are unproven
hogwash. But if the Republicans are
going to blast Democrats for those purported misdeeds, it’s only fair to point
out some of the things Republicans have done to try to “steal” the election as
well. They’ve purged voter rolls. They’ve advocated for and, in some places, instituted
more stringent voter ID requirements.
They’ve done whatever they can to thwart mail-in voting, from
restricting the number of locations where those ballots can be submitted (I’m
looking at you, Texas) to brazenly trying to handicap the U.S. Postal Service
to try to hamper mail-in voting. These
are all efforts at voter suppression – efforts to make it more difficult to
vote. Obviously, the Republicans have
reached the conclusion that the more people that vote, the worse their chances
are at winning, so they are trying to throw up obstacles to voting. But isn’t that the wrong approach? Instead of trying to suppress voters,
wouldn’t it be better to modify your party’s platforms and policies to make
them more attractive regardless of how many people vote? While the Democrats need to take time to step
back and look at their policies as noted above to determine why the “blue wave”
didn’t come to fruition, the Republicans need to take time to step back at
consider why they feel like they have to engage in voter suppression and
disenfranchisement in order to win.
Mail-in ballots (which are used exclusively in a number of states) are
not inherently bad. Neither are absentee
ballots. Neither is in-person early
voting. These are all ways to make it
easier for voters to participate in the election process, which is a WONDERFUL
thing. Instead of pushing back on them, Republicans
should embrace them and try to make the system work as smoothly as possible. If your party has reached the conclusion that
more voters voting = us losing, the problem is the process of voting. It’s your party and their policies.
Our election
system needs some serious TLC.
It is unfathomable to me that I can receive phone calls on a watch that
also tracks my steps, my heart rate and my sleep but we as a country can’t come
up with a better way to count ballots.
There HAS to be a better way. I
have no problem with mail-in voting but I think it’s asinine that states can
receive ballots in October but they can’t count them until Election Day. I have no problem with in-person voting
(that’s how I always do it), but I think we need to be more flexible with
regard to early in-person voting, the number of polling places, etc. Since free and fair elections are the hallmark
of our democracy, we should do whatever we can to make it easier for every
legal voter to vote and easier to count all of those votes in a timely manner.
Who are the
political leaders and stars of the future for each party? While Joe Biden will be the de-facto leader
of the Democratic party for at least the next few years, I don’t think anyone
views him as the star or leader of the party for the future. However, the Democrats have several rising
stars who project to be prominent figures in the party for years to come. Kamala Harris. Corey Booker.
Stacey Abrams. Each are younger
(well, at least for politicians) and charismatic people who have the potential
to serve as the face of the party and excite and turn-out voters in future
elections. I may not agree with some or
most of their positions on the issues, but there’s no denying their personal
charisma in much the way that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama before them had a
“cool factor” that drew people to like, follow and buy into what they were
saying. Who is that person for the
Republicans? Obviously, the GOP had that
in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan, but they’ve never really had that superstar
since. Some of you may point to Donald
Trump, but he was always as divisive as he was charismatic. The other supposed leaders of GOP – Lindsey
Graham, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz – don’t have the personality or charisma to
inspire hope or devotion. Is there
someone else out there – perhaps a governor – who can assume that mantle? Finding that person may be the key to solving
the aforementioned issue regarding losing the popular election.
Trump is a very
effective con man – perhaps the most effective con man in history. I’ll admit that I don’t get it. I don’t see how people can fawn all over
Donald Trump and believe everything he says, even when there is ample evidence
showing that what he is saying is, oftentimes, false. I suppose I could understand a rural, small
town person buying into his anti-immigrant, anti-big city rhetoric because he’s
saying what they think and have said privately for years. (And, no, I am NOT saying that all rural,
small town folks are ignorant, racist rubes who are bad people. That is certainly not the case.) But what baffles me is how so-called
Christians and evangelicals have bought into what he’s saying. To me, that is the biggest con of all. He’s gotten people who purport to love God
and other people and who loathe abortion to pledge allegiance to a man who
seldom goes to church, treats others with hatred and disdain and who is likely
personally responsible for abortions.
(Come on, you don’t think he’s knocked up some women over the years and
paid and/or arranged for them to get abortions?) He has gotten people to believe he hates
immigrants, even though two of his wives were immigrants. He has gotten people to believe he is a
successful businessman in spite of multiple failed businesses and casinos over
the years. He has gotten people to
believe that our tax system is punitive and too costly while he himself has
beaten that same system and paid less in taxes than he’d have you believe. Trump cares about only one thing: Trump. However, he somehow managed to fool millions
of Americans into believe that he cares about them and that he fights for
them. Think about it: a guy born into a
wealthy family from New York who has five known kids from three marriages has somehow
fooled countless small town Baptists that he cares about them when you and I
both know he wouldn’t even acknowledge them if he didn’t think they could help
him get something he wants. He has
managed to get the little guy to believe that he knows their struggles when
he’s never been a little guy ever in his life.
Like I said, I don’t understand how so many people have somehow fallen
under his spell. Trump is a genuinely
bad person who has gotten millions of genuinely good people to support him. I don’t get it, but it’s undeniable. For that long, successful con, I have to
begrudgingly tip my cap to him.
I was wrong in
2016, but I may still wind up being right. In October 2016, in the run up to the 2016
Presidential Election, I wrote a blog that was an open letter to the GOP. In it, I predicted doom for the party because
they wound up with Trump as their nominee.
At the time, I figured that he would lose to Hillary and it would lead
to the party attacking itself and potentially coming apart at the seams. I was wrong about Trump losing, but I may
still be right about the future of the party.
Trump was not and is not a conservative.
He has, for all his faults, a unique relationship with his followers. Many of them aren’t Republicans per se but
rather Trump loyalists. With Trump out
of the picture following January 20, what happens to those voters moving
forward? Do they stay with the Republicans? Do they withhold their support from the
Republicans because they feel like they did not do enough to defend Trump in
the wake of his election loss? If the
Republicans dumb things down in order to appeal to Trump’s base of rural, white,
less educated, less wealthy supporters, they risk losing even more of the
well-educated, more diverse folks that make up more and more of the electorate
in the suburbs and urban areas. So, my
prediction was wrong as it related to the 2016 presidential election, but my
overall prediction of a reckoning for the Republican Party may still wind up being
right. We will just have to wait and
see.
Patriots exist in
all parties and political backgrounds. One of the most annoying and infuriating political
developments over the past several years has been the co-opting and bastardization
of the word “patriot” by Republicans and Trump supporters. They use it as a weapon and make the claim
that only Republicans or Trump supports are true patriots. This is absolute garbage. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “patriot”
as “one who loves and supports
his or her country.” There are
millions of people who are Democrats or who support Democratic politicians who
are patriots. Tammy Duckworth is a
Democratic Senator from Illinois. She is
also military veteran who lost both of her legs during the Iraq War. Are you telling me that she isn’t a “patriot”
because she supports universal background checks, the Affordable Care Act and a
pathway to citizenship? Please. She is more of a patriot than most people. Pete Buttigieg is a military veteran who
served in Afghanistan. Are you telling
me that he isn’t a “patriot” because he is gay, a Democrat and he supports the
Green New Deal and a public option for health insurance? Give me a break. People who love this country come in all religions,
races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and political views. Just because they may have a different view
on an issue than you do, that doesn’t mean they love this country any less than
you do. No one political party or political
view owns patriotism and people who argue otherwise are wrong. Driving around in a pick-up truck with an American
flag or a Trump flag doesn’t make you a patriot. It just makes you the butt of jokes and
internet memes. We need to understand that people can absolutely love this
country while also trying to curb climate change or make universal healthcare a
reality. You may not agree with their
position on the issues and that is perfectly okay. But we need to stop claiming that they aren’t
“patriots” or that they hate this country just because you don’t see eye-to-eye
with them on everything.
If we’re ever
really going to fix Washington, we need term limits! Once again, I continue to be mystified by the
success of incumbent politicians.
Historically, incumbent senators and representatives win re-election upwards
of 90% of the time. Year after year, we
hear about how Americans hate Washington and hate Congress but yet, election
after election, we keep sending the same people back there to represent
us. It’s baffling. The only way out of this conundrum is term
limits – to force there to be some turnover.
I’ve written about this topic before, but it bears repeating. If we voters can’t save ourselves on our own,
then maybe we need to be forced to do so.
The idea of term limits is nothing new.
Currently, 15 states have term limits in place for their state
legislatures and 38 states have term limits in place for their governors. If we can make it work at the state levels,
why can’t we make it work at the federal level?
The hard part is that is requires a constitutional amendment. They have been proposed in the past but have
never gotten very far because it is, obviously, not in Congress’s best interest
to vote to pass legislation that will eventually remove themselves from
office. But wouldn’t it be great to
never have to see the faces of Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell or Chuck
Schumer or Nancy Pelosi again? To have
fresh faces, new leadership and, maybe, some new ideas? I realize it’s a pipe dream, but every two
years, as we watch incumbent after incumbent win re-election, I can’t help but
yearn for it.
Whew. That was a lot
of thoughts and opinions on this election, wasn’t it? Like the never-ending campaign and the longer
than expected election counting, I’m worn out.
So, until next time, be kind to one another, regardless of for whom you
voted.
Thanks for reading.
