Through all the world there goes one long cry from the heart of the artist: Give me leave to do my utmost.
Isak Dineson
It's Mid-Term Election Eve
I've largely diverted much of my commentary over the past 6 months or so to my Journal or Rant of the Day posts, although I'll occasionally post comments (like in the following segment) before video clips, not to mention my new consolidated Social Media Digest feature.I wasn't planning to vote until the Dems played dirty politics in the Kavanaugh nomination, and I'm also fed up with spending in Washington; the Dems are all about spending, so their taking power in Washington is not an answer to the GOP's failure of getting spending under control for Trump. In fact, it's highly possible (with higher interest rates) Trump brings back Obama's trillion dollar deficits.
So I've been looking at polls, and I've often gotten predictions wrong before (most notoriously, I didn't anticipate Trump's 2016 victory), but here are a few of my thoughts:
- I don't buy the fervent hopes of Trump, Hannity et al. that we'll see an unexpected GOP breakout comparable to 2016. I do think some independent voters that voted in their favor in 2016 aren't happy with some of the things Trump and the GOP-led Congress have/haven't done and want to send a message.
- I think the Kavanaugh kerfuffle hurt the Dems; even if they win control of the House, it will be by fewer seats than might have been and it hurt Dem Senate incumbents. I don't doubt that voting in blue districts/states will be higher, but the real issue is what happens in swing districts.
- I do think there will some big names falling in the elections, possibly on both sides of the aisle. I would love to see the corrupt Menendez in NJ to fall; I think there's a possibility he will, although it depends on turnout, etc., and the odds still are in Menendez' favor.
- I do think the GOP will gain 2 or 3 Senate seats, largely because the Dems are having to defend most of 35 up, including some in states Trump won in 2016. I think the Dems' best chances are in Nevada and Arizona for a takeaway. I think the GOP's best hopes are in Missouri and North Dakota, which they completely blew in 2012. Trump's attempts to get West Virginia and Montana's seats were likely a waste of time. It looks like Blackburn (TN) and Cruz (TX) should win, although they were in trouble weeks back. I think the Indiana Dem incumbent may hold, mainly because he has won most polls (by a small margin), but it's close enough to the margin of error that it would not shock me to see the GOP take it back, a seat they never should have lost in 202. There's still a shot in FL, although the preponderance of polls favor the incumbent slightly.
- The Dems will likely take control of the House but probably by fewer than a 20 or so seat advantage. And I predict that there will be factions in that majority that the GOP will be able to have a way.
- Trump's strategy to focus on immigration and trade wars, instead of focusing on the danger to an improving economy, was a strategic blunder. Make no mistake; Trump and his minions like Hannity have played up the economy, but I think bringing up immigration, Trump's trade wars, etc., obfuscated the midterm message and have alienated libertarian and conservative allies like me.
It's Okay, Maybe Even Righteous Not To Vote
Libertarian Don Boudreaux notoriously won't vote. One can certainly argue for most Democratic and GOP congressmen, there's not much difference; the Dems in control haven't balanced a budget for literally decades, the GOP since the early Bush Administration (2001). [Some will credit Clinton since he was a lame-duck President for the first 3-plus months of FY01. However, Congress was in control for the full fiscal year. During the first 2 years of his Presidency with a Dem-controlled Congress, Clinton ran big deficits.] The GOP, especially under Trump, has done little to stop massive spending and deficits, has done little to reform mandatory spending (largely entitlements), that make up most of the federal budget; to get more defense spending they cut deals with Dems on more domestic spending. For us fiscal conservatives, it's a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea; in fact, the modest sequesters went away on Trump's watch. Is it worth spending one's time voting for someone who pays lip service to balancing the budget but in the end cuts deals to get more bloated military.Boudreaux also mentions other reasons for not voting, including the opportunity costs of what benefits could accrue by spending that time on other more personally productive activities,
DNA Tests: I'm a Skeptic
I find the topic somewhat interesting in part because a couple of people in my nuclear family have taken tests (from different vendors). My youngest brother's kids gave him a kit as a birthday present, and the results seemed consistent with our Franco-American (French Canadian) heritage, except for the anomaly of 15% or so east Asian. (Some speculation it might reflect our 2 known Native American ancestors on Dad's side of the family.) The odd result, though, was Mom's from Ancestry, which showed a plurality (40%) from Britain. (It's so odd I think they have give her somebody else's results.) Both sets of grandparents came from predominantly French-Canadian ancestors; French Canadians/Franco-Americans (until my generation of the family) tended to be highly cohesive culturally, with a strong attachment to the Catholic Church. I've read some posts on the subject, and it seems that some small segments of the population (e.g., Franco-Americans) may not be sufficiently represented in the sample base, distorting reported estimates. I know my Mom's maiden surname line has been (separately) traced back to emigration from Normandy (France).But this lady's results were largely consistent, unlike my family's.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via Townhall |
