Why Trump wants the SAVE Act

 

Figures don’t lie, but presidents…?

Why Trump wants the SAVE Act

Gordon L. Weil

 

President Trump stresses the three major themes of his persistent and unsupported attempt to undermine faith in U.S. elections.   They were the central themes of his primetime address.

First, he reminded us of his assertion that he won the 2020 presidential election.  Second, he worries about this year’s midterm elections. Third, Republicans must suppress voting by Democrats, because demographics suggest they will become the majority in coming years.

Trump believes that his first term had shown he was a great president, perhaps the greatest.  The logical result of such a successful presidency should be easy re-election in 2020.  Besides, he thought the Democrats put up a weak candidate.

When the votes were counted, Trump lost.  Neither more than 60 lawsuits nor investigations by Republican and Democratic state and local election officials and outside inspectors uncovered the voter fraud he alleged.

Extremist thinking often depends on conspiracy theory.  If he logically should have won, it was also logical that hidden plotters had deprived him of his victory.   Facts disproving his belief were dismissed as false, the product themselves of a hidden conspiracy.  Fury and frustration, not facts, led to the January 2021 assault on the Capitol. 

A second reason behind Trump’s push to impose new constraints on voting access is the GOP’s concern that the Democrats will carry this year’s midterms if they can’t be kept from voting.   That’s the reason for Trump’s sense of urgency.

Finally, Republicans worry that the country’s changing demographics will produce more Democrats.  A non-white majority could control, and minorities are assumed to lean toward the Democrats.

The Republican Party, with Trump’s backing, has developed techniques of voter suppression, targeting members of minority groups and those with low incomes and less education.  It places complexity and obstacles on their path to the ballot box, believing they may be unable to overcome them and simply refrain from voting.

A variety of methods have already been deployed intended to make voting access more difficult.  Aside from the pervasive, conspiratorial logic of election losers, there is no indication that access has been abused to the extent that could call election results into doubt.

Voting by mail or voting before Election Day brings out more voters.  So is the ready availability of polling places and long opening hours.  In theory, by narrowing the opportunities or simply shutting down polling places, better motivated voters, mostly Republicans, will vote but, lacking discipline, Democrats will be discouraged and stay home.

One way to evaluate the assumptions of Trump and the Republican Party is to look at the actual performance of voting groups.  Do low-income, immigrant, less educated voters depend on early voting and mail balloting compared with higher income, native born and better educated voters?

Income. Roughly 55 percent of persons with family incomes below $40,000 use early/mail voting.  About 60 percent of more affluent people use the same methods.  Not much difference.

Immigrants.  About 65 percent of naturalized citizens use early/mail voting while 60 percent of native-born citizens do.  Ditto.

Education.  Of people who have not gone beyond high school, 54 percent use methods allowing them to vote other than on Election Day.  Among those with more education, well more than 60 percent use early/mail voting.  Again, not much difference.

Region.  In the usually Republican South, 63 percent vote early or by mail.  In the West, led by Democratic California, more than 75 percent use mail.   Midwesterners, who vote Republican, and Northeasterners, mostly Democrats, are traditionalists and more than half go to the polls. 

Sex.  Women don’t vote early or by mail more than men.  Only 40 percent of each group vote at the polling place on Election Day.

Supposedly to reduce cheating or errors, Trump’s proposed SAVE Act would require voter identification that may be more difficult for lower income, less educated people to obtain.  This week, a Democratic governor of New Jersey reported on uncovering several thousand mostly inadvertent registrations for non-citizens.  A Democrat found the problem without SAVE.

Nationally, there’s no evidence of significant fraud.  Trump’s attacks on the election process undermine faith in popular control of the government.  In the absence of term limits, elected officials give the highest priority to holding onto their seats, and may find that limiting the electorate helps.

Big money wields big power in elections.  The only asset of average people is their vote. Voter suppression undermines popular influence and enhances the power of money.  Some GOP members of Congress oppose the SAVE Act.   They could put their own party’s supporters at risk or annoy average voters, while Washington ignores their more serious concerns.

His speech looks like a case when Trump not only read the data wrong, but also misread the American people.   Voting matters, and the Republic only works when the government remembers who it works for.

 

Is a November election landslide possible?

 

Gordon Weil

November’s congressional elections may follow a predictable script.

But there could be another scenario, turning an expected squeaker into a landslide.

According to conventional thinking, the elections are contests for a few seats that could tip the balance to the Democrats, giving them a good chance of winning the House and the possibility of a Senate victory.

This thinking inevitably focuses on relatively few elections in scattered swing states or districts.  The Republicans, heavily committed to backing their leader, focus on holding their slim but effective congressional majorities.  The Democrats count on declining presidential popularity to hand them enough seats to gain control.

The elections are clearly about Trump.  His impact factors into virtually every primary and general election.  Strategists assume the status quo will generally survive in most contests with Trump’s political fate determined in marginal seats. 

For Trump, the elections are personal.  He worries that a Democratic House majority will impeach him for a third time.  A man who likes to set “never before in history” records, he doesn’t want this one.

His strategy calls for countering the usual mid-term election losses of an incumbent president’s party.  He believes that erecting obstacles to voting will reduce the number of likely Democratic voters, especially the poor and minorities.  He also pushes for redistricting to tilt political demographics his way and prepares to claim fraud, if the GOP loses.

He punishes Democratic states by cutting funding and launching ICE invasions, creating incentives for them to flip to his side.   Though he has alienated some voting groups, he may write them off as being concentrated in states where he wouldn’t win in any case.  He plays to the prejudices of voters who could protect his majority. 

But there is an alternative scenario.  Suppose his falling poll ratings indicate a widespread national rejection of Trump’s style and substance.  The sagging approval ratings for his presidential performance and almost all his key policies suggest this possibility.  While he could hold his MAGA core, he might face outright nationwide opposition.  

Trump has openly offended women, Blacks, Hispanics and other groups.  His anti-minority beliefs have brought the exclusion of female and Black military leaders, the erasing of American history about slavery and racial discrimination, arrests of people because of the color of their skin, killing Americans and ignoring the Constitution. 

Voters, alarmed by his narrow national policies and bellicose foreign gambits, might now turn out in large enough numbers to transform a campaign for swing seats into an opposition landslide, burying his efforts to tamper with the electorate. 

The split between progressive and moderate Democrats could matter less than their common opposition to Trump.  Still, an upsurge in support for progressives could be a sign of motivated opposition to MAGA.  And if conservative Republicans can win while opposing Trump, that could also weaken his control.

While this is far from assured, indicators could forecast the final outcome.  Take Maine’s June 9 Democratic Senate primary to pick an opponent to GOP Sen. Susan Collins’ sixth term bid.   

Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer anointed Gov. Janes Mills as most likely to be able to unseat Collins.   Mills is a moderate, but would be the oldest first-year senator in American history.  Normally, she would have a lock on the nomination.

But progressive Graham Platner, a Sanders-endorsed oyster farmer, is popular.  While his life story raises questions, polls indicate he is popular and could defeat both Mills in the primary and Collins in the general.   The latest poll, though of uncertain accuracy, surprisingly shows that about one-fifth of Maine voters are socialists.

Normally, Mills would seem a good fit for Maine.  Platner’s showing could represent the signal that a strong response to Trump is popular.  Interestingly, the Trump-oriented candidate in the Maine GOP governor’s primary currently trails, despite massive early spending.

Another marker may be the May 19 GOP House primary in Kentucky’s 4th congressional district.  Incumbent Thomas Massie, a strong conservative, is Trump’s most notable GOP House critic.  The president recruited a MAGA loyalist to oppose Massie.

A Massie win could encourage other House GOP candidates to put some space between themselves and Trump.  If Massie loses, Trump will have reasserted virtually absolute domination over the Republicans.  Massie has been highly popular, so this race has significant potential to turn into a Trump referendum.

Look also at the Texas GOP Senate primary on Tuesday, March 3, where the winner could face a tough general election.  In the Democratic race, a progressive faces a moderate.  A progressive win could be a sign that Democrats see Trump as vulnerable nationally not just in swing elections.

Possibly relevant postscript:  Last week in a UK special parliamentary election, the Greens (progressive) won, defeating Reform (MAGA, having pushed traditional Conservatives aside), with Labour (Democrats) third.  This was a Labour district.