Midterm Elections: The Important Numbers

In the rush to analyze the midterm elections, most media and political pundits have stuck to a partisan script.  They have zeroed in on party control of Congress, the Trump factor and the impact on the 2020 presidential election.  Their interpretations missed some eyeopening numbers.

Voter turnout was the biggest surprise of this midterm.  Despite declining voter turnout in previous midterms, there was a sharp reversal of form.  According to the U.S. Election Project, an estimated 113 million voters cast ballots, making it the first midterm to exceed 100 million votes.

If those projections are verified, it means nearly 48 percent of eligible voters exercised their right in these midterms.  In the most recent midterm in 2014, the turnout was a paltry 36.4 percent.  The last time voter turnout reached 49 percent was in the 1966 midterm elections, more than 50 years ago.

Political forecasters were stunned by the size of the early balloting results in many states.

For instance, by November 1 the number of Texans who cast an early ballot had exceeded the state's entire turnout for the 2014 midterm.  Another 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, recorded higher early voter turnout than the entire total for the last midterm.

In previous years, early voting had no influence on total turnout. This midterm was clearly an exception to that rule.  One difference from previous midterms is that more than 3.3 million voters aged 18 to 29 voted via early ballot, a whopping 188 percent increase from 2014.

However, seniors were the largest demographic to vote early.  By some estimates, seniors aged 65 and up comprised more than half of those who cast ballots before November 6.  Voting early is a trend that is likely to mushroom as people decide to skip the dreaded lines on election day. 

Turnout for this midterm hopefully signals a renewed desire for people to become engaged in democracy. America, forget the political parties, wins when people vote.  America needs citizen participation for democracy to succeed as the founding fathers intended.  

More women were elected to Congress and state legislatures than ever before.  There were 3,379 females running in midterm races nationwide, according to a report from Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics.  That represents a 25 percent increase from the last midterm.

As a result of these midterms, more women will serve in Congress than at any point in our nation's history.  There will be at least 118 females in the House and Senate.  The total includes 31 first-time House members, seven more than the previous high established in 1992.

The majority of the women in the House are aligned with the Democratic Party--84 of the 96 females that will represent state districts.  And 30 of the 31 female newcomers in the House are Democrats.  But the first Korean-American ever elected to Congress is a Republican from California.

The House and Senate will be the most diverse in history.  That bodes well for a country that embraces diversity.  These midterms ushered in a new era for women in politics. And it portends a day when a woman soon will occupy the White House.

The 2018 midterms were the most expensive in history.  The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that the two political parties raised a record-breaking $5.2 billion.  That smashed the previous mark of $3.7 billion in fundraising in the 2014 midterms.

Democrats benefited from the numbers of retiring Republicans.  The media tried to pin the blame on President Trump for Democrats flipping the House.  However, Republicans had the largest number of congressional retirements since the Brookings Institute began tracking the statistic 88 years ago.

There was an exodus of 39 before the midterms.  Most of them were House members.  Many, but certainly not all, represented suburban districts where the demographics have changed in favor of traditional Democratic voters.  GOP newcomers faced steep odds to hold these districts.

Incumbency is a sizable advantage in any election.  As a result, Republicans lost 31 seats in the midterms against well funded Democrats.  Historically, the party of the sitting president loses the House and Senate in midterms, however, the GOP survived a catastrophic defeat.

In 1994, President Clinton lost 54 House seats in the first midterm after his election.  President Obama suffered an even worst fate as his party surrendered 63 seats in 2010.  Measured against those midterms, Mr. Trump's party fared better than previous first-term presidents.

Although Democrats will control the House and Republicans will be the majority in the Senate, there are 14 Congressional races that remain unsettled a week after the polls closed.  This may be the most contests hanging in the balance in election history.

As of this writing, Democrats will have a 227 to 198 majority.  There are still 11 House races that are awaiting final tabulation of votes.  Despite all the advances in technology, counting votes remains a labor intensive process that often leaves neither political party satisfied.  This must be addressed.

In the Senate, there are three races undecided, all likely headed for recounts.  For now the Republicans hold a 51-46 majority.  The Democrats had more seats to defend in battleground states that President Trump carried in 2016, giving the GOP the upper hand.

By now your head is spinning with numbers, so here is an antidote for data overdose.  In Nevada, a dead man won a seat in the state assembly.  Republican Dennis Hof, owner of a brothel, passed away a month before the midterms.  Officials ruled it was too late to scratch his name.  It didn't matter.

Voters overwhelming elected Hof.  Apparently, having a pulse is not a requirement for election to the state assembly in Nevada.   Truly a sad state of affairs.  But nothing should surprise anyone after the tumultuous midterm elections of 2018. 

The Supremes: Court Nominees Endure Inquisition

When President George Washington named John Jay as the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, he could never have imagined the gauntlet future nominees would face.  Almost 230 years later, court appointees endure fierce partisan attacks and personal vilification.

Once presidential nominees to the nation's highest court were treated with polite deference.  Those days disappeared during the presidency of Richard Nixon when two appointees were rejected in votes by the Senate in 1969 and 1970.  That had not happened since 1930 under President Hoover.

While some nominees have voluntarily withdrawn their names in the past, only a dozen nominees in two centuries have been voted down by the Senate.  While scrutiny of any Supreme Court appointment is part of the Senate's role, it has evolved into political theater unfitting of the office.

As evidence, the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy touched off a firestorm of opposition before his replacement was even named. When President Trump tapped Brett Kavanaugh, a respected judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the verbal knifing began.

It is an omen that his confirmation hearings will feature political teeth gnashing instead of serious judicial inquiry.

A powerful Political Action Committee (PAC) funded by George Soros has already begun digging into Kavanaugh's background. The American Bridge 21st Century, founded in 2012, specializes in opposition research, a polite term for trolling for dirt on those the PAC deems its enemies.

In fact, the group has made no pretense that it is less interested in combing through Judge Kavanaugh's legal scholarship than it is in uncovering details of his personal life or views on political and religious issues.  The latter may garner the spotlight since the nominee is a practicing Catholic.

The nation was treated to a precursor of what Kavanaugh likely will encounter when President Trump nominated Notre Dame University professor Amy Coney Barrett to an appeals court.  Led by California's Senator Dianne Feinstein, the hearings denigrated into a religious inquisition.

The senator delved deeply into how Barrett's faith might influence her rulings, suggesting she wore her Catholicism too "loudly."  This represented the worst kind of intolerance and bigotry.  Expect more of the same when Kavanaugh is grilled by Democrats during the confirmation hearings.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already signaled that "women's health care" will be a central issue.  His choice of words is political code for abortion.  Democrats will hammer that theme to raise the specter that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if a Catholic justice is confirmed.

(Note to Liberals: A 2017 Pew Research poll of adults nationwide found 57 percent support abortion in all or most cases.  Among Catholics surveyed, 53 percent held the same position.  That means Catholics or no more likely to oppose abortion than any other adult.)

This red herring survives despite the fact there has never been a direct legal challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled unconstitutional a state law banning abortion to save the life of a mother. The ruling has stood for 45 years. In the interim, there have been 60 million U.S. abortions.

The other issue likely to be front and center is the #MeToo movement.  In today's hyper-charged atmosphere any whiff of sexual impropriety is enough to destroy a public figure.  A left-wing outfit Ultraviolet has made its mission to sabotage the nomination with scurrilous sexual accusations.

Ultraviolet is shopping a six-page memo to senators and the media insinuating Kavanaugh knew about sexual harassment accusations against a federal judge and failed to act.  The sleazy dossier offers no incriminating evidence to back its claims against Kavanaugh, who clerked for the judge.

It matters little the alleged incident happened 25 years ago and there has never been a hint of impropriety on Kavanaugh's part.  It also is no coincidence that Ultraviolet has links to MoveOn.org, another activist group that enjoys generous financial support from the irascible Soros. 

Over the next month,  expect activists armed with war chests to nitpick every email, memo and private utterance of Judge Kavanaugh to find a smoking gun. The ruthless efforts will yield no real proof but insidious innuendos.  Thus the hearings likely will be uncivil and uninformative.

Kavanaugh has a 12-year record on the court of appeals.  There are more than 300 of his cases that provide a window into his views on the Constitution as well as insights into his integrity, knowledge of the law and judicial competence.  His judicial record should determine his fate, but it won't.

This is Washington and nothing inspires political grandstanding and personal bullying like hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. Ultimately, Kavanaugh will be approved but not until senators have shredded every last remnant of their already tattered cloak of dignity.