2022 Elections: Almost Over, Maybe

I recently noted that the final election results have come from Alaska, leading only a few races (two House? and a Senate) still being up in the air. There is also (I have my doubts this will happen though it darn well should) the issue of challenging one or more people on 14A, sec. 3 grounds.  

The results are that Republicans will have around a four person majority. This should (though there is a lot of assumptions otherwise) be enough to be able to do basic stuff. House Democrats had a slightly higher working majority, but usually nearly everyone (maybe one or two excepted) could be assumed to go along with the basic stuff. This includes showing up.  

Again, there is a feeling that House Republicans will have a problem here somehow, including people not showing up, getting sick, or even vacancies arising.  There is already multiple people (let's see how this sticks) saying they don't want Kevin McCarthy as speaker.  I have seen reference to people (four? I don't know) rather strongly saying "NEVER!"  We shall see.

A major blame for the results, including by more than one local pol, is applied to the powers that be in New York. This includes the whole redistricting mess, which was a mess, no matter what position you fall regarding the question of partisan gerrymandering pursuant to local law. A last minute redrawing might have gave this writer one more poll worker per diem, but it led to confusion and very well hurt Democrats.

I question is you can just blame a four person majority (it might come to that) on that alone. A midterm election in New York with a bland unelected governor (picked by the three time governor forced to resign) at the head will cause problems. One problem is the general safety some swing voters will feel living in a NY.  

Other states changed by strengthening Democrat control.  Other states also do not have the social benefits, including abortion rights as New York has. I just reread the strong joint dissent in Dobbs, which (contrary to some criticism) is a strong offering, providing reasons for abortion rights, a dissenting view on how to apply constitutional liberty (not originalism), and not just reliant on stare decisis.  Here are but a few good bits:

The majority has overruled Roe and Casey for one and only one reason: because it has always despised them, and now it has the votes to discard them. The majority thereby substitutes a rule by judges for the rule of law.

Even an uncomplicated pregnancy imposes significant strain on the body, unavoidably involving significant physiological change and excruciating pain.

Human bodies care little for hopes and plans.

Many will endure the costs and risks of pregnancy and giving birth against their wishes. Others will turn in desperation to illegal and unsafe abortions. They may lose not just their freedom, but their lives.

The history of state abortion restrictions is a history of heavy costs exacted from the most vulnerable women. It is a history of women seeking illegal abortions in hotel rooms and home kitchens; of women trying to self-induce abortions by douching with bleach, injecting lye, and penetrating themselves with knitting needles, scissors, and coat hangers. 

The Democrats have the presidency and the Senate looked pretty safe. So, if you were on the edge Republican leaning voter in Long Island, would you not feel somewhat safe about things on this question?  Democrats did well in California, but the situation is different there -- the Democrats at top was not as much in flux with a new governor and the Democrats as a whole had a majority for a longer time.  

I am just not sure that the losses in House seats all could have been avoided.  I am not saying the situation was properly handled.  The whole gerrymander thing is complicated, but again, either way, it was not handled very well.  It would have taken a strong partisan gerrymander (rather blatant), however, to prevent some loss here.  When you have a majority that might be counted on one hand, every race does count.  But, the assumption of some of a majority being possible?  That is assuming a lot.

The losses -- New York is still no Florida (mess for state Democrats) -- still is a warning sign.  New York is the fourth most populated state in the nation and should be a leader in progressive politics.  We have always been a bit messy (see the disrespect we get in 1776) and are more conservative in various ways than some want or say (this is seen in New York City mayoral politics alone).  A midterm is a good wake-up call.

Talking Points Memo noted that in recent years that there were ebbs and flows in congressional control.  The result is probably the best the Democrats can hope for there -- Republicans (hopefully) will have a perilous messy majority, and the results will make 2024 more promising. 

I think that is a generally valid approach though again it just is so hard with institutions that are inherently illegitimate in some sense.  I think that way with the Supreme Court (it is not just that we lost in the ballot box; the process was corrupted). And, when House Republicans aid and abet Trump and Trumpism, I think that way there too. They coming back in control two years after 2020 with if anything becoming more true believer is hard to take.

Democrats need to fight now -- when you are in the minority, it is more useful to point out what is wrong and aim high since your opponents are not likely (at least here) offer much at all -- and we will see how it goes. As to the Senate, it looks like Warnock should win.  Not that the fact it still is so close is upsetting and a tad bit soul crushing.  A 51-49 Senate will help Democrats on the appointment end and maybe more since you have a one person safety plus a 50-50 Senate required a bit more compromising. 

It is so tiring but nice to have some things on our side.