It’s election day in the US and as Jena Friedman (@JenaFriedman) put it in 2018 “It feels like all of America is awaiting the results of a biopsy.” Many pundits have expressed that, in this election, democracy itself is on the ballot. That may be an overstatement (I certainly hope so) but the anti-democratic attitudes and actions of the Republican Party make such a statement plausible. In some ways, state and local elections may be more important than the elections for Representatives and Senators — because, while those elections won’t affect control of the Congress they could have a serious effect on future elections. Tim Michel, gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin, for example. said if he is elected Republicans “will never lose another election” in that state. To be fair, perhaps he meant that he would be such a stellar governor that his coattails would be long and durable. On the other hand, he has refused to say that he would concede the election if he is defeated.
As everyone knows, historically, the sitting President’s party tends to lose Congressional seats in mid-term elections. This election, though, may be different. One significant factor is last summer’s supreme court ruling that discarded Roe vs. Wade which guaranteed a women’s right to choose to end a pregnancy. Reportedly, in response, voter registration for women and young people generally surged. Ending abortion has been a (stated) Republican goal for decades and the three Trump appointees to the Supreme Court became the wedge that allowed the demise of Roe. It may be that Republicans will pay a political price for taking away a Constitutional right from nearly half the nation. In addition, former president Trump is embroiled in numerous civil and criminal probes and, though his ardent supporters won’t waver, more circumspect people may decide to sit this one out even if they usually vote Republican.
For decades, I have enjoyed voting in person on election day. My polling place was a short pleasant walk from my home and because I’ve lived in the neighborhood for more than 30 years, I knew many of the people in line or working the polls. I voted by mail (well, I put my mail-in ballot in a drop box) in the last two elections because of the pandemic. I was looking forward to returning to in person voting but, checking my registration last week, I found that my polling place had changed; and, it was no longer walk-able. So, I went to the early voting place nearest me and cast my ballot. Early voting nationwide has exceeded levels in 2018 (the last midterm elections) and has largely comprised young and female voters. Republican candidates and their buffoon-in-chief have urged Republican voters to vote in person on election day because of the (no evidence required) worries about early and mail-in voting. The surge in voter registration and early voting is a good sign for Democrats.
Many states have provisions that disallow counting of early/mail-in ballots before election day. Because of that — and because Republicans have urged their voters to vote on election day — there is likely to be a “red mirage” this evening where, in many races, Republicans will seem to be winning handily. That lead will lessen as the evening (and probably the next) progresses and tallies of by mail and early voting are added to the counts. This is a well established phenomenon and — though Republicans are likely to call foul — indicates nothing nefarious.
Over 300 of the Republican candidates have bought into Trump’s “big lie” that the 2020 Presidential election was “stolen” from him. As with many conspiracy theories, this is believed even though no evidence validates it. In fact, for some, the dearth of evidence is itself proof that something has gone wrong.
Since the 2020 elections, Republican state legislatures have tightened voting rules in the states they control in the name of “election integrity.” As is repeatedly noted, there is no evidence that election fraud is a problem (I should note that any election fraud constitutes a problem but it is extremely unlikely to happen on a scale that affects the outcome of an election). Between gerrymandering and the efforts to suppress voting (“election integrity” rules) Republicans enjoy a significant advantage in many states in a normal election. But it seems clear that this is not an ordinary election. There are reasons to be hopeful.
Republican media has, for the last week or two, amplified polling that shows them winning. This is to hedge their bets in case Democrats prevail in some of the important (swing state) races that are likely to be very close. Undoubtedly, if their candidates fail they will cry foul and impress upon their voters that the race has been stolen (which many of their voters have been primed to believe will happen anyway).
I certainly hope the Democrats win enough races to keep control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Republicans have advertised their plans to impeach President Biden and Vice-president Harris (reasons TBD), to gut Social Security and Medicare (just before I start enjoying those benefits!) and to enact a nation-wide abortion ban. They are unlikely to have sufficient numbers to accomplish these goals but there is some danger associated with their likely attempts. And, come the next election, Republican prospects may be much better if they win enough key races this time around.
If Democrats keep control, there will be much gnashing of teeth and vocal complaints from the Republican leaders. Let’s hope that their efforts to cast doubt on the integrity of key elections is clownishly entertaining and doesn’t become violent.
Even though I know that many races won’t be decided until tomorrow, or the next day or the next) I’ll be watching the returns on television tonight so I can wake tomorrow with a sense of where we are and what needs to happen going forward.
Well said
Well, some great and thoughtful comments as usual, Raff. As a Democrat since the age of 18, it is gratifying that the damage was not worse both nationally and at the local level. Thankfully many of the election deniers did not prevail and the threat to democracy is a little less then it was yesterday. Ironically, we probably have the Supreme Court to thank for this as it’s decision to overturn Roe motivated much of the deciding voter turnout.
I am grateful that it was not a “Republican wave” but it is gut-wrenching that my misguided Democrat brothers and sisters are not more discerning about protecting the unborn given all the scientific evidence that there is a human life in the womb…………..we don’t seem to be supporting the traditional Democratic values of protecting the voiceless, the vulnerable and those who are marginalized. As one who whole heartedly supports equal rights for women, here’s hoping we will take a closer look at the question of when life begins before positioning abortion as strictly a women’s right to choose issue. After all, about half of those abortions end the life of a little girl.
Lou, unfortunately, I don’t think that science can answer the question of “when life begins” to everyone’s (or even most people’s) satisfaction. I think that the viability standard established in Roe is as good a guideline as any. It sidesteps the theological issue (as it should!) and makes a coherent political judgment: when does a fetus begin to have rights. I know several women who have had abortions and none of them made the decision cavalierly. So, I think the decision has to remain with the woman — and medical professionals when warranted. If we really want to reduce the number of abortions we need to make sure that contraception is available and that girls and women are well trained in its use. We also want to make social adjustments so an unplanned pregnancy is never the catastrophe that it often is now.
One other consideration: Legislation that makes fetal life the government’s business is dangerous. A government that is empowered to ban abortion is also empowered to compel it.
Raff – thanks for your thoughts. A few points in reponse are my thoughts.
The question of when life begins must be answered it seems to me. When we talk about abortion, that is the key question. To say it can’t be answered to everyone’s satisfaction seems to dodge the key question. We are not talking about “is it purple or violet” or “is it partly cloudy or partly sunny.” If we get the answers wrong to those questions it’s no big deal. If we get the answer wrong to when life begins it is obviously a very big deal. We all agree that human life is in a special category and is most important. That’s why the taking of an innocent human life is the worst crime one can commit. Clearly human life is the government’s business, or at least it should be. Even in our dysfuntional Congress the intention of passing laws is generally to better the human condition (even if we often disagree about that).
There are so many angles to this. But, science does tell us when human life ends (no heart beat, no brain waves = death). Isn’t there some logic to concluding that life begins when a hearbeat starts? But because of science, a heartbeat can be detected now at 6 weeks. Not too long ago the best science could detect a heartbeat at about 15 weeks. The Supreme Court in Roe used the concept of viability (not to answer the question of when life begins – the court ducked that question too) to describe when a state might have a legitimate interest to regulate abortion. But even viability is a moving target because babies born in the second trimester survive all the time these days. Science may not be far away from saving babies born in the 1st trimester. So when does life begin? To me, we just can’t duck the question. And when we start to think about it and discuss it there may not be an easy answer but isn’t just too important to simply ignore it?
Sorry if I am a downer in your blog………..but I think we do need to discuss this question and not dodge it because we can’t agree or it’s too hard. It’s just too important to get it right. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to share some thoughts.
In order for science to answer a question, the criteria for answering that question must be from consensus. It’s my understanding that shortly after sperm meets egg a unique DNA is formed. That seems to me to be compelling science but it also puts abortion out of reach for, well, everyone. The notion of a fetal heartbeat at about 6 weeks is a specious argument designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason. Since there is no heart (or circulatory system) at 6 weeks there is no heartbeat. It’s not ducking the question to conclude that science cannot answer a question; because it’s ultimately a theological or moral question. Feel free to respond — but after you do, I’ll close commenting for this post (if I can figure out how) [I linked to an article in this reply but at this point it displays as HTML — I hope that when I publish this reply, it will show up as a link]
Thank you for thoughts it opens many doors on how this is going to play out.