The 2018 Midterms - Senate

On Tuesday, November 6th, 2018, voters will go to the polls to cast their votes deciding the fate of thirty four senate seats and 435 House seats. The midterms are infamously a period of time where there is substantially less voter turnout compared to presidential elections (voter turnout reached 58% in 2008 and 55% in 2012 presidential years, compared to midterm elections with voter turnout of 41% in 2010 and 36% in 2014) and are n generally  beneficial to  the opposing party. The reason midterms are advantageous to the party out of power is because these elections  usually serve as a check on the majority party if the President is fairly unpopular or simply not popular enough to excite their base to turnout in elections.

The 2018 Midterm Elections are being closely watched for a multitude of reasons,  primarily  to measure the political environment as well as  the President’s popularity. In the 2006 Midterm Elections, Democrats experienced a “wave”, or surge in political power, by retaking the House for the first time in a decade and retaking the Senate under George W Bush’s presidency. Similarly, in 2010, Republicans took back the House with an overwhelming majority and weakened the healthy Democratic majority from 57 seats to 51 seats during Obama’s presidency. There is past precedent of the parties out of party taking back a large control of Congress if the President is unpopular and the base is motivated - luckily for Democrats, they meet both of these conditions going into the 2018 midterms.

The 2018 Midterm at a Glance

The 2018 midterms elections are shaping up to be a matter of concern for both the Democrats and Republicans. In order to retake the House from Republicans, Democrats would need to pick up 24 seats, 23 of which Hillary Clinton beat Trump in 2016. The Generic Ballot Poll, which asks those surveyed who they would support between a generic Democrat and generic Republican, has consistently shown a polling edge favoring the Democrats by an average of an 8-10 point lead, showing signs of a Democratic “wave” (an election where one party makes significant gains in either the House, Senate, or both). In the Senate election, Democrats must defend 25 senate seats (including Senator Al Franken’s seat which will be up in 2018 as a special election), while Republicans only need to defend eight Senate seats. In those 25 Democratic senate seats, ten Senators are in states Donald Trump won in 2016, and five are in states Donald Trump won by 18% or more. The Democrats face a daunting task of winning all their seats as well as winning two more seats from the Republicans to take control of the Senate (51 senators). In the following graph, you’ll find the states with senate seats up for reelection, who currently holds those seats, and by what margin Donald Trump won the state in 2016.

The "State" column is the state's which will be holding Senate elections in 2018, the "Incumbent Party" column is which party currently holds the seat as of December 2017, and the "Trump Margin of Victory" column is the percent by which Trump won (or lost) to Clinton. 

The 2018 Senate Races - Advantages and Disadvantages for The Democrats

Democrats have a significant amount of seats to defend in states Trump won, with the added burden of winning an additional two seats currently held by Republicans. That said, Democrats do have a few  advantages to offset their challenges.

Advantages:

Despite Democrats controlling 10 senate seats in Trump States, they have popular incumbents. Their candidates in these states were elected because they know their state’s culture well and vote on more conservative legislation than the rest of the Democratic caucus. Paired with a popular incumbency, Democrats have performed strongly in many special elections in 2017. Democratic candidates have managed to turn out their base, while the GOP has significantly lagged behind in getting their base to vote. If this trend continues in the 2018 Midterm Elections, which it most likely will, Democrats will be in a position of strength when competing in “swing states” such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and many others with Democratic incumbents facing reelection in 2018. In non incumbent states, specifically Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas, Democrats have begun the recruitment for powerful competitors who areable to compete in these red states. This turnout can only be so effective, however, and won’t be of much help in states such as Missouri, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. The Congressional Ballot polling,mentioned previously, is predictive of a large Dem victory (8-10 points); this is a good indication of the political environment, which shows the Democrats are favored. Independents are supporting Democrats more than Republicans, and the Democratic base is very supportive of their own party. Finally, the last big advantage for the Democrats is Trump’s unpopularity. Trump’s favorability hovers around 37%, while 57% of the population disapproves of him. If Democrats can focus not only on policy, but also the voter’s disapproval of the President, they’ll be able to keep Republican turnout low enough that Democratic turnout can eclipse them enough to assure safe victories for the party.

Disadvantages:

The greatest disadvantage for the Democrats lies in the large number of states they must defend. Republicans will be targeting all ten of the states Trump won, forcing Democratic resources to split among these states leaving the others under-funded. Furthermore, in the most vulnerable Democratic seats, losing even one makes the chances of retaking the Senate significantly more complicated. As it stands, Republicans hold 51 seats to the Democrats 49 seats (two of which, Senators Angus King and Bernie Sanders are independents who “caucus”, or support, the Democratic party), meaning any loss in the Democrats seats would dramatically decrease their chance of a majority.

The 2018 Senate Races - Advantages and Disadvantages for the Republicans

Currently, the Republicans hold a slim majority of 51 seats in the senate. They can afford to lose one more seat in order to maintain their majority, as Vice President Mike Pence would break the 50-50 tie in favor of Republicans.

Advantages:

Republicans have a straightforward path to guarding their majority. Out of the eight senate seats they’re defending, only one (Nevada) voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Arizona favored Trump by only 3%, while the other six voted for trump by nine points or more. If the GOP were to win all their seats, minus Nevada, they would still control the Senate. The Republicans can further expand their majority by targeting the ten states Trump won in 2016. The political environment is very bad for the Republicans right now, but they have incumbents in very safe seats, and if they focus all their resources on a few seats, it makes the Democrat’s chances of taking back the senate much more difficult.

Disadvantages:
The same advantages of the Democrats are major disadvantages for the Republicans: a political environment and strong polling favoring the Democrats, Trump’s low favorability ratings, and the strength of the Democratic candidates. Republicans must overcome their own legislative failures, which include failing to pass an Obamacare repeal bill, despite controlling Congress and the Presidency, and passing an unpopular tax cut.  A divisive agenda will hurt turnout for the Republicans, while providing Democrats the incentive they needed to mobilize and vote.

In the following weeks and months, I’ll be focusing on six “toss-up” races: Tennessee, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, and West Virginia, all states which could either go for the Democrats or the Republicans, and will decide the majority for 2019-2021.

Can Doug Jones Win in Alabama

Recent allegations against the Republican nominee for the Senate, Roy Moore, have pushed the special election in Alabama from a probable Republican victory to a toss-up. The scandal, which broke earlier this month, detailed accounts of now eight women who were allegedly sexually harassed by Moore. Since then, the Democratic nominee for the Senate, Doug Jones, has seen an increase in his poll numbers and political analysts are now asking the question of whether or not a Democrat can feasibly win in the ruby red state of Alabama.

Past Election Results And Polls

The last time a Democrat won a statewide race in Alabama was in 1992 with Senator Richard Shelby who won by a margin of 64.8% to 33.1%. In 1994, however, Shelby switched to the Republican party and is currently still serving in the Senate. Elections in Alabama since ‘92 haven’t been so kind to Democrats: they’ve lost Presidential races in that state by margins of 15% to 27%, with senate and gubernatorial races taking on a similar form.

Most polls from September to early November showed Republican candidate Moore ahead of Democratic candidate Jones by high single to low double digits. The polls which showed Jones and Moore in a deadlock were outliers in a sea of data which showed a GOP hold on the state. This isn’t very much of a surprise as Alabama has consistently been a stronghold for the Republican party in the last 20 years, and its demographics don’t allow much room for change. Over 70% of Alabama’s population is white, while only 26% are african-american. Nationally, 58% of white voters align more with the GOP while only 37% align with the Democratic party, while 88% of african-american voters support the Democrats compared to only 8% for the GOP. These numbers heavily favor the GOP in Alabama, making any Democrat’s victory a difficulty based on the demographics alone.

The Implications of the Scandal and New Polls

Once the allegations against Moore broke, including one harassment claim by a minor at the time, it appeared the race might move in an entirely new direction. In response, dozens of GOP lawmakers pulled their endorsements from Moore. The most significant denouncements of Moore came from the GOP establishment: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Cory Gardner, Vice President Mike Pence, as well as other prominent members such as Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Jeff Flake, who went as far as to say he would vote for the Democrat if he were an Alabama voter. Despite members of the Senate abandoning Moore, Alabama republicans have a negative opinion of the GOP establishment wing, and the lack of endorsements will likely have little impact on the larger electorate of the state.

More recent polling has shown a change in the minds of Alabama voters. New  polls report Doug Jones ahead of Moore by as much as 8 points, while others show a slight Jones advantage, a toss-up, or a slight Moore advantage. This data is good news for Jones as it shows a shift in either the Republican or undecided base against Moore. The election is still three weeks away, meaning these polls may change over time as voters either forget about the scandal or other unforeseen events unfold.

What Jones would need to win in Alabama

Evidence in this year’s special elections have all pointed to a political environment which favors the Democrats, as evidenced in major victories in the Virginia House of Delegates and Virginia Governor race, strong results in special House elections, and other down ballot races. The generic ballot poll which asks likely voters who they would vote for in an election with a generic Democratic candidate vs a generic Republican candidate show strong signs of a Democratic “wave”, where Democrats beat Republicans by a margin of 7% to 15%. Additionally, Trump has the lowest approval rating for any President who has served less than a year in office: the President has an average approval rating of 39%. Despite all these signs pointing to a strong showing by Democrats in the 2018 midterms, flipping a state that has consistently gone for the Republicans by double digits is no easy task, and until a few weeks ago, seemed an unattainable fantasy for the Democratic party.

Despite the Moore Scandal, some Republican voters are still defending Moore, while others are begrudgingly voting for him to ensure the Republicans maintain their slim majority in order to pass their Tax Reform initiative and other campaign promises made by the party. Moderate Republicans are less likely to hold their nose, and that is where Jones has a shot at victory.

If moderate Republicans or Conservatives, outraged by Moore’s scandal, refuse to vote for the GOP nominee, Jones has a chance to win. If there is depressed turnout on the Republicans side, Jones’s coalition of millenials, African Americans, other registered Democrats, and moderate Republicans could squeak by with just enough turnout and support to narrowly beat Moore.

Moore  has never concealed his paleoconservative side - a “Bannonite” who follows the anti-establishment, nationalistic, ideology of former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. He’s repeatedly attacked Republicans such as Mitch McConnell and has alienated himself from the moderate base of the party. If these moderate Republicans switch over to Doug Jones, they pad his coalition of normally Democratic voters which can allow him to reach a plurality of votes and secure a victory over Moore.

Another possible election scenario is one where moderate Republicans and disgruntled Conservatives refuse to vote for either candidate, instead opting to write-in someone such as incumbent Senator Luther Strange, who had lost the Republican primary to Roy Moore. In this case, a three-way race between Moore, Jones, and write-in Strange, would leave Jones with some chance to win, but still slim. Before the scandal, Jones had a polling average of around 41%, whereas Moore had an average of around 50%. After the allegations, both Moore and Jones have been polling at approximately 45%. These numbers shifted most likely due to Republicans switching sides, but if a write-in candidate, such as Strange, were added into the equation, we can expect Jones’s numbers to maintain at close to 41% (his base before the scandal), and Moore’s numbers remaining at about 45% (his base after the scandal), with a write-in getting maybe 10% or more, but not enough to win. The only way in which Jones could win in this scenario would be by courting enough undecideds onto his side in order to narrowly beat Moore.

In both scenarios, a Jones upset is a toss-up and this race remains incredibly tight. Assuming no other scandals break and no write-in campaign begins, Jones has only a few options in pulling off an upset in the race.

As was mentioned earlier, Moore may lose support from moderate Republicans and other Conservatives, but those votes can only help Jones so much. In order to get more votes than Moore, Jones has to rile up his coalition in order to maximize turnout to beat his opponent.

There is a large african-american population in Alabama which gives Jones an advantage in the race, but the challenge is getting them to turnout in large numbers. Turnout may be depressed in these voters, or not as high as Jones needs them to be, which poses problems for his campaign. This demographic is key to his victory: with them, he doesn’t automatically win but without them he automatically loses. Jones has been targeting areas with a sizeable african-american population in order to drive up voter registration numbers before the deadline of November 27th. Part of Jones’s campaign message to these voters has been to highlight his career as an attorney for Alabama who prosecuted two members of the KKK who killed four African-American girls in a church bombing. Jones’s goal is to contrast his work and time in public service with Moore’s time in which he was removed twice as a member of the Alabama Supreme Court for defying the law - once for failing to remove the ten commandments from a public area and another for failing to follow the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage.

The second demographic Jones has been attempting to capture is the millennial/student vote. Often considered a shoe-in for Democrats, Millenials don’t always turnout in elections, especially special and midterm elections where there is generally less participation from the electorate as a whole. Jones has targeted college campuses to drive up registration.  The key to his victory rests upon millenials and students getting out to vote.

Jones’s coalition of voters, as shown above, is instrumental in his success. If there is high turnout from african american voters, millennials and students, and a few traditionally republican voters, there’s a chance he can win the race and turn ruby red to light blue.

Infrastructure Reform Pt. 1

Hey Everyone,

I thought I would take the time to do some in depth analysis of the Infrastructure bill I authored - and why the subject is important in our society. I will break this analysis down into two parts: the first of which will provide context for why Infrastructure Reform is important and what are some blocks towards achieving reform; the second part will offer policy on solutions to reform how we invest in and maintain Infrastructure. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure is by no means a "sexy' subject when it comes to policy: it's quite often boring and many don't consider it a top priority compared to other initiatives such as Healthcare, Taxes, or Immigration. Therefore maintaining a strong infrastructure in our country often falls through the cracks; it is disregarded until it must absolutely be addressed by a bipartisan effort in Congress, at which time it is often too late to make any grand permanent change. 

Maintaining a strong infrastructure is critical to the well being of any nation: if our roads, bridges, ports, sewage systems, water and electric systems, or newer technological infrastructure such as IT are underfunded and neglected, we sacrifice both the safety of our citizens and the well being of our economy. 


While it is often agreed upon by both sides that we must revitalize and improve our infrastructure (as evidenced by both candidates in the 2016 election advocating for Infrastructure reforms as well as multiple bipartisan initiatives in the past), policymakers never get around to passing comprehensive legislation. 

There are several reasons for this neglect, and the biggest reason is that repairing our infrastructure is expensive. Even if congress could pass legislation which granted several hundred billion dollars to repair our infrastructure, it still wouldn't be enough. In order to fix our infrastructure and return it to its most efficient state, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that over $2 trillion would be needed over the next 10 years; this is no easy task, especially when the US Government owes $20 trillion and runs a budget deficit of  over $443 billion. 



The second reason is because policymakers must prioritize their efforts on what they believe are the most critical issues. Despite the fact that 67% of Americans say President Trump and Congress should prioritize their efforts on Infrastructure Reform, they have instead been focusing on Healthcare and Tax Reform - both of which are significantly less important according to voters. Why is it then that policymakers can't address the needs of their constituents? The truth is the GOP, who control the legislative and the executive branches, believe repealing Obamacare (a cornerstone of their policy for the last decade), reducing taxes, and limiting government intervention are more important than fixing infrastructure; the same applies to the Democrats who would rather focus on phasing out Obamacare to Universal Healthcare or strengthening Social Security and other entitlements. The drive to pass comprehensive infrastructure is not very high - the Trump administration, as one of its main goals, may push in the future for Infrastructure Reform, but the chances that this reform is meaningful and passable are slim.

In part 2, I will talk about the in-depth policy specifics of what actual Infrastructure Reform could look like. 

Thanks everyone. 

Infrastructure Recovery Bill

Hey Everyone,

As with my last several posts, I will be sharing more of my work in writing bills aiming to bring up different solutions to some of the problems our country faces. 

This bill addresses the growing problem of our failing infrastructure, and proposes an affordable solution to fixing our infrastructure. Its main goal is to direct states to take on loans from something called a National Infrastructure Bank. Here is the full bill: 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,*

*Whereas:  Our infrastructure is incredibly underfunded and in desperate need for repair.*

*Whereas: A National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) has already been established, and can provide relief to states in need of infrastructure repair.*

*Whereas: Public pension investment in the NIB can provide much needed capital for loans to state and local governments, as well as a safe and steady return for pensions and funds already investing in the public and private market.*

*Whereas: The Federal Departments concerning themselves with infrastructure are the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Commerce, and the EPA.*

**Section 1: Short Title**

This Act shall be known as the Infrastructure Recovery Act

**Section 2: Definitions and Terms**

1. Modernization: Modernization shall be the act of upgrading and improving any outdated buildings, materials, and systems already in place.

2. National Infrastructure Bank: An independently run Federal Bank whose purpose is to provide long-term, low-interest loans with capital from private investment to fund infrastructure projects.

**Section 3: Grant Appropriations**

1. Over the next ten years, Congress shall work in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy to do the following:

1. Offer grants to all 50 states of the United States of America with the following appropriations;

1. $20 billion shall go towards expanding high-speed broadband in areas without such access;

1. A review of areas without broadband internet access shall be conducted by the FCC, and will report their findings towards the National Telecommunications and Information Administration;

2. The Department of Commerce shall administer the grants and shall ensure such grants are being properly used;

2. $20 billion shall go towards a Vital Infrastructure Program;

1. The “Vital Infrastructure Program” shall be administered by the Infrastructure Advisory Board;

1. Appropriations for the Vital Infrastructure Program shall be administered by the Department of the Treasury;

3. $50 billion shall go towards repairing public schools;

1. Such grants shall go towards improving specifically the facilities and conditions of public schools;

1. Such grants shall also go towards providing increased tools and supplies necessary to all public schools;

1. One percent (1%) or less of the grants may be used on sports teams and materials;

2. The Department of Education shall administer the grants and shall ensure such grants are being properly used;

4. $100 billion shall go towards funding energy infrastructure and grid modernization;

1. The Department of Energy shall administer the grants and shall ensure such grants are being properly used;

5. $150 billion shall go towards repairing and modernizing local water systems and sewer systems;

1. The EPA shall administer the grants and shall ensure such grants are being properly used;

6. $500 billion shall go towards repairing and maintaining our nation's roads, highways, bridges, airports, waterways, and ports;

1. The Department of Transportation shall administer the grants and shall ensure such grants are being properly used;

2. State governments shall report the details for what they have done with the grants provided to the respective Departments in charge of the specific infrastructure investments made in this section:

1. If the grants have been used for the purposes other than those outlined above, the state government shall be fully expected to pay back the entirety of the grant to the federal government;

1. If a state refuses to do so, all transportation grants to the state shall be immediately frozen, and will be unfrozen once the grants are paid back;

3. All grants administered to State Governments must include provisions on establishing job-guarantee programs as a condition to receive such grants;

**Section 4: Infrastructure Advisory Board**

1. An Infrastructure Advisory Board (IAB) shall be created, with its purposes being:

1. To conduct research, studies, and surveys into the state of US Infrastructure;

1. The IAB shall compile a report based on section 4(a)(i) of this act, delivered to the President, each Federal Department involving itself in infrastructure, and the committees and subcommittees in the House of Representatives and Senate concerning themselves with infrastructure;

2. To formulate plans on how to best improve US infrastructure, and come up with long term viable solutions to ensure US infrastructure remains strong;

1. Such plans will have estimated costs and required appropriation estimates;

2. This plan shall be sent to each Federal Department involving itself in infrastructure and shall act as a recommendation;

3. All plans must encourage the creation of job-guarantee programs to go along with grants/loan approvals to states;

2. The IAB shall be made up of all Federal Department Secretaries concerning themselves with Infrastructure, and shall be called the IAB’s Governing Body:

1. The IAB shall be headed by a person appointed by the President, who will consult the Governing Body on all matters, but will make all final decisions on research reports, improvement plans, and budgetary matters;

1. An executive decision by the head of the IAB, may be overridden by 2/3rds of the Governing Body,

2. The appointed head of the IAB shall report directly to the President of the United States of America,

3. Within the IAB, a Vital Infrastructure Board shall be created as a subdivision:

1. The VIB shall be composed of each Deputy Secretary from each Department represented in the IAB,

2. The VIB shall review cases made by each state and determine grants to states most in need of immediate transportation or other infrastructure funds,

3. The VIB Shall report all grants to states in need of emergency infrastructure funds to the  head of the IAB, and its Governing Body;

**Section 5: Investments and Expansions in the National Infrastructure Bank**

1. § 3 subsection (c)(i) of [H.R. 698](https://www.reddit.com/r/ModelUSGov/comments/61ncql/hr_698_the_investing_in_our_seniors_act/) shall be amended to read:

1. “There shall be a money market fund, a stock market index fund, a real estate investment trust, a corporate bond fund, a National Infrastructure Bank bond fund, and a U.S. Treasury bond fund.”;

1. A National Infrastructure Bank bond fund shall be defined as a fund which buys all types of securities issued by the NIB, and accrues returns through interest;

2. The Social Security (SS) Trust Fund shall hereby be authorized to buy all types of securities issued by the National Infrastructure Bank:

1. The amount of funds within the aforementioned Trust Fund invested in National Infrastructure Bank bonds may not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total Trust fund;

2. The SS Trust Fund shall not make any investments in projects in the National Infrastructure Bank that are marked as risky by the bank;

3. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which administers the Thrift Savings Plan, shall be authorized to to buy all types of securities issued by the National Infrastructure Bank:

1. The amount of funds within the aforementioned Trust Fund invested in National Infrastructure Bank bonds may not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total Trust fund;

2. The Thrift Savings Plan Trust Fund shall not make any investments in projects the National Infrastructure Bank has marked as risky by the bank;

4. § 4 subsection a of [B.205 The Establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank Act](https://www.reddit.com/r/ModelUSGov/comments/3vg37k/b205_establishment_of_a_national_infrastructure/) shall be amended to read:

1. Loans issued by the NIB may account for one hundred percent (100%) of the total financing for each prospective project if the capital is available, and the state and local governments agree to such a loan;

**Section 6: Funding**

1. States must submit a report on how much money they need appropriated from each department below,

1. The report must include a plan of what each state will do with the federal grants and a time table

2. Each department shall individually fund each plank of this act in accordance with Section 6c. of this act, in the following ways:

1. The Department of Treasury shall allocate $20 billion over the next ten years to the grants outlined in section 3;

2. The Department of Commerce shall allocate $20 billion over the next ten years to the grants outlined in section 3;

3. The Department of Education shall allocate $50 billion over the next ten years to the grants outlined in section 3;

4. The Department of Energy shall allocate $100 billion over the next ten years to the grants outlined in section 3;

5. The EPA shall allocate $150 billion over the next ten years to the grants outlined in section 3;

6. The Department of Transportation shall allocate $500 billion over the next ten years to the grants outlined in section 3

3. To pay for such a project, the Departments listed above shall apply for loans from the National Infrastructure Bank accounting for 100% of funding, pursuant to section 5 of this act;

1. In order to pay for the interest on such loans from the NIB, a 2 cent increase shall be levied on the Federal Gas Tax,

1. Any funds remaining which were not used to pay back debt shall go into the Highway Trust Fund;

2. Upon the payback of all debt, all revenue from the Federal Gas Tax shall go to the Highway Trust Fund;

**Section 7: Enactment**

1. This act shall take effect immediately after its passage to law;

2. Severability;—The provisions of this act are severable; If any part of this act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, that declaration shall not affect the part which remains;

3. Implementation-- All Department specified in this act shall be responsible for the necessary appropriations and reviews to make effective the provisions of this act;