Jun.09

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

Pratt Falls

We wouldn't quite say "it's official," because not all the votes have been tallied yet. However, every outlet that projects election outcomes has decreed that Nithya Raman (I, but really D) has won the right to face off against Mayor Karen Bass (I, but really D) in November. That means that Spencer Pratt (I, but really R) and the Republican Party in general are out of luck.

Here are the numbers as of 11:30 p.m. PT last night:

It's estimated that 92.4% of votes are counted, and that only 66,000 or so remain. Pratt would need to claim about 67% of those to overtake Raman. Given that he's actually been getting a shade less than 20% of the votes as the mail-in ballots are counted... well, you can see why every outlet has now called the race.

The next phase of the election is certainly going to be interesting. Bass is obviously the moderate, establishment candidate and Raman is the progressive, outsider candidate. The election will be decided by two things: (1) How many non-progressive voters prioritize "change" and/or "throw the bums out" over all else and (2) How many independent/right-leaning voters cannot abide by either choice, and leave that line on their ballots blank. There has been one Bass vs. Raman poll so far, and it has Raman at 32%, Bass at 28%, Undecided at 15%, and 25% of respondents saying "Neither." That really doesn't tell us much.

The national news here, meanwhile, is that Donald Trump has been once again using the results in California as basis for claims that Democrats cook the books. He went on a conspiratorial jag this weekend, starting with this message, and continuing for at least four or five more such messages:

The Dumocrats are at it again! They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS

Is he just a sore loser who cannot handle defeat, even when that defeat is entirely predictable? Or is this part of a nefarious plot to undermine faith in the midterm elections? Or is this part of an even more nefarious plot to undermine faith in democracy and to argue that the nation would be better off with King Donald I? Truth be told, it's probably all of the above.

There is absolutely nothing going on in California that is suspicious. Because of the state's large population and liberal voting rules, it always takes this long to have something close to final results. And there is always a "blue shift," because young voters, and Democratic voters, who are often one and the same, are more comfortable voting by mail than older voters/Republican voters. Trump is partly responsible for this, due to his constant badmouthing of voting by mail (despite the fact that he regularly avails himself of that option).

Meanwhile, let us give you a non-exhaustive list of six reasons that the "election fraud" claims don't stand up to scrutiny:

1. No Evidence: This might be the most important entry on this list, as it really stands on its own without requiring any additional entries. In short, if there is fraud, where is the proof? Even the MyPillow guy managed to come up with something, though his numbers fell apart on closer analysis. Trump has absolutely nothing, other than his "gut feel."
   
   The vacuousness of the GOP's fraud claims are indicated by Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-LA) remarks to reporters yesterday. CNN's Manu Raju said to Johnson: "Speaking of fraud, the president keeps saying that there's election fraud in the California mayor's race. What evidence is there to prove that?" And Johnson replied:

   You tell me, Manu. They are counting votes weeks after the election. We have entire nations with huge populations, like India, that can count their votes in 24 to 48 hours... I'm saying it stinks to high heaven, and everybody knows that. Let's—let's—let's remove the appearance of impropriety. Let's have—what, what a concept—let's have votes on an election the day of the election. That's what many states are able to do. I think California is playing around with us.

   Raju then asked: "But what evidence is there to prove that the election was rigged?" Johnson replied:

   Some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream, it is impossible to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively something is wrong here, and that's a concern. We need people to believe in the integrity of our election system. It is critical to maintain a constitutional republic. We're going to keep working to pass the Save America Act because it requires, as you know, proof of citizenship and a photo ID to vote. Those are also 90-percent-plus issues in public opinion, and 70 percent of Democrats understand that's necessary.

   Raju continued to hold Johnson's feet to the fire, wondering (quite reasonably) if this is just sour grapes whenever Republicans lose elections. At that point, the Speaker did his best Trump impression and stormed off because a reporter's question hurt his fee-fees.
   
   First of all, Johnson's "facts" are either wrong or dishonest (readers can decide for themselves). India famously takes about 6 weeks to conduct a general election, not 24-48 hours. This is because that nation faces a similar (but more extensive) challenge as California: making sure a very large number of people have every opportunity to vote. And perhaps Johnson has not read the Constitution recently (or at all), as states are absolutely entitled to run elections as they see fit. That is why there is much padding built in between "primary election," "general election" and "oath of office." (Note: He is correct that polls suggest that 70% of Democrats, and 90% of Americans, support voter ID laws, at least in a vacuum. The numbers go down once respondents are asked about complications, like "Are you OK with people not being allowed to vote if they cannot afford to get an ID?")
   
   More importantly, note that Johnson cannot offer a shred of proof. In fact, he asserts that proof is not possible, because the efforts are "so diabolical" and "so far upstream." Now, isn't that convenient? In other words, "We don't have to offer proof because that's not actually possible!" Truth be told, "upstream" (i.e., one focal point as opposed to many, diffuse focal points) should be easier to uncover, not harder. And as to "so diabolical," isn't that a tacit admission that he thinks Democrats are cleverer than Republians?
   
   By the way, Johnson has developed such a reputation for being Trump's obedient lapdog that even Trump has started making jokes about it. And everyone on the Hill agrees that when it's time for a tough vote, it's Trump who whips the members into line, not Johnson.
   
   
2. Upstream, Downstream: Speaking of Johnson's claims, the offices that the Republicans think are being "stolen" are the governorship and the mayoralty of Los Angeles. However, the governor tallies are compiled and released "upstream" (i.e., by the state Secretary of State). The mayoral tallies, by contrast, are compiled and released "downstream" (i.e., by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk). So, Johnson's characterization could not possibly be correct.
   
   Further, the "conspiracy" would require the involvement of key officials in Los Angeles AND in Sacramento. While that is possibly in theory, the broader a conspiracy gets, the harder it is to pull off, and the less likely it is to remain hidden.
   
   
3. Raman Is NOT What the Democratic Establishment Wants: Anyone who thinks that the Democratic pooh-bahs wanted Bass vs. Raman has not been paying attention.
   
   The first problem is that Bass is as establishment as it gets. The establishment tends to like establishment candidates, not only because "they are one of us," but also because establishment candidates tend to fly below the radar and to avoid saying things that can become fodder for the media, especially the right-wing media.
   
   The second problem is that the two favorite whipping-people of Fox, et al., are Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D-New York City). AOC is hated because she's lefty, brown and a woman. Mamdani is hated because he is lefty, brown and a follower of a religion that is not Christianty. Well, Raman is lefty, brown, a woman AND a follower of a religion that is not Christianty. She's the superfecta, as far as right-wingers are concerned, and they will do everything possible to make her the face of the Democratic Party heading into the midterms.
   
   
4. Timeline: This is a simple one. If Democrats in California were planning to manipulate the results, why would they deploy a pattern that Trump recognizes as "fraud"? In other words, why not have Nithya Raman lead wire-to-wire, as opposed to coming from behind? For that matter, why not have Karen Bass at 50.01%, thus avoiding the need for a runoff?
   
   
5. Selectivity: It is not a secret that California Democrats, from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) on down, want as much of the pie as is humanly possible—hence the hasty and successful initiative to redraw the state's House districts. This leads to two very good questions, questions that Trump, et al, certainly have no answer to.
   
   First, if there was potential "upstream" to manipulate results, why wouldn't the Democrats cook the books in House races where it's close or where the Republicans have an edge? For example CA-22 is somewhere in the range of EVEN (post-ballot-proposition PVIs haven't been calculated by Cook yet), and has an incumbent Republican in David Valadao. CA-48 is also somewhere in the range of EVEN, and has one strong Republican in San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond, along with several strong Democrats. The blue team's optimal outcome in both districts would be Democrat vs. Democrat. And yet, in both districts, the hard-to-beat Republican easily outpaced the second-place Democrat, leaving the third-place Democrat on the outside looking in.
   
   Second is the mirror image of that question. If Democrats do have the ability to cook the California books, why would they only use that in races the party is going to win anyhow? Whether Steve Hilton (R) makes it to the runoff or not, he's not going to win. Whether Spencer Pratt (R) had made it to the runoff or not, he wasn't going to win.
   
   
6. Words vs. Actions: Let us imagine that Trump really was concerned about voting fraud, if not because he cares about democracy, then because he cares about Republican electoral prospects. If so, how come Trump shut down his blue-ribbon panel on "Election Integrity" before it could issue its final report? And how come, per NOTUS:

   [F]ive months out from the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress, [Trump's] Justice Department has canceled election-integrity training sessions for prosecutors and FBI agents, deleted a 281-page guide to prosecuting election offenses, fired most of the lawyers in its Public Integrity Section and failed to replace the director of its Election Crimes Branch.
   
   Moreover, the DOJ has not taken the usual steps to establish a "command center" to monitor and address the typical emergencies that pop up around Election Day...

   A cynic might conclude that Trump wants to whine and moan about nonexistent election meddling by Democrats, while at the same time leaving the door option to election meddling by Republicans.

Sorry to go on at such length, but sometimes there is value in showing our work, and demonstrating that our conclusions about election integrity are based on evidence and fact, and not what our gut and our spleen and our trick knee tell us.

As tales of certain young men who issued a few too many alarms about certain lupine creatures remind us, there is such a thing as going to the well too often. We don't think Donald Trump did himself any favors by throwing a hissy-fit and storming off when NBC News' Kristen Welker presumed to ask him for proof of his claims this weekend. Clips of that temper tantrum were all over the place yesterday. So were supercuts, like the one here, of Trump's many and varied and evidence-free claims of election fraud over the years.

So, the efficacy here may be fading quickly, at about the same pace that Trump's approval ratings are fading. And the net effect of his bellyaching might primarily be to warn anyone and everyone that he's hoping to pull off some shenanigans, and that state and local election officials will need to be very, very well prepared to counter them. (Z)