By Chris Stirewalt | Friday, December 19 |
By Chris Stirewalt Friday, December 19 |
|
|
© LM Otero, Associated Press |
Jasmine Crockett's Texas tornado could do damage in other states |
Texas has been taking us all on a wild ride for the midterm elections.
There's obviously the gerrymandering wars that were touched off in Austin by the GOP's mid-decade land grab. We're a long way from done with that one as court challenges and statehouse fights across the country have yet to be concluded.
But the Senate race there has turned some pretty tight corners, too. Six months ago, Democrats' long-shot chances of taking the Senate majority depended not just on defending every seat they currently hold — including tough contests in Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire — but also flipping Texas. That was more than idle chatter since Republicans then looked likely to nominate their scandal-soaked attorney general, Ken Paxton, rather than incumbent Sen. John Cornyn. The early Democratic front-runner was former Rep. Colin Allred, a moderate from a suburban Dallas district who had made a respectable showing for Senate in 2024, a tough year for red-state Democrats. It was still kind of a long shot, but if they ran the table on defense and picked off the vulnerable Republican-held seats in North Carolina and Maine, maybe, maybe Texas could get the Democrats to a 50-50 Senate. Now, Allred is out of the race, Cornyn has been given a boost by another MAGA entrant into the Republican primary, Rep. Wesley Hunt, who is siphoning votes away from Paxton, and Democrats look poised to nominate one of the most polarizing figures in Congress, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, to be their standard bearer. Now, a race that once held the glimmer of hope for a slender Democratic majority in the Senate looks like a certain loss. Crockett would get steamrolled by Cornyn, but would probably even lose to Paxton or Hunt. If you give moderate swing voters a choice between unappealingly radical options, they're likely to break for their underlying partisan leaning, which in Texas is definitely Republican.
While Texas Democrats were watching their plan fall apart, their party nationally has been getting a steady stream of good news. In election after election, it becomes clear that voters are in a mood to give Republicans a thrashing. In the House, the idea of a 30-seat gain, which was pie in the sky in July, now sounds like a real possibility. And in the Senate, the map is shifting, too. There are two Republican seats currently held by appointees filling vacancies, the Ohio seat formerly held by Vice President Vance and the Florida seat that once belonged to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Then there's Iowa, where Republican Sen. Joni Ernst stunned her party with a decision not to seek a third term. These are all red states, but certainly no redder than Texas, and in every case, a strong Democratic nominee could give a little-known Republican a bad time in a difficult year. For now, Republicans' big worry of the three is Ohio with former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown mounting a comeback bid against appointed Sen. Jon Husted, the state's former lieutenant governor. But both Iowa and Florida could be a lot of trouble if Democrats manage to dig up good candidates — always an open question, as Texas has already shown. None of that is to say that Democrats are likely to win the Senate majority next year. The Maine race could end up being a nightmare for the blue team, and the Michigan primary is a mess. And for all the good news for Democrats in Georgia of late, if Republicans pick Derek Dooley and run a good campaign, incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff could be toast. But it is to say that the picture looks very different from this summer when the faint hopes all depended on Allred and a Texas upset. But Texas is not going to go quietly. The upside of being the party out of power — especially when it's as far out of power as Democrats currently are — is that you don't have a brand. Members have maximum flexibility to take the positions that work in their states and districts. Being the "change" party is good enough when people are unhappy. The downside is that you might have a brand chosen for you. One of the rare points of agreement between Crockett and Republicans is that they would like to see her become the new face of her party not just in Texas, but across the country. "What we need is for me to have a bigger voice," Crockett said in her announcement, and Republicans will be glad to oblige. In 2022, Democrats were eager to elevate Republican Senate candidates like Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania and Herschel Walker in Georgia. Republicans are itching for the chance to do the same for Crockett, whose fame is owed substantially for her ability to generate heat and hate from the Republican side. The initial poll in the Texas Democratic primary shows Crockett way ahead of the previous progressive favorite, state Sen. James Talarico and then losing the general election by between 2 points (to Paxton) and 6 points (to Cornyn). If that poll proves predictive of what is to come, Democrats will have a hard time writing off the controversial congresswoman. Like others before her, Crockett could turn into a sinkhole for national Democratic donations and, because of her media savvy, be part of the debate in every race next year. The better hope for Democrats is that Paxton prevails and that the whole contest becomes a toxic waste site for both parties. She might even win. Short of that, Democrats can hope that Cornyn will make it out on the Republican side and that the race will fall quickly out of contention and Crockett out of the conversation. [Programming alert: Watch "The Hill Sunday" with Chris Stirewalt — Republicans have fractured over ObamaCare subsidies, but can Democrats manage a policy victory? Time is running out. Plus, as war with Venezuela seems increasingly likely, will Congress follow the White House's lead? Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) and Rep. Eric Sorensen (D-Ill.) will discuss. And who's ready to get happy? Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center, joins us for a USA 250 segment on his new book, "The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America." And, as always, we'll have expert analysis from our best-in-the-business panel of journalists. Be sure to catch us on NewsNation at 10 a.m. ET / 9 a.m. CT or your local CW station.] |
Holy croakano! We welcome your feedback, so please email us with your tips, corrections, reactions & amplifications: WholeHogPolitics@TheHill.com. If you'd like to be considered for publication, please include your name and hometown. If you don't want your comments to be publicized, please specify. |
|
| Change from one week ago: ↑ 7.6 points Change from one month ago: ↑ 2.8 points |
[Average includes: Emerson College 41 percent approve - 50 percent disapprove; Fox News 44 percent approve - 56 percent disapprove; Reuters/Ipsos 39 percent approve - 59 percent disapprove; Quinnipiac University 40 percent approve - 54 percent disapprove; NPR/Marist University 38 percent approve - 54 percent disapprove] |
|
|
As many of us prepare to enjoy the bounty of Christmas, writer Rebecca E. Williams shares the story of what she learned cleaning and caring for the feet of homeless men at an Atlanta church. The Georgia Review: "I know all of this because since April, on the past five fourth Wednesdays of the month I have driven to St. John the Wondermaker Orthodox Church, in Atlanta's Grant Park neighborhood, to wash and trim and file the feet of a handful of the city's 2,200 unhoused men, who come to the church for hot breakfast and stay for a pedicure. Before, I didn't think much about what happens to feet that are always in shoes, that are always walking. … Few people do, except perhaps militaries, long-distance thru-hikers, weightlifters, and the church. Of course, a church thinks about feet—So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. There are several foot clinics for the unhoused in Atlanta, as well as in cities all over the country. Most are church-started and church-led. Never a churchgoing person, I didn't know about them." |
|
|
Democrat wins Kentucky state Senate special election — The Hill Retirements keep burning through House incumbent ranks — NPR House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark garners progressive primary challenger — The Hill Another poll shows Kathy Hochul way ahead of Elise Stefanik in New York governor race — Siena Research Institute MAGA star joins race in Arizona swing district — KJZZ Kamala Harris said to be undeterred on 2028 bid — Axios |
|
|
"When it comes to auto insurance, each state has substantial power in the establishment of the rates/premiums. Instead of trying to figure out how the government can help the consumer pay the exorbitant Allstate or State Farm premiums, they limit how much Allstate and State Farm can charge the consumer. In the case of health insurance, all the emphasis seems to be placed on how we (consumer and government) pay these massive premiums and no one is saying, 'Insurers are making billions in profit while their exorbitant rates are bankrupting consumers and our government. These giant corporations will reduce their premiums and improve their coverage or we'll do it for them!' … Am I missing some salient fact that answers this riddle? If our government doesn't want to pay the premium subsidies then they should just tell the insurance companies that their premiums have to just be reduced. Isn't that, 'The Art of the Deal?'" — Tom Lamparter, Santa Rosa Beach, Fla. |
Mr. Lamparter,
But they do! Recall that the initial blueprint for ObamaCare was then-Gov. Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. Every state has rules for coverage and costs. Unlike car insurance, though, health insurance is heavily regulated on the federal level. That was less true before 2010, but is very much the case today. Because of federal preemption, states can't mandate something that disagrees with Washington regulations. And, also unlike car insurance, the federal government is a major insurer. Something like 40 percent of all Americans get their health insurance through Uncle Sam, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration or as government employees. States can impose car insurance price controls because they also require their citizens to purchase car insurance as a condition of having the privilege of driving. The state maximizes the market by requiring the product be purchased and then sets requirements for what companies must offer and how much they can charge. State insurance regulators then try to balance the consumer desires for low prices and diversity of options for coverage. If the price caps are too low or coverage requirements too high, insurers will decline to do business there. If the market becomes too unattractive, companies will leave, competition will dwindle and prices will go up anyway. In Florida, for instance, homeowners are in a real pickle because an increasing number of companies just won't do business there. Hurricanes, litigation and skyrocketing real estate prices have combined to create a serious shortfall that may only just now be starting to abate. Another part of the challenge is that, increasingly, the big profit centers for health insurance companies isn't the insurance itself. As the space has become more regulated, insurers have looked to things like pharmacy networks and other means to keep their bottom lines robust. They're not losing money on the actual insurance, but the margins aren't what they used to be. Then there are the stakes of the game. People don't use their car insurance very much. Many customers will never file an accident claim in their driving careers, and for most it is only a few times. Conversely, most people with health insurance use the product multiple times every year, even healthy people. Health insurance is like having your auto policy not just cover accidents and thefts, but also pay for your oil changes and new tires. A poor state market for auto coverage might mean premium hikes of a couple of hundred dollars for a service most people don't use. A poor market for health insurance could, as we are now seeing, cost consumers many thousands of dollars and lead to coverage gaps when people need it most. States are getting in the game on the other side, though. There is an increasing trend to set costs for hospitals and health systems, which are already highly regulated and subject to extensive licensing. There's been a lot of consolidation in that space and as those companies have more power to negotiate with insurers, they've been able to push prices up, which then gets passed on to consumers. But as a whole, I think we've moved beyond the "laboratories of democracy" phase on state and health insurance. All roads lead to Washington in the ObamaCare era. All best, c |
"'ObamaCare' — not the official name, one that conservatives named it in when it came out in 2010. Obama took on the intended slight with pride. It's the Affordable Care Act--the ACA, which current conservative, Trump-voting poor people call it. They think Obamacare is something separate and bad. They love their ACA though. Hah! In your December 12th opinion piece on Trump's approval numbers, You never used "Affordable Care Act" or 'ACA' once. You used 'ObamaCare' like it was the official name of the program. This is deliberately misleading. I don't have a problem with you coining 'ObamaCare' (capital C) as long as you also remind readers that it is one and the same with 'Affordable Care Act,' which socialism-benefitting low income (and low education) Trump supporters call it, while all the while disparaging 'Obamacare.' And please don't float the idea of Trump simply renaming it and taking credit for it. He doesn't need your help. He's already doing it with projects spawned from Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Other than that, I thought the piece was pretty 'fair and balanced.' — Jon Vick, Prescott Valley, Ariz. | Mr. Vick. I certainly get the resentment that many Democrats feel toward Republicans on ObamaCare — just as I do the resentment Republicans feel in reverse. The personalization of the name of the programs certainly makes it worse. ObamaCare isn't just one thing. Some parts are wildly popular, particularly the "patients' bill of rights" provisions that forbid insurance companies from refusing or suspending coverage for sick customers. The Medicaid expansion is also a big hit with voters, including, as you say, lots and lots of Republican voters who benefit from the inclusion of those with incomes of up to $44,000 a year for a family of four. But the current debate about subsidies is further hardening the public conception of what "core" ObamaCare is: a marketplace for individual insurance policies in which government subsidies offset costs for those people who don't get insurance through their employer but who are too young for Medicare. That program became very popular, as the huge enrollments now attest, but now runaway costs are threatening to crush the very beneficiaries the program was most interested in helping. The fight over whether to give relief to these people is in its own way a fight over whether or not to keep the program going or let the marketplaces collapse. So the fight really is about ObamaCare, as it is conventionally known. Medicaid is actually Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Medicare began as the Dependents' Medical Care Act. Both are complicated programs that actually do lots of things other than the shorthand names suggest, that one is health insurance for the poor and that the other serves the elderly. But the shorthands are useful for talking about politics and public perceptions. I don't think there's anything pejorative about the name ObamaCare anymore. As you say, the meaning changed from an epithet meant to discredit a proposal to a badge of honor for a major legislative achievement. And as for those "low education" Trump supporters who disparage the law even as they benefit from it, you might consider being a little more charitable of spirit. There will be lots of working-class Democrats who benefit from Republican tax breaks in 2026 who despise Trump the man but will happily pocket the extra cash from tips, Social Security and other carve outs. I wouldn't expect them to either refuse the goodies or change their opinion of Trump's overall economic agenda. Personal benefit, thank goodness, still can overcome partisanship. All best, c |
"I was recently at a friend's house and got into an ill-advised argument over the Wars in Gaza and Ukraine. This argument would end up ruining our plans for that weekend, and I would wind up leaving my friend's house a few hours after I showed up. I think it's important to have these conversations, especially among friends; it's scary to think how much people feel the need to censor themselves, and with friends and family we should be comfortable enough to discuss difficult topics. At the same time, the number of times that these conversations get very heated and just put everybody in a sour mood makes it really hard to justify having them. By doing so though, we lose out on each other's viewpoints, which I do believe make us stronger. How do you recommend people navigate difficult political discussions while staying calm, even if the opposing viewpoints are harsh or even extreme?" —Justin Bliley, Washington Court House, Ohio |
Mr. Bliley,
Don't knock self-censorship! It is, properly employed, a loving and beneficial act.
A good question to ask oneself when the urge to bring politics into normal life seizes you or when faced with the temptation to engage with someone who has succumbed themselves is this: What is the goal? We should all be blessed with friends and family members with whom we disagree. And if you're like me, a good-natured argument rooted in mutual respect can be a zesty if sometimes dangerous addition. But even when we don't actually talk about our views, the greater value is seeing each other as whole people. For all of us, our politics are the least interesting parts of ourselves. I have many friends who I suspect hold profoundly different views on major questions than I do, but I can't know for sure because I have never asked them. The importance of having relationships outside of one's own ideological or partisan bubble isn't principally in facilitating debate, but rather in building relationships that transcend politics. That is good for us as people and good for our politics as a nation. If you share common values about things other than politics with other others, it becomes hard to demonize or dehumanize the group to which they belong as a whole. It is the humanity that matters, not the argument. If the goal of jumping into politics or policy is to answer a sincere question from someone who has a legitimate curiosity, you might cautiously, humbly proceed in offering your opinion, acknowledging that it is only that, your opinion. But if you sense that what's being put forward is the opening gambit of a debate, you should only proceed if the goal is to have a bit of fun and perhaps broaden your own perspective. Here, the topic and the width of the gap matter very much. You want to debate horserace handicapping for midterms or a proposed piece of legislation, maybe some good may come about. If you're instead clashing over a fundamental belief, what good is there in fighting? If your goal is persuasion, however, then by all means avoid argument wherever feasible. The more you try to "win," the harder your adversary will hold to her or his position. It is your example that persuades far more than your argument. As the preacher said: Preach the Gospel constantly, using words if absolutely necessary. All best,
c |
|
|
The Associated Press: "Self-driving Waymo taxis have gone viral for negative reasons. … But this week, the self-driving taxis are the bearer of happier news after a San Francisco woman gave birth in a Waymo. The mother was on her way to the University of California, San Francisco medical center Monday when she delivered inside the robotaxi, said a Waymo spokesperson in a statement [last week] Wednesday. The company said its rider support team detected 'unusual activity' inside the vehicle and called to check on the rider as well as alert 911. … The taxi and its passengers arrived safely at the hospital ahead of emergency services. … Waymo said the vehicle was taken out of service for cleaning after the ride. While still rare, this was not the first baby delivered in one of its taxis, the company said." [A pause that refreshes: Whole Hog Politics will be stepping away from the trough next week for Christmas. We will return full of good cheer, and presumably a substantial amount of ham and roast beef. In the meantime, we wish you and yours a joyous holiday season and every blessing — including a festive table free of political strife. If only for a few days, we could all use a little more peace on earth and goodwill toward men.] |
|
|
Write to WholeHogPolitics@TheHill.com with your tips, kudos, criticisms, insights, rediscovered words, recipes, and, always, good jokes. Please include your real name — first and last — and hometown. Make sure to let us know if you want to keep your submission private. My colleague, Meera Sehgal, and I will look for your emails and then share the most interesting ones and my responses here. Clickety clack! |
|
|
Chris Stirewalt is political editor for The Hill and NewsNation, the host of "The Hill Sunday" on NewsNation and The CW, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of books on politics and the media. |
400 N Capitol Street NW Suite 650, Washington, DC 20001
Copyright © 1998 - 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved. |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment