05-18-2018 12:27:15 PM -0700
05-17-2018 08:38:50 AM -0700
05-11-2018 07:34:04 AM -0700
05-09-2018 10:17:16 AM -0700
05-04-2018 02:59:17 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

The Far Left Is Driving a Possible Blue Tsunami

The presidential election of 1948 has rightly become a textbook case of malpractice by political pollsters. That year, the policies of the Truman administration split the old Roosevelt Coalition -- and with it, the Democratic Party -- three ways: Desegregation of the armed forces drove the Dixiecrats to nominate Strom Thurmond; confrontation with the Communists drove the Progressives to run former vice president Henry Wallace; and Truman headed the rump of the party.

The pollsters predicted a narrow win for Republican Thomas Dewey. They were wrong.

It is generally believed that their error was one of methodology, in that they relied too heavily on telephone polling. Private telephones in 1948 were a luxury many, especially in urban areas, could not afford.

Now fast-forward to 2016.

There is a popular myth -- an urban legend, if you like -- that Trump received some sort of mandate from the American people in 2016, and that the polls were wrong. The reality is more nuanced.

Trump's victory was a fluke, an artifact of Hillary Clinton's uniquely bad candidacy. In her arrogance, she ignored and took for granted three key states which had been reliably Democratic since 1992. Trump won those three states -- Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania -- by wafer-thin margins, which garnered him the majority of the electoral votes. Careful examination of the data reveals the polls had correctly predicted Clinton would win the majority of the popular vote; what they missed was how skewed that vote would be toward either coast.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that, had the Democrats run a different candidate, it would have been a very different race.

In the Wisconsin primary, for example, the Democrats were all out for Sanders, while Cruz handily beat Trump. But the Democratic Party primary process proved not to be very democratic; the fix was in for Clinton’s coronation. Trump, of course, ultimately won the Republican nomination. The result was a deeply depressed Democratic electorate, many of whom didn’t turn out to vote. I personally know Sandernistas who, disgusted by the rigged primary, adopted Steve Bannon’s nihilistic “burn-it-all-down” philosophy and voted for Trump.

Since then, we have had several special elections. The New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections and the Alabama senatorial election each had unique aspects which might serve to explain the Republican losses, but the recent loss of Wisconsin's tenth state senatorial district is a horse of a different color.

The district, in western Wisconsin, is in the part of the state Trump carried in the primary, and he went on to win the district by 15 points in the general election. In 2012, Romney carried the district though he lost the state. For the last 15 years the district was represented by Republican Sheila Harsdorf, until Ms. Harsdorf was tapped by the Walker administration to serve as secretary of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection. Adam Jarchow, a Republican assemblyman within the district, ran to replace her.

What happened next, no one expected: Jarchow lost by a convincing 55% to 44% to Patty Schachtner, St. Croix County medical examiner.