THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: More Voter Mixed Signals

Throughout the 2018 midterm primary season, I have tried to present a
balanced and fair analysis of the upsets in races in each party, as well
as commentary on the various special elections that might signal voter
trends in November.

I have cautioned that the signals from voters so far have been mixed,
and not conclusive of any clear trend, notwithstanding claims by
partisans and many in the media that a “wave” is coming.

Just at the end of the primary season, on September 18, a special state
senate election in Texas has demonstrated again that voters are still
sending mixed signals.

Texas state Senate District 19 has been a Democratic seat. Its state
senator was convicted in 2018 of several felonies and resigned. A
special election was set, with Republican Pete Flores and Democrat
Pete Gallego seeking to fill the vacant seat. Gallego, a former
congressman, was favored to win, but Flores won by 6 points in a
major upset. Mr. Flores will be he first Hispanic Republican to serve in
the Texas senate. Recent mainstream media polls have indicated that
the Texas race for U.S. senate is getting closer with incumbent GOP
Senator Ted Cruz’s lead over his Democratic challenger narrowing.
This has enabled some to contend that there might be a “blue” wave
this year in Texas which went decisively for Donald Trump in 2016,
and where most of the statewide office holders are Republican.
Pete Flores’ upset win, and a new poll showing Cruz lead in now
widening, go contrary to the blue wave narrative.

In New Jersey, the U.S. senate race, considered “safe” for Democratic
incumbent Senator Bob Menendez until now, has become a “toss-up”
as recent polls indicate the contest is almost a tie with Republican
businessman Bob Hugin now receiving a number of endorsements
from Democratic New Jersey elected officials who have turned away
from their own party nominee after his criminal trial that resulted in
a hung jury. The Hugin campaign cites a new poll in New Jersey’s 2nd
congressional district, expected to be won this year by the Democrat,
shows Hugin leading Menendez by10 points. New Jersey is a heavily
Democratic state, carried easily by Hillary Clinton in 2016. Hugin has
been self-funding his campaign so far, and has turned out to be an
unexpectedly strong challenger.

In Minnesota, controversial retiring Democratic (DFL) Congressman
Keith Ellison is running for attorney general, but is polling
dramatically behind his fellow DFL statewide candidates.  A new poll
has Ellison, by far the most well-known candidate in the race, at 41%,
and virtually tied with his GOP opponent, attorney Doug Wardlow.
Running well to the left of his own candidate for governor, and beset
by personal controversies, Ellison could lose the post held by the DFL
since 1971.

In spite of the races cited above, they are only so far providing mixed
signals. Menendez and Ellison could still win, Cruz could still lose.
Democrats could do well on November 6, especially if they win control
of the U.S. house. On the other hand, new polls (if correct) are
suggesting Republicans are making gains (in an economy which has
reduced minority group unemployment) among black and Hispanic
voters --- two of the most reliable Democratic-voting groups in the
past --- an ominous sign if proven true on election day. Good news
for the Democrats includes evidence that their liberal base is highly
energized, especially in blue states, in their opposition to President
Trump and his policies --- and are likely to turn out to vote.

A lot of polls in competitive 2018 races are still showing an unusually
large number of undecided voters. But we are almost in October, and
decisions can’t be put off indefinitely.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: A Great American Life

We often speak of the “good life” and about “great Americans,”
but it is not often that we come across a “great American life.”

A great American life not only includes, as I see it, material
successes and accomplishments, but also reveals certain qualities of
character and innate integrity that are distinctly emblematic of the
special brand of the American personality --- a brand forged in our
war of independence, our Civil War, two World Wars, the Industrial
Revolution, and our evolving and distinctive signature of
entrepreneurial democracy.

I have met a few persons, both men and women, who have lived, or
are living, a “great American life.” One of them, Julius C. Smith,
has just died at the age of 88. He had a long life, but it wasn’t just a
good life. It was a great and very American life.

Let me explain.

Jules (everyone called him that) was born in Minneapolis in 1930.
He was very tall --- about 6 feet 9 inches in height. He was very
athletic and very smart. From the outset he was a devout Catholic,
and remained so all of his life.

At St. John’s Preparatory School in Minnesota, and later at the
University of Minnesota, he played varsity basketball. He even did a
season of semi-professional basketball in Puerto Rico one summer.

But Jules Smith’s ambitions were not in professional sports. They
were in a career in the law. He received his J.D. from the University of
Minnesota Law School, and then went to Washington, DC to work as
a legislative assistant. He was advised to abandon D.C., and return
home to practice law. This he did, joining a firm in the small town of
Chaska, about 50 miles from downtown Minneapolis. At the same
time. he embarked on a lifelong career in public service. It began in
Chaska, but soon he was involved in early efforts to establish
metropolitan government services in the area around and including
the Twin Cities. It wasn’t glamorous or high-publicity work --- it was
the nuts-and-bolts work that created and maintained the sewers, roads,
public transportation, and land planning which invisibly but vitally
make American community daily life possible.

Having established a reputation for legal real estate work, he was
approached by a visionary state senator in the mid-1960s, and asked
to assemble rural properties in Chaska to create the first Title IV
new town in the nation. This he skillfully did, and the new town of
Jonathan was born in 1968.  Jules Smith was its vice president and
general counsel. He also took a lead role in the national League of
New Communities, made up of more than a dozen Title IV new towns
that had sprung up across the country. I met Jules when I moved to
Jonathan in 1971.

When a recession in the 1970s upended the federal new town
program, he moved on, teaching very popular real estate development
courses as an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota’s
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs; and establishing in Maryland
a renaissance festival which soon became a successful family
business run by four of his six children. This festival, now in
Annapolis, has grown and endured over the years, and is one of the
largest and most authentic of its kind in the nation.

In 1989, Jules and I created the International Conference Foundation,
a non-profit organization that sponsored educational public policy
symposia. This grew also into the international visitor programs of
the U.S. Information Agency and U.S. State Department in which we
acted as hosts and guides for more than 500 international public
officials touring the U.S. Jules was the Foundation’s president for
almost 20 years, and relished explaining America to, and entertaining,
world figures in Minnesota and in his home.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush appointed him, on the
recommendation of then-HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, to be on the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and in 1993, Governor Arne Carlson
appointed him as a district member of the Metropolitan Council.
He was reappointed to the latter by the next two governors, serving
longer than anyone else, and was known informally as its “institutional
memory” before retiring in 2007.

As a real estate development attorney, Jules Smith had few peers, and
his family festival business grew large, but that’s only part of his story.

He married, and had seven children, one of whom died in infancy. His
wife Mary (whom he always described as his best friend) was a figure in
her own right, creating the local library system and then running a
regional cable TV system. They lived in the new town of Jonathan, but
their happy family life was later shattered when Mary died of cancer in
1989. Jules did not re-marry.

He was not elected to office, but he served for several years as the
Chaska city attorney, and earlier as a special secretary in the office of
a Minnesota governor. He was too tall to serve in the army, but he was
a lifelong supporter of the U.S. military. He traveled all over the world,
but he loved being an American. He passionately read about U.S.
history, world events, and had a special interest in the life of Winston
Churchill. He had numerous friends from all walks of life. He had an
exceptional sense of humor, much of it self-deprecating. His
compassion for others was all-encompassing.

In short, he was not only an exceptional man in size, curiosity, healthy
ambition, and intellect, he was a good man, a man of integrity and faith,
and he was a devoted husband, father and friend.

Jules Smith lived a great American life.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Between Now And November

Let me share a way to look at the remainder of the 2018 national
mid-term elections campaign that will conclude on November 6.

I think that the truest and most useful perspective is to understand
that virtually everything a voter sees, reads and hears from now on
is intended to motivate turnout of the two voter bases, and to coax
undecided and willing-to-change voters to make up their minds and
vote in a certain way. Data and polls might have little basis in fact or
fair appraisal. The primary motor for what is to come is the
second-guessing of what will affect voters the most, a game of
sheer presumed psychology and storytelling.

This is not a new campaign phenomenon. Election seasons almost
always end in this general manner. There are certain timeless laws
of political gravity. What is different about this cycle, in part, is the
bold lack of pretense for even slightly serious political discussion
and conversation about critical public policy issues.

One case in point is the confirmation hearings for Judge Brett
Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. supreme court. Clearly, Judge
Kavanaugh is a conservative, and understandably, liberals oppose
him. But a vacancy exists, the president has nominated someone
to fill that vacancy, and senate hearings are bring held. In this case,
the party which opposes him, the Democrats, have little possibility
to block his confirmation. Nevertheless, they have abandoned many
of the traditions of these hearings, and tried to transform the
process into a political soap opera --- most of it intended to
placate their ideological base and to provoke their own voters to
the polls. The Republicans who support Judge Kavanaugh, on the
other hand, are pressuring Democratic senators who represent
states President Trump carried by large margins in 2016 to vote for
confirmation with the threat of voter backlash if they do not.

It is obvious that a Justice Kavanaugh would become part of the
growing conservative bloc on the high court. He seems a man of
ability and good character. Barring the unforeseen, he will be
confirmed, and probably before the election. Republicans who
voted for Donald Trump because he promised to appoint
conservative judges would then be motivated to turn out to vote
so that he can nominate more such judges and have them
confirmed. Democrats who want to return to a liberal court
environment would then be motivated to turn out to vote to
block confirmations until 2020 when they will have the
opportunity to elect a Democratic president.

All that is as it should be. The bottom line is who occupies the
White House, and who has the majority of votes in the U.S.
senate. What is open to question, however, is the strategy of
pretending that somehow the democratic process is not
legitimate, and that a credible nominee is not credible.

To be fair, both parties have indulged in partisanship in recent
years in regard to federal court nominees. Republicans blocked
a credible high court nominee of then-President Obama, and
held up lower court nominees before the 2016 election.They had
the votes to do so, and went to the voters promising change.
Now, the Democrats are doing the same.

My point is not that the liberal Democratic Party is wrong to
oppose Judge Kavanaugh. My question is about whether this
strategy at this time helps or hurts their cause.

The high court confirmation story is only one aspect of the 2018
mid-term elections saga. It is part of a larger contest of two
narratives designed to reach and motivate voters. On these pages,
I have already and will continue to discuss the unusually large gap
this cycle between the two major parties and the narratives they are
recounting to the electorate.

The outcomes on November 6 will largely be determined by which
side has the most credible story to tell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Mid-Term Ending Begins

They might not be as dramatic and significant as the 1940 British and
French evacuation at Dunkirk, but the initial skirmishes of the 2018
mid-term elections are virtually concluded. The Democratic and
Republican “armies, navies and air forces” are regrouping not only
for the November elections, but positioning themselves for the
climactic “war” in 2020 when a generation of U.S. politics will likely
be determined.

The heroic rescue of the British Expeditionary Force and the remnant
of the Free French Forces from that small beach on the southern
English Channel coast became the basis of an effort which led to an
historic invasion on similar Channel shores four years later --- and
then to victory less than a year after that.

My point is not to make too much of an analogy between the present
and Dunkirk, D-Day, and World War II, but to stress that history
moves in a series of phases and chapters --- and that some of them
are improbable or even just short of miraculous.

Authors and filmmakers are rewriting and recreating the Battle of
Britain, the bulldog boldness of Winston Churchill, the controversial
inspirations of Franklin Roosevelt and Charles De Gaulle (among
others) quite a bit these days. Historic analogies, we must always
remember, have limitations --- and each age has its own cast of
characters --- but we live in a time of comparable social and political
change, and in a time of global war. This time, however, military
blitzkrieg has been replaced by decentralized terrorism.

Global events historically do not affect major U.S. elections as often
as do economic and social conditions. This seems clearly the case
so far in the 2018 mid-terms. Our political leaders, nonetheless, are as
personally eccentric as were our leaders of the past --- even though
time and historic recollection has made the old ones mythic, and
conveniently forgotten their eccentricities. In the present tense we
manage to stress the controversies --- something done by all sides
with almost gleeful ease as we hear denouncements of Donald Trump,
Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi, just to name
some of the most prominent.

This column has persistently resisted the claims by some (particularly
in the national media) that a political wave, either blue or red, was
certain to arrive on U.S. electoral shores this November. I have not
argued that such a wave could not happen, but that there was no clear
and unambiguous evidence yet of any such wave. I continue to assert,
now that the ending of the beginning (the early campaigns and
primaries) is here, no certain outcome is signaled.

As we now enter the post-Labor Day autumn campaign (the beginning
of the ending), on the other hand, it is likely that instructive and
significant signals will increasingly appear, especially in the final weeks
when the unusually large number of undecided or willing-to-change
voters will make their decisions. For those of my readers who have
been disappointed by my unwillingness to make predictions, I need to
remind them that, when the signals appear, I will note them --- as I did
in 2010, 2014 and 2016 --- even if they might be contrary to conventional
wisdom. That was certainly the case in both 2010 and 2016 when
readers of this column had contrarian predictions that turned out to
be true. (To be honest and fair, some of my predictions for 2012 did not
turn out to be accurate.)

I have been consistently critical of most public opinion polling,
especially early polling in small samples of voters who are not VERY
likely to vote. Now that we are getting closer and closer to election day,
the polls will tend to be more accurate, especially if the pollsters are
employing large samples and are rigorously polling truly likely voters
of both parties. By mid-October this will most likely happen.

In 2016, the gross numbers of the polls were not very inaccurate, but
the analysis of them, particularly in the rust belt states that determined
the election, were. The polls, more or less, reflected the popular vote,
but was not analyzed to predict the electoral college vote --- the one that
counted.

In 2018, there is no electoral college, but there is a serious question
about the expectation of turnout --- and thus the subjective “weighting”
that all polls do. General voter resistance to answering polls, especially
among conservative and independent voters, also tends to skew public
poll results. While we are assured of low margins of error, too many
poll upsets in both parties this cycle indicate margins of error are often
much greater than conceded.

As in so many other aspects of our lives, we are often in too much of a
hurry these days to know outcomes. Even in baseball, with its long
season, many divisions, and its “wild  card” teams, most fans know
they won’t know the winner of the World Series until October.

We’ll know the winners and losers soon enough. but we’ll have to wait a
bit longer. And even when we do know the results, we’ll begin the
guessing game all over again for the 2020 presidential election.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Patterns And Reinforcements

The final primaries of the 2018 mid-term elections are
reinforcing the patterns of the earlier primaries.

Two of these patterns stand out. On the Republican side,
the policies and personality of President Donald Trump are
dominant. Nine of ten of his endorsed GOP candidates have
won in competitive primaries, and the base of his support
in red and purple states remains very strong. On the
Democratic side, candidates of the Bernie Sanders left
wing of the opposition party are winning many primaries
in blue and purple states ---and moving the national party
clearly to the left.

The latest example of the latter occurred in the Florida
Democratic gubernatorial primary where the mayor of
Tallahassee, Andrew Gillum, won an upset against former
Congresswoman Gwen Graham (who had been leading in
the pre-primary polls). Gillum had been endorsed by Senator
Bernie Sanders, and run to the left of Graham, the daughter
of a popular former governor and a more traditional Florida
liberal.

At the same time, retiring GOP Congressman Ron DeSantis
defeated state Agricultural Commissioner Adam Putnam by
large margin. Only weeks before, Putnam, a rising state
political star, had been leading DeSantis, but President Trump
endorsed the congressman, and he quickly soared ahead in the
race.

This race follows the pattern in previous primaries, especially
in purple states, where a Trump endorsee has won the
Republican primary and a Sanders-styled has won the
Democratic primary. As in these races, the Florida  race for
governor will test the two very divergent ideological views, and
possibly preview the 2020 presidential race.

In the just-concluded Arizona primary, a different 2018 mid-term
pattern was reinforced. Retiring Congresswoman Martha McSally
won a stronger-than-expected primary victory over former
Sheriff Joe Arpaio (who had been pardoned by President Trump
after a conviction) and physician Kelli Ward who had run the
campaign most to the right. Both Ward and Arpaio were considered
by many to be too right-wing to win in November against liberal
Democratic nominee Kyrsten Sinema, but each had a base in the
state. McSally actually won 52% of the vote. Her race with Sinema
(who has turned toward the center while in Congress) in November
is now rated a toss-up.

Although President Trump did not endorse in the senate race, all
three candidates emphasized their support for him. A second and
unique factor this cycle in Arizona was the lingering illness of
Senator John McCain (not up for re-election this year) who passed
away just before the primary. The GOP governor, Doug Ducey
(himself up for re-election in 2018), will now appoint a replacement
for McCain after the funeral in early September. Arizona is usually
considered a red state, and although Sistema historicallywas a
Bernie Sanders-styled politician, she is expected to run hard to the
center to attract the more conservative Arizona voters --- another
pattern in many red states this mid-term cycle.

A key November U.S. senate race in Florida was not affected by the
just-concluded primary. Incumbent Democratic Senator Bill Nelson
and his November opponent, retiring GOP Governor Rick Scott,
had already been determined as their party nominees. Here, too,
a 2018 mid-term pattern was reinforced as the Democratic
incumbent faces a very serious GOP challenger --- and the
possibility of another Republican senate pick-up. The popular
Scott leads Nelson in current polls.

Finally, the critical factor of voter turnout was visible in both the
Florida and Arizona primaries. As expected, Democratic turnout
was strong, especially among Sanders-Warren wing voters (and
generally among liberal voters who oppose President Trump).
This pattern has occurred throughout the 2018 primary season
in blue, red and purple states. But Republican turnout was also
strong, as it has been in both red and purple states this year.

If the public polling is to be given any credibility so far this cycle,
it is that a larger-than-usual “undecided” or “willing-to-change”
vote exists in the electorate. In spite of predictions of blue and
red waves by partisans and the media, it is this unknown factor
makes any predictions speculative as we approach the end of the
primary season and enter the climactic autumn campaign.

The omens might be ambiguous, but the primary season continues
to supply us with patterns and reinforcements. At the center of
these is President Trump and his remaking of the Republican
Party --- and the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren wing that is
changing the Democratic Party. A U.S. supreme court confirmation
likely will occur before November, as will the course of the
economy and the stock market. Also in play are several Trump
foreign policy initiatives which could either succeed or fail in the
remaining two months of the 2018 campaign.

Not to mention the often occurring “October surprise.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Global "Chess"

Very little of what’s actually going on in the world
appears in the headlines and broadcasts of the day.

Our contemporary hyper-information communications
environment renders virtually all global “facts,”
“statistics,” and most other data often disputable,
unverified and ambiguous.

Even photographic and filmed images are always
incomplete portraits of a full picture of the reality of
most events and circumstances --- easily distorted for
partisan purposes in the worldwide competitions of
political, economic and military interests.

At any given moment in history, past and present, there
is a complicated and multilateral chess match taking
place below the surface, behind closed public doors, and
out of communications range.

However daunting the above assertions make a public
comprehension of global events and affairs, these
difficulties or obstacles should not prevent anyone from
attempting to grasp a reasonable understanding of
what is happening in the world around them.

In our own time of international change and disruption,
with global and domestic news and information sources
screaming for attention and influence, it would seem, in
fact, almost necessary that as many persons as possible
should have a reasonably accurate and useful grasp of
the world around them.

To be very specific, the global interests of larger nations
such as the United States, China, India, Russia --- and
those of significant regions such as the Middle East,
Southeast Asia, and South America --- have entered a
new stage distinct from the period of only a few years
ago.

Certain facts are obvious, for example, the populations
and land masses of the larger nations --- and their
geographic locations. On the other hand, their strategic
interests, current conditions, hidden historical agendas,
and (as always) the personalities and ambitions of their
leaders are often much less visible.

Why is all this so important?

It is important because change and disruption inevitably
bring new real conditions in the world. The use of a
“chess” match analogy falls short in one very critical
aspect --- world affairs is not a game.  Human lives
and how they are lived are always at stake.

The history of the world is the history of nations,
regions and interests --- and how they adapt or fail to
adapt to the change around them. With the current
challenges to democratic and free market systems of
government and economy, it would seem necessary
that the most accurate and widest public understanding
of the world is the only way democratic government
and free markets can survive.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Next And Concluding Chapter, Mid-Terms 2018

The book of the 2018 national mid-term cycle has one more chapter.
The earlier chapters included retirements, resignations, sensational
allegations, special elections, heated primaries and a lot of wishful
thinking by partisans of both major political parties, and not a few in
the media. But now we come to the climactic moments when the key
players in this saga, the voters, show up for their decisive moment.

There have been numerous  and contradictory omens about what will
be the election’s ending when the votes are tallied and reported.

For those who predict, and/or wish for, a “blue” result, there are the
closer-than-Trump’s 2016 margins in most of the special elections, the
higher than normal Democratic turnout in most primaries, the recent
published public opinion polls in many U.S. house races and some
senate races, and the tradition that first mid-term election of a new
president usually bring big gains to the opposition party.

For those who predict, and/or wish for, a “red” result, Republicans
won, albeit by smaller margins than previously, eight of nine of those
special elections, their turnout was also strong in many primary
states, especially “red” ones, public opinion polling of conservative
voters, particularly “likely” voters, has recently been notably inexact,
and the nation will probably be voting in a period of a strong economy,
a rising stock market and low unemployment.

A further advantage for the GOP, at least in the primary season, has
been the power of Mr. Trump through endorsements and rally
appearances to influence and bring out Republicans he favors in the
nominating stage of this cycle.

Democrats could argue, however, that the president’s disruptions
and successes during the  primaries will work to their favor in the
general election when highly motivated liberal and progressive
voters will turn out to defeat Mr. Trump and his candidates.

Republicans argue that the new Bernie Sanders-styled radical wave
of candidates advocating single payer healthcare, “Medicare for all,”
unlimited legal immigration, abolition of I.C.E., and sanctuary cities
and states will turn off voters, especially independents, in November.
Democrats argue that those same issues will boost their totals.

The mathematics of the 2018 election clearly favor the Democrats in
U.S. house races because the GOP is defending many more seats. But
the opposite is true in the U.S. senate races where many more
Democratic incumbent seats are considered vulnerable.

Late-breaking developments reinforce those mathematics. Recent
public opinion polls are being interpreted as making more GOP
house incumbents vulnerable --- and three of the four previously
considered “safe” senate seats that are now thought to be “in play”
are Democratic seats (New Jersey, Michigan and New Mexico).

On the other hand, the polls might not be accurate, and many
Republican house members whose races are rated competitive might
win re-election easily. And just because a few  Democratic senators’
races are now no longer rated “safe,” it does not mean they are going
to lose.

Pick your ”omen” or pick your statistic, and you can make a case for
either a “blue” wave/surge or a “red” one. But with almost three
months to go, nothing is truly dispositive. A lot of voters in a volatile
cycle like this one make up their minds or change them  just before
election day. The Democrats  certainly might be able to win back the
U.S. house. or they might fall short. The Republicans certainly might
enlarge their slim U.S. senate majority, or they might not.

A great deal depends on what we do not know now. There could
even be a surprise ending in the last chapter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.