Category Archives: Politics

Polls a snapshot; big trends favor Clinton

Elections aheadBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Get ready to see a lot of polls in the coming months. One of the latest by Fox News has the presidential race the closest it’s been in a while: Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump, 48-42 percent and by only two points, 41-39, when the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are included. Another poll by Suffolk University and USA Today has Clinton up by seven points in both a two-person and four-person race.

Even the best of polls is a snapshot of a given moment. Public opinion can shift a few points in either direction based on the latest news or maybe whatever phase the moon is in. But certain realities – particularly the Electoral College and the Democrats’ demographic advantages – won’t change, and those are better predictors of what will happen in November.

The constitutional realty is that presidents are not elected through a national election but through 51 separate elections in the states and Washington, D.C., with the winner chosen by the Electoral College. There, the numbers currently work in the Democrats’ favor, as noted by national political analyst Charlie Cook in a speech to economic developers in Little Rock Monday. Eighteen states with 242 Electoral College votes have voted for the Democrat in each of the last last six elections. If Clinton holds those blue states, she only needs 28 votes elsewhere.

In contrast, only 13 states with 103 votes have been so solidly Republican, though others are leaning that direction. Arkansas, for example, has voted Republican in the last four elections after choosing favorite son Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but it’s not likely to treat Hillary Clinton as a favorite daughter. Still, the Electoral College math means Republicans must win almost every swing state.

Meanwhile, Republicans face the reality that the nation’s demographics are changing. As Cook noted, the electorate that was 87 percent white in 1992 will be about 70 percent white this year, which means Republicans do best among the part of the population that is shrinking as a percentage. In 2012, 93 percent of African-Americans and 71 percent of Hispanics voted for President Obama, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. Those numbers are not likely to improve for Republicans this year – not with Trump at the top of the ticket.

Meanwhile, Democrats are leading among the demographic group that will compose future electorates: young people. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, Clinton led among voters ages 18-29 with 47 percent of the vote. Trump had only 21 percent of that group’s vote – less even than the Libertarian candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who had 22 percent support.

Republicans are counting on the fact that those young voters will become more conservative as they grow older and start paying property taxes on their Buicks, and no doubt some will change their views. But 47-21 percent is a big lead.

So Clinton has an advantage in areas that won’t change in the next two months: the Electoral College and the nation’s demographic realities.

But elections are just a poll taken in November, which means they can be determined by temporary things. As Cook noted, both Clinton and Trump have such high negative ratings that neither will ever gain a huge advantage. (“If Republicans had nominated a potted plant, they’d have had a pretty good chance to win,” he said.) A terrorist attack, an economic dip or a Clinton scandal could turn the election.

Also, Clinton, who has been playing the game better than Trump, could start playing it worse. She could lose the debates. While he was meeting with the president of Mexico, she has been hiding out, avoiding the press and raising money from rich donors – in other words, as others have pointed out, playing the “prevent defense” that never seems to work in football. Finally, let’s not overlook the importance of third party candidates, who can really mess with the numbers.

Democrats have won four of the last six elections and the popular vote in five of them. Cook expects Clinton to continue that trend, winning comfortably but not overwhelmingly by 3-5 points. He thinks Republicans won’t solve their big problems yet, but Democrats will overreach and the pendulum will swing back.

Parties are made of people, after all, and people make mistakes, sometimes learn from them, and then make new ones. Poll results may change, but human nature doesn’t.

Clintons’ post-presidency changes the deal

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

One of the problems with the Clintons’ post-presidential activities is that they mess with the deal the United States makes with its presidents.

That deal has always been this: You will perform the world’s most stressful job for four to eight years. You’ll be called upon to make life-and-death decisions that can affect millions of people around the world. The system limits your power, but many Americans will blame you for everything that goes wrong. The job will turn your hair gray. But when it’s over, you can cash in, get rich, and perform good works for the rest of your life.

Oh, and one more thing: You don’t get to come back. In fact, the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, expressly forbids a president from serving in the White House past two terms.

It’s not a perfect deal because conflicts of interest still are possible. This time next year, President Obama, like other ex-presidents and other high-ranking government officials, likely will be charging hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech. Those future huge paydays could affect the decisions he makes while still in office.

But Americans tolerate that possibility because we try not to stand in the way of anybody getting rich, and because ex-presidents are really nice things to have. President Carter has built houses around the world with Habitat for Humanity and has led the fight to nearly eradicate Guinea worm disease. President George W. Bush’s work in Africa is an extension of his good work with that continent while in office. President Clinton has helped lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medication for millions of people worldwide.

And for Arkansas, it’s been an especially good deal. The Clinton Library has been a catalyst for developing a part of Little Rock that once was a sea of decaying warehouses. The Clinton School of Public Service offers the nation’s first master of public service degree and has brought to Little Rock hundreds of eager young future leaders, as well as many high-profile speakers. A few weeks ago, Presidents Clinton and Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared together at Little Rock’s Central High.

But remember the part about presidents not being allowed to come back? It’s unclear how it applies to the first spouse.

When Bill Clinton left office 16 years ago, Hillary Clinton was 53 years old and being elected to a seat in the United States Senate. It was no secret then that she wanted to be president, which she indeed tried to become in 2008. She then became secretary of state.

While all of this was happening, her husband was leading the Clinton Foundation, which the Associated Press reported has raised more than $2 billion since 2001 – including between $100,001 and $250,000 from Donald Trump.

Did donors lend their support because they really supported the foundation’s work, or was part of their motivation gaining access and influence with Hillary Clinton, who was still very much in power and potentially soon would have more?

The Associated Press has reported that 85 of the 154 private citizens with whom Clinton had meetings or phone conversations during the first half of her time as secretary of state had donated to the Clinton Foundation. She also met with 16 foreign governments who gave money to the foundation.

In response, the Clinton campaign said the AP “cherry-picked” from Clinton’s schedule and that she had 1,700 other meetings. The Clintons did not draw a salary from the foundation. Would it be better if those millions of people didn’t get cheaper AIDS drugs?

At the very least, there’s clearly the potential for people to try to buy access. Aware of how this looks, the Clintons have announced they’ll step away from the foundation if she is elected president, although daughter Chelsea will stay on the board – which means the family is still very much involved.

It’s not the kind of situation anticipated by the 22nd Amendment or by the American people. Regardless of what the Clintons do, the question remains: When the first spouse is still young and has a good chance of someday becoming president, does that change the deal?

One way to vote your conscience

Hand with ballot and boxBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

You know how you’re always told that if you vote for a third party, you’re taking a vote from the major party candidate you’d otherwise support? Sam Husseini, a D.C.-based writer and activist, has a simple solution for that conundrum, “Vote Pact,” but it’s going to require a civil conversation with someone with whom you disagree politically.

The idea, basically, is to swap votes. Say you lean Republican but don’t want to vote for Donald Trump. You’re considering voting for the Libertarian, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, or independent candidate Evan McMullin, but you’re afraid not voting for Trump helps Hillary Clinton. Using the Vote Pact strategy, you team up with someone who feels pressured to vote for Clinton but would rather vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. Then you can both vote your conscience. Instead of voting for someone you don’t support, your Vote Pact took a vote from someone you completely oppose.

A group supporting Johnson is making the same argument and has created a structure, Balanced Rebellion, that will pair a Republican and a Democrat who both want to vote for Johnson.

Husseini starting pushing the idea in 2000, when the race between George Bush and Al Gore also featured two well-known third party candidates, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. It didn’t gain much traction then. In later elections, the major parties produced relatively acceptable candidates while third parties didn’t produce many credible alternatives.

This year, Trump and Clinton have historically high unfavorable ratings, and some Americans are looking elsewhere. In Arkansas, six other candidates are on the ballot. But Husseini said voters are trapped by their own fears into voting for the lesser of two evils.

The idea resonates more in swing states than in Arkansas, where Trump seems all but certain to win the state’s six Electoral College votes.

Still, it’s not inconceivable that the race could at least become interesting here. Clinton, Arkansas’ former first lady, is competitive in some surprising states, including Georgia and Arizona. Evan McMullin, a traditional Republican, qualified for the Arkansas ballot Aug. 24 as the Better for America candidate, and he’ll pull votes from Trump, as will Johnson, who also pulls from Clinton. Two of the other candidates, the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle and America’s Party co-founder Tom Hoefling, are also more conservative than Trump and could attract unhappy Republicans.

Nahh, Trump will win here.

Here’s the thing about the Vote Pact strategy: It requires participants to step out of their comfort zones. You know that old saying, “Never talk about politics in polite company”? Unfortunately, these days it’s, “Never talk about politics unless you’re sure the other person agrees with you, and then talk a lot about it.”

The structures of American society are sowing a lot of division these days. We have significant ideological, political, religious and regional differences anyway. These are heightened by the fact that we tend to live near, work alongside, and socialize with people who look like us, believe like us, and make roughly the same amount of money. Regardless of our political beliefs, it’s easy to find media outlets to reinforce our persuasions and paint others as foolish and ill-intentioned. Others therefore become aliens.

When we express our political opinions, it’s often in completely safe situations, or online, where old rules about civility and respect don’t seem to apply. There, political arguments are so ugly and pointless that we end up “unfriending” those with whom we disagree.

This creates a destructive cycle that entrenches our beliefs and makes us more extreme. Within a cocoon of like-minded individuals, in one conversation President Obama can go from being too liberal to being a communist to purposely helping the terrorists to win, with no one ever backtracking to him just being too liberal. In somebody else’s cocoon, Republicans become the mortal enemy.

Vote Pact creates an opportunity for civil discourse and transforms opponents into allies. The other voter is no longer part of the Left or Right. They’re just a fellow human being trying to vote their conscience. And we’re going to help them do that, while they help us.

Vote Pact won’t change this election’s outcome. But elections aren’t just about picking the winner in a two-person beauty contest, or “less ugly” contest. They’re about letting voters express their beliefs. The two-party, winner-take-all system pressures voters to compromise. With Vote Pact, they can vote with no regrets while bridging the gap with someone with different beliefs but the same desire for their vote to count.

Isn’t that better than another pointless online argument?

Battle of the deep pockets

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

When you read about a lawsuit against a nursing home, do you usually assume that the alleged victim was mistreated and the nursing home should be punished, or that some lawyer is looking for a jackpot verdict?

Deep-pocketed supporters and opponents of a proposed amendment will try to encourage those assumptions in their favor between now and November.

“An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non-Economic Damages in Medical Lawsuits” would direct the Arkansas Legislature to limit pain and suffering damages to at least $250,000. (Please note the words “at least,” my fellow reporters who keep omitting those words.) Trial lawyer contingency fees would be limited to 33 1/3 percent after expenses. There would be no limits for other types of damages.

Where’s this debate headed? In politics, always follow the money.

Health Care Access for Arkansans, the group supporting the amendment, raised $871,088.50 in May, June and July, according to campaign finance reports. Of that, $580,000 came from the Arkansas Health Care Association, the group that represents nursing homes, and much of the rest has come from nursing homes and associated entities. Medical groups and providers have not been as active, but they will become involved, said David Wroten with the Arkansas Medical Society.

Those are some deep pockets. Expect to see ads about predatory lawyers as the election nears.

Those lawyers also have deep pockets. A group opposing the amendment, the Committee to Protect AR Families, formed July 12. In less than three weeks, it raised $420,430 from 18 lawyers and law firms, including Fort Smith attorney Joey McCutchen and the McDaniel Law Firm in Little Rock, both of which gave $100,000, and an Illinois law firm, Simmons Hanly and Conroy, which gave $75,000.

There are a lot more lawyers in and out of this state, so expect that pot to grow. That means you’ll be seeing ads about nursing home victims.

You can look at this cynically: Everyone’s just trying to make sure their pockets remain deep. The lawyers want to be able to sue for millions of dollars. The nursing homes want to protect their you-know-whats.

The two sides will accuse their opponents of behaving cynically while describing themselves idealistically – that nursing homes are just trying to serve patients and families, while lawyers are trying to protect victims and prevent victimhood.

As in most campaigns, to get to the truth, voters will have to advance past cynicism but stop short of idealism. In other words, they’ll have to be realistic.

The realistic view is that of course everybody is trying to benefit their own financial situations.

At the same time, nursing homes provide an indispensable daily service to a vulnerable population amidst often grim and difficult situations. Bad things would happen even if humans never made mistakes, which they do. Nursing homes must provide a service while making a profit at a price families and society can afford. That being the case, society’s expectations of nursing homes ought be in line with the resources it provides them. They can’t be perfect.

However, while human error is inevitable, negligence is unacceptable. If a nursing home can’t figure out how to make a profit and provide good care, then it shouldn’t be in business. Providers must be forced to remain vigilant, and one way to do that is through painful financial consequences. That’s why we have lawsuits, and to have lawsuits, we must have lawyers.

All of us, including supporters and opponents of the amendment, can all agree that the old and infirm must be given dignified care – if necessary, in a nursing home. We can all agree that the care must be affordable. And we can all agree that there must be consequences when standards aren’t met.

Achieving those three, all at the same time, is a difficult balance. Voters will decide if limiting non-economic damages and lawyers’ fees is the best way to reach that balance, even while various groups with deep pockets naturally will want to tip it in their favor.

Would you rather rank your choices?

Hand with ballot and boxBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Are you dissatisfied with the candidates but uncomfortable voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Maine may have a solution: ranking your choices.

Mainers will vote this November on implementing ranked choice voting, where in a multi-candidate race they would mark their first, second and third choices. If no candidate receives a majority, then the candidate with the fewest first place votes is eliminated. Their votes are awarded to their voters’ second choice candidates. If there’s still no majority winner, the process continues until one candidate has a majority.

Such a system is uncommon but not unheard of. In Arkansas, military and overseas voters rank their choices because there isn’t time to mail them a ballot if there is a runoff. According to FairVote, an election reform supporter, 11 cities elect their city officials using ranked choice voting. It’s how Ireland chooses its president and Australians their Parliament.

Supporters say such a system, otherwise known as instant runoff voting, ensures winning candidates have majority support. Under the current system, when there are multiple choices, the favorite candidate of a minority can be elected over several candidates with broad appeal who split the vote. Party primaries below the presidency solve that problem with runoffs, which are costly and often attract a low turnout. But general elections are winner take all, which, through the Electoral College, is how Bill Clinton became president in 1992 with 43 percent of the vote.

A ranked choice system also makes it easier for voters to vote their conscience. Voters are forever being told they must vote for the major party candidate they fear least lest they help the more objectionable candidate win. Voters in a ranked choice system can support the candidate who reflects their values, giving him or her a fighting chance, while their second choice votes will go to their preferred – or less unpreferred – major party candidate.

Supporters say a ranked choice system forces candidates to try to appeal to a broader slice of the electorate and to run a more positive campaign. Current campaigns are won by firing up the base by pitting Americans against each other. In a ranked choice system, second choice voters may provide the margin of victory, so candidates have an incentive not to alienate them.

Ranked choice voting really is no different than how we make decisions elsewhere in life. Sometimes the doughnut shop is out of our favorite, so we pick our second favorite from among a wide selection. Under the current system, voters often have only two doughnuts from which to choose, both of which they may dislike – or there may be a third that’s in the back that no one tells them about.

The negatives? Ranked choice voting is more complicated, would require investing in new voting technology, and may not make much of a difference in Arkansas.

Maine has a history of multi-candidate elections where the governor is elected by a minority – less than 40 percent in five of its last 11 elections. One of its U.S. senators, Angus King, is an independent.

Arkansas does not have a strong third party presence or a history of independent candidates, though it did vote for independent George Wallace for president in 1968. There lately haven’t been a lot of races with multiple credible candidates for major offices, or a lot of runoffs in party primaries.

Maine’s proposal does not apply to the presidential race, which is governed by both state law and party rules. Arkansas would have had to work with the national parties to implement ranked choice voting before this year’s primaries, and who knows how that would have turned out. But there would be no problem changing the law for the general election.

It’s clear that Americans are unhappy with their democracy. Typically they respond by trying to change people, which is why Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders, two candidates very different from the norm, won so much support. But attempting change through people is often disappointing because the system keeps one person from having too much power, thank goodness. To make lasting change, change the system.

Is ranked choice voting the best way to do that? I’m willing to try this doughnut, or at least let Mainers do it and ask them how they like it.