Divided Government Is Coming... But How Divided?

After a two year hiatus, the Dividist blog is back. Our last post was after the 2020 Presidential election but before the inauguration, before the January 6th Capitol Hill insurrection, and before the Georgia runoff. In that post we discussed and analyzed how the Georgia results would determine partisan control of the Senate and the consequences in future elections. 

Here we are, two years later, days before the midterm election, and we are again discussing and analyzing how the Georgia results will determine partisan control of the Senate and the consequences for future elections. It's "Deja Vu all over again." 

Strap in. We've got a lot to catch up on.  We'll be pulling from relevant past work and predicting the future. This will be a long post. 

"Other arms reach out to me..."

Apologies in advance for utilizing the same overused "Georgia On My Mind" cliché title used by everyone else opining on the Georgia election. But, to paraphrase Yossarian in Catch-22, "If everyone else is doing it, I'd be a damn fool to do anything else." 

We're less than a week until the Georgia Senate runoff. No telling how long before we know the results. The election will determine partisan control of the Senate and whether we will have a Divided Government or a Unified One Party Rule Democratic Government for the next two years. The Dividist prognosticates and the Dividist has preferences. Sometimes they align. Sometimes they don't. First our preference... 

Never Trump & Divided Government FTW

Graphic Credit: Gallup

Try to keep up.

Welcome to the The First Presidential Debate of the 2020 General Election and the latest edition in the continuing saga of "Live Blogging the Live Bloggers blogging the Debates!"   The Dividist fondly recalls when he first conceived this series to cover the 2008 Republican debate and asked the question:

"There are plenty of live-bloggers covering the debate tonight, but who is covering the live bloggers? The Dividist rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, fear to tread."

Historically we select a variety of bloggers from across the political spectrum and attempt to cut/paste their live blog insights. Really, no idea how this will work in the current frenetic, fractured, social media environment. We'll just pick a few favorites - Twitter is our platform of choice, so #NeverTrumpers like Tom Nichols and Rick Wilson should figure prominently, as well as polling sites, cable news, newspapers, and others TBD. 

They got it right in 2016. That wast then. This is now.

Four years ago, The Dividist shared his thoughts on the 2016 election in a post entitled "Cognitive Madisonianism, splitting tickets, the 2016 Senate race, and why American voters are smarter than pundits and political scientists."

The Dividist was enthralled to discover the phrase "Congnitive Madisonianism" and eager to put it to use. As he explained then, it is a political science term for the simple concept that American voters, in their collective wisdom, prefer and vote for divided government. That concept being the raison d'etre for this blog, the reader can appreciate the Dividist's enthusiasm.

In that post we assessed the current state of the election and made some predictions about the likelihood of maintaining our happily divided government across the new year:

"In 2016 the GOP will keep the House majority, the Democrats will keep the Executive branch and our government will stay happily divided regardless of what happens in the Senate. The dividist voting heuristic strives to Keep It Simple Stupid and walk the simplest path of least resistance to keeping the government divided. In 2016, that path is to vote Clinton for President (or - at the least - not vote for Trump), and vote to reelect your Republican Congressman. For the Senate - vote your conscience."

In 2016, the Dividist could see a rationale to vote for either party gaining majority control in the Senate:

"The best dividist reason to support a Democratic Senate is based on the fear that some "Black Swan", "October surprise" event (e-mails, Wikileaks, Clinton Foundation, Trump quitting the race, etc) will derail the Clinton campaign juggernaut sufficiently to let the GOP nominee be elected President.  A Democratic Senate is a backstop to prevent Unified One Party Republican Rule.

The best dividist reason to support a Republican Senate is based on moderating Supreme Court picks. If the Democrats win the Senate there is a real possibility they will implement a "Nuclear Option" rule change for Supreme Court nominees. That means a Clinton Presidency and Democratic Senate could steamroll a GOP minority and confirm anyone Clinton nominates for the Supreme Court. They might even withdraw Garland to nominate and confirm a more reliably liberal judge.

Given the continuing catastrophe of the Trump campaign, the Dividist thinks hoping for a GOP Senate and moderation of Clinton picks for the Supreme Court is the better choice."

President's Day is a good day to reflect on who might be our next President. During the formative years of this blog, the Dividist frequently maintained and updated candidate stack rank preferences over the course of a presidential campaign cycle (a couple of examples here and here from February, 2007 and February, 2008). Interestingly, some of the presidential hopefuls from those lists over a dozen years ago remain relevant in the campaign today, including Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton.

As noted, the Dividist stack ranking is a preference not a prediction. The list, then and now, represent the top candidates the Dividist would like to see as President, stack ranked in order of preference, within an additional constraint of supporting a divided government outcome.

Welcome to the Dividist's annual coverage of the Presidential Address to Congress - aka State of the Union - The Musical!

UPDATED: 02-02-2020

Trumpany Hall - Trump Tower New York / Trump Hotel D.C. / Mar-a-Lago Florida

As the Kabuki Theater of the Senate Impeachment Trial plays out on our screens, let's reflect on what what transpired in this White House over the course of this administration.

We often hear the phrase "All politicians lie." It's probably true.  But does quantity matter? Do the dozens of Obama lies during his presidency justify the thousands of lies by Donald Trump three years into his first term? Does the qualitative nature of the lie matter? Are all lies equal? Is this really the hill that President Trump, his administration and GOP accomplices want to die on? If "all politicians lie", does it not matter how many lies or what kind of lie?

“We do that [quid pro quo] all the time ... That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” - Mick Mulvaney

 Since there is always going to be "political influence in foreign policy", does it matter if the quid pro quo is pressure in the service of United States policy objectives or if it is extortion in the service of the President's personal political benefit? Does motivation matter. Does corrupt intent matter? Is it all the same to Trump apologists when "everyone does it".

So how do we sort out the spectrum of corrumption and graft in Washington DC? How do we distinguish the unseemly legal graft of selling access for political contributions, from the illegal corruption of extorting foreign governments for personal political gain? Where do we rank the conflict of interest of President Trump when he shapes domestic and foreign policy to generate financial profit for the Trump family, Trump friends, Trump Administration cronies, Trump Company and President Donald Trump himself? How do we sort it out?

For guidance, we might look to the wit and wisdom of George Washington Plunkitt.

Proposed Impeachment "Gang of Eight"

Dear Senators Lisa Murkowski, Joe Manchin, Mitt Romney, Doug Jones, Susan Collins, Krysten Sinema,

I am writing in regard to your imminent role setting the ground rules for and rendering a verdict in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. You've each publicly stated your intent to live up to the oath required of all Senators prior to the trial:

 “I solemnly swear, that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of President Donald Trump, I will do impartial justice, according to law.”

As regards the pending impeachment trial you've shown restraint in your public comments, expressed a willingness to keep an open mind on the proceedings, and a desire to treat the trial with a serious consideration of the facts.

In your respective careers in the Senate you have shown a pragmatic willingness to compromise on legislation with your counterparts across the aisle without compromising your Democratic / Liberal Republican / Conservative principles. That does not mean you don't support most of the partisan policies promoted by your party. You do. Presumably you choose to run as a Republican or Democrat because those party policies predominantly reflects your views and those of your constituents. That's expected.

Because of who you are, because of your willingness to compromise, because of your respect for the Constitution and the institution of the Senate, you are uniquely positioned to provide an extraordinary service to Americans, the institution you represent, and the country you love - Right Now.

I propose you form an Impeachment Gang of Eight.

When it comes to executive overreach, Trump is standing on the shoulders of giants.

In light of President Trump's dubious declaration of a "National Emergency" to tap more of the Treasury than Congress will authorize, it's worth noting how far we have drifted from the Framer's intent for presidential power, congressional power of the purse, and the separation of powers in general.

As Gene Healy of the Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency noted:

"[The President's] constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers."

Oh wait. My bad. That quote was from Cato's 2006 White Paper "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush." It was an essay I referenced when, as a blogging toddler in 2006, I was alarmed at the ever expanding Unitary Executive claims made by the Bush/Cheney administration.

Later, in 2008, I was gratified to see candidate Barack Obama run on a promise of reversing the executive overreach in the GWB administration and returning the United States to core constitutional principles:

"I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the constitution very seriously. The biggest problem that we're facing right now has to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America." - Sen  Barack Obama - Townhall in Lancaster, PA, March 31, 2008

But I digress. Lets return to what the ACLU has to say about our President's overreach:

"... there is a very real danger that the administration will enshrine permanently within the law policies and practices that were widely considered extreme and unlawful during previous administrations. There is a real danger, in other words, that the administration will preside over the creation of a "new normal."

Oh wait. My bad. That paraphrased quote was from the 2010 ACLU Report "Establishing a New Normal" documenting the Obama administration extending, expanding and institutionalizing the executive branch overreach of the Bush/Cheney administration. The ACLU fears were borne out with later revelations of the Obama administration's widespread warrantless surveillance, continuing indefinite detentions, Presidential ordered drone kills, and of course Obama's infamous "phone and pen" executive orders on climate, immigration policy and the ever expanding regulations by presidential fiat.

The Cult of the Presidency
Abdication of congressional authority to the executive branch did not start with the last three administrations. It's part and parcel of a long term trend that has waxed and waned (mostly waxed) since the founding of the republic. It was Franklin Roosevelt that put the notion of POTUS as Cult Leader into high gear. Every president since has stood on the shoulders of previous executive power abusing giants. At least when FDR issued presidential edicts based on a National Emergency, there really was a national emergency (Great Depression, WWII). We also learned from FDR that even if there is a real national emergency, presidential orders can be misguided, racist,  immoral, unconstitutional and contradict American values.

Welcome to the Dividist's annual coverage of the Presidential Address to Congress - aka State of the Union - The Musical!

As noted by a recent twitter acquaintance, January 2nd is Divided Government Eve, and January 3rd is the real date to celebrate the political new year.

This is the eve that really matters. A return to divided government will lead to improved governance.

— 🌳❄️🌳Chris Resister🌳❄️🌳 (@ChrisResister) January 2, 2019

And the Dividist is celebrating. After another disastrous short 2 year stint of unified one party rule, today Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats take majority control of the House of Representatives and restore divided government to Washington D.C.

Since the election, the punditocracy has been weighing in on what we can expect from divided government over the next few days, weeks, months, and years. Unsurprisingly, the Dividist has some thoughts on the subject, but we'll leave those for future posts. This Divided Government New Year is a time for celebration and prognostication.

This happens periodically. The Dividist has been beating the divided government horse on this blog for a dozen years. We think we know all the arguments for and against. Then someone comes along and with a pithy turn of phrase crystallizes in a few words what the Dividist has spilled gallons of ink (megabits of pixels?) trying to explain.

Jay Cost challenges the PoliSci "alignment" theory of American politics in his National Review article"In Praise of Divided Government":

"I would posit another framework to understand politics over the past 40 years, one in which the two parties are basically evenly matched, strong ideologues dominate the bases of both sides, and a decisive quantum of voters in the middle is up for grabs. This process has yielded a general pattern that seems to repeat: One party surges to control the government, but this is short-lived; the opposition quickly gains a foothold; and divided government persists until the opposition finally takes total control, repeating the cycle."

Love that phrase "... a decisive quantum of voters in the middle". Succinct and to the point. This is how the Dividist tried to explain the same concept in one of his first posts in 2006 [Edited to provide some semblance of clarity]:

"Think of it this way. An election is a scale. Pile the large mass of partisan Democrats on one side and the large mass of partisan Republicans on the other, roughly balancing the collective polarized "Partisan Dead Weight" (PDW) that can be relied on to always gets on one side or the other. Then there are some smaller, more mobile weights, that call themselves Independents... an "invisible hand" that votes for divided government ...  [INSERT MANY HUNDREDS OF WORDS] ...  What if this "invisible hand' that prefers divided government becomes visible? What if the "collective unconscious" that prefers divided government, starts making that decision consciously? It could change elections in the same way 3rd parties do, by siphoning partisan support but without the spoiler effect. The beauty of this idea is that this party needs no candidates, no leaders, no platform, no conventions, really none of the trappings of a political party. Dividists are voting by objective, not by platform and not out of party loyalty."

The Dividist got to the point eventually, and subsequently managed to be a bit less wordy in his "About The Dividist" explainer:

"On this blog we advocate a specific voting heuristic that can be implemented by a relatively small percentage of the electorate, perhaps as little as 5%. The target readership are voters who are willing to cast their ballot based on a rational evidence-based voting strategy that will result in better federal government. 

The strategy requires that the voter be capable of casting their vote without consideration of party loyalty or political ideology. The voter must even be willing and able to vote for candidates they dislike, based on accomplishing a greater goal of more fiscal responsibility, stronger oversight, less spending, more deliberately considered, carefully crafted legislation and better overall governance. In short, the voters must be willing to vote for divided government. This blog is for those potential voters."

To be fair, the Dividst was and is describing an aspirational goal, while Mr. Cost is positing a historical political hypothesis. The important question for both of us is whether a small sliver of the electorate who are truly independent (i.e. not self-described "Independents" who actually vote one party as reliably as partisans) are, or could be, a swing vote that determines elections when using divided government as an organizing principle.
Does this "decisive quantum of voters" exist? How big is it? Can we quantify the dividist "quantum" vote? And what does it mean for the 2018 midterms?

Yes, I have TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).  If you are not familiar with the symptoms,  CNN, Wikipedia, and Urban Dictionary have all diagnosed the affliction. I had TDS before #TDS was cool and well before the President of the United States discovered the term.


One advantage of being a blogger, is that I can easily track the progression of the disease in my blog posts. My symptoms date back to 2015 and have a distinct Kubler-Ross flavor, including -  Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and even grudging Acceptance. How can one not have TDS with an unfettered President exhibiting such profound authoritarian tendencies and seeking to push the envelope of executive power in direct contradiction to the word and intent of our Constitution?

Edited from a post originally published on Uniters.Org