Blocking Votes

If President Obama loses his bid for re-election next year, it may not be because of the economy, and it won't really be because of the November 6 curse I wrote about earlier. It will possibly be because of voter suppression nationwide.

Once the Republicans realized that more young people, old people, poor people, and racial and ethnic minorities voted in 2008 and helped elect Obama President, swinging several key states in the Electoral College, it was inevitable that they would exploit the drop-off in interest among many of these traditional Democratic groups (except seniors, who can easily be coaxed into voting Republican on social issues) in the 2010 midterms and win enough state legislatures and governorships to pass voter restriction laws over Democratic opposition (what there is of it) at the state level. Now, in many states, residents must have a photo ID - usually a driver's license - to register to vote, early voting opportunities have been severely limited, and stricter residency requirements have been set into place. This has a disproportionate impact on traditionally Democratic voting blocs - poor people who can't afford a car and thus don't drive, urban residents who don't need a car and thus don't drive, working poor people who can't vote on the first Tuesday after November 1 because they have a job they have to show up for, and those who don't live in any one place for long, including college students. Folks who gave Obama his victory in 2008 likely won't be able to vote in large numbers in 2012.

I was going to suggest, when I planned to write on this subject, that progressive activist groups who register voters work with these laws, even if it means buying more buses to get more people to the polls in a shorter time frame and paying for driving lessons to get people who don't own a car a driver's license, but it turns out that Republicans have also enacted laws designed to curb mass registration by such groups. The nonpartisan League of Women Voters finds the new rules in Florida - which, among other things, reduce the number of early voting days from fourteen to eight - so restrictive that they've ceased voter registrations efforts in the Sunshine State indefinitely.

At the federal level, congressional Republicans are pushing to abolish the Election Assistance Commission, the four-person group created in the wake of the 2000 Bush-Gore and debacle in Florida to keep elections fair and honest through testing voting machines and offers assistance for proofing ballots. Republicans, who are so concerned about voter fraud that they restrict ballot access at the state level, say the commission has served its purpose in cleaning up voting (even though the new state restrictions cry for the commission's input), and that re-absorbing its duties into the Federal Election Commission will save the government $33 million in five years. $33 million in five years . . . in a budget of over a trillion dollars!

If these anti-initiatives are allowed to stand, the Republicans will undeservedly yet effectively ensure themselves as a permanent right-wing governing elite in America, with only a neutered political opposition - which, after 2012, will not be the Democratic party, which I predict will go the way of the Whigs and die a richly deserved death after caving on their principles one time too many.

Democratic Brownout

Scott Brown's tell-all memoir revealing his history of child abuse may seem in part like a campaign device for the Massachusetts Republican's next U.S. Senate election campaign in 2012, but its early release suggests that he's getting the tale of his past out now to avoid the appearance of a campaign stunt later. And it would seem rather crass to tell about the abuse suffered as a child for purely political reasons. Some would disagree on the nature of the timing of Brown's book, though, suggesting that it's a way for Brown to get ahead of any potential Democratic challenger now. Indeed, the 2012 election campaign may have already begun. Six U.S. Senators to date - the latest being Democrat Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico - have announced that they will not seek re-election in 2012, allowing potential candidates in their states to prepare for the primary campaigns.

The field still looks dismal for Democrats, having to defend twice as many Senate seats next year with many vulnerable incumbents while the few Republicans up for re-election all but assured another six years in office. That includes Scott Brown. Despite Massachusetts being a heavily Democratic state, even Boston mayor Tom Menino, a Democrat, declares that the moderate, pragmatic Brown is unbeatable. In which case, the Democrats might as well run Martha Coakley against him again.

Among incumbent Senate Democrats, the most vulnerable ones for 2012 include Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who enthusiastically supported a health care law that only generates enthusiasm among its opponents, Sherrod Brown of economically depressed Ohio, and Jon Tester of Montana, who will likely face a Republican opponent - Denny Rehberg, the state's only House member - more popular than he is. Vulnerable Democratic seats in Florida and Nebraska have Republicans looking to execute a half Nelson (take out Bill of Florida or Ben of Nebraska) or a full Nelson (take out both). And, if not Brown, whom can the Democrats unseat on the Republican side? Roger Wicker of Mississippi? Bob Corker of Tennessee? Get real!

Democratic hopes for continued Senate control rest on open seats. Olympia Snowe's seat could open up if the Tea Party defeats her in a primary with one of their own candidates, but Democrats shouldn't assume that they would beat such a candidate. Look at Paul LePage, Maine's loudmouth Tea Party governor, who won that office in November. Right now, Democrats are considering the possibility of picking up Republican Jon Kyl's seat in Arizona. With former Arizona governor and current Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ruling herself out, though, there aren't that many other prospects for the Democrats. I was just thinking how, if only Gabrielle Giffords hadn't been shot, she could run for Kyl's seat. She'd be a slam dunk.

It turns out that Giffords, due to her steadily progressive recovery from the January 8 massacre in Tucson, is being considered, and there are many calls for her to seek the Senate seat. U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz,a Florida Democrat and a Giffords ally, is currently helping to raise money for Giffords's re-election campaign to the House, though, and says that any idea of a Giffords Senate candidacy is premature.

So, for that matter, is the idea of a Republican takeover of the Senate, as the number of retirements from both parties is changing the landscape in the coming races. But Democrats still have an uphill battle to keep control of the upper house, given the number of Democratic seats up and the fact that it was this volatile class of seats that gave Republicans the majority in 1994, rendered the Senate evenly divided in 2000 (until Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords became an independent and switched party caucuses), and gave Democrats the majority in 2006.

And God help losing Democratic incumbents and challengers, because the party won't. Unlike losing Republicans, they won't asked to come back (like George Allen) and they won't be asked to try again (like John Thune). Democrats who lose in 2012, be it for the Senate or for the House, will be forgotten quickly.

That goes double for the guy in the White House at the top of the ticket as well. :-O