Quotes of the Day: The New York Times hosted a conversation among two pundits (Times columnist Frank Bruni; Jonathan V. Last, editor of the Bulwark; Mallory McMorrow, a Michigan state senator). Here are several excerpts:
A “red wave”?
Frank Bruni: There was more like an itty-bitty, pale red undulation.
McMorrow: It changed everything — and Democrats who leaned in fared well. Especially Democratic women.
Bruni: I know it’s a painful conversation, focused on an overexposed megalomaniac, but we must have it nonetheless. Donald Trump was one of Tuesday’s big losers, no? His Republican nemesis Brian Kemp romped to victory in the Georgia governor’s race. His Republican buddy Mehmet Oz lost his Senate race in Pennsylvania. Kari Lake in Arizona may not win. And his likeliest 2024 primary challenger, Ron DeSantis, notched an impressive victory in Florida.
Last: I’m actually bullish on Trump’s prospects. I would like nothing more than for him to go away and the Republican Party to revert to being the party of guys like Mike Pence and Brian Kemp, where you can argue about policy but don’t have to worry about a coup.
But Trump lost the 2020 election by seven million votes, and it didn’t hurt him at all with Republican voters. I am skeptical that a logical, “Hey, this guy is bad for the institution of the Republican Party” argument is going to sway them now. . . .
Bruni: Jonathan, did you really say you’re “bullish” on Trump? Even with DeSantis on the rise? Even with Trump’s metastasizing craziness? I need more clarification! I need to understand! Actually, I need my blankie.
Last: I mean that I’m bullish on Trump’s prospects to be the Republican nominee. I am not making a moral judgment. I promise you that. . . .
McMorrow: Last night’s results should scare the hell out of the Republican Party if Trump is the nominee. The election-denying base is still there, but in 2022, it seems like most people simply want to move on from 2020. Trump refuses to do that.
Bruni: Mallory, everyone thought the Democrats would be the ones having to explain themselves today. But the underperformance belongs to the Republicans. Beyond Dobbs, where else did it go wrong for them? Did this “candidate quality” thing really bite them?
McMorrow: Mitch McConnell said it himself — candidate quality is an issue. And in this hyperpartisan moment when it feels like many of the Republican candidates are competing for a TV gig on Fox News, don’t underestimate the power of normal Democrats — I’m thinking Abigail Spanberger, Elissa Slotkin, Gretchen Whitmer — to win.
Bruni: Jonathan, were there particular Republican candidates who you think lost not because of the broader political dynamics as refracted through their states but because, well, they stunk? Like maybe a certain medical doctor who pushes miracle cures?
Last: Probably? Oz was a bad fit for Pennsylvania. But also, John Fetterman was a beast of a candidate, who is a great fit for the state and is one potential model for what Democratic populism could look like.
Let me just say this about Trump and what he means to Republican electoral outcomes: With Trump on the ballot, Republicans make a calculation that his presence will cost them educated, suburban voters, but bring out a ton of low-education, low-propensity voters. And that net-net, this will be to their advantage. With Trump not on the ballot, that dynamic is still in play, but maybe net-net it balances against Republicans. So I can pretty easily see Republicans talking themselves into looking at last night and deciding that they need more cowbell.
Bruni: Mallory, what most surprised you last night?
McMorrow: I know we like to focus on federal and national races, but in Michigan, we’ve got a Democratic trifecta for the first time in nearly 40 years. The state House and state Senate flipped, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was re-elected handily. Michigan is a blue state headed into 2024.
. . .
Bruni: They have not yet called the [Lauren] Boebert race[in Colorado]. But even if she somehow squeaks through, the narrowness of that victory remains a huge shock, no? And, I don’t know, an answer to how much crazy Americans will tolerate? I ask/say that, and think maybe it’s true, but then I think: Marjorie Taylor Greene! She’s still around, re-elected and empowered.
McMorrow: Exactly. That [Boebert] race alone, to me, signals we may have reached the limit of crazy that will be tolerated, Madison Cawthorn’s earlier loss in the [North Carolina] Republican primary being a sign of that. There’s still room for a few (thinking of M.T.G.), but it feels like there’s a limited national appetite for a party full of M.T.G.s . . . .
Bruni: Jonathan, your thoughts on the effect of Dobbs?
Last: I think it transformed the environment. Pre-Dobbs, we thought that Republicans would pick up at least 35 House seats and were a lock to get at least 52 in the Senate.
It’s hard to say, “In Race X, Dobbs added Z points.” But I don’t think anything about this cycle is the same without that decision.
McMorrow: The Republican wins in Florida, and the margin DeSantis won by, definitely shows how divided we still are as a country. DeSantis — to many — still comes across as “normal,” or a more competent Trump.
Bruni: I said at the start that I sat here this morning feeling something between shock and surprise. I also feel a strange and welcome flutter of … hope?
There was repudiation of Trump. There were not widespread reports of violence or intimidation at the polls. Election deniers didn’t have the greatest of nights. Is America on sturdier legs than we thought?
McMorrow: I feel incredible this morning. And it does feel like hope. Michigan alone sent a huge rebuke of the politics of fear, and I’m going to carry this feeling with me into the new year knowing just what we’re capable of. I’m reassured that our country may, in fact, have hit its limit on right-wing commentators turned politicians. This crazy American experiment might just make it after all.
Last: . . There are lots of things to be grateful for this morning. But democracy needs (at least) two healthy political parties in order to function. And as of this morning, I don’t think we can safely say that we’re back to that point.
Remember: Many of these results are a matter of a few thousand votes here or there, and then we’d be having a different discussion. This wasn’t a broad repudiation of the illiberalism which got us here over the last seven years. . . .
Democrats have to be better. They have to win real majorities in order to govern. At the presidential level, they probably have to win by around 5 percent in the popular vote to have a 50-50 chance of winning the Electoral College. They’re the only healthy, liberal (in the classical sense) party we’ve got right now. So they need to keep broadening their coalition, as difficult as that is. (And it’s difficult because the broader your coalition, the more internal tensions you’ll have between groups.)
As for the Republicans, let me ask you guys this: Why isn’t Brian Kemp the future of the Republican Party? He just won a big victory against a quality Democratic challenger in a key purple state. If the Republican Party was healthy, he’d be at the top of the list for 2024. . . .
In my dream world, 2024 is a race between Josh Shapiro [who won the election for governor in Pennsylvania] and Brian Kemp, and we can all just kind of not care because neither of them is an existential threat to democracy and it’s just a debate about policy preferences.
Kemp’s status is really a stand-in for what’s wrong with the Republican voters, who, nationally, don’t want someone like Kemp. Until that changes, the Republican Party isn’t going to get “fixed.” But they can keep winning elections.