Is Trump Turning Texas Purple?

 by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – October 12, 2020

 

Is Donald Trump managing to turn Texas from a solid Red State (i.e., Republican) to a Purple State (a toss-up state)? If so, that would have earth-shaking consequences for American presidential politics.

Consider that the last time Texas favored a Democrat over the Republican candidate in a presidential contest was 44 years ago in 1976. Texas has gone Republican in every race since.

 

And the margins of victory generally have been pretty comfortable. The exceptions were in two losing efforts by Republicans, with Texan Ross Perot factoring into the equation. George H.W. Bush earned only 40.6 percent of the Texas vote in 1992, with Bill Clinton getting 37.1 percent and Ross Perot 22 percent. In the next election (1996), Bob Dole received 48.8 percent to Clinton’s 43.8 percent and Perot at 6.8 percent.

 

Republicans re-established solid wins in the next four elections. In 2000, George W. Bush took 59.3 percent in his home state versus Al Gore’s 38 percent, and in 2004, it was Bush 61.1 percent to John Kerry’s 38.2 percent. And then even in losing national efforts, Republicans did well in Texas in 2008 and 2012, with John McCain beating Barack Obama 55.5 percent to 43.7 percent, and Mitt Romney defeating Obama 57.2 percent to 41.4 percent. 

 

And then we come to 2016. Donald Trump won Texas, but only with 52.1 percent of the vote. So, Trump topped the percentages earned by Bush 41 and Dole in losing efforts in 1992 and 1996, respectively. But Trump managed the lowest tally in Texas for a Republican presidential winner since Herbert Hoover in 1928.

 

However, Trump’s 2016 Texas win was still quite comfortable given that Hillary Clinton only earned 43.1 percent of the state vote.

 

And now we’re only three weeks away from Election Day 2020, and President Trump and his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden, are in a dead heat in Texas, according to the polls.

 

Of the Texas October polls, one has Trump up by 7 percentage points and another up by 5 points. That’s what one would expect for a Republican in Texas. However, another poll has Biden up by 2 percentage points, and another has the Democrat up by one point. And two other polls put the two candidates even.

 

Win or lose, Biden seems on track, at least at this point in time, to earn the largest percentage vote in Texas for any Democrat since Jimmy Carter won the state in 1976.

 

Suddenly, Texas is competitive. That’s deeply troubling news for Republicans. After all, of the four most populous states, two are solid Blue (Democrat), i.e., California and New York, and one, Florida, has gone from leaning Republican to being a Purple State.

 

We’ll have a somewhat clearer picture of what’s happening in Texas after this year’s election. But even then, there will be the question as to whether a poor showing, perhaps even a loss, by Trump in Texas might be a short-term Trump effect or something more lasting for the GOP. And if Texas does in fact go Purple, that would mean that there would be no reliable Red States among at least the top dozen populous states. For Republicans, that would be a big “Yikes!”

 

__________

 

Recent and Related Columns by Ray Keating…

 

“A Flood of Bad Economics on Tech and Immigration”

 

“Polls Before the Dreaded Presidential Debates”

 

“Voting Your Conscience Isn’t Wasting Your Vote”

 

“Character-Rich Sci-Fi: Take the Netflix Journey with ‘Away’”

 

“Applaud, Don’t Attack, Robinhood”

 

“Sports Are Back But Americans Aren’t Happy”

 

“Should We Take Our Ball and Go Home When Pro Athletes Disagree with Us?”

 

“‘Greyhound’ Ranks as Strong Storytelling – Even on a Smaller Screen”

 

__________

 

Ray Keating is a columnist, novelist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books  at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

 

Keating’s latest novel is  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12thbook in the series. The best way to fully enjoy Ray Keating’s Pastor Stephen Grant thrillers and mysteries is to join the Pastor Stephen Grant Fellowship! For the BEST VALUE, consider the Book of the Month Club.  Check it all out at https://www.patreon.com/pastorstephengrantfellowship

 

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast  and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast  

 

Check out Ray Keating’s Disney news and entertainment site at www.DisneyBizJournal.com.

Voting Your Conscience Isn’t Wasting Your Vote

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – April 27, 2020

We live in a strange political time, to say the least. And one of the oddest phenomena I’ve witnessed is pushback against the idea of voting according to one’s conscience. Um, really?

In fact, if you mention during a discussion that you plan to vote for a third-party candidate or write in someone during a presidential election, the response, more often than not, is the following: Why would you waste your vote? That reaction raises interesting questions about what a “wasted vote” looks like.

First, it must be noted, as public choice economists remind us, that since your single vote will not decide an election (the chances are infinitesimal), it’s perfectly rational to not vote. Indeed, we are free to vote or not to vote in this country. 

Acknowledging the reality of one’s vote not deciding an election, then why do I vote? Well, I recognize that my fellow citizens – my neighbors – and I do come together to decide who our governmental representatives will be, and that matters very much in terms of a host of policies and issues affecting each of our lives. And I understand that this right to vote is exceptional in the history of the world, and that many of my fellow Americans have risked everything to protect this freedom to vote. Indeed, voting in a free and fair election is special, and reaches beyond the pure economic or statistical argument about one vote not deciding the outcome of an election.

Given how precious this right to vote is, then how can anyone do any less than vote according to conscience? 

Of course, a vote according to conscience can take various forms. The most obvious, and easiest, is to simply cast your vote for one of the two major party candidates – Republican or Democrat – who creates no significant issues or questions for one’s conscience. That’s been the case for me, fortunately, during five of the nine presidential elections in which I’ve voted.

Then there’s the case when voting against one of the major party candidates seems to be the primary impetus in the voting booth. 

For example, during the 2016 presidential campaign, which did not have an incumbent running, voting against a candidate ran much stronger than in the previous non-incumbent election. In the September before the 2016 presidential election, Pew Research found that among those supporting the Republican, 53 percent were voting against Democrat Hillary Clinton and 44 percent for Republican Donald Trump. That compared to 35 percent voting against Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 59 percent for Republican John McCain. Meanwhile, as for those supporting the Democrat, 46 percent were voting against Trump and 53 percent for Clinton in 2016, versus 25 percent against McCain and 68 percent for Obama in 2008.

Understanding that politicians are, well, politicians, I get the idea of voting against someone. But by doing so, if you pull the lever for the opposing major-party candidate, for example, then you’re effectively voting for that candidate. And if your conscience turns out, even after much wrestling, to be okay with who you’re pulling the lever for, so be it. That was the case for me in two presidential elections.

But what about the case where voting for either candidate would go against conscience? That was the situation confronting me in two presidential elections. There was no candidate on the ballot to vote for – either explicitly for or de facto for by voting against the other candidate – who didn’t trouble my conscience. So, in each case, I followed my conscience, and wrote in my choice.

Those write-in votes, contrary to widespread opinion, were in no way wasted votes. How could any vote be wasted when voting according to your conscience? Indeed, I’m completely baffled by such accusations.

While he spoke on theological matters, I think of the Christian reformer Martin Luther on this topic, with his famous quote: “I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. Keating also is a novelist. His latest novels are  The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^th book in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction. The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast 

The State of the Democrats in 2020: The Journey Left Accelerates

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – March 19, 2020

Where do our major political parties and philosophies stand right now, and as we look ahead not just to presidential and congressional elections this November but beyond?

Just after the 2000 election, when we were all waiting around for the final tally of a disputed presidential election – remember Bush vs. Gore – I took the opportunity to evaluate the state of our two major political parties, and the major movements or sets of ideas that undergirded much of the nation’s politics, i.e., conservatism and modern-day liberalism. It was one of those turn-of-the-century opportunities. 

And now, two decades later (wow – 20 years!?), how do things look for the Democrats, the Republicans, liberalism and conservatism? This first essay evaluates the Democrats.

In 2000, I bemoaned that the state of our body politic had “wilted.” I argued that “the size of government combined with the corruption of the Democratic Party during the reign of President Bill Clinton ... soiled the public square,” including “the continuing tragic ethical decline of the Democratic Party.” The Dems had “tacitly adopted the sordid governing philosophy of the ends justifying the means.” That’s still the case, but things have gotten worse.

But the mess back then wasn’t just about Clinton. It had been building up as the Democrats, for example, had enshrined judicial activism as a glorious cause, that is, in order to get around what was actually – and for them inconveniently – written and intended by the U.S. Constitution. Democrats also perfected the political spin machine that could manufacture crises in order to advance the policies they preferred, namely, the expansion of government into all realms of life – the dream of Progressives in the Democratic Party since Woodrow Wilson. Again, the ends justify the means (more on this, by the way, for the Republicans in the upcoming essay on the GOP).

Little of this has changed over the past 20 years, except that the Democrats’ policy agenda has moved much further to the Left. For example, any semblance of social conservatism that might have existed among Democrats in 2000 – such as a few pro-life elected officials here and there – has been stomped out. 

And while Democrats in 2000 were annoyed at being called “socialists,” today, a significant chunk of the party, led by presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, as well as U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, aka AOC, embrace the label – thereby exhibiting a breathtaking expansion of economic ignorance within the party. Indeed, as bad as the Democrats had been on economic issues post-John F. Kennedy, the steep descent into economic illiteracy has been rather stunning in recent times.

The notion that the U.S. could have a Democratic president today who would agree to a capital gains tax cut, welfare reform, and making NAFTA a reality – as President Bill Clinton did – is nearly unimaginable. In fact, could 1992, 1996 or 2000 Bill Clinton even have a shot at the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination today? Doubtful.

For good measure, the radical environmental movement’s reach has vastly expanded in the Democratic Party to the point that a climate agenda imposing drastic costs on the U.S. economy and calling for government to effectively reshape the entire energy industry has become the accepted political line among Democrats.

In looking at causes, one must recognize that Barack Obama ran and governed as the most liberal president the nation has ever had, given that his Leftism cut across nearly all issues, as opposed to someone like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who also was a hardline Leftist but had issues where he was still rather centrist, like on foreign affairs, and other social issues around today that weren’t even thought of by most people.

So, this year, we have Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, pitching himself as the more moderate among Democratic presidential candidates – and given that Sanders is the only one remaining, Biden is more moderate – but at the same time, Biden arguably is running to the left of Obama.

The Democratic Party over the past twenty years has moved so far to the Left – that is, it has become so radicalized – that the party’s 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, managed to lose to Donald Trump (and yes, she also was highly unlikeable, but so was Trump), and the same thing could happen in 2020. 

Looking ahead, can the Democrats pull back from this journey to the far Left? Well, keep in mind that this is the direction the party has been going at least since 1968, and given who the party’s activists and donors are, it’s hard to imagine a return to anything even close to where the party was under John F. Kennedy, or even Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. For example, recall that the deregulatory movement that benefited the U.S. economy so enormously during Ronald Reagan’s 1980s actually got started during Carter’s presidency. But especially given the hyper-regulation of the Obama years, any whiff of talk that doesn’t involve increased regulation is sure to lead to banishment from the 21^stcentury Democrats. 

Indeed, even as the Democrats seem to have coalesced this year around Biden, and moved away from Sanders, in an effort to defeat Trump, it has been the uniqueness of Donald Trump that drove this momentary glimpse of something resembling political sanity (as well as more people actually paying attention to crazy stuff that Sanders has done and said over the years). But as already noted, it’s not like Biden is running on anything close to being middle of the road. He offers a left-wing agenda – such as big tax increases, unbridled liberalism on all social issues, more and more regulation, extremism on the environment, and so on – in the hopes that his history and style as trusty, old Uncle Joe will attract, and fool, enough voters to send Trump packing. 

This Biden strategy in no way challenges the Democrats’ increasing liberalism. Indeed, barring some political miracle, the Democrats’ leftward journey will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. You can also order his forthcoming book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York – signed booksor for the Kindle. The views expressed here are his own.

The U.S. Version of the Spanish Civil War?

by Ray Keating

Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump in November reminds me of a U.S. political version of the Spanish Civil War. That is, when fascists square off against communists, everyone loses in the end.

Of course, I might be stretching things, but bear with me.

First let’s get something straight about the Spanish Civil War. In Spain in the late 1930s, the losses were grim, with hundreds of thousands being killed at the hands of both fascists and communists. It’s odd that to this very day, the American Left still views one side favorably in this brutal conflict. In reality, the Spanish Civil War was not about forces of democracy battling against Franco and the fascists. Rather, it was a power struggle between two nearly indistinguishable ideologies that raise up the state, crush the individual, and eradicate liberty. It was a matter who would acquire power in order to expand government throughout the economy, society and the culture. Franco and the fascists received aid from Germany and Italy, while the so-called “republicans” or “loyalists” – that is, in reality, the communists – were backed by the Soviet Union. It was a no-win scenario, to the extreme.

As for the U.S., I pray that we never descend into such chaos. But on a different level, an election between Hillary Clinton (or for that matter, Bernie Sanders) and Donald Trump would wind up being another no-win scenario.

There’s nothing secret about Hillary Clinton. She obviously has dedicated her political life since becoming first lady to expanding the size of the state in most aspects of life in the U.S., including increased taxes, expanded regulations, more spending, and greater government control over such areas as health care and education. Also, like her leftist allies, including President Barack Obama, Clinton fails to recognize as legitimate those opposing her views and policies.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has morphed his views – most recently, flip-flopping on nearly every major issue – to fit his personal needs and desires. When acting as a businessman, Trump contributed to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, invited her to his wedding, and was friends with her. Now, with his pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination, Trump opposes and attacks Mrs. Clinton. This reality TV star stands out as a glaring example of the inflated ego who seeks power, and is committed only to his personal power. He certainly has little regard for the Constitution and our political process given his lack of respect for the First Amendment, his unwillingness to reject violence in support of his candidacy, his personal attacks on and thinly veiled threats to anyone disagreeing with him, his bizarre claims that no one has been treated as poorly as him in the history of politics, his disturbing declarations on illegal orders he would give our military, his crudeness, and his populist strategy of setting up the bogeyman of foreigners (see his anti-trade and anti-immigration messages) as the causes of America’s woes.

The Spanish Civil War was a blood-soaked battle between supporters of two ideologies that, in effect, were one and the same. They struggled to see who would gain power, and be able to turn the power of the state against the individual.

Meanwhile, the 2016 election in the U.S. provides little hope that voters will have any kind of real choice at the ballot box. Assorted conservatives and libertarians in recent times have rather childishly complained that no real differences exist between Republicans and Democrats. Saying, for example, then that Republicans in control of the U.S. House of Representatives are no different from President Barack Obama reveals a stunning lack of discernment. However, worrying that, in the end, the policies served up by a President Donald Trump would vary little from what a President Hillary Clinton would impose is a very real concern, based on experience and the realities we see at hand.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

How Bad Could This Presidential Election Get for Republicans?

by Ray Keating

Just how bad could it get for the Republican Party in November if Donald Trump winds up being the GOP nominee, as is the most likely outcome currently?

This is not an idle question. After all, Trump has astoundingly bad numbers in terms of his favorable-unfavorable ratings. Indeed, his unfavorables run at about two-thirds. That’s simply unheard of. Any candidate with unfavorable or disapproval ratings hitting 50 percent is pretty much assured of losing. So, if Trump becomes the GOP nominee, and anything close to these unfavorables persist, the question is not will Trump lose, but how bad will he lose.

Of course, Hillary Clinton also possesses poor favorable-unfavorable ratings, with her unfavorables running at about 54 percent.

Indeed, a Trump-Clinton contest would have two significantly unpopular candidates facing off. Based on these numbers, neither should win. But someone has to, right?

At least at this point in time, Trump’s woes are far more significant than Clinton’s, especially given the significant share of Republicans who would be dissatisfied – 48 percent according to an ABC/Washington Post poll – with Trump as the party’s candidate.

As a result, even with all of her problems, Mrs. Clinton could wind up with the best showing of any Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Consider that in the post-World War II era, only three Democratic candidates for president managed to gain at least 50% of the vote – Barack Obama did it in 2008 at 52.9% and in 2012 at 51%, Jimmy Carter in 1976 at 50.1%, and LBJ in 1964 at 61.1 percent. The other victorious Democrats failed to hit 50% -- Truman in 1948 at 49.6%, Kennedy in 1960 at 49.7%, and Bill Clinton in 1992 at 43% and in 1996 at 49.2%.

It is bizarre, yet at the same time, given Trump’s negatives, not difficult to envision Hillary Clinton topping 55% of the vote, especially given the very real possibility that many conservative Republican voters could simply stay home and not vote. And the negative fallout for the GOP would then be felt down the line in terms of lost U.S. Senate, state and local races.

It pays to recall that there was at least a purpose to Goldwater’s big loss in 1964. That is, it was the dawn of the conservative movement within the GOP, and it eventually led to Ronald Reagan becoming president. In that sense, Goldwater’s loss ultimately was a party building positive for Republicans. Donald Trump is the exact opposite, that is, he is an unprincipled, populist force that promises to undermine the GOP, with a good chance of sending the Republicans into a political wilderness.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning for Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel