British Election Will Decide Fate of Brexit (and EU, GB?)

British PM Boris Johnson delivers
 a speech in Telford, Britain,
Nov. 24, 2019 | Photo: Xinhua

The December 12 British Parliamentary election will likely decide the fate of Brexit and lead to the implementation of the withdrawal deal on January 31. Although a broad outline of a deal was approved by the 27 nations of the EU, there will be a year or more of intense negotiations on the details of the agreement. Although polling on the British Parliamentary election is notoriously difficult, late polls, which have been tightening, indicate that the Conservatives, led by Boris Johnson and his slogan, “get Brexit done,” will win more than 40 percent of the vote, translating to a majority of seats (about 339), projecting a range from a low of 311 to 367 (need 326 to form a majority government).

Although Brexit is the primary issue on the agenda, Johnson moved the Tories away from the austerity policies they were noted for and campaigned on more spending on national health care, child care and the environment. As a populist, Johnson mainly campaigned against the governing gridlock that has characterized the recent history of parliament.

Brexit is expected to have a major impact on the British economy, especially its trading relationships, and could affect the long-term viability of the EU and the unity of Great Britain.

Four Scenarios: Republicans’ Best Endgame and Democrats’ Possible Sweep

As of Thanksgiving, there is no projection that is credibly predicting Republicans will win back the House by gaining a net of 17 seats to deny Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats a majority. But, there are a host of analysts suggesting that Trump could win re-election with less than six states in play, a good economy and the argument presented in his World Series playoff advertisement: “He’s no Mr. Nice Guy.” And, of course, the Democrats may help him with errors in nominee selection or campaigning.

The presidential race appears close in the handful of states that will decide the race. Trump could even lose Pennsylvania (20) and still win the presidency if he holds Wisconsin and Michigan. But, Republicans also are targeting Minnesota, Nevada and New Hampshire.

In the four scenarios presented below, two offer Trump being re-elected and all four have Democrats holding the House. A major variable is the level of Republican dominance in 2021 or Democratic resistance, depending on who wins the Senate. Continued Republican control would offer Trump protection from future impeachment-like attacks, a veto over House efforts to reverse policies in Trump’s first four years and continued direction of court appointments.

If the Democrats win the Senate, it could be a part of a 2020 partisan sweep, or if Trump hangs on, it would likely lead to massive gridlock in that court confirmations would slow (or end) and presidential initiatives stop. Trump would be left with veto power, but exercising it frequently and the budget would be a potent limiting tool for the Democrats.

To take control of the Senate, Democrats need a net of three seats and the vice presidency or four new seats. Since most analysts hold that they will lose the Alabama seat held by Doug Jones, they, in fact, need four or five seats, depending on the presidency. Many of the competitive senate seats are in battleground (or near battleground) states, and because there is a close partisan alignment between presidential and senate votes, it’s assumed that winning the Senate will be highly dependent on winning the presidency. Hence, Democrats would probably require a strong performance in the presidential race to win seats in states such as Iowa (Ernst), Maine (Collins) and Georgia (2 seats up).

To rate the four scenarios presented – and recall none have Democrats losing the House, which means a Republican sweep is not proposed – the two most likely current scenarios (Status Quo or Gridlock) leave the Senate in Republican hands, but possibly with a smaller margin (from 53-47 to 51-49) and the House in Democratic hands with minor changes. The 17-vote Democratic majority could change, depending on presidential coattails and the survival of a small number of highly vulnerable seats won by Democrats in 2018 or Republican seats that survived the 2018 Democratic tide.

Of course, they have different parties winning the presidency.

Impeachment Hearings End, Public Opinion Unmoved

As the impeachment public hearings end, public opinion appears mostly unmoved. Americans are closely divided on both their support for the inquiry and President Trump’s removal from office. RealClearPolitics reports removal ahead by only 2 points and support for the inquiry 3 points (538 has removal tied with 46% and support for the inquiry up 7%).

Polls on Impeachment Inquiry and Removal From Office

November 25, 2019

However, contrary to Trump’s view, his popularity is not surging (44% approve in RCP and 41% in 538) and a majority of the public believe he’s committed an impeachable offense (57%) as the many witnesses testified to.

Even without a majority of Americans supporting removal, Trump’s behavior is especially a problem for the House Democrats. The total stonewalling on records and witnesses obstructs their ability to hold the president accountable. In addition, given the offenses go directly to the 2020 election and involve a foreign country, ignoring the issue would legitimize the behavior and likely encourage more, possibly affecting the election.

Democrats also have s significant constituency of educated voters that are highly concerned about the dangers to democracy posed by Trump, Republican tolerance of the behavior and the rise of authoritarianism worldwide more generally.

Impeachments can fail to convict and still have major consequences. Although the 1998 congressional election was won by Democrats, Bill Clinton’s White House behavior was a controversy for Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. In 2016, Bill’s behavior was used by Trump against his wife, and today, after the “MeToo” movement, Bill Clinton’s reputation is devalued and his usefulness to Democrats over.

The bottom line is that impeachment could harm the Republicans in the 2020 election and have a long-term negative impact.

Proposition CC Fails – A Decade of Failed Tax and Revenue Attempts

The stunning defeat of Proposition CC should send a clear message to the proponents of ballot issues attempting to increase state revenue – What part of “no” don’t you understand?

In a column in the Sunday Denver Post (11-10-19), I describe the recent history of tax and revenue initiatives and the factors related to the latest loss. The following reviews some of the ideas expressed.

The 2019 Proposition CC, a TABOR override, would have added unspecified amounts to the state coffers, but some estimates said as much as $650 million the next two years. It was the fifth attempt by mostly the same group of advocates – the education establishment and its support groups, a group of donor philanthropists, and business associations that want new tax resources for roads. They have all failed, some of them dramatically, such as the 2013 $1 billion income tax increase that lost two-to-one after proponents spent $10 million in a mostly one-sided campaign.

Just last year, two initiatives were defeated to raise taxes for more education funding and for education and roads.

Coloradans are generous at the local level with their tax dollars, but after a decade of repeated failures with income, sales and now TABOR, a presumption of opposition now exists against state revenue increase measures, tax or TABOR overrides. Proponents of the next effort should face a higher level of skepticism from prospective donors and endorsees that the effort will be different than the last five. They have lost in high turnout (2018) and low turnout (2013) elections, years when partisan races are not on the ballot, and years when Democrats swept the partisan elections.

As I said in the Denver Post, before proponents mount up for another run, “They should consider an argument they may hear frequently next year: What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?”