The Reasonable Test

This was going to be a completely different post, but as usual, the never-ending slurry of chum that is the political feeding frenzy in this country changed all that. Originally, I was thinking I would chip away at this notion that the internet seems to be convincing itself that the Democratic Party's approval rating is somehow indicative of their impending doom. Arguably, the generic ballot at this point in the cycle paints a different picture, and a lot of the disapproval of the Democratic Party is coming from their own voters, angry at the party's general impotence and the fecklessness of the DNC in general.

So, it's a talking point I don't particularly rate all that much. At this point on Twitter, it's essentially clickbait/ragebait more than anything else. (Ditto with any tweet that ends with THIS IS HUGE-- I assure you, it's not particularly HUGE. So, calm down... and stop inventing Tweet genres. It's annoying.)

That got me thinking, though: are we in a post-partisan environment?

I think that term might be harder to define than I think it is, but I'm starting to wonder. If the electorate is like a rubber band and elects one party, gets insanely pissed off when that party does an avalanche of psychotic things that piss everybody off, and then they snap back and elect the other party, then what kind of an environment are we in? 

I don't think anybody knows. This is what makes the current dust-up with Texas redistricting so insane to me-- it's based on an assumption that the electorate will behave like it did in 2024. Their map (apparently, because I haven't checked the numbers) produces a 30-8 split based on the 2024 numbers. It's 24-14 based on 2018 results, and with 2020 results, it gains them 0 seats on the map they're proposing.

Maybe they know something I don't. Maybe they'll do their dance, posture and eventually force it through anyway and get their five extra seats. The current partisan environment could be that strong-- and Republicans at the state level have been gerrymandering their way to supermajorities pretty ruthlessly for years now. Why should it be any different at the Federal level?

Similarly, in Iowa, there's some buzz growing about Democratic chances heading into next year. They picked up a special election win over in Clinton County and overperformed in another and have a third set for August 26th that, if they pick that up would break the GOP supermajority. Rob Sand is running for Governor and generating some buzz. They've got a crowded Senate primary field. They've got competitive primaries (at least on paper) in the first district and multiple declared candidates in the second and third (and maybe the fourth too?) In short, scrolling through the internet and the news, you could be forgiven for thinking that there might be some faint reasons for optimism here and there.

But wait: Iowa Democrats are in a huge voter registration hole. Registered Democrats trail registered Republicans in-state by more than 178,000. Republicans also have historically turned out at a higher rate for midterms in Iowa.

So are there reasons for hope? Or does the ugly math stay ugly for Iowa Democrats, and none of it matters in the end? The math might stay ugly for Iowa Democrats and the current partisan environment could be that strong here, as well-- but we also have no way of knowing that at this point in the cycle.

My very loose hypothesis at this point is that if the electorate is unsettled and tired of the current partisan environment, we're going to keep rubber banding back and forth until one party figures their shit out and gives the electorate what they want. But more importantly, I think you're going to see the emergence of what I would call 'The Reasonable Test' being presented more and more to voters to see what they think about it.

Consider NYC Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani-- the man who launched a million tweets and frankly psychotic takes online-- is kind of a mixed bag. The whole rent freeze thing and government-run grocery stores seem a little kooky to me, but his use of short-form digital content allowed him to present complex concepts to voters in terms they understand is genius. Consider his halal video. Short- it's only 1:33, great, and perfectly encapsulates the problem in a way that voters understand. More importantly, it seems reasonable.

Here in Iowa, there were grumblings on the Left about how much ag-money Sand was taking from his in-laws and wondering if he was going to do something more than just mouth platitudes about Iowa's very real water quality problem. Consider this:

'I want our lakes and rivers to be clean enough to swim in.' 

Easy, simple-- and while it does sort of glide over the question of how we get there-- it seems reasonable.  

Sand is actually coming across as eminently reasonable in a lot of the clips I've been seeing him in. Soundbites like, "If you don't want public oversight of private schools, don't take public money." Again: reasonable. When the GOP is posting statements saying they're going to 'watch him like a Hawk, ' he responds by posting a list of his townhalls and saying, 'Why not come watch me as a real human being?'

Potential 2028 Candidate and current Governor of Kentucky Andy Beshear is getting some buzz-- why, you ask? Well-- unsurprisingly, he's coming across as what? Survey says: REASONABLE!

(And it's not just Democrats either--I think it slipped under the radar, but Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin dropped by Iowa recently. Another guy who, although I might disagree with just about everything he believes in, comes across as reasonable. Also, I'm not the biggest MTG fan, but of late... she's been less Jewish Space Lasers Crazy and a lot more reasonable.)

I think passing the 'Reasonable Test' is probably the best way forward for a lot of candidates. If the electorate is in a rubber banding type of mood, prior assumptions about how they're going to behave might not be accurate at all. Sure, you could redistrict* Texas mid-cycle because the President asked you to-- it might work and get the President his five seats, or it could just as easily blow up in your face if the electorate decides to demonstrate their displeasure. (And with California and New York indicating willingness to redistrict themselves if Texas pushes ahead, I'm not sure this is going to wind up happening either, as California has 9 Republican reps and New York has 7. All politics is local- especially where preserving your own seat in Congress is concerned.)

Rob Sand appears to be running a marathon and not a sprint, and seems hell-bent on talking to every Iowa voter he can find. Is he leaning into the 'independent' label more than the 'Democratic' label? Sure-- but he can do math too. I'm hoping that every Democratic campaign is registering voters, and they can cut into that registration gap, but Independent voters hold the balance of power in Iowa and I'm willing to bet they like reasonable a lot more than crazy partisan. Sand-- and other Democrats running for office-- should campaign accordingly.

*Uncap the House, ban gerrymandering, and be done with it. So much of problems could be solved if Congress started acting like a branch of the government and not the supine rubber stamp for the executive it currently is.