Talking Politics

Alabama upset - a taste of things to come?

Like many people, I woke to the surprising news on the 12th December that Alabama had gone Democratic for the first time since the days of President Jimmy  Carter (*1), that it had elected a Democratic Senator (for the first time since 1992) and that the losing  Republican candidate had refused to concede the election. I can’t say I was surprised by the last point; ever since the Trump v Clinton debates, there has been an increasingly defiant tone disrespecting of a democratic election; ‘I’ll respect the will of the people ... if I win!’. There are many reasons why this seemingly devoutly Republican state may have decided to overturn its modern tradition and not all of them can be laid merely at President Trump's feet. Indeed, the candidate seems to have tried his utmost to ensure that he was at least on a level pegging with the Democrats.

Roy Moore's defeat has highlighted the divide in the Republican party. Republican leaders called Moore a ‘biblical plague’ and a ‘punish force inflicted on [them] and outside of their control’ (* 2). This shows the divide in the party but also its lack of strategic planning. The seat, formerly that of Jeff Sessions, only came up to Special Election due to Trump's appointment of his once favoured ally to Attorney General (AG). Sessions, a strong and established Senator, would have guaranteed a safe seat in the Senate for the duration of Trump's term and even into his second, should Trump manage to secure it. Bearing in mind how quickly Trump turned on Sessions, the cost of the appointment now seems very high. The process that brought Moore to prominence also shows a significant lack of planning. Moore was not the preferred candidate, that was Luther Strange, the state's AG. The selection of an official investigating a sitting governor naturally came under scrutiny.

Consequently, because of many blunders, Strange's election ended in a serious defeat, leaving the Republican party with the alternatives of either saving the Senate seat for the party by embracing a candidate with extremist views  or handing the seat to Doug Jones, the Democratic challenger. The Republican National Committee (RNC) opted for the worst bits of both options - they went down the middle. They gave Moore public support but no funding for the campaign, Moore lost this battle to Jones by a factor of 4 to 1 (*3).  Consequently, when accusations were made by women accusing Moore of sexually inappropriate behaviour in the 70s and 80s when they were teenagers, the RNC found itself compromised. The Committee was too close to Moore and came under fire itself for the behaviour of a candidate that it didn't really want in the first place. This lack of strategic party thinking and operational canniness should show Republican leadership the issues they will need to address as elections approach in a year's time. It has certainly revealed and highlighted the rift between the factions in the party identified with senior Republicans such as McConnell, Cruz and Rubio and the activist right wing, championed by Steve Bannon. This campaign ‘civil war', if not resolved, may swiftly prove more of a threat to the Republican chances in the midterms than the Democratic party. 

What does the result of this election and the way it was conducted tell us about the coming year? The White House is on a countdown to the midterms; Capitol Hill is in a similar situation or soon will be. In the normal course of events, a President can give a candidate a sizeable boost with a state visit and formal endorsements but Trump's impact on the outcome of this election was questionable. It's hard to say yet if he contributed to Moore's failure, though questioning publicly at a rally the selection of the candidate surely didn’t help.

So Republican candidates are left with a dilemma. Should they ally themselves with the President, distance themselves from him and the executive or completely cut any ties? In reaching a decision, House of Representative members may well be struggling with the mixed messages provided by the results of recent elections. In recent times, two elections have been won by the Democrats ( the governor's race in Virginia and this senate race(*4)), and Trump has had little impact. On the other hand, in the past Trump has shown he can motivate core Republicans to vote and bring out new supporters too, especially among demographic groups which believe (often mistakenly) that they are 'under siege'. White male voters who did not graduate college were Moore's core support, for example.

Trump may well still have this pulling power with disaffected voters. Yes, the Democrats will be in better spirits after their two victories but do they really have an election strapline to offer the electorate apart from ‘We’re not Trump’ at the moment? Allowing the  Republicans to run around like ‘headless chickens’ targeting each other may have been enough to win them a few seats but no clear leader has emerged from Democratic ranks capable of picking up Obama's torch.

While the election undoubtedly showed that change is in the air, the question remains, did the Democrats win or the Republicans lose? The election data suggest a little of both. There was a massive turn-out among black women voters (for Jones) and among white men, with most of them favouring Moore. White men (some might say unsurprisingly) still toed the Republican line, but the game changer that gave the 1% for Jones to win was white women who shifted left (*5).

Turning Alabama Blue ( or half Blue, as there is a senior Republican senator, Richard C Shelby) is a considerable achievement. But could it mean that the South will suddenly jump Democratic in the midterms in a throwback to results in 1931/33? I suspect this may well be a one-off, much like the election itself. House of Representative seats will change and the gap may diminish but the Democrats need to swing 17 seats, a task that is possible but pretty tough.

As for the Senate, Trump theoretically has a slim majority of one. But this may turn out to be a minority of three as there are two independents in this number, along with John McCain, no friend of Trump. This may prove a serious source of frustration over the next year for the President as he seeks to make an impact on the legislative stage. He will have to give concessions to pass key legislation such as the Tax Overhaul (*6). The White House will have to consider its position. When defeats like this have damaged the Trump machine, calmer heads have often prevailed, reining in the President and presenting a more polished and professional image. Granted, these periods rarely last that long but with the midterm elections at stake, (traditionally the barometer of Presidential success) it's easy to believe Melania is taking control.

For the moment though, all eyes will be on Jones. He only has a year to show what a Democrat can do. Is he capable of showing America that the party is not merely filled with malcontents ready to  sneer at Trump and highlight his lack of political knowledge while shouting ‘I told you so’ into the wind. As for Trump, he swept Alabama with 62% of the vote but that figure has been in steady decline. The Republicans clearly have much thinking to do and not much time to do it.

Notes

*1 Alabama voted Democratic in the Presidential election of 1976. The last Democratic senator there, Richard Shelby, was elected in 1992. But he became a Republican two years later.

*2 New York Times 12/12/17 - Alexander Burns

*3 Jones received $4.1 million compared to Moore's $1.4 million - in super PAC money - Jones mainly being aided by the influential Highway 31 SPAC. Jones Eventually raised $10 Million in funding for campaign advertising.

*4 The Governorship of Virginia was taken by Democrat Ralph Northam (7/11) with an 8.9 per cent swing.

*5 For Jones women +16 / Black vote +92/ Under 30s +22 For Moore White women +29

*6 At the time of writing Marco Rubio has just been given concessions on the bailouts for the ‘poor’ in the bill.