Updates on that ‘blue wave’question for 2018 midterms

Is a ‘Blue wave’ really coming?

Image result for blue wave 2018

Again, from those helpful people at TargetSmart, sent around initially by Politico “Morning Score”–below are the ten highest vote totals, reported or estimated, of early voters and absentee voters, by state. A few changes to the list since last week, aside from more votes. Texas, modeled GOP, moved up from 5th to 1st in early/absentee voting. Colorado, modeled GOP slightly, moved up into the top-ten turnout in 9th place. Arizona, modeled GOP, moved up from 8th to 6th in vote totals so far.

  1. Texas – modeled GOP    (2,380,937)
  2. Florida – modeled GOP   (2,013,970)
  3. California – modeled Dem      (1,512,058)
  4. Georgia – modeled GOP         (1,053,445)
  5. North Carolina – modeled Dem     (1,049,521)
  6. Arizona – modeled GOP         (824,130)
  7. Tennessee – modeled heavily GOP     (805,652)
  8. Michigan – modeled GOP       (574,807)
  9. Colorado – modeled GOP, barely       (548,754)
  10. Ohio – modeled GOP  (535,373)

Net effects: California, modeled Democratic, moves down to 3rd; and Illinois, modeled Democratic, slides to eleventh. The other net effect: of the ten states with the most early and/or absentee voters, eight are modeled GOP by this Democratic political data-services firm.

North Carolina remains the only plus sign for the Democratic Party in this top-ten list both in modeling and in high early/absentee vote. Illinois – modeled heavily Dem  (479,867) – unsurprisingly – also shows solid turnout/returns, though less so than Tennessee among others.

Below the top ten states, Iowa is still good news for Democrats – modeled Dem (282,661). So is Virginia, but again with lower early voting at 160,822.

The two biggest states in the top ten, Texas and Florida, still look GOP, if the modeling is accurate. It should be pointed out, however, that the early vote totals on the website differ seriously from the count provided by the Texas Board of Elections. [My mistake: inserted total for registered voters.]

Michigan and Ohio voting still look Republican. (Michigan does not have early voting, so its high total means that an awful lot of people are taking steps to vote absentee.) So do Wisconsin – modeled GOP (219,580), and Pennsylvania – modeled GOP (93,485). If North Carolina has high early/absentee voting and Democratic modeling, Pennsylvania has correspondingly low returns, so far, and Republican modeling. (Pennsylvania does not have early voting but has absentee voting.)

Someone who really wants to crystal-ball-gaze with numbers might check out the data on how many of these early/absentee voters are indicated as Caucasian and as senior citizens, by the way.

Image result for blue wave 2018

Is there a ‘Blue wave’?

Is a ‘Blue wave’ really coming?

Image result for blue wave 2018

I’m not so sure. Or to put it better, I cannot see it from here, in the blue state of Maryland.

I’ll come back to the question next week. For now, here are some numbers on early voting, from TargetSmart, sent via Politico’s “Morning Score” emessage.

Early voting so far has been hefty but not out-of-sight (unlike the $$$ donations). (More on those next week.) Here are the top ten states, by vote totals reported or estimated of early voters and absentee voters so far:

  1. Florida – modeled GOP   (1,168,600)             [now 1,448,251]
  2. California – modeled Dem      (786,096)
  3. Georgia – modeled GOP         (742,017)
  4. North Carolina – modeled Dem     (709,603)
  5. Texas – modeled GOP            (678,680)         [now 1,187,007]
  6. Tennessee – modeled heavily GOP     (521,918)
  7. Michigan – modeled GOP       (428,692)
  8. Arizona – modeled GOP         (370,137)
  9. Ohio – modeled GOP  (369,526)
  10. Illinois – modeled heavily Dem  (246,006)

Of the ten states with the most early and absentee voters, seven are modeled GOP by this Democratic political data-services firm.

The only plus sign for the Democratic Party in this top-ten list both in modeling and in high early/absentee vote, so far, is North Carolina. (California and Illinois are both modeled deep-blue, but as usual; not much surprise there.)

Just below the top ten states, the next good news for Democrats is Iowa – modeled Dem (220,635). Minnesota early voters are also projected at more Democratic than GOP (185,215). Virginia is also modeled Dem, but with lower early voting at 124,752.

The two biggest states in the top ten, Texas and Florida, appear to be going GOP, if the trend lines continue. Meanwhile, the fact that Michigan and Ohio voting appears Republican-majority at this point calls into serious question any ‘blue wave’, let alone a blue tsunami.

Same point re Wisconsin – modeled GOP (119,168) [now 200,626], and for Pennsylvania – modeled GOP (56,004). If North Carolina is a bright spot for Democrats with high early/absentee voting and Democratic modeling, Pennsylvania looks correspondingly worse, with low voting and Republican modeling.

Obviously, early voting is still going on; the early and absentee ballots are not all in yet. Some updates can be found quickly, vide the State of Texas website.

Then there’s Election Day to come.

Predictions are vain, and there is no crystal ball. But some of the thuggish blue-wave triumphalism I’ve glimpsed looks premature, to say the least.

Image result for blue wave 2018

Who sent the bombs to Obama officials?

I am very curious to know who mailed the homemade-looking manila-envelope bombs to President Obama and the others. It is too soon for an affirmative theory. CNN and MSNBC instantaneously call President Trump the common denominator, also emphasize that the bomb addressed to Brennan was sent to CNN.

I hope all the bombs have been recovered. So far, there are two (actual) common denominators, besides the person who sent the bombs.

Bombs found so far were addressed to former President Barack Obama; his Attorney General, Eric Holder; his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton; and his CIA head, John Brennan. The others were addressed to California Democratic congress member Maxine Waters, an Obama supporter; and major Democratic donor George Soros, an Obama supporter.

[UPDATE Thursday: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/robert-de-niros-nyc-restaurant-reportedly-receives-suspected-mail-bomb-similar-to-those-sent-to-top-democrats-and-cnn.html 

  • Explosive devices similar to ones sent to prominent Democrats earlier this week was sent to actor Robert De Niro and former vice president Joe Biden, according to media reports.

So the list of Obama officials is now further filled in with President Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden. De Niro famously stumped for Obama.]

Image result for De Niro mail

The other common denominator is Florida congress member Debbie Wasserman Schultz. All the packages have her as their bogus return address.

Kavanaugh’s calendar: I don’t believe Kavanaugh, and he lied to the president who boosted him

Some people seem to like being lied to. In fact, there are some people who’d rather be lied to by a man than told the truth by a woman. Let’s hope President Trump isn’t one of them. If Judge Brett Kavanaugh had any claim to credibility going in, at yesterday’s hearing, he has none coming out.

As I wrote day before yesterday,

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court should not be a partisan divide. At this point, there is more than enough reason to go back to the drawing board. The judge should thank his lucky stars for his current job. He and the White House should withdraw his name from consideration. President Trump should pick a nominee who does not have a track record of alcohol trouble.

It’s not only the series of misstatements from Judge Kavanaugh–claiming over and over again that people exonerated him when they didn’t, claiming that his drinking and drunkenness were less than they were in truth, claiming that he has always treated women with respect. Some of his own friends including Republican friends have spoken to the contrary. Lynne Brookes spoke on Cuomo Prime Time last night. She herself saw Kavanaugh and friend Chris Dudley decide to embarrass a young woman–by breaking into a room where she had gone with her date–and they did so.

Image result for kavanaugh calendar

A dead giveaway would be that calendar that Judge Kavanaugh himself offered.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?

KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.

To her credit, the questioner, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, followed up with Kavanaugh as she had followed up with Ford:

MITCHELL: I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the handwritten calendars that you’ve talked about for the months of May, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: Did you create these calendars, in the sense of all the handwriting that’s on them?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Is it exclusively your handwriting?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: When did you make these entries?

KAVANAUGH: In nine — in 1982.

MITCHELL: Has anything changed — been changed for those since 1982?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document — in other words, prospectively, or do they document what actually occurred, more like a diary?

This is a series of good questions. Mitchell did no grandstanding. She stuck to evidence and stuck to detail.

KAVANAUGH: They’re both forward-looking and backward-looking, as you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor’s appointments that didn’t happen, or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out, because it — I obviously didn’t make it that night. So you can see things that I didn’t do crossed out in retrospect, and also, when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward-looking.

MITCHELL: You explain that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. That’s why you kept them. In other words, you wrote on them. But why did you keep them up until this time?

KAVANAUGH: Well — well, he’s kept them, too, since 1978, so he’s a good role model.

At this point, most unfortunately, Grassley stopped her–at Kavanaugh’s request:

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell, you’ll have to stop.

MITCHELL: Oh, I’m sorry.

GRASSLEY: Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break, so we’ll take a 15-minute break.

(RECESS)

Eventually, after Leahy’s turn questioning Kavanaugh, Rachel Mitchell was allowed to resume.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell?

MITCHELL: Judge, do you still have your calendar — calendars there?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: I would like you to look at the July 1st entry.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: The entry says — and I quote — “Go to Timmy’s (ph) for skis (ph) with Judge (ph), Tom (ph), P.J. (ph), Bernie (ph) and Squee (ph)”?

KAVANAUGH: Squee. That’s a nick…

MITCHELL: What does…

KAVANAUGH: … that’s a nickname.

MITCHELL: OK. To what does this refer, and to whom?

KAVANAUGH: So first, says “Tobin’s (ph) house workout”. So that’s one of the football workouts that we would have — that Dr. (inaudible) would run for guys on the football team during the summer.

So we would be there — that’s usually 6:00 to 8:00 or so, kind of — until near dark. And then it looks like we went over to Timmy’s — you want to know their last names too? I’m happy to do it.

MITCHELL: If you could just identify, is — is “Judge,” Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

MITCHELL: And is “P.J.,” P.J. Smith?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

So — all right. It’s Tim Gaudette (ph), Mark Judge, Tom Caine (ph), P.J. Smith, Bernie McCarthy (ph), Chris Garrett (ph).

MITCHELL: Chris Garrett is Squee?

KAVANAUGH: He is.

MITCHELL: Did you in your calendar routinely document social gatherings like house parties or gatherings of friends in your calendar?

KAVANAUGH: Yes. It — it certainly appears that way, that’s what I was doing in the summer of 1982. And you can see that reflected on several of the — several of the entries.

There was more, in the testimony to Mitchell and in the calendar itself, more than enough to rebut Kavanaugh’s claims that he has “never” been to such a gathering as that testified to by Dr. Ford. Unfortunately, Mitchell’s time was up. The calendar had not run out, but the honest questioning had. Once Senator Lindsey Graham launched into his bogus diatribe, the day for fact-finding was over.

At least, it was over in the hearing room. Others have confirmed through Mark Judge’s own book that he did indeed work at the nearby Safeway that summer, the summer of 1982.

Kavanaugh, Ford: It’s not ’50-50′: We do have facts

What’s called a hearing will take place this morning, on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court and the statements of Professor Christine Blasey Ford–

Hoping we don’t hear the inevitable–‘he says, she says’, or ‘it’s 50-50’, the verbal equivalent of people on air throwing up their hands–‘How do we go back 35 years?’-

We don’t have to. We have facts, and facts in the common knowledge at that. Line up the pronouns; here are a few:

  1. She wants the FBI to investigate. He does not. (By the way, I cannot believe that Republicans in the Senate are trying to ward off an FBI investigation. Look at the nightmare on their hands if they were to confirm Kavanaugh, and some enterprising journalists dig up the relevant information after he gets on the high court, when the only remedy is impeachment.)
  2. She submitted to a polygraph exam. He did not.
  3. She passed the polygraph. He did not.
  4. She wants the process to take whatever time needed to arrive at the truth. His allies do not. They (the more top-down elements of the GOP) are trying to rush it through, hugger-mugger as Hamlet would say.
  5. She wants the other person allegedly in the room, Mark Judge, to appear and to answer questions. His allies do not.
  6. [ADD THIS ONE, 10:04 a.m. Thursday] Her classmates have spoken out in her defense, giving their names. Years’ worth of Holton Arms alumni have signed petitions in her defense. His “members of the class have agreed not to speak on the record to reporters.” (WaPo A10, “Swednick’s Job Experience [etc]”)

Image result for Christine Blasey Ford

‘We weren’t in the room’. No, but we’re in the room now.

Hopeless is not necessary.

Re the typical push-back in yesterday’s blog post, the one all-purpose riposte is that Dr. Ford’s credible allegations are part of Democratic delaying tactics. Not for a moment do I believe that the accuser is part of some Chuck Schumer plot, for the record. But the Dems’ own political lameness–calling for the nomination to be ‘blocked’ when it was constitutionally impossible to do so–set up this bogus rebuttal.

Also, the Democrats in the Senate might not be in this position in the first place if they had pushed for Mitch McConnell’s expulsion back when he openly flouted the U.S. constitution.

“It’s about the integrity of that institution.”

Why is President Donald Trump trying to appoint someone with a track record of drunkenness to the Supreme Court?

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court should not be a partisan divide. At this point, there is more than enough reason to go back to the drawing board. The judge should thank his lucky stars for his current job. He and the White House should withdraw his name from consideration. President Trump should pick a nominee who does not have a track record of alcohol trouble.

While public record in Maryland would show that I am a registered Democrat, and I make no secret of my political leanings as a citizen and voter, I am not taking my stand against this nominee based on partisanship. As a newspaper reader, I have no respect for the hysterically anti-Trump drivel I’ve been trying to sidestep for months now. One reason I have not weighed in against the hysteria more, aside from regrettable time constraints and constraints on other resources, is that I do not want to step on a future book project–a book on political philosophy that I plan, or hope, to write.

Related image

Right now, Judge Brett Kavanaugh has at least two serious and credible accusations against him. I for one believe the accusers named so far, Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez. None of the questions or accusations or implied threats so far leveled against the accusers give me pause. Nobody like me is going to be called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but if I were, I could address the main, predictable categories of push-back,

  1. the Why-didn’t-she-do-such-and-such question/s
  2. the Why-did-she-wait-until-now question/s
  3. the We-don’t-have-enough-evidence stance

I’m hoping nobody takes those tacks in tomorrow’s hearing–which I will be watching on  video, in between other work as usual.

Image result for Christine Blasey Ford

Aside from the sexual misconduct accusations, there is more than enough evidence in the public record already to show that the younger Brett Kavanaugh had a problem holding his liquor, as they used to say. The article in (my issue of) today’s WaPo is only one recent example. Multiple witnesses who know Kavanaugh and/or who knew him when have instanced his bouts of drinking. Like millions of other college kids, he drank a lot. Again like millions of other college kids, he drank too much. Comments from Kavanaugh himself indicate that he still drank heavily after getting into Yale Law.

Something more than just college drinking or college-age drinking went on, however. For one thing, Kavanaugh’s heavy drinking began in high school, and high-school excess drinking does at least as much harm as college excess drinking. Teens should not drink, because the teenage brain is still developing and cannot handle alcohol abuse. Kavanaugh’s high-school drinking at Georgetown Prep shows up in his own high school yearbook statements. It shows up in the writing of his longtime friend, Mark Judge, who has written frankly about his own alcohol addiction.

For another, he continued the heavy drinking for years, through high school, in college, and in law school. For another–unless you assume that every single person who saw him drinking is lying–then he is lying about the alcohol use or genuinely does not remember it. This is not a good sign. For real substance abusers, the lying becomes almost as compulsive as the drinking; and the lying can be abetted by genuine memory lapses brought on by the alcohol itself.

And for another thing, his personality changed when he drank. This is the real danger sign–even more of a danger sign than just drinking too much.

And on top of the drinking and the accusations of sexual misconduct, there are also the young Kavanaugh’s own words. That “Renate alumnius” ‘joke’, for example? This from the man who claimed on national television that he has always treated women with respect? (This is not the only such yearbook message from Kavanaugh, by the way; I’m choosing not to quote another.)

‘Trump’ is not the story here

If Judge Kavanaugh does end up getting confirmed to the highest court in the land, by the way–IF he does–it will be not only because of Republican intransigence but also because of some of the ham-handed unfairness in news media, not against Kavanaugh but against Trump. I have no interest whatsoever in the phalanx of hysterical commentators and even reporters who clearly just want to spend the next two or more years going TrumpTrumpTrump.

I am a freelance journalist myself, I have loved newspapers all my life–although I haven’t always loved the way they treated their printers–but it is only too obvious right now that some individuals in the news media think anything is okay, no holds barred, as long as it might damage President Trump. Some of these individuals are at the New York Times. There’s that ridiculous anonymous op-ed on September 5, purporting to come from some inner sanctum in the White House. –Heard anything about that lately, btw? There’s the equally ridiculous ‘news report’ August 24 purporting to show that Rod Rosenstein discussed removing Trump from office. Actually, NYTimes’ language itself suggests that this ‘story’ is not a leak, but a plant. If I worked at the Times, I’d be looking at McCabe. –Wonder how soon this furor will die–or has it died already?

When we as members of the informed electorate see an august newspaper getting away with this garbage, when we see over-secure and over-promoted journalists getting away with the abuses, and no one willing or able to call them on the abuses, the offenses give credence to sweeping attacks against the press. The sweeping attacks then become, of course, a way for the worst offenders to wrap themselves in the mantle of the First Amendment. Needless to say, I don’t see the U.S. press as “enemies of the people.” I’m part of the press myself, I’m a reader, and as said I love newspapers.

I’m also part of the people. So are the rest of the press. They’re not enemies of the people; they are people. That’s the clue. Line up the fundamentals as premises, make a syllogism out of them:

  • All human beings are fallible
  • All journalists are human beings
  • Therefore, all journalists are fallible

The fallibility is a universal. But a universal is not a constant. Again, fundamentals, premises, chain of argument:

  • A universal is not a constant
  • That human beings do wrong is a universal
  • That human beings do wrong is not a constant

We all do wrong things. That does not make us all equally wrong. (Et cetera.) If it did, there could be no justice system.

The fact that a few or several human beings at the New York Times did some very wrong things does not mean that all journalists do the same.

Back to alcohol abuse: people who abuse substances can go into recovery, genuine recovery. When they do, the signs are there–not just the sobriety itself, but the frank and accurate admission of the compulsion; the fulfillment of a program; and the willingness to take responsibility and to make amends.

I wouldn’t say that no recovering alcoholic should ever become a judge, or even a Supreme Court justice. But I would say that recovering is a prerequisite.

That anonymous New York Times Op-Ed: could this be an actual “senior official”?

ANONYMOUS NYTimes Op Ed  – a “senior official”? Are you SURE, New York Times?

You know you’re in trouble, as a reader, when you face apocalyptic rhetoric trying to pretend it’s measured, as in,

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

This is that instantly famous anonymous op-ed in the New York Times, of course. I can’t help feeling curious about the author, and I’m going into such slight clues as I perceive, below. But there is no way I’m condoning the Times’ cheap trick–even as I get sucked in by it. This op-ed would never have been famous on the merits, regardless of positions espoused. Nobody would have paid attention to it without that anonymous insinuation that President Trump is being fervently betrayed by everyone around him.

(I am reading the prose style for clues, not as a literary critic. But someone could have recommended fewer -ly endings. The country here is not “divided,” but “bitterly divided.” One does not “grasp,” or fail to grasp, but “fully grasp.” People are not “working,” but “working diligently.” And so on. Did the NYTimes get rid of its editors along with its copy people?)

On to the slight clues, such as they are. Author’s sentences are in the quote boxes; my inferences are in editorial brackets:

It’s not just that . . . his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

[anti-Democrats]  [anti-‘left’]  [does not know how to hyphenate or thinks hyphenating is too female-like]

The language is peppered with those idioms, modifiers, and prepositional phrases that seem to be grandchildren of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Cold-War era. Could be a clue there as to who some of his college professors were.

The dilemma . . . not fully grasp . . .

[male, white, age between 40 and 60]

The Times identifies the author thus: “The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.” Yet when referring to people in the administration, the author separates them from himself:

 . . . many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within . . .

He also separates himself from people politically to his left:

. . . ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We . . . think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

[GOP, finance wing of the party or working on it]

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for . . . free minds, free markets and free people.

[ Cf https://kirkcenter.org/symposia/free-minds-free-markets-and-free-people/]

 . . . President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

[pro- ‘free trade’] [anti-organized labor]

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military  . . .

[pro-redistributing wealth upward] [pro-militarism, or at least not against it]

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

[recently snubbed, ignored, or dismissed by Trump?]

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief  . . .

[not a senior official himself? isn’t he allegedly one of them?] [writes as an outsider]

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently . . .

[sorry, but this does not sound like the voice of “a top official” himself. This is true Evans-and-Novak stuff ]  [sounds like someone overhearing or querying a top official]

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un . . .

[not a fan of international negotiation]

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies . . . But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

[anti-Russia] [pro-‘national security team’]

 . . .  there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, . . .

[Probably started the minute after Trump up-ended every prediction about the 2016 election.]

As a reader, I look forward to learning more about the definition of “senior official.” And of “public editor.”

[Update September 5: The author does seem to feel stung by something. Maybe another clue: he could be one of the few people not interviewed by WaPo reporter Bob Woodward for his new book on the Trump White House. Of course, this does seem a bit like NYTimes’ stealing WaPo’s thunder.]

[Update September 7: Per my earlier tweet–does anyone else remember the furor over Joe Klein’s Primary Colors? Everyone was sure it was someone close to Bill Clinton.]

SPOILER NON-ALERT

Now, that’s a spoiler:

Statewide Statistics
% Precincts Reporting 100.00
Total Number Precincts 591
Num. Precincts Reporting 591
Registered Voters 544,532

Click on map to enlarge.

View map as PDF

Representative to Congress

Summary Results

Candidate Votes % of Votes
Troy Balderson (R) 101,574 50.15%
Joe Manchik (G) 1,127 0.56%
Danny O’Connor (D) 99,820 49.29%
Total Votes Cast 202,521

I have often distrusted or dismissed ‘spoiler’ accusations in the past. Too often they came from the boys on the bus, by no coincidence lobbed against good candidates, sometimes third-party like the Greens or the Working Families Party, sometimes just inconveniently good candidates in the major party, characterized as ‘fringe’–meaning no media attention. Thus no attention, no money, no establishment support. Used to be death knell.

(That word ‘fringe’ should have an auto-complete dog-whistle emoji.)

Now, we’ve actually got a spoiler. In the much-hyped special election August 7 in Ohio’s 12th congressional district, unofficial returns from the Ohio Secretary of State are in.

Troy Balderson (R) – 101,574

Danny O’Connor (D) – 99,820

Joe Manchik (G) – 1,127

Pulling out the handy ten-dollar pocket calculator here . . . The numerical difference between Balderson’s (R) total and O’Connor’s (D) is exactly 1,754.

Joe Manchik (G) can thank his lucky stars that he did not do better. Another 627 votes from the people of the Twelfth, and he would go down in history with–well, with no one. When push comes to shove, a ‘third-party’ candidate is disallowed as a factor once the election is over. Vide Manchik. Neither of the articles on the special election in my issue of the Washington Post today mentions his name. In fact, no WaPo article on last night’s election results mentions him. See here and here and here, for example.

A state-mandated recount will be under way soon, and provisional ballots remain to be counted. It remains to be seen how many votes Manchik will net from the ongoing ballot count. Up slightly, affecting O’Connor by that much more? Net outcome for Balderson and O’Connor also remains to be seen, though the tone of WaPo coverage is that the process will benefit O’Connor. The New York Times is also presenting the race as one still winnable by O’Connor.

So, O’Connor up slightly? — thus pulling O’Connor within the arithmetical range affected by Manchin?

Speaking of coverage–ironically, this is one time that, out here in general-public-land, we’re not hearing about a spoiler , at least not from the press.

There’s another one in Michigan, and a bigger one, also being omitted from today’s coverage.

More on that bad news later.

[Update]

Politico article today on the photo-finish close race in Ohio 12th also does not mention Manchik.

Department of Justice: Bump Stocks are Illegal

Saturday, March 10–The U. S. Department of Justice clarified today that guns outfitted with ‘bump stocks’ are illegal.

In a notice submitted for public release to the Office of Management and Budget, the DOJ issued the following statement:

Today the Department of Justice submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a notice of a proposed regulation to clarify that the definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act includes bump stock type devices, and that federal law accordingly prohibits the possession, sale, or manufacture of such devices.

Thus weapons souped up in this way are against the law in the U. S.

This ruling seems to be definitive.

Remains to be seen how the National Rifle Association will try to fight against it, and whether the NRA can persuade any judges or justices to go along with their own redefinition of terms.

 

Anne Grant’s subscriber list and Jane Austen’s character names

Only two of the books in the library in Jane Austen’s home were published in 1803. In hindsight, Austen’s family may not have considered 1803 a very good year for literature: that was the year of Austen’s infamous first success, when a publisher bought her anonymous two-volume novel Susan, for ten pounds–and then sat on it for the rest of Austen’s life.*

There are some ironies in the fact that Austen now graces Britain’s ten-pound note; she rarely saw ten pounds herself.

UK new ten-pound note, 2017

One of the 1803 publications was Poems on Various Subjects, by Scots author Anne MacVicar Grant (21 February 1755 – 7 November 1838).* Today is Grant’s birthday.

An homage to both nineteenth-century women authors would note that Jane Austen took a continuing interest in the writing of Anne Grant. In a letter dated 21 February 1807, Austen jokingly recommended Grant’s published letters to her sister Cassandra “as a new and admired work,” clarifying that she had not read them herself and knew nothing about them. (These references found in Deirdre Le Faye’s authoritative edition of Austen’s letters.) On 11 January 1809, the family was reading Grant’s Memoirs of an American Lady, though with mixed feelings. (Scots-born Grant had grown up in Albany, New York, then returned to Scotland with her family.) In February 1813 she lent a three-volume work by Grant to a family acquaintance. She also bought Anne Grant’s poems.

Mrs. Grant’s subscriber list

Anne Grant herself did well in 1803. Books were often published with the help of subscribers (crowdfunding), gathered beforehand, and Grant raised quite a healthy list. She was already a successful author–good thing, since she and her family needed the income.

In my scenario, Austen culled Grant’s subscriber list for character names–fictional characters, actual names. Call it an Austen-themed parlor game: Grant’s book with the subscriber list is accessible online, full-text, digitized by Google (originals in U Michigan, NY Public Library and elsewhere); free to test it.

Obviously these would be individuals of a certain literary caliber–people capable of appreciating Grant’s writing and willing to underwrite it with a modest advance, and willing to have their names printed at the back of the book in a 33-page list. (A few subscribers are anonymous, and the list includes at least one book club.) They would also be men and women not averse to their surname’s appearing in a book, since it just did. Austen’s little joke.

Thus the list features some members of the nobility, but only some; predictably some relatives of Grant’s; and a hefty, not to say dominant, proportion of Scots. Grant was born in Glasgow, and after her family’s return to Scotland lived and worked in Laggan, Stirling, and Edinburgh.

WARNING: only fans of Jane Austen’s novels should read on. Take the novels one by one and cross-check Grant’s subscriber list for character names.

This excludes Northanger Abbey, originally named Susan, which Austen had finished and revised in 1803. When someone else published a novel titled Susan, she re-named her heroine and re-titled the book (Catherine); her brother and sister brought it out, re-titled again, after her death. (Critic Ian Sansom got this wrong in TLS. While Austen was concerned about finance, pay, and book sales, she was not the one who chose the title Northanger Abbey. It was Henry Austen and perhaps Cassandra Austen who targeted the ‘gothic’ demographic by putting the abbey into the title.)

Note: Sense and Sensibility is dealt below; scroll down.

Moving on instead to the other famous Austen novels–

Pride and Prejudice. (remember your character names here)

⊂   ON the list: Bennet. (We knew that; Mr. Bennet is a great reader, and Elizabeth is accused of being one. However, there is no female Bennet on the list, only some Mr. Bennets. Btw do we ever learn Mr. Bennet’s first name in Pride and Prejudice?) There are subscribers named Forster and Millar (colonels in the novel, past and present), and several named Hill, like the Bennets’ sensible housekeeper, evidently a representative of upward mobility as well as of appropriate  behavior. A Miss King. Maybe Mary King had more time to read, and/or more disposable income or pocket allowance to spend on books, after she escaped the clutches of Wickham. Speaking of whom . . .

⊂  NOT on the list: notorious rogue Wickham. Unlike fellow rogues John Thorpe and Willoughby in the earlier books, and Henry Crawford and William Elliot in the later, Wickham does not refer to poetry or novels. Also not on the list: Bingley. There is no Mr. or Miss Bingley–remember Caroline Bingley’s picking up Volume II of the book Darcy is reading? No Mr. or Mrs. Hurst. (There’s not even a Mrs. Bingley; Jane Bennet may read less than Elizabeth, especially after she marries Bingley.) NO Mr. Collins–remember Mr. Collins’ picking up a large folio and talking instead of reading? No Mrs. Collins, before or after marriage; the surname Lucas is also not on the list. More surprisingly, no Gardiner, despite the Gardiners’ taste and intelligence. (Mr. Gardiner may be too busy with business and Mrs. Gardiner with family matters.) No Mr. or Mrs. Phillips, either. (Uncle and aunt Phillips? Not likely.) On the other hand, the bluest blood in P&P is also conspicuous by its absence: the names Darcy, Fitzwilliam, and De Bourgh are not on Grant’s subscription list. (The pompous, ill-bred Lady Catherine’s absence is not surprising. Perhaps Darcy and Fitzwilliam are anonymous subscribers.)

Mansfield Park.

⊂  ON the list: Crawford. The flawed Henry Crawford and Mary Crawford are smart readers. Bertram. Naturally: the house has a fine library, and everyone in it reads, except Lady Bertram and possibly her pug dog. Grant. –Anne Grant’s relatives contributed as subscribers; but surely the Reverend Mr. Grant in MP was a reader as well. Fraser. Yes–including “The Honorable Mrs. Fraser, London“–like Mary Crawford’s discontented bird-in-a-gilded-cage friend. (Is this one of Mrs. Fraser‘s complaints? –that her wealthy older husband, proud of a fine library, wishes her to read more? Or to support authors, but without sleeping with them?)

⊂  NOT on the list: Price. Odd; no one would expect Mr. and Mrs. Price to be readers, but Fanny Price has steeped herself in reading. However, her name changes when she marries. Rushworth. –No Rushworth on the list. (Again, not a surprise.) Yates. The baron may be more interested in scenery-chewing than in reading. Norris? I bet myself that Mrs. Norris’ name would not appear in a list of book subscribers, given her lack of literary bent and her marked aversion to spending her own money. I half-won: no Mrs. Norris, but some Mr. Norrises.

Emma.

⊂  ON the list: Campbell. Cf. “my excellent friend, Colonel Campbell,” the man who didn’t give Jane Fairfax the piano. (There are many, many Campbells on this Scots list). There is also many a subscriber named Brown (a better name in Scotland than in  Hartfield). There is also a Mr. Dixon, though no Mrs. Dixon. (Enough said.) The name Martin is also on the list–score another point for the upwardly mobile. Remember the ball scenes, before and during the ball? –There are two Gilberts on the list, an Otway, and a Mrs. Cox.

(N. B. This list of subscribers is not being seriously presented as the sole source for so many Austen character names. In Emma, for example, the ball scenes would give Austen a perfect opportunity to gratify requests from locals to have a character named after them, in a cluster, without interfering with the story line.)

⊂  NOT on the list: Elton? –Surely you jest. Mr. Elton is too busy rich-wife-hunting to read. No Miss Hawkins, either. (No surprise there.) No Suckling, whether Mr., Mrs., or Miss. Few of Mrs. Elton’s friends make the cut–there is no Jeffereys, Partridge, Milman, Smallridge, or Bragge. (Austen’s names get a bit unsubtle in connection with Mrs. Elton.) A bit more surprisingly, no Miss Bates, and no Mrs. Bates. But then Miss Bates and her elderly mother probably cannot afford to subscribe. As to the most prominent names in the novel, all are missing. There is no Woodhouse on the list, although there is a Woodhouselee; conversely, there is no Knightley on the list, although there are several subscribers named Knight. (Knight is also a surname in Austen’s family tree, and very close to home; one of her brothers took the name.) No Fairfax. No Churchill.

Persuasion.

⊂  ON the list: Elliot. –Certainly. Persuasion, like Northanger Abbey, is very much about books, and Austen plugs other authors in it; the lovely Anne Elliot is a reader both natural and cultured, and even her sister Mary gets books at the circulating library. Dalrymple is on the list–presumably a dignified family willing to emblazon the list to benefit the author. Smith. Contradicting Sir Walter Elliot’s snobbery–“Mrs. Smith, such a name!”–several subscribers with the ordinary name of Smith do appear.  Also, Byron is on the list of subscribers–a “Miss Byron.”

⊂  NOT on the list: Mrs. Clay. –Not a chance.  Mr. Shepherd. (However, there is a “Miss Shepherd.”) No Croft, no Wentworth, no Harville. Sorry to say, their many virtues do not extend to underwriting books; maybe 1803 was before their promotions or retirement would enable them to do so. And the younger Captain Benwick, lover of morbid and lachrymose poetry? –No. No Carteret, either. No Musgrove.

This short exercise is tongue-in-cheek. All of Austen’s character names have multiple (possible) sources. I think, in fact, that Austen made a point of literary thrift, or literary multi-purposing. One could call it great art; a person, place, or thing does not feature in Austen’s novels for only one reason. This is not only a matter of sources and analogues.

However, a surprising proportion of the time, this little game works. If a character’s name (after 1803) does not appear on Mrs. Grant’s subscription list, the character turns out to be less than a genuine reader.

Fans of Sense and Sensibility may notice that S&S is the exception. –It would be ridiculous to argue that Marianne Dashwood is less than a genuine reader. But if Austen as a struggling author looked at one list of subscribers, she looked at more than one. And as it happens, another list came out in 1803. The Catalogue of the Brompton Botanic Garden, published by Bulmer and Co., Cleveland Row, St. James’, contained a “List of the Subscribers to the Brompton Botanic Garden.” This shorter list includes Dashwood, WilloughbyPalmer, Williams, Mrs. Smith, and the Earl of Morton. No Allenham–but an Allen immediately follows an Ashburnham on the list, a tempting vanity-bait to Austen’s fondness for jumbles or anagrams.

(Even place names can be part of the game. The evocative Cleveland, in the publisher’s address, resonates powerfully with Marianne Dashwood in S&S. Cleveland Row and nearby Cleveland Court, around the corner, also had real-life importance for the Austen family.)

Checking the list, checking it twice, to see who’s naughty or nice, or at least literate, works again.

 

*The other was the six-volume Female Biography, by Mary Hays. Both by women,  although there’s more to the story than that.