Please support this newsletter.
Wide World of News is free to read (for now) but you can express your support for my work by making a voluntary contribution or becoming a paying subscriber today.
If you would like to contribute to the cause without becoming a formal subscriber, please consider one of these options:
* Buy me a cocktail (at UES prices….), tax and server tip included, by clicking here.
* Buy me a cup of coffee (or a week’s worth) by clicking here.
* Check. send a simple email to markhalperintalk@gmail.com and ask where you can send a check.
• PayPal. markhalperinnyc@gmail.com
• Venmo. Mark-Halperin-4 (telephone number ends in x3226)
• Zelle. markhalperinnyc@gmail.com
Or subscribe here:
There are no ads, sponsors, investors, staff, or corporate backers here.
It is just me doing this, seven days a week.
Your support is much appreciated.
Mark
****
Want to know what’s going to happen in the midterms?
You can’t!
In olden days, here are the factors a political reporter would use to try to get a handle on what was likely to happen:
* historical data and precedents
* polling
* the incumbent president’s approval ratings
* economic data
* candidate quality
* TV ads
* fundraising totals
* the views of credible and trusted political consultants
* watching and reading the earned media coverage
* data on voter registration and early voting
In 2022, none of those are worth a warm bucket of Tab.
I mean, we can all do our best, and I will keep trying.
But here’s why every one of those variables is as predictable as a Kim Jong-un missile launch schedule, hairstyle, or waist size.
* historical data and precedents
+ Thanks to the abortion ruling and Donald Trump alone, there are variables in play this time that put us on a holiday from history.
* polling
+ As Politico points out this morning in an essential reading piece, pollsters have not figured out how to correct the errors of the last few cycles that are largely Trump-driven; no polling outfit has any clue who a “likely” voter is right now (see “historical data and precedents” above”) -- and if you don’t know who will vote, your polls are going to be potentially off enough to be pure rubbish as a snapshot in time, let alone as a predictive model.
* the incumbent president’s approval ratings
+ As I’ve written before, there are indications that at least some voters who tell pollsters they disapprove of Joe Biden’s job performance actually like Democratic policies and will vote for Democratic candidates – they just think Joe Biden is too old and out of it to be president; plus, Biden’s job approval numbers have been going up, and no one can say if (or: how much) the trend offsets in any way the still-low standing he has (see “historical data and precedents” above).
* economic data
+ This is hands-down the craziest economy I have seen in a political context, as Politico notes this morning, with elements Team Biden-Harris-Klain-Pelosi-Schumer can brag about (unemployment, the trends in some cases, passage of legislation related to manufacturing, etc), but also plenty of dark spots (inflation, housing, the stock market, recession fears); analysts make definitive claims about factors such as gas prices in one moment and then hedge in the next; if it is, indeed, “the economy, stupid,” none of us is smart enough to know how voters feel about “the” economy.
* candidate quality
+ Too few debates, too many pandemic restrictions, too many candidates (mostly Republicans) who hide from media scrutiny, too many first time candidates, new voter standards for what is acceptable in an office holder – it is clear candidate quality will play a major role in the overall outcome but no one knows who, what, where, or how.
* TV ads
+ With so much targeted messaging moving to more below-the-radar digital platforms, watching and analyzing TV spots is sort of a fool’s TIVO errand.
* fundraising totals
+ Dark money, party committees, outside groups, last-minute spending – again, far too little transparency to know who is actually spending what, and that is before we get into the factor of poorly spent money.
* the views of credible and trusted political consultants
+ The honest ones will acknowledge they are also seeing through a glass darkly, and at least a few are now formerly honest because of the polarized times in which we live.
* watching and reading the earned media coverage
+ The Dominant Media, like the Nates, has no less a rooting interest than does Chuck Schumer – and the cheerleaders on the right are generally no more useful for those of us seeking to know what’s going on; the number of outlets that are actually in search of the unvarnished truth is around the size of the number of Chuckles flavors.
* data on voter registration and early voting
+ It is all a big mélange and mess, with state and regional variations, confusing trend lines, and complexities related to ballot integrity, fraud, and general voting issues.
Many of you will read this summary and say, “Well, Mark, that is frustrating to hear on one level, but good to know; I will just sit back and wait for the full election returns to come in and state and local officials to certify the final results.”
But others of you will instead email me and ask some version of, “Ya, ya, ya, whatever – who is going to win?”
So, to satisfy the second group, I will make something up and share it here:
House: Rs net gain +18
Senate: no change
Governors: Ds have a better night
Biggest three stories of the night: Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia
****
ALMOST ESSENTIAL READING
* The Washington Post on a possible “Biden vs. Trump” rematch and CNN.com on a possible Biden ’24 will tell you almost nothing you don’t already know, but you should probably read them both.
* The New York Times tried its darndest to stir up “DeSantis versus Abbott” trouble, but falls far short of the mark.
The Biden administration is trying to stave off a bipartisan push on Capitol Hill to sharpen the enforcement of a proposed cap on the price of Russian oil, aiming to avoid an escalation that officials worry could upset the effort’s delicate diplomatic balancing act.
Treasury and White House officials have been working for months on a plan to set a cap on the sales price of Russian oil around the world. With allies in the Group of Seven wealthy nations, they have designed a plan to limit Russia’s revenue from oil sales while still keeping Russian oil available on global markets. The plan would bar the use of Western financial services for shipping Russian oil if the oil isn’t sold below the cap.
Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) and Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) are working on legislation that would take the price-cap design a step further. They want to threaten all foreign firms—not just ones based in G-7 countries—with the possibility of sanctions if they purchase, insure or finance Russian oil above the price cap.