Some friends and I were discussing the election last night, and an interesting question came up which I am hoping you may be able to help answer. Has anybody ever done a study of past presidential elections (think 2016 and 2020) to see what the outcome would have been in the electoral college if each state allotted their electoral votes by congressional districts?
Thanks as always for your excellent journalism - you are a credit to your profession and I wish more of your fellow journalist adhered to your high standards. I have been a fan and and a follower since your early St. Louis days.
Hi Michael! Great question. I actually looked at this a few months ago: https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/april-4-2024. In the eight elections from 1992-2020, the only one that would have ended up differently is 2012, when Mitt Romney would have won.
I appreciate the moratorium on the horse race. It’s frustrating and exhausting. I look forward to taking my time with today’s article and each of those upcoming. Thanks for your hard work.
Hallelujah! Finally, we have a pretty balanced approach to the issues and not a horse race. If I could I would jump through the internet and give you a great big hug! Thank you thank you thank you!!!
I live in Portland Maine and we have been a pretty welcoming community for immigrants. We actually call them New Mainers. Yes their initial arrival took some real community effort and put a strain on affordable housing. (A former mayor told the governor of TX to go ahead and send folks here because we truly need them. ME has the oldest population in the country and ME also lost a bit of population in the last census. It would have been a huge loss without all our New Mainers.) Actually ME has a history of welcoming immigrants and the population of Portland (the biggest city in ME at about 67,000) reflects the various waves of immigration as far back as the French Canadians, through Vietnamese, Somali, etc through the latest folks from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola.
In general, the immigrant population is hard working (and would have been much happier to work well before their 1st round with immigration judges as required by US law —taking about 18 months here)They are young and they bring their children and give birth once they are settled here. We have developed an infrastructure of nonprofits, churches and concerned citizens who help folks settle in shelters, get kids in school, ESL for kids and adults, get out of shelters and in to apartments, find services like health care etc. it’s not perfect but it works. Have seen individuals come out of the woodwork to provide funds for folks to get emergency shelter in hotels. Anyone who does not understand that our country and our economy need this infusion of young, energetic and hard working families doesn’t doesn’t understand how this country was built or a big part of why our economy is moving along faster than most of the other established nations.
Gabe, I always appreciate the evenhandedness of your writings. I do have one quibble with your analysis below and that of many journalists covering the election. It's the continued reference to the lack of details behind the candidates' policy positions. These are akin to vision statements. They often stand alone in their ability to make a voter happy or unhappy based on the broad objective. But it seems for many of them the chief executive will either try to achieve this policy through an executive order or by working legislation through Congress. An unfavorable executive decision will face lawsuits. An unfavorable bill will need the support of the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This is why Wall Street considers gridlock due to split party representation among the House, Senate and Oval Office is the best outcome. That means nothing will change on matters of taxation, etc. Admittedly, Wall Street is not the most interested in long term problems and solutions. I also believe the MSM is much more critical of Harris' "lack of details" than it is for Trump's.
Thank you for providing the insightful info on specific issues this week. The immigration info was helpful. I look forward to seeing your compare/contrast on other issues.
Gabe! Delighted that the "non-partisan expert" you chose to chime in on the immigration issue was Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a 2013 alum of my History Honors Seminar at Georgetown.
Great read again! Thanks, Gabe! Good thinking about bringing these issue posts to the forefront instead of rehashing the neck-in-neck articles everyone else is over reporting about. I think your classmates might be super jealous!!
Another excellent essay. No one seems to be discussing the massive cost and complications of a mass deportation program. It's estimated to cost literally hundreds of billions of dollars and who knows how much chaos, not to mention a vastly reduced pool of laborers and blue/pink collar workers. The elitists' goal is to reduce the rest of us to poverty level or lower. God bless us all.
Hi, thank you as usual. However, there is one topic that nobody seems to talk about, it would be interesting to see an analysis of both sides' stand. All politicians make an amazing litany of promises during campaigning, which most voters take at face value. Yet, I think that many of those promises are not delivered on, or even attempted to follow-up on. It would be helpful to see a comparison of both candidates/parties promises and (a) completely forgotten or (b) attempted, but not able to deliver or (c) at least partially accomplished (through the legislators) after election.
On Sept. 25, [DHS] replied: “As of July 21, 2024, there were 662,566 noncitizens with criminal histories on ICE’s national docket, which includes those detained by ICE, and on the agency’s non-detained docket.” This includes 435,719 “convicted criminals” and 226,847 with “pending criminal charges.” Of the 662,566 illegal immigrants with criminal records, approximately 647,000 weren’t detained.”
These people should be moved to the top of the docket.
The failed bi-partisan bill had a poison pill for me—the provision to fund (albeit at a pittance) lawyers for asylum seekers. The bar associations hunger for this source of income and such funding would not lead to speedy or, in my opinion, just results. The allowable numbers were high and, again in my opinion, the “triggers” would be easily manipulated. The text of the bill is online. It is a short read.
Very good point about what’s next in immigration reform.
There should be an equal focus on legal immigration. The family unification provisions should be changed for the future and the current docket of those in line should be analysed with an eye toward limiting the wait for legitimate claims.
It is not cheap for folks even without any criminal history to get representation to assist them through the complexities of our immigration system. Last numbers I heard here in Maine were as high as $10,000 for 2 adults with 2 children. And asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants according to both US and international law. That said I really would agree that we need a total revamp of how people can come to this country. When my grandparents came there weren’t any quotas (translate to limits) on immigration from most of Europe. Now the limits differ by country, how wealthy you are, and whether or not you have a particular skill (doctor, scientist, tech etc). Last I read you could wait on a list for 8-10 years if you’re from Mexico. I would like to see a path for more than the elite. We need regular folks who want a better life for their kids and want a working democracy. We don’t have that pathway now.
Gabe:
Some friends and I were discussing the election last night, and an interesting question came up which I am hoping you may be able to help answer. Has anybody ever done a study of past presidential elections (think 2016 and 2020) to see what the outcome would have been in the electoral college if each state allotted their electoral votes by congressional districts?
Thanks as always for your excellent journalism - you are a credit to your profession and I wish more of your fellow journalist adhered to your high standards. I have been a fan and and a follower since your early St. Louis days.
Mike Bray - Sugar Land, Texas
Hi Michael! Great question. I actually looked at this a few months ago: https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/april-4-2024. In the eight elections from 1992-2020, the only one that would have ended up differently is 2012, when Mitt Romney would have won.
I appreciate the moratorium on the horse race. It’s frustrating and exhausting. I look forward to taking my time with today’s article and each of those upcoming. Thanks for your hard work.
Congratulations for settling on a format that embraces substance and not the froth of the horse race.
Good thinking!
Hallelujah! Finally, we have a pretty balanced approach to the issues and not a horse race. If I could I would jump through the internet and give you a great big hug! Thank you thank you thank you!!!
I live in Portland Maine and we have been a pretty welcoming community for immigrants. We actually call them New Mainers. Yes their initial arrival took some real community effort and put a strain on affordable housing. (A former mayor told the governor of TX to go ahead and send folks here because we truly need them. ME has the oldest population in the country and ME also lost a bit of population in the last census. It would have been a huge loss without all our New Mainers.) Actually ME has a history of welcoming immigrants and the population of Portland (the biggest city in ME at about 67,000) reflects the various waves of immigration as far back as the French Canadians, through Vietnamese, Somali, etc through the latest folks from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola.
In general, the immigrant population is hard working (and would have been much happier to work well before their 1st round with immigration judges as required by US law —taking about 18 months here)They are young and they bring their children and give birth once they are settled here. We have developed an infrastructure of nonprofits, churches and concerned citizens who help folks settle in shelters, get kids in school, ESL for kids and adults, get out of shelters and in to apartments, find services like health care etc. it’s not perfect but it works. Have seen individuals come out of the woodwork to provide funds for folks to get emergency shelter in hotels. Anyone who does not understand that our country and our economy need this infusion of young, energetic and hard working families doesn’t doesn’t understand how this country was built or a big part of why our economy is moving along faster than most of the other established nations.
Gabe, I always appreciate the evenhandedness of your writings. I do have one quibble with your analysis below and that of many journalists covering the election. It's the continued reference to the lack of details behind the candidates' policy positions. These are akin to vision statements. They often stand alone in their ability to make a voter happy or unhappy based on the broad objective. But it seems for many of them the chief executive will either try to achieve this policy through an executive order or by working legislation through Congress. An unfavorable executive decision will face lawsuits. An unfavorable bill will need the support of the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This is why Wall Street considers gridlock due to split party representation among the House, Senate and Oval Office is the best outcome. That means nothing will change on matters of taxation, etc. Admittedly, Wall Street is not the most interested in long term problems and solutions. I also believe the MSM is much more critical of Harris' "lack of details" than it is for Trump's.
As always, Gabe, Excellent piece today and will reStack ASAP 👍🌊
Gabe:
It's always a pleasure to read your insightful commentary. Congrats from one St. Louisan to another.
Thank you for providing the insightful info on specific issues this week. The immigration info was helpful. I look forward to seeing your compare/contrast on other issues.
You are an amazing young man and a credit and model to your generation.
Gabe! Delighted that the "non-partisan expert" you chose to chime in on the immigration issue was Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a 2013 alum of my History Honors Seminar at Georgetown.
Great read again! Thanks, Gabe! Good thinking about bringing these issue posts to the forefront instead of rehashing the neck-in-neck articles everyone else is over reporting about. I think your classmates might be super jealous!!
Another excellent essay. No one seems to be discussing the massive cost and complications of a mass deportation program. It's estimated to cost literally hundreds of billions of dollars and who knows how much chaos, not to mention a vastly reduced pool of laborers and blue/pink collar workers. The elitists' goal is to reduce the rest of us to poverty level or lower. God bless us all.
Hi, thank you as usual. However, there is one topic that nobody seems to talk about, it would be interesting to see an analysis of both sides' stand. All politicians make an amazing litany of promises during campaigning, which most voters take at face value. Yet, I think that many of those promises are not delivered on, or even attempted to follow-up on. It would be helpful to see a comparison of both candidates/parties promises and (a) completely forgotten or (b) attempted, but not able to deliver or (c) at least partially accomplished (through the legislators) after election.
From Opinion piece by Tony Gonzales, WSJ 10-22-24
On Sept. 25, [DHS] replied: “As of July 21, 2024, there were 662,566 noncitizens with criminal histories on ICE’s national docket, which includes those detained by ICE, and on the agency’s non-detained docket.” This includes 435,719 “convicted criminals” and 226,847 with “pending criminal charges.” Of the 662,566 illegal immigrants with criminal records, approximately 647,000 weren’t detained.”
These people should be moved to the top of the docket.
The failed bi-partisan bill had a poison pill for me—the provision to fund (albeit at a pittance) lawyers for asylum seekers. The bar associations hunger for this source of income and such funding would not lead to speedy or, in my opinion, just results. The allowable numbers were high and, again in my opinion, the “triggers” would be easily manipulated. The text of the bill is online. It is a short read.
Very good point about what’s next in immigration reform.
There should be an equal focus on legal immigration. The family unification provisions should be changed for the future and the current docket of those in line should be analysed with an eye toward limiting the wait for legitimate claims.
It is not cheap for folks even without any criminal history to get representation to assist them through the complexities of our immigration system. Last numbers I heard here in Maine were as high as $10,000 for 2 adults with 2 children. And asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants according to both US and international law. That said I really would agree that we need a total revamp of how people can come to this country. When my grandparents came there weren’t any quotas (translate to limits) on immigration from most of Europe. Now the limits differ by country, how wealthy you are, and whether or not you have a particular skill (doctor, scientist, tech etc). Last I read you could wait on a list for 8-10 years if you’re from Mexico. I would like to see a path for more than the elite. We need regular folks who want a better life for their kids and want a working democracy. We don’t have that pathway now.