Analyzing the 1995 Jerusalem Vote

Today marks the third anniversary of one of former President Trump's most well-known foreign policy moves: the move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  On paper, the move had been mandated for more than twenty years, since the passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, but the act allowed Presidents to receive waivers from its mandate, which every President until Trump in 2018 took advantage of.  

Although it was an initiative of the Republican Congress that came to power after the 1994 elections and became law without then-President Clinton's signature, the Jerusalem Embassy Act was popular with both parties and in all regions of the country.  It passed the House by a vote of 374-37, with five members voting present, seventeen not voting, and two vacant districts.  The map below shows how members voted by district and party designation:

(Apologies for the weird formatting.  I recommend right-clicking and opening it in a new tab.)

Most of the opposition to the act was concentrated in a few areas:

- Appalachia.  The act was opposed by representatives in a belt stretching from northeast Ohio and western Pennsylvania to southwestern Virginia.  Notable opponents in this area include the maverick (to put it mildly) James Traficant (D-Ohio) and future prominent Iraq War critic Jack Murtha (D-Pa.).

- Metro Detroit.  The Detroit metropolitan area has a large Arab and Muslim population, which is less sympathetic to Israel.  Five "no" votes came from this area, four of them from Democrats (including well-known members John Dingell and John Conyers) and one from a Republican.

- Rural Pennsylvania and the Midwest.  In the Midwest, traditionally more isolationist than the rest of the country, the act attracted some opposition.  Outside Detroit and one "no" vote in Chicago, it came from rural areas and was bipartisan, with Republicans from rural Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska opposed (in addition to the aforementioned "no" vote from the Detroit area and two "no" votes from Pennsylvania, these were the only Republican "no" votes), and Democrats from rural Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Missouri.

- Minority Districts.  Black and Hispanic members of Congress were more likely to oppose the act, with black representatives Eva Clayton (D-N.C.) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) two of the only four "no" votes in the South outside Virginia (the other two were Blue Dogs Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and John Bryant (D-Texas)).  Other notable minority "no" voters include Xavier Becerra, Maxine Waters, and Ron Dellums, all from California, and Donald Payne of New Jersey, the only "no" vote in the greater New York area.  Minority members of the House were also more likely to simply skip the vote, including Cleo Fields of Louisiana, Charlie Rangel and Jose Serrano of New York, and Bobby Rush of Illinois.

- Liberal Enclaves.  A few "no" votes and abstentions came from affluent liberal areas such as Vermont, northern Virginia, and parts of Massachusetts.  Bernie Sanders, at the time the only independent in the House, voted against, while Barney Frank of Massachusetts voted present.  In the West, the only "no" votes came from the Los Angeles and San Francisco metro areas, Hawaii, and Boulder, Colorado.

In the Senate, the measure passed by a similarly lopsided margin, 93-5, with Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) not voting and a vacancy in Oregon:

While most of the House opposition came from Democrats, most of the Senate opposition came from Republicans.  Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), a former Majority Leader, was the only Democrat to oppose the act.  Of the four Republicans to vote against the act, one was from Michigan (Spencer Abraham), and the other three (Mark Hatfield of Oregon, John Chafee of Rhode Island, and Jim Jeffords of Vermont) were from the now-defunct liberal wing of the GOP.  Earlier this year, when an amendment to prevent the Biden administration from moving the embassy back to Tel Aviv came up in the Senate, it passed 97-3.  This time, Republicans backed in unanimously, with only Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Tom Carper (D-Del.) dissenting.  Warren and Sanders, of course, are among the most prominent members of the Senate Democrats' left wing, but Carper has a more moderate reputation.

If the Jersalem Embassy Act were voted on today, it would probably be a more partisan vote, given that Evangelical influence in the GOP has grown while minorities and affluent liberals have become more important to the Democrats.  Donald Trump's backing would probably be enough to get the rural Midwest and Appalachia on board.  Conversely, the House delegations from Washington and Oregon probably would not back the move unanimously, like they did in 1995.  It's unlikely that the pattern of much of the Midwest- some rural representatives balking while the representatives from the Twin Cities, Milwaukee, and St. Louis, among other cities, went along- would hold today.  

Memo from the Great Beyond

I do not know how I received the following communication.  I just got the second COVID shot, so maybe the 5G it implanted in me is more powerful than I thought, although I recall National Review received something similar after William F. Buckley Jr. passed away.

FR: New Arrivals/Orientation Dept.

TO: R. Limbaugh

CC: Mgmt/St. Peter

RE: Orientation Followup/Concerns

Mr. Limbaugh,

While we have certainly enjoyed your, shall we say, boisterous presence in the two months you have been here, there seem to be a few aspects of life here in the Great Beyond that need further clarification in your case.  Please note that this memorandum is for explanatory purposes only.

1. As was explained in your orientation, the resources available to Kingdom authorities are infinite, and there is thus no need to tax residents for such public services as street maintenance.  Therefore, your criticism of paving the streets with gold, a longstanding policy of ours, as wasteful spending which will necessarily lead to tax increases is not valid.  In addition, we remind you that St. Peter died almost 1,800 years before the Republican Party in the United States was established, and therefore was never a member of said party.  In light of those facts, referring to him as a “Republican in Name Only” is dreadfully anachronistic.  Please remember that we strive for accuracy here.
2. We are in receipt of your “Limbaugh Letter”.  We found your conversation with Alexis de Tocqueville quite enlightening, and, to be frank, publishing two pages’ worth of “stupid quotes” from various demons is an idea we wish we had thought of.  However, the image on the back cover- Rev. Jesse Jackson with the caption “We’re Waiting”- is quite problematic and we trust you will be more discerning in the future.
3. Also- regarding the “Limbaugh Letter”- as mentioned in item 1, resources here are infinite, both in terms of food and finances, so your idea to hold a “bake sale” so the prophet Daniel can afford a subscription to your newsletter is doubly unnecessary.
4. While we do not have definitive proof, we believe you and Antonin Scalia are behind the recent “lasagna incident” involving former Sen. Arlen Specter.  Sen. Specter is here on what is known on Earth as a “technicality”, and wishes to stay out of the limelight.
5. In response to your previous inquiry, the form for renewing previous loans of talent is Form MTY-1430, a copy of which is attached.  Simply fill out the appropriate parts of the form, return it, and you should receive a response within seven days.
6. While the timetable for Paul Shanklin’s arrival here has not yet been determined, as a protective measure, we are arranging a dream for him in which he will be warned not to impersonate certain senior archangels too closely.  Your conduct since arriving here has inspired this.

A History of Protest Product Placements

 

The recent pro-Trump "Jericho March" in Washington was derided in some circles for its advertising of MyPillow, complete with a promo code being given out during the event.  However, product placements have a tendency to crop up at key moments throughout history, starting with what might be called the original Jericho March:

Jericho, 1400 BC:

Rahab: "Now therefore, I beg you, swear to me by the Lord, since I have shown you kindness, that you also will show kindness to my father’s house, and give me a true token, and spare my father, my mother, my brothers, my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death.”

Israelite spies: “Our lives for yours, if none of you tell this business of ours. And it shall be, when the Lord has given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with you, especially our friends at Jordan Valley Community College.  Whether you're looking to take the next step in your career, enter an exciting new field like goat herding or frankincense trading, or narrowly escaping Divine wrath being poured out on your city, JVCC offers the degrees you need to get ahead in the fast-paced fourteenth century B.C.  Lord knows the market for prostitutes in Canaan has been booming recently (literally, the Lord knows that; that's why we're here), but you never know..."

Rome, 67 AD:

St. Paul: "I was brought before you by the prompting of the Holy Spirit- and by the good folks at Rufus Punctilius Lugubrius travel agency.  Whether you're looking to experience the bustling city life of Corinth or Antioch, or for a quiet escape to the beaches of Illyria or Crete, leave your next vacation, business trip, or missionary journey to RPL.  They don't fiddle around..."

Nero: (scowls)

St. Paul: "Should I not have mentioned fiddling?"

Richmond, Va., 1775:

Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!  But you're still free to choose deals to die for at McClanahan's, Virginia's first name in pewter since 1717- now offering fifty percent off all flagons, porringers, and tankards!  Conveniently located in Alexandria, Richmond, Williamsburg, and now Yorktown!  Present a scrap of parchment with the code PATRICK for special buy-two-get-two-free deals on candlesticks and access to my signature line of teapots."

Berlin, 1987: 

Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Gorbachev, come to this gate.

"Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall and replace it with a stylish patio from Von Jaegermeister Home Landscaping.  You might think such features as a gazebo, a koi pond, or a Zen garden are outside your price range, but with Von Jaegermeister, becoming the talk of your neighborhood or geopolitical bloc is closer than you think.  Schedule your free consultation today, and don't forget to use code EVILEMPIRE for ten percent off all seeding purchases!"

What Really Happened in the Electoral College, II

In a previous post, I analyzed the reasons behind the wide divergence between the Electoral College and national popular vote in 2016, finding that although the Electoral College had a slight bias in favor of Obama in 2012, Trump was able to improve his margins in the crucial Great Lakes states while Hillary Clinton's improvements mostly came in California and Texas, neither of which switched any electoral votes. A further comparison of the 2012 and 2016 elections, and the shifts in the states between them, sheds light on the real function of the Electoral College in our republic. 

So, the bias in the Electoral College toward Republicans that proved decisive in 2016 was not present in 2012. Opponents of the Electoral College have a point in noting that it has a bias in favor of small states, since each state is guaranteed two electors for each of its senators. In both recent elections where the Electoral College and popular vote conflicted, the Republican carried thirty states while the Democrat carried twenty and the District of Columbia. If the Electoral College only allocated electors based on House representation, the Republican’s total would drop by sixty in both cases, while the Democrat’s would drop by forty-two. This would be enough to reverse the 2000 election results (from a 271-267 Bush victory to a 225-211 Gore one) but not 2016. Donald Trump would have won by a narrower margin (246 to 190, instead of 306 to 232), but he still would have won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote by a wider margin than Bush.

If the Electoral College’s bias toward small states alone does not account for Trump’s victory, what else does? In 2012, President Obama got sixty electoral votes from states he carried by less than five percent of the vote. He received a further eighty-two electoral votes from states (and the second congressional district in Maine) that he carried by between five and ten percent of the vote, for a total of 142 electoral votes, or just over forty percent of his total of 332 electoral votes. By contrast, Mitt Romney carried only one state (North Carolina) by less than five percent, and only three (Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona, plus one electoral vote from a congressional district in Nebraska) by a margin of between five and ten percent. Only fifty-three of Romney’s 206 electoral votes came from these states. Put another way, Obama won the electoral votes of states decided by ten percent or more fairly narrowly (190 to 153), but won a near three-to-one margin among states decided by less than ten percent (142 to 53). Where Romney won, he tended to win big; Obama carried most of the states that were decided by narrower margins.

    

           In 2016, this trend reversed between the parties and became even more pronounced. Among states and districts that were decided by ten percent of the vote or more, Hillary Clinton trounced Donald Trump, 183 electoral votes to 126. However, Hillary Clinton only carried two states by between five and ten percent, and five states by less than five percent, getting only forty-nine additional votes. Donald Trump, however, received more than half his electoral votes- 180 out of 306- from states he carried by less than ten percent of the vote.  Trump received almost eighty percent (180 out of 229) of the electoral votes from states decided by less than ten percent of the vote.

Donald Trump's narrow victories in the crucial states for 2016 allowed him to benefit from the Electoral College, but they pose the risk of a humiliating defeat this year. Because so many red states, particularly large ones, were close in 2016, a swing of a few percent of the vote to Joe Biden could dramatically reduce Trump's Electoral College tally, particularly if Biden can poach states like Ohio, Georgia, or Texas. If the most pessimistic polls for Trump are right, he could have the lowest number of electoral votes for any Republican since 1964 (currently, that is Bob Dole's loss with 159 electoral votes in 1996).

These examples show the true nature of the Electoral College. Compared to the popular vote, it punishes running up large vote totals in a few states and rewards building a coalition that can win a majority, or at least a plurality, in many states. In 2016, this meant that Donald Trump’s ability to win over the Rust Belt counted for more than Hillary Clinton’s supermajority in California, but there is no guarantee that it will not favor the Democrats in future elections, as it did as recently as 2012. Whether or not Americans support replacing the Electoral College with the national popular vote, they need to understand its true effect on our elections.

What Really Happened in the Electoral College, I

               After occurring only four times, three of them in the nineteenth century, it happened again. For decades, the possibility that the winner of the popular vote for President might lose the Electoral College was seen as a quirk of the American electoral system or a historical curiosity. Now, for the second time in less than twenty years, it was a reality.

                Sound familiar?

               In red states, Mitt Romney was an impressive vote-getter, winning by wide margins in several states that had come close to voting for President Barack Obama in 2008. He flipped Florida and Ohio, as well as three traditionally Republican states- Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina- whose diversifying electorates gave them to Obama four years ago. Yet a string of smaller battleground states- Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Wisconsin- as well as Pennsylvania, where the Romney campaign eschewed a serious effort until the last few weeks of the campaign, held for President Obama by margins of a few thousand votes each, giving the incumbent a 272-266 victory in the Electoral College even as Mitt Romney won the popular vote by roughly 800,000 votes.

States Narrowly Voting for Barack Obama, 2012
State	Margin of Victory as Percent of the Vote	Electoral Votes
Florida	0.88	29
Ohio	2.97	18
National Popular Vote	3.86	--
Virginia	3.87	13
Colorado	5.36	9
Pennsylvania	5.38	20
New Hampshire	5.58	4
Iowa	5.81	6
Nevada	6.68	6
Wisconsin	6.94	10

In 2012, The Electoral College Favored Obama

In the real world, President Obama won both the popular vote, by a margin of 3.86%, and the Electoral College, by a vote of 332 to 206.* However, a swing of about 2.2% of the vote, if it were proportionally distributed across the states, would have produced the scenario described above. President Obama won two states, Florida and Ohio, more narrowly than the popular vote, and a third, Virginia, by almost the same percentage as the popular vote. If those three states had switched to Mitt Romney, Obama still would have won the Electoral College, albeit by a narrower margin. To win the Electoral College, Romney needed a fourth state to change- and the next closest, Colorado, voted by a full percentage point and a half more for Obama than the national popular vote. Mitt Romney could have won the popular vote by up to 1.5 percent- over 1.9 million votes out of 129 million cast- and still lost the Electoral College.

Quantifying Trump’s Performance in the States

So, how did the Electoral College go from a slight bias toward the Democratic candidate to an even wider one for the Republican?

Donald Trump improved on Mitt Romney’s national popular vote total by about 3.3 percent, from just under 61 million to just under 63 million. Hillary Clinton received about 62,000 fewer votes, or 0.1 percent, than Barack Obama did in 2012. Minor party and write-in votes surged from 2.4 million in 2012 to 8.3 million in 2016, for an overall increase in voter turnout of about six percent nationwide.

If these effects were evenly distributed across the country- if Donald Trump had gained on Mitt Romney by 3.3% in every state, and Hillary Clinton had dropped off by 0.1% in every state- Clinton’s popular vote plurality would carry every Obama state from 2012 except Florida, enough for her to win.  The map and chart below compare the actual results to that theoretical result.

 

 

States with Overperformances Above 100,000 Votes
State	Predicted Result	Actual Result	Overperformance
Arizona	Trump +250,949	Trump +91,234	Clinton +159,715
California	Clinton +2,843,712	Clinton +4,269,978	Clinton +1,426,266
Georgia	Trump +376,564	Trump +211,141	Clinton +165,423
Illinois	Clinton +809,465	Clinton +944,714	Clinton +135,249
Indiana	Trump +317,619	Trump +524,160	Trump +206,541
Iowa	Clinton +66,529	Trump +147,314	Trump +213,843
Kentucky	Trump +445,077	Trump +574,117	Trump +129,040
Massachusetts	Clinton +691,413	Clinton +904,303	Clinton +212,890
Michigan	Clinton +375,602	Trump +10,704	Trump +386,306
Minnesota	Clinton +172,271	Clinton +44,593	Trump +135,396
Missouri	Trump +309,739	Trump +523,443	Trump +213,704
New York	Clinton +1,907,151	Clinton +1,736,585	Trump +170,566
Ohio	Clinton +73,920	Trump +446,837	Trump +520,757
Pennsylvania	Clinton +216,689	Trump +44,292	Trump +260,981
Tennessee	Trump +551,780	Trump +652,230	Trump +100,450
Texas	Trump +1,418,770	Trump +807,179	Clinton +611,591
Utah	Trump +513,959	Trump +204,555	Clinton +309,404
Virginia	Clinton +86,022	Clinton +212,030	Clinton +126,008
Washington	Clinton +419,562	Clinton +520,971	Clinton +101,409
West Virginia	Trump +193,676	Trump +300,577	Trump +106,901
Wisconsin	Clinton +164,040	Trump +22,748	Trump +186,788

 

Donald Trump’s overperformances were more widespread than Hillary Clinton’s. Trump overperformed in thirty-five states, while Clinton overperformed in fifteen and the District of Columbia. Hillary Clinton's overperformances were concentrated in California, where she overperformed by 1.4 million votes, and Texas, where she overperformed by over 600,000 votes. All these did was turn already blue California bluer and reduce Trump's margins in Texas, but not enough to carry the state or even make Trump devote resources to holding it. The only state where Trump overperformed by over 500,000 votes was Ohio, which flipped the state.

Among the other states where Hillary Clinton overperformed by between 100,000 and 500,000 votes, only Virginia was a battleground in 2012. Three of the others (Arizona, Georgia, and Utah) were states that are moving toward the Democrats, but not by enough for Clinton to carry them in 2016, the remaining three (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington) were safe Democratic states where she ran up the margins. Donald Trump, by contrast, had the good fortune to overperform where he most needed to: a group of states roughly bordered by the Mississippi Valley, the Great Lakes, and the Appalachians. He overperformed by between 100,000 and 500,000 votes in eleven states, and among those states, only New York was out of reach for Republicans. Five other states (Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia) were already securely Republican. The other five included the four Rust Belt states, in addition to Ohio, to switch from Obama to Trump (Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and Minnesota, where Donald Trump came within 45,000 votes of being the first Republican to carry the state since Richard Nixon’s 1972 landslide.

Hillary Clinton’s overperformances made blue states bluer or red states closer; Donald Trump’s made blue states red.