election

Some electoral firsts, occasioned by the 2026 election for the House of Representatives

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

Staying up late last night watching election returns (as I do), one thing the commentators kept saying was it was a day of firsts, historic results. And it got me thinking about one of those anticipated firsts: assuming there are no more surprises, New York’s Hakeem Jeffries is poised to become the first Black person to be Speaker of the House.

Beyond the fact itself, what caught my attention is that we normally associate “firsts” with increasing levels of difficulty. The first person to row across the Atlantic Ocean came before the first to row across the Pacific, because the Pacific is larger, more difficult. The first people to climb Mt. Everest came after all the shorter, less dangerous mountains had been summitted. Similarly, we unconsciously rank political offices in order of difficulty: President ranks above Vice President, which (in our minds) ranks above Speaker of the House, and so on. And yet, the first Black person to be President, Barack Obama (2009–17) came before the first Black Vice President, Kamala Harris (2021–25), who came before the expected for Black Speaker.

On the other hand, the first woman to be Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (2007–11 and 2019–23), came before the first woman to be Vice President (Kamala Harris, 2021–25), while we still await the first woman to be President (and yes, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote for President in 2016, but she didn’t win the electoral vote).

A few other political firsts in that lineage:

John Willis Menard of Louisiana was the first Black person elected to the House of Representatives, in 1868 (but the election was contested, so he wasn’t seated).

Hiram Revels of Mississippi was the first Black person elected to the US Senate, in 1870. That same year, Joseph Rainey of South Carolina was the first Black person to serve in the House of Representatives. In 1874, Rainey was the first Black person to preside over the House, serving as Speaker pro tempore.

In 1879, Blanche K. Bruce of Mississippi became the first Black person to preside over the Senate. He was also the first to serve a full term as Senator (1875–81); Revels served just over a year. In 1881, Bruce became the first Black person whose signature appeared on US paper currency, in his new role as Register of the Treasury.

Robert C. Weaver was the first Black Cabinet Secretary, serving as the first Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1966–68).

In 1967, Thurgood Marshall was the first Black person appointed to the Supreme Court.

In 1989, Colin Powell was the first Black person to serve as Chairman the Joint Chiefs, and in 2001, he became the first to be Secretary of State.

The first Black person to be elected a governor was Douglas Wilder in Virginia in 1990.

And a few other female firsts:

First woman to serve as President pro tempore of the Senate: Patty Murray of Washington (2023–25).

First woman to serve as Secretary of State: Madeleine Albright (1997–2001).

First woman to serve in the Cabinet: Frances Perkins, who was Secretary of Labor (1933–45).

First woman to serve on the Supreme Court: Sandra Day O’Connor (1981–2006).

First woman to be elected to the Senate: Hattie Caraway of Arkansas (1931–45). Fifteen states have not elected any female Senators: Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.

First woman to be elected to the House of Representatives: Jeannette Rankin of Montana (1917–19 and 1941–43). She is the only woman ever to represent Montana in House. Mississippi is the only remaining state to have never sent a woman to the House of Representatives.

First woman to be elected governor: Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming (1925–27). She is the only woman to have served as governor of Wyoming, and then became the first woman to be director of the US Mint (1933–53). Ross beat Miriam Ferguson of Texas to the governor’s office by 15 days.

Hakeem Jeffries

Don’t like Congress? Your opinion doesn’t matter.

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

RealClear Polling doesn’t show a Congressional approval rating above 40% in the last 15 years. In the short term, Ballotopedia agrees. Gallup has Congress’s job approval rating in the teens.

In other words, everywhere we look, nobody likes what Congress is doing or how they’re doing their jobs. Every news story using those numbers predicts a massive change in Congress at the midterm election, shifting control to the Democratic party, and watchers hope they’re right.

But what none of those polls and none of those pundits are doing is looking at four hundred and thirty-five individual campaigns for four hundred and thirty-five individual seats in the House of Representatives.

And that’s why I think a lot of people looking forward to that massive change are going to be very disappointed next January 3, when the 120th Congress is seated. It’s very difficult to do legitimate polling on such a granular level, but the way our government is put together, combining the results of such tiny polling samples is the only way to get a legitimate estimation of what is going to happen. Because while the sentiments of 55%, or 60%, or 70% of the voting public in the US may be with the Democrats, that doesn’t matter. What matters is which candidate gets the greater number of votes in the California 41st, and the Texas 32nd, and the Florida 9th, and the New York 15th, and on and on and on. Each district, by itself, in an election of several hundred thousand people, upon which the opinions of 99.8% of the population matters not one whit.

Congressional approval ratings are always low. People never like what Congress—as a whole—is doing, or its direction. If that were the only thing that mattered, we’d see a tidal wave of electoral defeats among Representatives every two years. But we don’t. We don’t see that tidal wave, and we won’t as long as we have a body made up of representatives by geography who have chosen the boundary lines of their own districts in order to guarantee their re-election. And we, the voters, always vote to re-elect our own Congressional representatives.

As Ballotopedia told us, in the election of 2024, fifteen Representatives running for re-election were defeated in primary or general elections. Further, they say, since 2014 (six elections), a total of 125 House incumbents were defeated: an average of 21 per election (remember, out of 435 seats).

That’s the reason we keep getting the same non-functional Congress we all hate not doing what we want: because we only vote for our own representative. It doesn’t matter what I think of the Speaker—who lives in Louisiana. And it doesn’t matter what I think of the minority leader—who lives in the next district over from mine in Brooklyn. Neither does my opinion of any of the 432 other members of the House matter. I only have a say in who will represent New York’s 9th district. And the two major political parties have done such an excellent job of choosing their voters through political gerrymandering that almost none of the 435 districts have any chance of changing the party of the person who represents them.

A year ago—in April of 2025—Fair Vote said that 81% of the House seats were already decided… for the 2026 election! And this is not surprising or new. It’s been going on for decades.

So when everyone around me expresses optimism for change following the election of 2026, I’m the Eeyore. I’m the one who is not looking forward to the results, because I don’t expect very much, if anything, to change. Unite America claimed that only 69 of the seats were competitive elections in 2024. We’ve seen absolutely no reason to think it will be any different this time around.
https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/research-brief-why-are-most-congressional-elections-uncompetitive-2

And this is one of those times that I don’t have a solution to propose. We’re stuck. We’ve let the parties gerrymander the country too damn far, and we can’t find a way out of it. So as much as I hate that Congress has abdicated its responsibilities; as much as I hate that Congress—even if its members wanted to—can’t do anything it should; as much as I hate the political gridlock caused by extreme politicians who only campaign in the primaries because they don’t have to compete in a general election… I fear we’re stuck with it all until we can find a way to tear down walls of power that the Democans and Republicrats have built for themselves.

Put simply: we’re screwed.

I Voted for Harris

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

On Sunday, I voted (early) in this year’s elections. I voted for Kamala Harris for president, and I think you should, too.

Why did I vote for her? Let me tell you.

I voted for her not for any specific policy promise or rhetorical flourish. I voted for her because I think that when she is sitting at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, and an issue is brought before her that she needs to decide, her first thought is going to be “what is the best decision for the country?” If Donald Trump is sitting at that desk, however, I think his first thought will be “what is the best decision for me and my friends?” That difference is the only reason I needed to make my decision. But I’ll go a little further for the rest of you.

I think Kamala Harris will surround herself with appointees, advisors, and assistants who will also be thinking “what is best for the country?” I think she will seek out the smartest, most capable people possible. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has already told us who he’ll be looking to appoint, and who he won’t, and I don’t think they’ll be working for our best interests. I don’t trust the cadre around him, and I don’t trust his judgment in finding more appointees or advisors.

You can look at any of the campaign nonsense you want—taxes and tariffs, deplorables and enemies, fascism and greatness—none of what they’re saying today will matter after the inauguration. The only thing that will matter is who is making the decisions, and what is uppermost in their minds when they make those decisions. That’s why I voted for Kamala Harris, and why I urge you to do the same.

A Vampire is Running for President: Thank God!

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

A press release from Fantastic Books:

It’s been a horrific election season. Supporters on both sides are quite certain the other candidate can’t be human. Maybe we’d be better off voting for an actual monster!

Should being outed as a real vampire disqualify one from running for the presidency of the United States? Michael A. Ventrella’s hilarious Bloodsuckers answers that question.

Disgraced journalist Steven Edwards considers the “Batties”—the loonies who believe that vampires are real and Norman Mark is one—just another crazy tin-foil-hat extremist group. Then someone shoots at Mark, changes into a bat, and flies away before Steve’s eyes, leaving him as the prime suspect. With the help of the Batties, Steve goes underground. The only way he can establish his innocence is by proving vampires exist—not an easy task while on the run from both the FBI and the bloodsuckers.

Fantastic Books is releasing a new edition of Bloodsuckers right now, timed to coincide with “the most consequential presidential election in American history.” But aren’t they all? We’ve been tuned in to news of this election non-stop for years; it’s time to take a break. Read Bloodsuckers, and put it all into perspective.

Bloodsuckers: A Vampire Runs for President
Michael A. Ventrella
$15.99, 250 pages, trade paperback (ebook $7.99)
publication date: October 29, 2024
ISBN: 978-1-5154-5828-9

Bloodsuckers—and all Fantastic Books books—are distributed via Ingram. Review copies are available upon request.

    Can New York Vote Republican?

    ~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

    A friend asked me how many Republican presidents have carried the electoral votes of New York State. It’s a simple enough question. But I think it may be masking something else. My friend may be wondering if the present is monolithic: that the way things are is the way they have always been, and always will be.

    New York is currently overwhelmingly Democratic—so much so that it’s nearly inconceivable that New York would vote Republican for president. In 2004, 58.37% of the vote in New York was for John Kerry, the Democrat (he earned 48.3% of the popular vote nationwide). In 2008, Barack Obama took 62.88% of New York (52.9% nationwide). In 2012, Obama got 63.35% of New York (51.1% nationwide). In 2016, Hilary Clinton took 59.01% of New York (48.2% nationwide). And in 2020, Joe Biden garnered 60.87% of New York (51.3% nationwide).

    But reality is not quite so unchanging.

    There have been 42 elections with a Republican candidate on the ballot for president (the first was John C. Fremont in 1856). In those elections, New York has voted for the Republican candidate 20 times, and 22 times for the Democrat. When New York votes Republican, that candidate has won 17 times (New York voted for unsuccessful Republicans Fremont in 1856, Hughes in 1916, and Dewey in 1948). When New York votes Democratic, that candidate has won 15 times (New York voted for unsuccessful Democrats Seymour in 1868, Tilden in 1876, Humphrey in 1968, Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Hilary Clinton in 2016).

    So yes, in the current era, New York state voting Republican is highly unlikely. But such was not always the case. And it may not always be the case in the future. The key take-away from these numbers is: things change. The Republicans may be able to divorce themselves from the insanity of the Trumpian party, and once again field rational candidates for national office. The Democrats may become unhinged through their own acceptance of a radical fringe. The one thing we know for certain is that humans are very good at extrapolating trends, but absolutely terrible and foreseeing inflection points in those trends.

    J.D. Vance’s Youth

    ~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

    For those who haven’t heard: Donald Trump chose Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential running mate in this year’s election.

    I’ve been listening to the talking heads as they keep coming back to Vance’s youth: his fortieth birthday will be August 2. I’m not talking about experience, but simply his age.

    While the millennials they’ve interviewed are thrilled that one of their generation is on the ticket, the talking heads have several times compared his age to Theodore Roosevelt’s (who was 42 years 128 days old when he took office as vice president, but six months later, William McKinley was assassinated, and TR became the youngest-ever president). Interestingly—at least, to me—they’re not talking about Richard Nixon, who turned 40 two weeks before he was inaugurated as vice president in 1953 (he served two terms under Dwight Eisenhower, lost the presidential election of 1960 to John Kennedy, and then was elected president in 1968).

    The record-holder in terms of being the youngest vice president is John C. Breckinridge, James Buchanan’s vice president. Breckinridge was 36 years 318 days old when he was inaugurated in 1857. He had served in the House of Representatives from 1851 to 1855, and after his vice presidency, served several months in the Senate, before siding with the Confederacy (the Senate branded him a traitor, and expelled him in December 1861). He later served as the CSA’s fifth and final Secretary of War, from February to May 1865.

    Announcing way too early?

    ~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

    I’ve been mulling the current presidential election season. Specifically, I’ve been wondering if Joe Biden might have more easily opted to be a one-term president if he hadn’t had to announce his attentions so far in advance of the election. After all, if he’d said—in April 2023—that he wasn’t running for another term, he would have been a lame duck for 21 months, nearly half of his term.

    So I’ve dug out the data from the primary era of presidential campaigns, to see if my assumption was correct. Here’s what I found.

    Lyndon Johnson was in the race ten months before election day. On March 12, 1968, he won 49 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, barely beating Eugene McCarthy’s 42 percent. Four days later, Robert F. Kennedy got into the race. Johnson announced his withdrawal from the race March 31, 1968, 219 days before the election of 1968.

    Richard Nixon authorized the formation of his re-election campaign committee on January 7, 1972, 305 days before the election of 1972. He won the election in one of the greatest landslides in presidential history.

    Gerald Ford launched his presidential campaign July 8, 1975, one year and 117 days before the election of 1976. He lost a surprisingly close race to Jimmy Carter.

    Jimmy Carter launched his re-election bid on December 4, 1979, 336 days before the election of 1980. He lost handily to Ronald Reagan.

    Ronald Reagan announced his re-election campaign on January 29, 1984, 282 days before the election of 1984. His margin of victory was almost as large as Nixon’s.

    George H.W. Bush announced his re-election campaign on February 12, 1992, 265 days before the election of 1992. He lost a three-way race to Bill Clinton.

    Bill Clinton announced his re-election campaign on April 14, 1995, one year and 202 days before the election of 1996. He won in another three-way race, becoming the only president to win two terms without ever garnering a majority of the popular vote.

    George W. Bush announced his re-election campaign on May 16, 2003, one year and 171 days before the election of 2004. He won in a less contentious election than his first.

    Barack Obama announced his re-election campaign on April 4, 2011, one year and 213 days before the election of 2012. He won in a closer election than his first.

    Donald Trump announced his re-election campaign on January 20, 2017—the day he was inaugurated—three years and 288 days before the election of 2020. He lost the election.

    Joe Biden announced his re-election campaign on April 25, 2023, one year and 191 days before the election of 2024.

    Conclusion: it wasn’t Donald Trump or the 24-hour-a-day give-us-an-election-so-we-don’t-have-to-report-actual-news news cycle that caused Joe Biden to have to announce so early. Rather, it was Bill Clinton who started this absurd trend, and Biden is just doing what his predecessors did. (I’m leaving out Ford because he was a special circumstance in so many ways.)

    Also, how long before the election a president starts running for re-election doesn’t seem to have an effect on the outcome of the election.

    PresidentRe-election AnnouncementDays Until Election
    Richard NixonJanuary 7, 1972305
    Gerald FordJuly 8, 1975482
    Jimmy CarterDecember 4, 1979336
    Ronald ReaganJanuary 29, 1984282
    George H.W. BushFebruary 12, 1992265
    Bill ClintonApril 14, 1995567
    George W. BushMay 16, 2003536
    Barack ObamaApril 4, 2011578
    Donald TrumpJanuary 20, 20171,383
    Joe BidenApril 25, 2023556

    Who else is he paying, or paying him?

    ~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

    Donald Trump is a convicted felon, joining the ignominious ranks of Aaron Burr[1], John C. Breckenridge[2], and John Tyler[3]. Even though his conviction was on the least consequential of the four cases currently pending against him, we now live in a world where a former President of the United States is a convicted felon. But does it really mean anything? Those who support him so ardently will continue to support him. Those who do not support him don’t need new reasons to not support him. And the undecided voters—the key to most elections in this country—are a small and shrinking percentage this time around, since the major candidates are both completely known quantities.

    The conviction itself is not the sad event. The sad event was when Donald Trump shamed the office by fomenting insurrection during the ballot counting. It was the entire year of 2020, when he spent so much effort making people mistrust the electoral system, because he knew he wouldn’t be able to win a fair election. It was when he urged others to help him cheat just to retain the office he could not legitimately claim. And those things will be adjudicated in the further trials… if they are ever allowed to proceed.

    The current conviction is simply a confirmation of what we’ve known about Donald Trump all along: that he’s a liar, a grifter, a thief, who will do or say anything to protect himself, regardless of its legality or morality.

    While the actual crime is fairly small potatoes, it is entirely in keeping with Trump’s character. What makes it so egregious is that it was committed by a presidential candidate. But even that is something we should (unfortunately) have come to expect from him. He keeps telling us who he is; we are the fools for constantly being surprised. He keeps begging us to pay attention only to the show that he is, to not look behind the curtain. And that’s what this case was about: the hidden back-story that is even less appealing. And that’s been his entire career. Keeping a porn star from saying he’s a sexual predator? That’s tiny. What I want to know is why is he still the only president in living memory to not release his tax returns? What is hiding in those documents that he so assiduously does not want people to know about him?

    [1] Vice President Aaron Burr (1801–05) arguably committed treason by working with Mexico to overthrow Spanish rule in 1807, but was acquitted due to the paucity of evidence.

    [2] Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1857–61) was representing Kentucky in the US Senate in 1861 when he declared that the Union no longer existed and that Kentucky should be free to choose her own course. He enlisted in the Confederate army, was indicted for treason in U.S. federal district court in Frankfort on November 6, 1861, and on December 2, 1861, the Senate declared him a traitor and expelled him.

    [3] President John Tyler (1841–45) presided over the Washington Peace Conference in February 1861, which was an effort to prevent the Civil War. The convention sought a compromise, but Tyler voted against the conference’s resolutions. At the same time, he was elected to the Virginia Secession Convention, and presided over it as well. Tyler voted for secession, and negotiated the terms for Virginia’s entry into the Confederate States of America. On June 14, he signed the Ordinance of Secession, and then was elected to the Provisional Confederate Congress, where he served until just before his death in 1862. In November 1861, he was elected to the Confederate House of Representatives but he died of a stroke before the first session could open in February 1862. Because of his allegiance to the Confederacy, his was the only presidential death to go unrecognized in Washington.

    Justice delayed is… what the guilty want

    ~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

    Donald Trump has proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: his “delay delay delay” legal strategy is brilliant, and nearly always effective.

    The defendant has the right to a speedy trial, but perhaps there should be some consideration of the victim in that dictum, too. In these multiple cases, the defendant doesn’t want a speedy trial. The longer the trials are delayed, the more doubt can be sewn, and the greater the chance he can escape ever having to stand trial at all. The victims, in the meantime, have no recourse. We appear to have suffered from his actions—but await the outcomes of several trials to determine if in fact his actions caused harm and were contrary to the law. We continue to suffer from the lack of resolution of those cases, and there’s nothing we can do.