The Daily - A Field Guide to Today’s Elections

Episode Date: November 6, 2018

As the country heads to the polls, here are four themes and four races to watch. Guest: Alexander Burns, who covers national politics for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, a field guide to the midterms. Four themes and four reasons to watch. It's Tuesday, November 6th, Election Day. The polls open in about 24 hours in this huge, high-stakes, midterm election. Democrats are predicting a blue wave. Republicans say that will not happen. It is so tight. This could go either way.

Early voting is way up compared to 2014. It has not just the optics, but the tone of a presidential election. And that's where we are in American politics. Listen, it's neck and neck in about 21 races across the country. Neck and neck. So it's going to depend on turnout. In the end, it's going to come down to voter turnout. We will not bend. We will not break. We will never give in. We will never give up. We will never back down. We will never surrender. And we will always fight on to victory.

Victory! Alex Burns, today is the day. At long last. How long would you say you've been covering the midterms, if it's quantifiable? Oh, I would say almost since the end of the last election. Not quite two years, but probably 22 months. How many elections are actually happening today? On the federal level, there are 470.

There are 435 House seats on the ballot and 35 Senate seats. And then you have countless state and local elections around the country, including 38 really important governor's races. And remind us of the math that you're going to be watching today. In the House, we're looking at 60 to 70 seats, almost all of them held by Republicans, that really could go either way at this point. Democrats need to pick up 23 seats in order to take the majority. The focus there is overwhelmingly Republicans on defense. Got it. The Senate is almost the opposite picture. We have about half a dozen Senate races in states that are currently represented by Democrats where Republicans are on

offense, trying to strengthen their majority. Republicans are defending a couple seats in places like Arizona and Nevada, but overall, the Senate is about Democrats on defense. So given how many races you're watching, Alex, how are you keeping track of all of this in your head? You can break down the political map in a whole bunch of ways,

but one way to think about it is the different themes that resonate with different groups of voters and in different parts of the country. I think you could probably boil it down to four big themes. And what are those themes? Let's take them one at a time. Where should we start? Immigration. I just got back from New Mexico, the second congressional district there.

It is an enormous rural district. It's the size of the state of Florida. Hugs the Mexican border. So it is a deeply resonant issue locally in a district like this. It's not an abstract concern the way it is in a lot of places on the House map. And if there were going to be a border wall built, it would be built here. This is a district the president won by double digits. The Republican who has held the seat previously, Steve Pierce, he's running for governor. He's leaving a vacancy in the seat and the Republican running to replace him is a woman named Yvette Harrell. Meet conservative fighter Yvette Harrell, a successful businesswoman. Yvette despises big government. Very conservative state legislator. I totally support the idea of having the wall built, creating a safeguard for New Mexicans and the country as a whole. Who has been lockstep with the president on everything, including the wall. This is something that's important to our security, not only our state security, but national security.

I think we need to get to work on the wall and support the president. So this is a really good proxy for whether Trump-style immigration politics plays on the border. What about the Democrat running in the district? So the Democrat is a first-time political candidate, young woman named Xochitl Torres Small. She's a water use lawyer who is trying to cut this kind of independent profile for a Western Democrat. If we want to start solving problems again, we have to talk to each other. We have to work together.

I believe good ideas don't come with a party label. She's to the right of the National Democratic Party on a couple issues, including guns, including the environment in some cases. It's an oil and gas district. And including immigration. We need to secure our borders and enforce our laws against traffickers and violent criminals. And instead of wasting

billions on a new border wall or separating families, let's actually fix the process for work visas and provide a pathway to citizenship for those without a criminal record. She sounds a lot more like Democrats sounded on immigration, you know, 10 years ago when you would have folks like, you know, Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer talking about needing to do something about border security. It's not an option for a Democrat to run in a district like that without being credible and serious on border controls. So, Torres Small is talking about increased funding for border security. She is criticizing the Abolish ICE activist movement. So basically criticizing members of her own party.

Members of her own party. There are not a lot of members of the party who fit that profile in a place like New Mexico's 2nd District. You don't see Abolish ICE signs at Democratic events in a place like this. What is it also going to tell us about the Democratic Party and its willingness to be flexible on the question of immigration when necessary because of the local politics in a state like New Mexico. Well, we think of Democrats running right on cultural issues as something that happens in red states like West Virginia and North Dakota. In reality, it's happening all over the House map in these places where

Democrats have tried to compete in more rural, somewhat conservative-leaning areas where, you know, voters are not going to listen to you on health care if you don't gain their trust on something like immigration. And that's where this district is a test of the National Democratic Party's reach. So the question here for Democrats is, can they be where most voters are on an issue like immigration so that they can theoretically win on the other more central issues to the Democratic Party right now? in a place like this, or so offensive to more moderate voters in a place like this, that they end up not supporting a party that overall is closer to where they are on immigration and the border, that you have had this district vote very consistently for Republicans, including on immigration policy, and the question is whether Trump has taken it too far. So in a sense, this congressional race in New Mexico is about immigration, but it's

really about whether or not it can ever be about something other than immigration. That's really, really well put. It's a great test of these cultural politics, both in New Mexico, but across the Southwest generally, whether these voters who live in much closer proximity to the issue than virtually anyone else in the country are going to give a Democrat credit for moderation or whether they are going to gravitate towards a Republican who might make them uneasy in some ways, but who's just a more familiar kind of character. What's the next theme that you're looking at? You can't talk about the Senate without talking about Brett Kavanaugh and the whole nexus of issues that comes with a Supreme Court nomination. This is especially important in these deep red states where you have Democratic senators running for reelection. The best example is probably North Dakota.

I've always said that North Dakotans are more independent than people think. If you weren't, I guess I wouldn't be here. So I'm proud to be your senator now and always. This is a state that is represented by a Democrat, Heidi Heitkamp, in her first term. Very talented politician, but it's a state President Trump won by 35 points. So winning reelection for Heidi Heitkamp means talking about broadly appealing issues, stuff like health care, stuff like, you know, federal funding for different kinds of, you know, local infrastructure projects. And what you don't want to talk about is stuff like abortion and guns and Supreme Court nominees, right? So this was a close race. She was the underdog, but she had a shot to win

reelection up until the Kavanaugh vote. I wanted you to hear directly from me about why I'm voting against confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. So she was the Democrat who waited the longest to state her position, who then ultimately opposed Brett Kavanaugh. And unlike other Democrats from these red states who opposed Brett Kavanaugh, Heitkamp made no claim that she was voting on something other than the sexual assault allegations against him. I've spent much of my life in public service focused on combating domestic violence and protecting women and children from abuse.

Our actions right now are an important signal to young girls and women across the country. And that signal I hope I'm sending is I will continue to stand up and for you. Heitkamp talked about how she felt like she could not live with herself as a person, as a woman, could not be at peace with her own values if she supported this man. Because this isn't about politics. This is about a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. This is about a responsibility that we have as leaders, a responsibility that we have to exercise the judgment that we were sent here to exercise. That was not something that

voters in North Dakota wanted to hear. And how did her opponent in that race treat that decision? Well, for Kevin Cramer, he's a member of the House who's run really to the right in this race. You know, he made Kavanaugh the central theme of his campaign. These are teenagers who evidently were drunk, according to her own statement. Nothing evidently happened. Again, it was supposedly an attempt or something that never went anywhere. He made some very dismissive comments about the allegations against Kavanaugh that in

a less red state, not even in a liberal state, but in like a less super conservative state, could have been a real problem for him. But he was just fully behind the nominee at all times and basically just used it to try to remind everyone in North Dakota that Heidi Heitkamp's a Democrat and Democrats are more liberal than you are. And how did it impact the race? She fell in the polls. You know, private polling for both parties shows that Kevin Cramer built up his advantage against her. But interestingly, she became this hero, at least briefly, to liberals around the country who normally would probably not gravitate towards someone with Heidi Heitkamp's views on, you know, an issue like

guns, where she's much, much more conservative than most Democrats. She raised almost $13 million, mainly after the Kavanaugh vote. You don't raise that kind of money as a senator from North Dakota ever. So that's an enormous applause meter, mostly from people who are not in her state. But she gave Kevin Cramer an issue that money can't buy. I wonder what the lesson of that will be if, in fact, the Republican wins this race. I think that Democrats could look at this and the lesson they could draw would be that the party is just really, really far away from rural America on a lot of these cultural issues that are so important in the Supreme Court that if you are distrusted on an issue like abortion, it's just almost insurmountably difficult to win a state like North Dakota. And what would the message be for Republicans

if they carry this seat? Look, it would be that culture war works in a place like North Dakota, at least. You know, they will look at that Supreme Court fight as a moment when they secured their Senate majority. What will we have learned about being a centrist in the Senate from a state like North Dakota and many other states that are purple or red if, in fact, this one vote costs Heidi Heitkamp her seat in the Senate? It'll tell us that in a conservative state,

being a centrist is not good enough. And it'll tell us that for a senator like Heidi Heitkamp, who can only get elected in a place like North Dakota in the first place if she lives in a kind of ideological gray area, or people don't see her wearing a jersey, that she's just sort of a good person who's on North Dakota's side, that a black and white issue like the Supreme Court is just insurmountable. That the judiciary is just a place where centrists can't really go. that the judiciary is just a place where centrists can't really go. And if you're a centrist, I guess you just have to hope that you don't have to cast a vote on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year. We'll be right back. Okay, so, so far, two themes, immigration and Kavanaugh.

What's the third theme that you're watching in today's election? The third theme is guns. This is an issue that you normally associate with the right, with the NRA, with rural America. In this election, it's playing out really, really differently. really, really differently. It's not that rural voters don't care, but that the immediacy of gun violence and mass shootings and school shootings in particular has really, really resonated in the suburban and moderate districts that are just absolutely crucial to control the House. Many of these districts, tragically, are places where mass shootings have actually happened. One of those places is the 6th District of Colorado.

This is a very suburban, very diverse, very moderate district outside of Denver. It contains Aurora. It is right next to Columbine. And it has elected Mike Kaufman, a Republican, despite his pretty conservative views on guns. Why do we give more protection for any federal building than we do for a school? Force has to be met with force.

That appears likely to change today. So how are both candidates talking specifically about guns in the final weeks of the race? Well, Kauffman has over time endorsed, you know, a range of very incremental gun regulations that are designed to reassure these centrist suburban voters that he's reasonable. Part of it is looking at gun safety. Part of it is looking at mental health. Part of it is certainly looking at how do we protect our schools? You have seen the Democrat, Jason Crowe himself, run quite assertively on gun issues. This is another perfect example of Mike Hoffman and his failed leadership.

The tens of thousands of dollars that he has taken from the gun lobby. All he does is tweet about his thoughts and prayers, and he does nothing. You've seen national groups funded by Michael Bloomberg go into this race. You've seen national groups funded by Michael Bloomberg go into this race. One national group is running an ad that shows a simulated text message exchange between a young woman and her mother during a school shooting. And it's just tapping into the visceral fear and anxiety around the gun issue that you have in so many of these moderate areas. The NRA has given Mike Kaufman more money than any other Colorado member of Congress. Mike Kaufman's NRA rating, A. And how effective has the gun issue been for the Democrat in this race as he tries to unseat the Republican Kaufman?

Well, the folks involved in this race think it's been hugely effective. And there's basically unanimous consensus in both parties that Mike Hoffman is going to lose today. And lose because of guns. It is one of the driving issues in this race. I'd put it up there

with President Trump's divisive personality and health care as just central to the Democratic appeal to voters in a place like this. So what happened in this district, which we know has been touched

by gun violence in the past? You mentioned Aurora, the horrible theater shooting. and this district is nearby Columbine. It knows gun violence. Why suddenly is this issue so prominent where it hadn't been before? Well, some of it is just the news. This is a place where people always support gun control in the abstract, but it's not always one of the most important voting issues for them. And that has just changed, I think, especially in the wake of Parkland and in the wake of the Pittsburgh shooting, that if you're a suburban moderate

who's in the past voted for Republicans while being uneasy about the party's position on guns, well, that uneasiness might be decisive this year. So in a way, the issue is gun violence in itself. And in a larger sense, it's a reminder for moderates that the Republican Party is too conservative for them. Alex, if Crow, the Democrat, wins this race today, as we expect, will we wake up tomorrow and find that the politics around the gun issue is meaningfully changed,

not just in Colorado, but around the country? I think there's a very good chance that this race is not going to be an isolated race. I would point people to the statewide elections in a place like Florida and in a place like Nevada where you've had just historically horrendous mass shootings over the last two years. These are states that in the past have been solidly pro-Second Amendment, NRA-type states, and you have had Democrats running very assertively this year on banning assault weapons, imposing background checks, all kinds of regulations

that in the past a cautious Democrat would not have touched. That feels like a pretty significant development. I think it is. I wouldn't expect that under President Trump you would see gun control legislation in this Congress. But I think if you have a bunch of Mike Kaufman's lose tonight, it will send a signal to Republicans about the issues that just make them out of step with these districts around the country. I guess it also means that at a certain point, mass shootings touch enough people that they inevitably change politics. Yeah. I mean, it's a tragic political reality that this is not an abstract issue for most

people, that gun violence isn't something that happens somewhere else. So finally, Alex, what's the fourth and final theme of these midterms today? Well, we might be saving the biggest for last here because the fourth is health care and specifically the very popular regulations protecting people who have preexisting medical conditions from being denied coverage by insurers. You know, Joe Biden in 2008 had that great line that Rudy Giuliani's campaign was a noun and verb in 9-11. I think you could say that the Democratic strategy this year has been a noun and verb and pre-existing conditions. Senator Cruz has voted to take away health care from millions of American families and vows to repeal protections for pre-existing conditions. Mr. DeSantis voted to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people based off of pre-existing conditions. My opponent, Congressman Gianforte, expressed support for the Graham-Cassidy bill that would have prohibited the protection for pre-existing conditions. My opponent, Congressman Gianforte, expressed support for the Graham-Cassidy bill

that would have prohibited the protection for pre-existing conditions. The administration's decision to abandon people with pre-existing conditions just isn't a flip-flop. It's a broken promise. But I think even the most optimistic Democrats a year and a half ago would be surprised to see just how compelling an issue it is,

even in some really conservative states. Missouri's a really good example of that. Two years ago, I beat breast cancer. Like thousands of other women in Missouri, I don't talk about it much. But those who face cancer and many other illnesses have a pre-existing condition when it comes to health coverage.

Claire McCaskill is running for her third term as a senator there. This is a state that has moved far to the right over the last few years. Used to be a swing state, but it's been a while. Unfortunately, Josh Hawley filed a lawsuit letting insurance companies deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. Her challenger, Josh Hawley, this young state attorney general, has been a conservative darling on a whole range of issues facing the courts.

One of them is challenging the Affordable Care Act. That's just wrong, and I'm fighting to stop it. I'm Claire McCaskill, and I approve this message because the insurance companies already have too many senators on their side. So how has it played out in the final weeks of the Senate race there? Well, this race has moved to a point where Josh Hawley is on television. We've got two perfect little boys. Just ask their mama.

Earlier this year, we learned our oldest has a rare chronic disease, pre-existing condition. Talking directly to the camera about how he wants to protect people with pre-existing conditions. I'm Josh Hawley. I support forcing insurance companies to cover all pre-existing conditions.

And Claire McCaskill knows it. Isn't Hawley's decision to get up on camera and say, I want to defend pre-existing conditions as an element of the Affordable Care Act, totally contradictory, given that he's tried to undo the Affordable Care Act as attorney general? And I wonder what would prompt him to essentially flip his positions on this. It's totally contradictory, and it's something that you've seen Republicans around the country do, people who have routinely voted to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act going on television or into their campaign events and saying,

but by the way, I'm going to protect people with preexisting conditions. It just doesn't work that way as a practical matter. Now that it's election season, these same Republicans are running millions of dollars worth of ads around the country saying we're going to protect pre-existing conditions. Protect pre-existing conditions. So if you're Josh Hawley and you feel the need to do that on television at this stage in the campaign, it shows that you think that it's a really powerful issue where you need to reassure voters who would be for you if not for that issue. You know, when Republicans have to run against the Affordable Care Act, but not sort of as a proxy for Barack Obama, that you just have to talk about the policy. It's become much more challenging. You know, our colleague Jonathan Martin has a great line where he says that the part of Obamacare that conservatives hated most was Obama. And now that it's not an Obama issue, it's just a health care issue,

it turns out that center-left policy is pretty popular, even in more conservative places. And how tight is this race? And how certain are you that health care will be decisive today in the Missouri Senate race? This might be the closest Senate race in the country. If you took pre-existing conditions out of the equation and this was just a race about Trump, it'd be over. was just a race about Trump, it'd be over. With all this in mind, Alex, what does it mean that these are the four issues that may decide the outcome of the midterms? Well, I think these midterm elections are about a big cultural and political realignment in the country, where both parties are really redefining who their constituencies are. You see Democrats trying to win over historically Republican groups like white

college-educated folks in the suburbs. You see Republicans trying to make sure that those less affluent white voters in rural America or in former industrial states who liked President Trump go the rest of the way and vote for Republicans for Congress. This is a reshaping of the left and right coalitions in this country. These issues all reflect that, that you have on the one hand Democrats speaking to people about issues like guns in order to get them to break their historic affinity for the Republican Party on issues like taxes. order to get them to break their historic affinity for the Republican Party on issues like taxes. You hear Republicans talking about the Supreme Court with voters who might like in other situations what Democrats have to say about the economy and social benefits.

And you have Democrats talking about health care to those same voters to try to overcome their cultural affinity for the Republican Party. So every one of these issues is sort of helping to define the limits of that support on both sides. Look, I think if Democrats do really well, especially in the House, they're going to look at issues like guns and health care as having been totally validated by voters that these are concerns that cleave the political middle from the Republican Party. If the Republicans do really, really well,

they're going to look at issues like the court and issues like immigration and say cultural polarization is working for us. issues like immigration, and say cultural polarization is working for us. So this is really a fork in the road here for whether you're going to see this moderate purple coalition emerge against President Trump, or whether you're going to see this very solid conservative coalition on his side prevail. very solid conservative coalition on his side prevail. Alex, thank you very much.

We're going to keep talking to you today, throughout Election Day, and I hope it's not inconvenient. It could never be inconvenient, Michael. I choose to believe you on that. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow. Don't forget! Don't forget! So if you don't like what's going on right now... We're told there's a silent majority out there. I hope there is. Don't complain. When they go low, we go vote.

Don't get anxious. I would want to remind all the evangelicals and Christians, people of faith... Don't throw up your hands in despair. ...to pray before you vote. Don't boo. Because the stakes are very high. And when I stand in the polls, I do what Maya Angelou says. Don't hashtag. I come as one, but I stand as 10,000.

I don't care that you don't think it makes a difference. Let's go vote. People died so that you could go into that goddamn voting.