A History of Polling and Predictions for This Election

This election is from the information available, going to be a coin flip. I hope to do better than a coin flip in these predictions I will make. First thing’s first, however, a history of RealClearPolitics average polling for major races (President, Senator). Gubernatorial races are not figuring prominently this year, and the only close one to speak of worth attention is New Hampshire, where Republican Kelly Ayotte is slightly leading in polling at the moment. The endorsement of Governor Sununu may be sufficient to put her over the top. Before we carry on here, I want to go over some polling history.

Presidency

Presidential Election2016Net Bias2020
StateRCP AverageActualRCP AverageActualNet Bias
AZR +4R +3.5R +0.5D +0.9D +0.3D +0.6
GAR +4.8R +5.1D +0.3R +1D +0.3R +1.3
MID +3.4R +0.3D +3.7D +4.2D +2.8D +1.4
NVR +0.8D +2.4R +3.2D +2.4D +2.4None
NCR +1R +3.7D +2.7R +0.2R +1.3D +1.1
PAD +1.9R +0.7D +2.6D +1.2D +1.2None
WID +6.5R +0.7D +7.2D +6.7D +0.7D +6

This is indicative of largely Democratic bias over the last two cycles, but 2012 had Republican bias, and as you will see, the 2022 midterms had a considerable Republican bias, but there is a caveat to this one.

Let’s look at some indicators:

Good for Trump:

. Republicans outnumber Democrats nationwide, a new development (Archacki). The independent vote may turn out to be the deciding factor, however.

On November 1st, 538 put Trump at a slight advantage with a 53% chance to win, but greater odds have been overcome, most notably by Trump in 2016.

The betting markets are favoring a Trump victory. The predictive performance of the betting markets since 1916 has only failed thrice: in 1916 itself, 1948 (polling ended two weeks before the election in that one), and the tremendous upset of 2016.

Per Nate Cohn, there isn’t evidence yet that the pollsters’ Trump voter counting problems are fixed.

Nate Silver, formerly of 538, predicted a Trump win up until final projection.

The polling of the election may suffer from a non-response bias that favors Trump (Grover).

Defections from the Democrats in Michigan from Arab American voters, with a possibility that Trump gets more of them than Harris does, with left-wing Arab Americans potentially voting for Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

The Trump campaign, according to Jack Herrera of Politico, has consistently had a stronger ground game in Pennsylvania than the Harris campaign, which could spell victory in the state despite the “garbage island” incident. As someone who has worked in campaigns, I strongly believe in ground game. In 2020, I knew the Democrats were not going to do as well as polls predicted because they were behind on ground game, namely door knocking, and particularly so in Florida. However, although Trump himself survived COVID, his reelection did not.

Kamala Harris is not an inspiring candidate aside from her being a woman and most importantly, not Trump, at least from a standpoint of those not ideologically motivated. Her record in the Senate was one of the most liberal, and she campaigned as a hard California liberal in the 2020 Democratic primary. 

Republicans have higher favorability on the economy per Gallup polling. The last time a party’s candidate for president lost when the party had an edge on the top issue, which is the economy this year, it was in 1948. And I’ve mentioned the issue of polling in 1948.

Good for Harris:

Historian Allan Lichtman’s keys to the presidency system has predicted since 1980 the outcomes of all presidential elections except 2000.

The Des Moines Register poll of Iowa actually puts her three points ahead. This is most likely an outlier, but this poll has had some good history behind it, but an Emerson poll also came out that had Trump up in Iowa by ten points and Emerson is a highly reputable firm. If the Iowa poll is indicative of movement towards the Democrats in Iowa, then that doesn’t speak well for Trump’s ability to win less solid states. But one must remember of course that this time their off.

Per 538’s Nate Cohn, pollsters may be overly weary of underestimating the Trump vote, making an undercounting again seemingly unlikely.

Nate Silver’s final projection gives Harris the slightest edge over Trump.

The subject of abortion may be a sleeper factor here that increases Harris’s share considerably with moderate and independent women and wins her the election.

The “island of garbage” line at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally, which may tip some needed Latino voters in Pennsylvania.  

Donald Trump has a lot of baggage to put it mildly, and some older voters may be nervous about him being the more chaotic candidate, again putting it mildly.

Michigan Democrats have a stronger ground game than Republicans. Although Republicans have undergone some course correction after the catastrophic tenure of Kristina Karamo as party chairman and this will help them some, early voting is indicating a trend towards an over 50% turnout from Detroit (Massey & Guillen). A 50%+ turnout is an indicator of a Democratic win.

Now…let’s look at the RCP poll averages from Monday evening for the seven swing states. I know Minnesota and New Hampshire were recently added to tossups, but I doubt this is going to happen.

Arizona – Trump +2.8

Republicans have been making gains in Arizona in registration since 2020, and there is no recent poll that has Trump in a polling deficit. The closest one is Morning Consult, which has a tie. In this final stretch, Arizona is the sick man of the swing states for the Harris campaign and the champion for Trump’s. Trump wins the state.

Georgia – Trump +1.7

Most polls have Trump leading in Georgia, with New York Times/Siena being the only one to indicate a Harris lead. NYT/Siena is a highly credible polling firm, but so is Emerson, which indicates a one-point lead for Trump. I think Trump pulls through in Georgia.

Michigan – Harris +0.5

The numbers in Detroit, as I mentioned in the positives for Harris, make me think that Michigan, despite Arab American defections, will stay blue this time. The polling momentum appears going slightly to Trump, but a flurry of polls late in the game pointed to a GOP wave in 2022 that didn’t materialize in most of the nation.  What’s more, the Michigan GOP is still recovering from the disastrous tenure of Kristina Karamo as its party chair. I think ground game matters a lot, and Democrats have a better ground game in Michigan. Much of the ground game right now is through Elon Musk’s America PAC, which is a major push to reach people with a low propensity for voting (LaHut). Harris wins Michigan, the sick man of the swing states for Republicans.

Nevada – Trump +0.6

This one is rather interesting. Although Trump is up, Nevada has had some history of over-polling Republicans. However, it was one of the states in 2020 in which the pollster average was the actual margin of victory for Biden. Nevada political expert Jon Ralston has predicted that Harris will win but by the narrowest of margins with mail-in ballots. Ralston is a credible source, as he predicted the outcome of 2020 in Nevada as well as Republican Joe Lombardo winning in the gubernatorial election in 2022 and Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto winning reelection to the Senate. However, Ralston has also predicted margins of victory, and he has overpredicted Democratic margins in the past. He predicts for this one that Harris will win by 0.3% (Schwartz). In 2020, Ralston predicted a Biden victory in Nevada by four points, but Biden actually won by 2.4%, a difference of 1.6% in favor of Democrats and in 2022 he predicted a 2 point victory for Masto but Masto won with 0.8%. If his being off by 1.2 to 1.6% in favor of Democrats holds up, Trump wins the state. The state’s Democratic registration edge also has declined considerably from 2020 and many of the state’s new residents are from California and may be against their old state’s political leadership. Not good for Harris if true. Ben Margiott of Las Vegas Channel 3 News reports that “Republicans continue to hold a roughly 4% turnout advantage”. I predict a Trump win by the skin of his teeth.

Ralston’s 2020 and 2022 predictions:

https://www.reddit.com/r/YAPms/comments/1gjqsc6/jon_ralstons_2020_presidential_and_2022_senate/#lightbox

North Carolina – Trump +1.2

Trump has been leading in most polls in North Carolina, and the early vote looks good for Republicans and not so good for Democrats. That being said, early voting is not necessarily predictive. It is difficult to see how Harris outperforms 2020 Biden, save a considerable enough migration of college-educated whites from four years ago. I predict a Trump win.

Pennsylvania – Trump +0.4

Most agree that this is the must-win of the swing states. The interesting thing about Pennsylvania is it is one of the two states in which the poll average matched the outcome in 2020! Furthermore, the ground game of the GOP in this state has been outperforming that of the Democrats for months (Herrera). However, there has been more elderly Democratic early voting, which may not bode well for the GOP. Democrats, however, have an advantage in early voting shaved by 600,000 votes. With more Republican votes in, this gives them more room for GOTV on Election Day. On balance, I call this one for Trump.

Wisconsin – Harris +0.4

Harris’s numbers look the second best in Wisconsin, and I think the days of polling discrepancies in the state may be over. I think that Harris is favored to win the state based on Democratic ground game, which is stronger than the Republican game in the state.

Senate

Something to bear in mind about Senate polls historically is that there has always been at least one upset every year. An upset is defined in this post as one in which the opposite result occurs from the RCP polling average.

Races in which upsets occurred over the past ten years:

North Carolina, 2014: Tillis vs. Hagan

RCP Projection: D +1.2

Actual Result: R +1.7

Democrats spent the most money on this race to protect Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina and she led in most polls, but the midterm went the Republicans’ way and Tillis pulled off an upset.

New Hampshire, 2016: Ayotte vs. Hassan

RCP Projection: R +1.5

Actual Result: D +0.2

Senator Kelly Ayotte was leading in most polls up to the election, but as the state voted for Clinton, Governor Maggie Hassan got enough of the vote to pull a squeaker.

Pennsylvania, 2016: McGinty vs. Toomey

RCP Projection: D +2

Actual Result: R +1.6

Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania won a narrow reelection victory even though only poll put him ahead, this tracked with Trump winning the state, although Toomey ran ahead of Trump.

Wisconsin, 2016: Johnson vs. Feingold

RCP Projection: D +2.7

Actual Result: R +3.4

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was thought at the beginning of 2016 to have a DOA campaign. However, despite grim prognostications throughout the year and most polls of the Senate race putting former Senator Russ Feingold at an advantage, Johnson won by 3.4. Feingold’s RCP average was 2.7 up.

Arizona, 2018: McSally vs. Sinema

RCP Projection: R +1

Actual Result: D +2.3

Republican Senator Martha McSally was facing popularity problems and ran a lackluster campaign. Despite late polls seeming to go her way, Kyrsten Sinema defeated her.

Florida, 2018: Nelson vs. Scott

RCP Projection: D +2.4

Actual Result: R +0.2

Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida after three terms was defeated by Republican Rick Scott. Nelson had led in most polls, but there was an increase in the number of polls that put Scott over the top.

Indiana, 2018: Braun vs. Donnelly

RCP Projection: D +13.

Actual Result: R +5.9

Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly led in the majority of polls in the final stretch, but Republican Mike Braun pulled off a victory in Republican Indiana.

Nevada, 2018: Heller vs. Rosen

RCP Projection: Tie

Actual Result: D +5

This may not technically be considered an upset, but Heller had been leading in two of the three last polls, and the result was one point higher than Emerson’s poll figuring Rosen at +4.

Maine, 2020: Collins vs. Gideon

RCP Projection: N/A, but all polls had Democrat Sara Gideon up, although RCP considered the race a “toss up”.

Actual Result: R +8.6.

Although polling was sparse, this one is scandalous, as the margin of victory for Collins wasn’t even within 5 points.

North Carolina, 2020: Cunningham vs. Tillis

RCP Projection: D +2.6

Actual Result: R +1.8

Chuck Cunningham looked good to defeat Republican incumbent Thom Tillis, who was seen as lackluster. I thought at the time Tillis would pull through a win anyway as polls had underestimated him before and Cunningham had an extramarital affair scandal.

2022 saw four upsets, all upsets were polling that favored Republicans but the seats went to the Democrats. The Republicans had candidate quality issues with the uncharismatic and weird Blake Masters, the personally troubled and questionably coherent Herschel Walker, and the comically out-of-touch Dr. Mehmet Oz. Nevada’s Democratic turnout machine managed to secure a victory for Cortez Masto over Laxalt, who made the poor decision to be loud in support of Trump’s election denial in 2020. I have my doubts the poll bias will be this bad this time around towards Republicans, and much of this bias actually happened in the last week of the campaign as a flurry of bad polls came out, and contrary to popular belief it was more widespread than just Republican pollsters.

Arizona, 2022: Kelly vs. Masters

RCP Projection: R +0.3

Actual Result: D +4.9

Georgia, 2022: Walker vs. Warnock

RCP Projection: R +1.4

Actual Result: D +0.9

Nevada, 2022: Cortez Masto vs. Laxalt

RCP Projection: R +3.4

Actual Result: D +0.9

Pennsylvania, 2022: Fetterman vs. Oz

RCP Projection: R +0.4

Actual Result: D +4.9

2022 is an example of why the polls may be biased towards Republicans this time around rather than the Democrats, as they were from 2014 to 2020. This is a possibility, but I don’t see the bias being this much, perhaps a little on the side of the Democrats, and maybe even a bit to the Republicans once again. Now for the Senate races!

Michigan – Rogers vs. Slotkin, Slotkin +2.3

Democratic Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin has led in all but one poll, and that is from Rasmussen Reports, which although did very well in the 2004 election predictions, it has had a bit of a spottier record since 2012. Republican Mike Rogers was a decent pick, but Democrats are on their game once again in Michigan. Like Harris wins Michigan, Slotkin wins. If she loses, Democrats have had an awful election.

Montana – Sheehy vs. Tester, Sheehy +7.7

Senator Tester will be defeated in the election despite late-game optimism from Democrats. There has been no time in the history of Senate RCP polls in which a candidate was this far ahead in polling and lost. It is a testament to Senator Tester that he managed to serve three terms from a state that has repeatedly voted for Republican presidents.

Nevada – Brown vs. Rosen, Rosen +4.9

Nevada is figuring to be a tight race presidentially, but the polling has put Democrat Jacky Rosen repeatedly up, with Republican Sam Brown only leading by one in a Susquehanna poll, without doubt an outlier. Rosen wins another term.

Ohio – Brown vs. Moreno, Moreno +1.7

Senator Brown has been banking on a number of people voting for Trump and him, but Ohio’s status as a red state and Trump’s coattails look like they are going to push Moreno over the top. Brown was leading up until very recent polls, and it looks like the momentum is on Moreno’s side. I also reason this because split-ticket voting is a less common phenomenon than it used to be. I also don’t see this as a last-minute bad poll flurry as this turn isn’t widespread.

Pennsylvania – Casey vs. McCormick, Casey +1.8

Democratic Senator Bob Casey has been in office since 2007, and this is his toughest race. However, McCormick has been behind in most recent polls although the margins are close. Since every Senate election has had at least one upset, I will boldly offer the prediction that it is this race. Winner: McCormick.

Texas – Allred vs. Cruz, Cruz +4.4

Democrats try again to take down Ted Cruz with Congressman Colin Allred. They have arguably picked better this time than Beto O’Rourke, but Texas’s Republican status is not going to change with this presidential election, and there won’t likely be enough Trump-Allred voters to elect him. Cruz wins another term.

Wisconsin – Baldwin vs. Hovde, Baldwin +1.8

I was torn between this and Pennsylvania as being the shocker, but the ground game is stronger for the GOP in Pennsylvania and they just seem to be polling better. The one hesitancy I have in this is that Wisconsin polls have from 2016 to 2020 underestimated Republican strength. Indeed, Biden won by less than a point in 2020 when he was polled to win by more than six. This being said, the ground game is stronger for Democrats in Wisconsin this year, and I believe in ground game. The days of poll bias for Democrats may just be over, indeed Republican poll bias manifested in 2022, with Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin winning by a narrower than expected margin and Governor Tony Evers winning reelection despite RCP poll averages putting Republican Tim Michels, who denied that Trump had actually lost the 2020 election, narrowly on top. Again, candidate quality matters! Although Hovde is a better candidate and he does have the advantage of being able to self-fund, he also didn’t get the endorsement of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation based on his lack of knowledge on farm issues, so I think Baldwin does get another term.

Overall, I predict Republicans end this race with 53 seats in the Senate. As for the House, it is, like the presidency, anyone’s game, but I’m going to make a little bit of a wild prediction here. Democrats narrowly take the House because of Harris coattails in blue state House races. Yes, I’m one of the few who is predicting a mixed result in which Trump does not get unified government. There are a fair number of vulnerable Republican incumbents and the legislative chaos caused by a stubborn minority in the GOP certainly didn’t help their image to govern.

References

Archaki, L. (2024, September 28). For First Time Ever, More Americans Are Republican Than Democrat. The Daily Beast.

Retrieved from

https://www.thedailybeast.com/more-americans-now-identify-as-republicans-than-democrats/

Herrera, J. (2024, November 4). Trump’s Gains With Pennsylvania Latinos Are Real. Maybe Enough to Withstand ‘Island of Garbage.’ Politico.

Retrieved from

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/04/latinos-decide-election-pennsylvania-00186534

Massey, D. & Guillen, J. (2024, November 2). Black turnout in cities like Detroit is make-or-break for Harris. Axios.

Retrieved from

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/02/harris-black-turnout-detroit-atlanta-philadelphia

Schwartz, I. (2024, November 4). Jon Ralston: Nevada is Going To Be Close, Mail-In Ballots That Come In Late Will Put Kamala Harris Over The Top. Real Clear Politics.

Retrieved from

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/11/04/jon_ralston_nevada_is_going_to_be_close_mail-in_ballots_that_come_in_late_will_put_kamala_harris_over_the_top.html

Epic Fail! The Literary Digest’s Poll of the 1936 Election

We are now one week away from yet another election which is called the “most important of our lifetimes”, and the third election in which Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. Many observers, myself included, are regularly checking polls and even trying to be so bold as to predict outcomes. The first election that featured Trump, 2016, was the greatest upset in American political history since Truman defeated Dewey in 1948. The worst example of average polling being off was Wisconsin, in which Clinton, per the RealClearPolitics polling average, was up by 6.5, but Trump won by 0.7. None of the latest polls had put Trump on top, including the Republican firm Remington Research, which found Clinton at 8 points ahead. In fact, none of the polls from August until Election Day had Trump up. In the case of 1948, however, polling ended two weeks before the election. The 1936 poll by The Literary Digest, however, takes the cake. The magazine The Literary Digest issued a presidential straw poll every election year, and this had been predictive of the winner since 1916. Yet, their 1936 poll projected Republican Alf Landon as the winner with 57% of the vote and 370 electoral votes. As anyone with even a cursory knowledge about American history should know, we have not had a President Landon. Landon actually only won 37% of the vote and 8 electoral votes; only the voters of Maine and Vermont (they were very different states back then!) saw fit to vote out FDR. The Literary Digest had predicted 1916, which merits credit as it was a close race, but the others were landslides. All this, however, begs the question: how did this publication blow an even bigger landslide? Let’s look at their methodology.

The Literary Digest conducted one election straw poll per year, and they used three lists as sources: phone numbers, drivers’ registrations, and country club memberships (Emory Oxford College). For 1936, they contacted 10 million people for their survey, and from this they got 1,293,669 people who supported Landon and 972,897 people who supported Roosevelt. This approach had multiple methodological problems. The first, the conventional story, is that The Literary Digest had failed to account for the class polarization that came with the Roosevelt Administration…Americans in previous elections had voted more similarly based on class. Many working-class Americans in the North voted Republican in the past elections, and while the 1920s prosperity was part of it, they also supported the GOP’s high tariff platform, a mainstay as old as the party’s 1856 platform. However, FDR’s New Deal programs were highly appealing to many Americans going through hard times, while many in the upper strata had the luxury to think more about FDR’s growing political power as a source of peril and his policies were coming greatly out of their pockets. That the wealthy were overrepresented among those who had telephones, vehicle registrations, and country club memberships should go without saying.

Thus, wealthy people were way overrepresented in the straw poll, as they were disproportionately represented in their opposition to FDR. However, subsequent research pointed the finger at a much more important factor, the response rate to the poll. 10 million people had been sent the poll, but only 2.4 million responded! This constitutes a mere 24% response rate, which is sufficiently low to make the poll worthless. Substantially compromising the class narrative is that a majority of Americans who had telephones and vehicle registrations also supported Roosevelt (Lusinchi). Rather, it was people who were opposed to Roosevelt who had much stronger motivation to respond to the poll. This research partially debunked this traditional narrative, holding that the poor response rate to the poll was sufficient to produce the off result and that the overrepresentation was a secondary factor.

The error was so catastrophic that The Literary Digest folded in 1938. But with the demise of the magazine was the elevation of the Gallup poll. George Gallup was one of the pollsters who got 1936 right, and through his polling predicted an FDR win, albeit with 54% of the vote (PBS). Gallup had nonetheless managed to get the correct outcome by polling a representative sample of 3,000 people as opposed to The Literary Digests sample of 2.4 million people. This case illustrates the value of solid methodology in polling. We will not see an error of this magnitude in the polling averages of these races, and it is doubtful we will get something like 2016, which I regard as a black swan event.  

References

2016 Wisconsin: Trump vs Clinton. RealClearPolling.

Retrieved from

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2016/wisconsin/trump-vs-clinton

Famous Statistical Blunders in History: Literary Digest, 1936. Emory Oxford College.

Retrieved from

https://mathcenter.oxford.emory.edu/site/math117/historicalBlunders/

George Gallup and the Scientific Opinion Poll. PBS.

Retrieved from

https://www.pbs.org/fmc/segments/progseg7.htm

Landon in a Landslide: The Poll That Changed Polling. History Matters.

Retrieved from

https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5168/

Lusinchi, D. (2016, January 4). “President” Landon and the 1936 Literary Digest. Social Science History, 36(1).

Retrieved from

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-history/article/president-landon-and-the-1936-literary-digest-poll/E360C38884D77AA8D71555E7AB6B822C

Roger Q. Mills: Free Trade Extremist



The role of Confederates in American political life after the War of the Rebellion is truly remarkable, even if their influence could never translate to being elected to the presidency or vice presidency. One of the more prominent figures in postwar America was Roger Quarles Mills (1832-1911) of Texas.

Early Political Life

As a young man, Mills was an attorney by profession in Corsicana and identified as a Whig, which is strange when you consider his stance on trade in his time in Congress. However, the dissolution of the Whig Party due to both to their devastating 1852 presidential election loss and most finally the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 had him move into the American (“Know Nothing”) Party, which was common for Southern Whigs. Mills was as a Texas politician a defender of slavery and shifted into the Democratic Party in the late 1850s as the Republican Party overtook the American Party as the core opposition to the Democrats. Even before the outcome of the 1860 election he was supporting secession over the issue of slavery. That year, he voted for Democrat John Cabell Breckinridge, but Breckinridge’s support was largely confined to the South. After this loss, Mills solidly supported secession, and this position was highly popular in Texas including Navarro County, which included Corsicana. 94% of the people who voted in Navarro County’s public referendum on secession were in support (Putman). With Texas’s departure from the Union, he left with it, serving as an officer in the Confederate Army, participating in numerous battles and rising to the rank of colonel.

During Reconstruction, Mills coordinated the activities of Texas’s KKK, but as a very loosely organized group, he may have had no direct hand in its violence. As historian Christopher Long (2021) notes, “Members of every social stratum belonged to the Klan, though the more respectable elite usually shied away from acts of violence”. In 1869, Grand Wizard Nathan Bedford Forrest ordered the disbanding of the Klan, but the Klan continued into the early 1870s.

Although the 1872-1873 elections were a triumph for Grant and the Republicans, this was not the case in Texas. In 1873, Republican Governor Edmund Davis was seeking reelection and in Corsicana a big barbeque dinner was held with a politically and racially mixed audience with black policemen part of the governor’s entourage he delivered a speech defending his policies and advocating for his reelection. Stepping up to retort was Mills. Researcher Wyvonne Putnam (1988) wrote on the impact of the speech, “Paying no attention to the Negro police he broke into one of those extemporaneous speeches so typical of him when roused. He lambasted Davis’ administration up one side and down the other. Especially did he denounce Davis’ use of the Negro police. The crowd was taken off its feet by his oratory, and when he sat down they cheered long and loud. The Negroes, who as a race always know a strong man when they see one, were not a whit behind the whites in the applause. So taken back was Davis by the demonstration that he did not stay to partake of the barbecue dinner, but got in his buggy and headed for Austin. Largely on the strength of this episode Mills was elected to Congress”.

As a member of Congress, Mills was a loud and proud Democrat, and embraced the label of “free trader”, a label that even many Democrats shied away from in the late 19th century. He supported inflationary currency through free coinage of silver as did many Texans of the time. However, this didn’t mean that Mills always was voting the way his constituents wanted him to. He was highly principled and was an unwavering opponent of Prohibition, a position gaining popularity in Texas in the 1880s. Mills regarded many of its proponents as hypocrites, and in 1887, he delivered a speech condemning such a proposal, “Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud. It is wrapped in the livery of Heaven, but it comes to serve the devil. It comes to regulate by law our appetites and our daily lives. It comes to tear down liberty and build up fanaticism, hypocrisy, and intolerance. It comes to confiscate by legislative decree the property of many of our fellow citizens. It comes to send spies, detectives, and informers into our homes; to have us arrested and carried before courts and condemned to fines and imprisonments. It comes to dissipate the sunlight of happiness, peace, and prosperity in which we are now living and to fill our land with alienations, estrangements, and bitterness. It comes to bring us evil– only evil– and that continually. Let us rise in our might as one and overwhelm it with such indignation that we shall never hear of it again as long as grass grows and water runs” (Putnam). After the 1886 election, Mills would become the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and it was there that he proposed his most famous (or infamous by Republican standards) legislation, his tariff reduction bill known as the Mills Bill, which struck at the heart of the tariff system that the Republicans so staunchly embraced. As passed by the House, this bill removed tariffs on wool, lumber, and salt and overall reduced rates by an average of 7%. Although justified as a necessary measure to reduce the surplus in the treasury (which was a problem at the time!), Republican opponents feared that this measure would constitute the first step towards the dismantling of the tariff system altogether (Ann Arbor Register). They didn’t have to fear that measure becoming law in that Congress though, as the bill was DOA in the Republican Senate. It was quite useful to Republicans, however, as a campaign issue, and they even mentioned it in the 1888 party platform, “We denounce the Mills bill as destructive to the general business, the labor and the farming interests of the country, and we heartily indorse the consistent and patriotic action of the Republican Representatives in Congress in opposing its passage.” Mills campaigned across the country for his bill, but Cleveland narrowly lost reelection and for the first time since 1872 Republicans won united government.

Mills for Speaker of the House

Democratic control of the House had had an interruption after the 1888 election but returned with a vengeance in the 1890 midterms, and Mills threw his hat into the ring to be the next House speaker. Although initially he commanded high support and even received enough pledges to vote for him sufficient for him to win, he proved overly principled in his refusal to promise individual Democrats placement in powerful positions in exchange for their votes. Another factor was that Mills had a temper and lost it often enough to give his fellow Democrats pause. On the final ballot 15 representatives defected and he lost to Charles Crisp of Georgia. Although embittered that he didn’t get to be speaker, the resignation of Senator John H. Reagan got him elected to the Senate the following year.

Senator Mills and Retirement

As a senator, Mills largely voted the Democratic line and passionately took up the cause of Cuban independence from Spain and was an opponent of the American form of imperialism, opposing the annexation of Hawaii in 1897. However, it was an act of loyalty to President Cleveland that harmed him in Texas, when he voted for the repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act in 1893, contrary to his past free coinage of silver advocacy. Indeed, Cleveland’s signing this law was considered a massive betrayal by many rank-and-file Democrats, who abandoned Cleveland in 1896 in favor of free silverite William Jennings Bryan. By 1899, a coalition had formed against him with House Minority Leader Joseph Weldon Bailey (D-Tex.) and Governor James Hogg as key actors, which resulted in him not running for another term (Putnam). His DW-Nominate score, accounting for his House and Senate career, was a -0.471.

Mills retired from politics after and only became wealthy after oil was discovered on his property, which permitted him to live his last years in comfort. Four years after his wife died, Mills passed on September 2, 1911.

References

Barr, A. (2016, July 2). Mills, Roger Quarles. Texas State Historical Association.

Retrieved from

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mills-roger-quarles

Bridges, K. (2022, July 17). Bridges: Political stances regularly derailed Mills’career. Amarillo Globe-News.

Retrieved from

https://www.amarillo.com/story/news/history/2022/07/17/ken-bridges-roger-mills-political-stances-regularly-derailed-career/65372077007/

Mills, Roger Quarles. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/6531/roger-quarles-mills

Putman, W. (1988). Roger Q. Mills of Corsicana, Navarro County, Texas. The Navarro County Scroll, XXI.

Retrieved from

https://txnavarr.genealogyvillage.com/biographies/m/mills_roger_quarrls.htm

Long, C. (2021, May 28). Ku Klux Klan. Texas State Historical Association.

Retrieved from

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/ku-klux-klan

Objections to the Mills Bill. (1888, July 26). Ann Arbor Register.

Retrieved from

https://aadl.org/node/500499

Republican Party Platform of 1888. American Presidency Project.

Retrieved from

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1888

My Problem with the Politics of Purity

Although I usually cover historical subjects and often keep my opinions as an undercard at best, this post is an opinion piece that includes historical examples, and it’s about a demand for litmus tests and purity.

For the Republicans, there is a constant risk of a cry of “RINO” (Republican in Name Only) from some troll or hothead much like zombies of the silver screen cry for “brains”, done as a term of abuse that can happen when a single disagreement arises, be it on a policy or even whether Trump’s latest statement is worth a defense. For the Democrats, it comes in the form of the left-wingers not believing many Democrats are left-wing enough or having standards that places them to the left of almost everyone if not everyone in Congress, despite there being a very small overall difference between how Bernie Sanders and the Democrats as a whole vote on major issues: he has voted with the Biden Administration 91% of the time (FiveThirtyEight). But maybe that 9% matters a great deal? Well, how about a more ideological look with the votes that were counted by the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action. Looking at lifetime average scores adjusted to not count unopinionated absences, Sanders scores a 98% while Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) scores a 95%. I remember attending an event that was about getting liberal and conservative folks to talk matters out, and I remember one young liberal woman talking about how there needed to be a “litmus test” for abortion in the Democratic Party despite nearly all Democrats in Congress by that time falling on the “choice” side in votes on the issue. I internally chuckled that she didn’t know how divided Democrats really used to be on abortion. You too can know by checking out the votes on the Hyde Amendment in 1976, which are located in References.


The demand for purity can go so far as 1 dissent from conservative or liberal position out of 20 votes immediately makes you a Republican or Democrat in Name Only, which should sound ridiculous. Yet, this is how some people think about things! It’s akin to if you regard yourself as a vegetarian yet you ate a single strip of bacon in a year’s period and thus you can no longer call yourself one. Like accident counters in workplaces, a single infraction is back to day zero for you! This emphasis on purity is difficult and for most people it frankly proves unsustainable: 84% of people who adopted a vegetarian diet ate meat after a year (Schultz). Politically, I can promise you, no president in history has been what you would call 100% liberal or conservative. Although FDR is unmistakably identified with liberalism and rightly so given his New Deal policies and internationalist foreign policy, he also vetoed veterans bonus legislation in 1935 and 1936 and ultimately agreed to sign the Hatch Act into law despite reservations in 1939. Ronald Reagan is unmistakably identified with conservatism and again, rightly so given his free market and socially conservative philosophy and actions, yet supported immigration reform that included amnesty, supported foreign aid measures in 1981 and 1982, and opposed a Helms (R-N.C.) amendment to block technology imports to the USSR.

Although Donald Trump is viewed by many conservatives as a great defender of their values and positions, he has on multiple occasions embraced compromise spending packages, opposed by many conservatives, despite his view now that there should be no compromise on spending with Biden (Kapur). As Trump himself tweeted on a 2019 budget deal on August 1, 2019, “Budget Deal is phenomenal for our Great Military, our Vets, and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! Two year deal gets us past the Election. Go for it Republicans, there is always plenty of time to CUT!” (Grisales) I also promise you that no legislator has truly been 100% conservative or liberal in their record, although there are those out there who come really close. What we must ultimately decide is what constitutes “good enough” for philosophy.

Continuing on the vegetarian metaphor, is the occasional strip of bacon ok? Is being a pescetarian ok? Or must the quest for human perfection continue unabated? Is heaven a sparse place and hell a crowded place? For some, particularly among Americans, the answer to the last question is a definite YES. Such a perspective is completely ignorant of a past that is not in truth THAT long ago in which you had real conservatives and real liberals in both parties. Today who we call liberals in the Republican and conservatives in the Democratic parties are in truth moderates, and their numbers, at least nationally, are small, with their influence being that party majorities in Congress appear to depend on them.


References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Does Your Member of Congress Vote With Or Against Biden? (2023, January 3). FiveThirtyEight.

Retrieved from

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/bernard-sanders/

Grisales, C. (2019, August 1). Senate Passes 2-Year Budget Deal and Sends It To Trump. NPR.

Retrieved from

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/01/747219927/senate-passes-2-year-budget-deal-and-sends-it-to-trump

HR 14232 – Prohibiting Taxpayer-Funded Abortions [House Vote]. American Conservative Union.


Retrieved from

http://ratings.conservative.org/bills/US-1976-house-HR14232-HydeAmd

HR 14232 – Prohibiting Taxpayer-Funded Abortions [Senate Vote]. American Conservative Union.

Retrieved from

http://ratings.conservative.org/bills/US-1976-senate-HR14232-MagnusonMotion

Kapur, S. (2023, September 25). Trump breaks with McCarthy, pushing Republicans to shut down the government. NBC News.

Retrieved from

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/trump-breaks-mccarthy-republicans-government-shutdown-rcna117192

Schultz, C. (2014, December 9). Most Vegetarians Lapse After Only a Year. Smithsonian Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/most-vegetarians-lapse-after-only-year-180953565/