The Politics of Guns and The Art of Possible
Hello Hackaroos,
We continue to process the painful news coming out of Uvalde as more information about the horrific moments of the massacre are reported and, most importantly, more information about the lives of those lost way too soon. Now the question is, will yet another unspeakable tragedy yield any changes in our gun laws? We weigh in on that and then give our take on the latest primary moves.
Let’s begin…
If There’s a Will, Maybe There’s a Way
GIBBS: So, the last time we had a significant discussion, debate and a vote in Congress around what to do on guns was after the Sandy Hook shooting nearly ten years ago. And despite a lot of good bipartisan work, the legislation that Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) wrote failed to get 60 votes. In the end, it got 55 (before Harry Reid changed his vote for procedural reasons). Just 4 Republicans, including Toomey voted for the plan, while 4 Democrats voted against it (not including Reid’s procedural vote change). After what we’ve confronted over the last two weeks in New York, California and now Texas, could this time be different?
MURPHY: Let me briefly interject here that Sen Pat Toomey’s courageous leadership on background checks is the number one reason he got reelected in 2016. It made him a hero in the Philly suburbs. We ran a large multi million $ independent expenditure effort for the Bloomberg PAC in the Philly suburbs on his vote, which his campaign manager later told me — and our polling agreed — that his background check leadership and the huge spotlight we put upon it made the key difference for Toomey in a close and hard fought reelection race. Hopefully the good senator is reminding many of his GOP colleagues of that this week on the floor. Background checks is a political winner for Republicans in any swing state, and acceptable in any base state.
GIBBS: Exactly, and to me, if there's a will, I think there are enough people to find a way. I'm actually heartened that a bill didn't get rushed to the floor, that a vote didn't happen before recess, or that the Senate is somehow going to stay in session to consider voting quickly (as if the Senate being in session is only when work gets done). Senator Chris Murphy and many others, Democrats and Republicans, are clearly having some important conversations together and sounding out colleagues. I know there's a lot of people in the world who are rightly frustrated with the pace of all of this. But in reality, if we want to get 60 votes, and we want something to pass, this is the much more likely scenario where something gets done. Forcing a very quick vote right now would almost certainly push everybody to their natural corners of opposition.
To get 60 votes, we've got to get people out of their natural corners. I think in the end, there are enough people on both sides to get us, if not to 60, then really close and enough to put more pressure on a few remaining holdouts and ultimately, maybe, get 60 votes. We're not talking about solving this problem with an assault weapons ban, which would make a ton of sense given it’s almost always the weapon of choice in these tragedies. As I said earlier this week, I think the bar is probably national red flag legislation. Only two red states currently have red flag legislation, including Florida, where it passed after the horror in Parkland and was signed into law by none other than current Florida GOP Senator Rick Scott when he was governor. Would we all like to see more happen? Yes, of course. Is more likely to happen? No. But that doesn't mean the world of politics, which is about the art of the possible, can’t produce something.
I know some might think I sound too optimistic, but believe me, pessimism is baked in here. I think what makes this somewhat different is the totality of all that we’ve seen recently, with really young people hunting their victims. It also just seems like if we're ever going to do something, it's going to be something now. And I think what makes this also potentially viable is it's happened in a red state with an entrenched gun culture (cue this weekend’s NRA parade). They've got to ask themselves, why did this happen? Why is this happening in their churches? Why is happening in a retail store in El Paso? Why is it happening now in one of their elementary schools?
You read this newsletter also because you want to understand the politics of this. And we will have time to cover the politics of this if it doesn't happen. But if I was a consultant in a race right now, I would want my client, Democrat or Republican, to have something to say to parents who stand up at a town hall meeting, or out on the campaign trail, and have an answer for what we're doing differently to make sure this doesn't happen again. To me, if you're a Republican, you want to fight this election on inflation and your cultural issues. But, particularly in statewide races with a decent sized suburban population, you want to be able to say something better than what Ted Cruz is saying right now. I think this provides a path for people on red flag legislation or something like that, to be able to answer that question effectively. Of course, mental illness is a huge part of this, but we're the only country in the world that suffers these mass shootings. We have the same mental illness problems that everybody else has. We just have 400 million guns and exceedingly few barriers for anyone to attain them that makes our country unique, and not in a good way.
Will it happen? Time will tell. The odds are against it. But, if there’s a will, then there’s absolutely a way.
MURPHY: It’s uphill, but hills are there to be climbed. I think the formula to bring background checks to life in the Senate (and maybe a red flag law) is pretty simple. Joe Biden has to stop expressing his (understandable and appreciated) grief and go into action mode. He needs to ask for big, loud, public action. Why not a million parent march on DC? An avalanche of phone calls. Unless there is a tangible series of public actions, I don’t think the pot will boil enough to cook this up. Here’s hoping common sense gun control supporters can whip up that action and make Senate R’s – who know the polling on background checks is strong across the board and understand the politics of it – feel the political risk and pain. This is a general election versus primary calculation for many of this. Make the general election now look as scary as possible. Go to DC and make good trouble.
Primary Palooza is Not Over Yet…
MURPHY: A quick PA update. Doc Oz is now leading by only 900 or so votes, with about 10K overseas and absentee ballots in the pipeline. My guess is that won’t change the outcome much. A recount has been ordered, so we won’t know the answer until the second week of June. Meanwhile the next opera will be legal. McCormick is going to court to allow a bunch of ballots that voters failed to write dates on (but that are still stamped with the correct date by election authorities when they arrive) to be counted. It makes perfect sense. But the RNC, with Trump yelling into the phone, and, of course, the Oz campaign strongly oppose that. McCormick is making a good argument legally, but… he’s taking what Team MAGA would label, much like algebra, the Democratic/Commie/NYT line. My guess is even those ballots won’t be enough to save him. We’ll know soon enough. But my money is on a galactic showdown in PA between Fetterman/Team Prog and Oz/Team Trump. Those poor Keystone state voters…
GIBBS: As for PA, generally, I agree Murphy, if you go into a recount leading, you tend to come out leading. You don't ordinarily find a ton of ballots that are miscounted or not counted. And so Dr. Oz is in the best position, as you correctly pointed out about halfway through primary night. Obviously, the great unknown are two things. One, is how the courts may decide counting ballots that were received on time, but aren't dated by the voter, as per Pennsylvania law. And, as you point out, you've got literally the state of Pennsylvania versus the Republican National Committee. The second thing we don't know is how many of the votes that are there are Republican.
Now I know many of you might think Primary Palooza is now behind us, but as you can see from this calendar, we’ve got a lot still left to go.
Upcoming states of importance to watch:
June 7: California
June 14: Nevada and South Carolina
June 28: Illinois, New York, and Utah
August 2: Arizona, Michigan and Missouri
August 16: Alaska and Wyoming
August 23: Florida
September 13: New Hampshire
Meanwhile Murphy, before you get into how bad Jessica Cisneros’ loss to Henry Cuellar was in Texas’ 28th District, I’ll just remind you that the progressives had a pretty good night the week before. So in the sort of scorecard of AOC progressives/ Jessica Cisneros vs. versus the more moderates, it's more of a split decision than “Hey, Jessica Cisneros didn’t win.” Not to mention, Henry Cuellar is very familiar with winning elections by less than 250 votes!
MURPHY: OK, on Texas. A lefty pal of mine (from Showbiz, of course, complete with a Volvo and a Bernie bumper sticker, but a helluva good guy regardless) texted me a first-class rant about Nancy Pelosi siding with Cuellar and stabbing hero candidate Jessica Cisneros in the back. His rant reflected a lot of Dem grassroots/lefty anger about this. So a few points. Nancy, and Jim Clyburn and a bunch of other D leadership types were all in big for Cuellar (a rare pro-life Dem BTW). It’s less about ideological betrayal and more about hard-nosed practical politics. First, Cuellar is a Member and the Leadership almost always supports fellow Members in primaries. Second, his district is moving in a Republican direction and the Leadership’s prime mission is protecting Dem seats and winning the majority. In this likely to be good GOP Congressional year, they know the moderate and popular Cuellar has a better chance to hold that seat against a strong Republican challenge than Cisneros. It’s cold hard math. To quote Gibbs’ great hero Chairman Mao, “I don’t care what color a cat is as long as it can catch mice.” In November, Cuellar is more likely to hold the seat. Cisneros is more likely to give a heartfelt concession speech. That’s an easy call for the D Leadership. It’s not betrayal, it’s politics… which as the great man said, ain’t beanbag.
We’ll be back next week. Have a good Memorial Day weekend. And, take a moment to remember those that paid the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.
Murphy and Gibbs