What the 2019 Election Results Say about 2020

Tuesday night’s election results have been spun by every pundit to project onto the 2020 presidential race. When put in context, some of the highlights are relatively meaningless. Matt Bevin’s loss in the KY governor’s race is not an accurate representation of the political dynamics in Kentucky. Bevin has repeatedly appeared on the list of the most unpopular governors in the country. It says something about the strength of the KY GOP to nearly carry an incumbent with a 2:1 unfavorable rating to a near tie with the setting Attorney General who is the son of a popular former governor. It also says something that the GOP swept the rest of the statewide races by landslide margins, including the election of the states first Republican (and African-American) Attorney General. In Mississippi, the Lt Governor defeated a popular 4-term Attorney General. People can quibble about the margins in these races, but the real story is not what happened in Mississippi or Kentucky. The election results that matter occurred in Virginia. 

For the first time in nearly 3 decades, Democrats control every statewide office and the state legislature. The political trend in Virginia has benefitted Democrats, but it is a similar trend in other states. George W Bush carried this state by 8 points in both of his elections. Before the 2006 election, the GOP had large majorities in the state legislature, both senate seats, and 2 of the 3 state constitutional offices. The growth of the DC metropolitan area in northern Virginia has fueled the blue resurgence, but the tide in suburban areas is a growing threat to Republican electoral prospects.

In the initial post-mortems of the 2016 elections, the media focused on the rural midwestern counties and communities that flipped from Obama to Trump, but they overlooked the counties and communities that flipped from Romney to Clinton. For all of the blue-collar working-class White voters that broke the Blue Wall of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, there were just as many college-educated middle-class Whites and Latino voters in suburban districts that stayed just beneath the media radar because it did not flip a Romney state to Clinton. While Trump’s margins in working-class states across the Deep South and Midwest were incremental improvements over Romney, he did significantly worse in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. 

We are witnessing a seismic political reorganization around new issues that shatter the red/blue narrative that has lingered since the 2000 election. Some issues like abortion and guns will not be affected by this shift, but others like immigration, trade, and global relationships/competition will become the new litmus tests. States with a heavy reliance on international commerce and immigrant labor like Texas and Arizona will continue their transition into purple states, while rustbelt states with a skepticism of global influences like Kentucky, Iowa, and West Virginia will continue become more red. 

John Edwards spoke of ‘Two Americas,’ and while he was technically right, his analysis for why this exists is not. The ‘Two Americas’ are not necessarily the right vs poor, it is urban/suburban vs rural and old vs young. States with growing senior populations and states that have fallen behind in the technology revolution of the last decade are the real base for Trump’s political party. As the percentage of college grads increases, Trump’s grip on the state decreases. This trend started under Obama, but Trump has accelerated it. It also means Trump’s coalition cannot win a national election, but like 2016, it is possible for his opponent to lose it. 

Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

The Debate Behind 3D Printed Guns

The second amendment has become a staple in partisan debates, enhancing the deep divide between political party ideals. Despite the laissez-faire intent of the law, America’s obsession with guns is becoming more prominent as mass shootings and gun violence are also becoming more prominent. Following the increase of gun violence in America, citizens are more critical of not only the second amendment but also the availability and readiness of weapons for a wide range of Americans. Data from the Pew Research Center shows the public attitude towards gun rights has reflected this increased awareness over the past few years, stating the support for gun rights has decreased from 52% in 2014 to 47% in 2017. 

Although the government is being pressed for gun reform, private businesses (that citizens have no stake in) are getting involved in the distribution of firearms. One nonprofit group, Defense Distributed, had been approved to “publish plans, files and 3-D drawings in any form and exempts them from the export restrictions.” The group was told to take down the plans, the government citing an International Traffic in Arms Regulations violation, but they filed a lawsuit in 2013 fighting for their capitalistic rights. Despite initial resistance, the lawsuit recently came to a sudden settlement allowing the group to distribute AR-15’s, handguns, and other firearms without restriction. Not only are the guns freely distributed, but they are also unregulated and untraceable. 

This ruling in favor of an unregulated free-market is a concerning leap backward for the safety of America. The ability for groups to freely print unregulated firearms is a terrifying reality in a country where millions of citizens are calling on their government to pass stricter gun laws. Although it is presumptuous to assume the worst following this ruling, it is ignorant to not consider the impact of the mass distribution of unregulated weapons on America and other countries. Even if government officials trust the free-market system in this case, it’s unknown how this will expand to and affect other countries where weapon sales are restricted due to violent government regimes and political revolutions.

The main concern in this situation is the inability of the US government to track and regulate firearms as well as their inability to protect its citizens. While tracking and regulating can create massive problems for the criminal justice system, not all safety precautions should be thrown out the window yet. Although the guns can be printed in plastic, therefore able to pass through metal detectors undetected, they are inoperable without two pieces of metal, including a firing pin. So the guns themselves aren’t as inconspicuous as they seem, but they do make it easier to get around metal detectors and restrictions. Not only can the guns easily make it around metal detectors, they can easily shimmy their way around age restrictions and background checks. Another thought to consider is the technological advances that may occur as a result of these prints and plans being available. With the usage of bump stocks always under debate, it is easy to see the potential technological features that can be quickly added to guns through such plans that will serve as a “booster” for ammunition.

In a last-ditch effort to stop Defense Distributed, a few states including Pennsylvania have initiated lawsuits against the organization that would block or ban 3D guns in one way or another. Many states are also urging the government to withdraw from the settlement. On the surface, 3D printed guns present a scary, unknown future for Americans. But the fact of this situation is that the future is almost definitely, entirely, unknown. People can predict and argue about what this ruling means and what will happen in the future, but we just don’t know. 

Subscribe for free to receive similar content. 

References:

William, David. Americans can legally download 3-D printed guns starting next month. CNN. July 20, 2018.

Pew Research Center. 2017. Public Views About Guns. Washington, D.C.

Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. 2016. GUN VIOLENCE BY THE NUMBERS. Manhattan, New York.