U.S. Politics V

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Pat Toomey [url="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/report-toomey-to-challenge-specter-again-2009-03-05.html"]has apparently decided[/url] to pull the trigger.

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1709998' date='Mar 5 2009, 22.59']There you go again, using the same phrase. I think you're underestimating the situation and President Obama. If Obama's economic plan is failing in 2012, Republicans will have to work twice as hard as they are now to make sure the blame is firmly affixed to Obama. As of now, 84% of Americans blame Bush and his policies and Obama is savvy enough to reaffirm that every time he must. Democrats will always blame Bush {oh yes, we on the Left will never forget} and Moderates will lean towards him if only because he would be the incumbent.[/quote]

There I go again indeed, relying on political science rather than unfounded speculation. [url="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/12/predicting-the.html"]This model of presidential elections[/url] by Doug Hibbs is pretty well respected, and it shows a clear correlation between the success of the incumbent party and the rate of income growth measured by the four previous years (with more weight given to the most recent economic results). Other research shows that the effect is more fine-grained than that; Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton, in analyzing the election of (IIRC) 1936, showed that state totals for FDR depended entirely on income growth [i]in 1936[/i], and that shifts from 1934 and 1935 had no effect.

What this tells me, pretty clearly, is that probably the 2012 election will play out in much the same way; if income growth is strong for average Americans, then Obama will do very well, and if it's weak, he won't. Obviously Obama will try to blame Bush, but American voters have enough trouble remember what happened more than a year before at the polls; it won't make that much of a difference.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1710075' date='Mar 6 2009, 00.24']Pat Toomey [url="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/report-toomey-to-challenge-specter-again-2009-03-05.html"]has apparently decided[/url] to pull the trigger.[/quote]
C'mon Specter, pull a Lieberman.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1709998' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.59']All political parties end eventually and here's my advice to the Republicans in order to save what's left of their party: Cast off the old name, throw the hardcore supply side conservatives overboard, leave the social conservatives to sink or swim on their own, build a new brand around Moderate Libertarianism and see if it floats.[/quote]

A nice idea, but not a large enough demographic to have any hope of electoral success at the moment. Like it or not, Republicans need the social conservatives to remain a relevant party in a winner-take-all system. Not only are they a large chunk of the membership, but they're routinely the most active part of it. From volunteering, to fundraising, to grassroots movement...take away the Socials and the Republicans have nothing.

[quote]I'll say what's on everyone's minds: Republicans lack the courage of their convictions where it counts, when it counts. If Republican Governors are dead set against the Stimulus then they must not touch it at all. Republican Senators, now is the time to band together and fillibuster your guts out for what you believe, right? Republican Representatives, go do what you want because no one gives a damn what that is.[/quote]

I don't think we should condemn being sensible. Or a willingness to compromise in a system that requires compromise to run. That's not (at least not usually) lacking principle, that's being practical and statesmanlike. A governor passing up money for their state, no matter their ideological persuasion, would be an utter fool. He'd be neglecting the needs of his constituents and likely get his ass handed to him next election. You can object to something while still trying to maximize your benefits from it without being a hypocrite.

[quote]C'mon Specter, pull a Lieberman.[/quote]

Didn't someone say in the last thread that his state doesn't allow that? Some sort of 'Sore loser' law?

[Shryke]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1710254' date='Mar 6 2009, 05.24']A nice idea, but not a large enough demographic to have any hope of electoral success at the moment. Like it or not, Republicans need the social conservatives to remain a relevant party in a winner-take-all system. Not only are they a large chunk of the membership, but they're routinely the most active part of it. From volunteering, to fundraising, to grassroots movement...take away the Socials and the Republicans have nothing.[/quote]

Exactly. The main problem is that there's a core group that the GOP represents that is actually quite large. The problem is, it's not large ENOUGH.

Basically, there's like 1/3 of the electorate who are social conservative types and SOMEONES gotta try and represent them cause, well, that's a HUGE voting block.

The problem is, of course, it's getting harder and harder for anyone to represent both that block and some other block, which you need to do in order to win.

[Altherion]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1710254' date='Mar 6 2009, 11.24']Didn't someone say in the last thread that his state doesn't allow that? Some sort of 'Sore loser' law?[/quote]
Maybe, but maybe not. There are issues with that law:
[quote]The Reform Party had to go to court in 1999 against Pennsylvania's "sore loser" law directed at minor parties. The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the state ban unconstitutional yet it remains in the statutes uncorrected.[/quote]
[url="http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_michael__070105_pennsylvania_has_mor.htm"]http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_mi...nia_has_mor.htm[/url]

As far as I can tell, the Pennsylvania legislature simply ignores Federal Court rulings on election law, but it is not clear what would happen if Specter lost and then took them to court over it (presumably the election officials are bound to obey the courts if the law is declared unconstitutional). He can also run as an Independent to begin with (then the "sore loser" law would not apply), but that is a far riskier bet.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1710290' date='Mar 6 2009, 05.39']To Shryke and EHK's posts above, it seems to me that the Limbaugh thing may be a disaster for the GOP. Yes, he has 1/4 of the electorate in lock-step, but that alone doesnt' do it, and his methods don't necessarily aid themselves to gaining the middle.

Now if the economy and other factors go up in smoke and Obama appears way weak they have a chance, but if things are mitigated just a bit I don't see how the Rush-led GOP wins in the next two cycles. If I were a GOP leader (and I don't even know who that would be right now, it ain't Palin, it ain't Steele) I'd be shitting myself.

At this moment I predict that the best shot the GOP has is for the economy to tank and Romney to come along.[/quote]

I'd largely agree. Republicans are in a tough spot. Their base is vocal, demanding, and must be appeased if you want to make it out of a primary. But that appeasement is often ugly and turns off moderates and independents. Republicans cannot win without some share of that center, but the base will not allow the Party message to be crafted with that objective in mind. They are suicidally still more concerned about ideological purity than anything else.

The Democratic base by contrast has been much more tolerant of appeals to the center. The true left of the party has been cooperative and patient in the last several years. Remaining more or less quiet and uncontroversial when it serves the common interests of the party. Electorally they've sponsored candidates in formerly Red strongholds that bear only the slightest ideological resemblance to their New England or Western counterparts. Now that they're in power, I have no idea if this will continue. Will Democrats try to broaden and expand their majority or see their resounding victories as an opportunity to reorientate the party ideologically. I wouldn't mind the latter. Not to the point of launching witchhunts against legislators who don't 'toe the line', but of presenting a party platform that is more ambitious and progressive than previous eras allowed.

Continued disaster economically of course renders much of this moot. You can be assholes with bad ideas or no ideas and still look preferable to a party that has run the country into the ground. (or appears completely incapable of lifting it from the ground) In a country with only 2 real choices each election, if the guys in power stumble badly enough, it doesn't matter how fucked up the other guys are, they'll generally get their shot.

That said, Republicans still cannot win without their social conservative base and that base will not sit quietly while a message not crafted for them is promoted. They're stuck in a catch-22 that at this point will only lead to electoral victory if the Democrats fuck up badly enough.

On a more pessimistic note, I think we're overestimating the percentage of the relevant (those who have any chance of not voting Democrat) public turned off by or uninfluenced by Rush's style of demagoguery. They reach a hell of alot of listeners and their strained reasoning, disingenuous arguments, and braindead logic appear far and wide beyond their listenership. Talk radio is an agenda driven propaganda machine. An echo chamber where exaggerated grievances and invented issues get shouted back and forth until the mainstream press legitimizes them by discussing them as actual, relevant news. In their misguided attempts to achieve what they misunderstand to be an appropriate level of objectivity, they give a more than fair hearing to the patented bullshit, granting more credibility to the nonsense than it actually merits. And thus because folks like Rush and others are shameless in their hypocrisy, seemingly oblivious to their disingenuousness, and most importantly persistent in their constant message pounding, it will get repeated by slightly less obnoxious pundits and regurgitating parrots in a form that might actually be palatable to enough of the public to scratch out a victory.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Altherion' post='1710266' date='Mar 6 2009, 05.56']As far as I can tell, the Pennsylvania legislature simply ignores Federal Court rulings on election law, but it is not clear what would happen if Specter lost and then took them to court over it[/quote]

Gasp! The Pennsylvania legislature ignores federal courts? Why, they're normally such paragons of ethics and law-abidingness that I just can't believe this. ;)

As I understand it, sore loser laws prevent primary candidates of either party from running again as independents in the general. If Specter chose to run as an indie from the start, the law - constitutional or not - would not apply.

As to Pat Toomey, I am delighted that he has chosen to run; in fact, I may even donate to his campaign. He's got much less appeal with independent voters and Democrats, and Pennsylvania has a number of qualified Democrats who can plausibly run against him. (Allyson Schwartz, I'm looking in your direction.)

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1710361' date='Mar 6 2009, 08.04']As to Pat Toomey, I am delighted that he has chosen to run; in fact, I may even donate to his campaign. He's got much less appeal with independent voters and Democrats, and Pennsylvania has a number of qualified Democrats who can plausibly run against him. (Allyson Schwartz, I'm looking in your direction.)[/quote]

Oh, indeed. I imagine that a good many Democrats have been waiting for something like this to happen before jumping in the race. I remember reading a couple of months ago that Joe Sestak had a couple million dollars on hand for just such an occasion.

[Annelise]

REgarding healthcare reform and the pharmaceutical industry's number-one lobbyist:

[quote]Everybody knows that Big Pharma is in bed with Republicans and is biding its time to join forces with them to kill Obama's health plan. Everyone also knows that Obama and the Democrats are really going to stick it to Big Pharma.

Everybody, apparently, except Billy Tauzin, the pharmaceutical industry's top representative in Washington.

I'm tempted to go into a whole, long preamble about the history of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which is the sector's main trade group, and Tauzin, a former Republican member of the House from Louisiana.

But I'm not going to because I'm so eager to show you this extraordinary clip from Tauzin's appearance on CNBC Wednesay:


I really suggest you watch this exchange between Tauzin and CNBC's ace pharma correspondent Mike Huckman (who seems to scarcely believe what he's hearing) but I'll borrow the excerpt used by The Corner for those of you who don't:


Mike Huckman: Just to clarify, then, are you saying that if there is some kind of universal health care plan where prescription drugs are more broadly available, and they're available at a cheaper price, that your sector may make up in higher prescription volume and sales what it might lose on price?

Tauzin: Oh, absolutely, Mike. Think about this: Almost half of the prescriptions that are written today go unfilled. And they're unfilled primarily because people don't have adequate insurance. ...

I'm not even sure where to begin reacting to what Tauzin says here and I won't try to hit all the points of interest. Let's just review the most important part: The pharmaceutical industry's number-one lobbyist, a conservative Republican ex-congressman, said drug companies could make up in volume what they lose from lower prices under a universal health care program.[/quote][url="http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/03/big_pharmas_top_lobbyist_said_what.php"]http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/03/bi...t_said_what.php[/url]

From politico on the same topic:

[quote]Chip Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospital Systems, which helped fund the "Harry and Louise" ads, said there needed to be transparency.

But Ezekiel Emanuel, a health care policy specialist in the Office of Management and Budget, raised a sensitive point: “Are you going to run an ad? That’s what we really want to know.”

Kahn responded that hospitals will contribute to the reform effort and that they know they will have to contribute dollars.

“We’re ready to do that as long as it’s fair and reasonable,” Kahn said.[/quote][url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19702.html"]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19702.html[/url]

So Khan made no promises.. still, it's Friday and I'm inclined to take these as minorly upbeat news.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

More [url="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/steeles-ex-rivals-step-up-criticism.php?ref=fp4"]criticism of Michael Steele[/url], this time largely from former opponents in the race for RNC chair. Katon "Barack the Magic Negro" Dawson is the loudest, I suppose because he came in second and figures that he's got a good shot if they have another vote.

[Bittersteel]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1710489' date='Mar 6 2009, 10.04']More [url="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/steeles-ex-rivals-step-up-criticism.php?ref=fp4"]criticism of Michael Steele[/url], this time largely from former opponents in the race for RNC chair. Katon "Barack the Magic Negro" Dawson is the loudest, I suppose because he came in second and figures that he's got a good shot if they have another vote.[/quote]

You're confusing Katon "I got into politics to protest desegregation/I attend a whites-only country club" Dawson with Chip "Barack the Magic Negro" Saltsman.

What your mixup says about the makeup of the GOP leadership...that's another matter.

[Watcher]

[quote]The person making the comparison was making the implication "...And look how well Carter's term turned out." It wasn't meant to be a comparison of every President since then.[/quote]

Oh, I missed that. Public approval ratings doesn't guarantee a successful Presidency. But the Carter's comparison fails on a closer examination. Carter never had the Democratic congress behind him. Carter and the Congress had different economical agendas and Carter refused or didn't know how to play the political game in Washington D.C. Obama was a member of the U.S. Senate, at least for a short time, and more importantly has a number of Washington insiders on his staff.

A better comparison is with the George W. Bush. His approval rating was once over 80% and he had strong backing of the Republican controlled Congress. If Obama fails it will be for similar reasons Bush did, an overabundance of hubris and overplaying his hand.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Watcher' post='1710676' date='Mar 6 2009, 11.10']A better comparison is with the George W. Bush. His approval rating was once over 80% and he had strong backing of the Republican controlled Congress. If Obama fails it will be for similar reasons Bush did, an overabundance of hubris and overplaying his hand.[/quote]

Eh...if he fails I'd say its because his predecessors all but destroyed the country and that Obama, despite his many talents, can't walk on water and raise the dead.

[Watcher]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1710320' date='Mar 6 2009, 05.15']Continued disaster economically of course renders much of this moot. You can be assholes with bad ideas or no ideas and still look preferable to a party that has run the country into the ground. (or appears completely incapable of lifting it from the ground) In a country with only 2 real choices each election, if the guys in power stumble badly enough, it doesn't matter how fucked up the other guys are, they'll generally get their shot.[/quote]

This is where Obama's bipartisan efforts will pay off. If the economy doesn't get a lot better he can still cast some of the blame on the Republicans. Obama can point out that he tried to work with the Republicans and then show the clip of Rush giving his version of bipartisanship as "beating the democrats over the head until they agree with the conservative agenda."

In 2012 math is against the Democrats in the Senate they'll have to defend 21 seats vs 8 for the Republicans. And that is where how will the economy is doing matters.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Watcher:

I don't know about that. Obama could certainly _say_ that. People who preside over collapsing economies say all kinds of things. The research suggests that what they say isn't terribly relevant except on the margins.

[quote name='Bittersteel' post='1710644' date='Mar 6 2009, 11.51']You're confusing Katon "I got into politics to protest desegregation/I attend a whites-only country club" Dawson with Chip "Barack the Magic Negro" Saltsman.[/quote]

Oops, my mistake. Apologies to all concerned.

[Bittersteel]

Stephen Colbert's take down of crazy man Glenn Beck is absolutely priceless. Both videos [url="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/6/83220/99676/473/705335"]here[/url].

[Annelise]

Senate '10 discussion.

[quote]Because of the number of high-profile Republican retirements and the particular set of seats that are up for re-election this cycle, Democrats retain an excellent chance of gaining ground in the Senate, even as they're more likely than not to lose seats in the House. Some second-tier GOP targets, however, like Connecticut and Wisconsin, are potentially becoming more viable to the Republicans.[/quote][url="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/"]http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/[/url]

Top 10:

1. PA (R-Specter)
2. New Hampshire (R-open)
3. Missouri (R-open)
4. Ohio (R-open)
5. Kentucky (R-Bunning)
6. Florida (R-Open)
7. Nevada (D-Reid)
8. North Carolina (R-Burr)
9. Illinois (D- Burris)
10. Connecticut (D-Dodd)

[The Man]

Holy shit, that Colbert segment was amazing.

[Horza]

"Never. We would never shoot nuclear weapons at Decepticons, ever." - Col. Jack H. Jacobs, US Army (ret)

[Jaxtile]

PUPPIES AND KITTENS...

And wow Colbert has the Rush situation by the jugular: "He must of said something terrible!"