On Political Analysis Bunk

Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post is dead on that we should ignore that the 2009 elections mean this or that garbage from the analysts.

Marcus writes:

"do the off-year results foreshadow anything for a president's reelection three years down the road? Hardly. Of the 10 elections in which one party won both states, a president of that party was elected six times in the following presidential contest."

She continues:

"So it's possible, for example, that Obama's performance has turned off some of the Virginians who voted for him last year and played a role in the race between Democrat R. Creigh Deeds and Republican Bob McDonnell. But Deeds was a lousy candidate, McDonnell a far more adept one. Virginia is a purple state, but purple with a decidedly reddish tinge.

But as to the question of whether Tuesday's results portend very much for Congress in 2010 or Obama in 2012, the answer is: not really, all the commentary notwithstanding."

E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post does make the obvious yet good point that the dems are heavily reliant on the young voting demographic. And that could prove a real problem in the midterms.

Dark Horse Dispatch gets closer to the intentions of voters in the three "big" races on Tuesday as Sides at The Monkey Cage correctly says is the vital information needed to make robust political analysis. While Dark Horse's use of exit polling is not the best data it is more than we have seen elsewhere.

Dark Horse writes:

"Exit polls in both the NJ and VA elections show that a majority of independents supported Republicans. In Virginia, 62% of them voted for the GOP victor Bob McDonnell, while 37% voted for the Democrat Creigh Deeds. In NJ, GOP winner Chris Christie captured 58% of their votes, while defeated Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine got 31%.

So this means that Steele is right, and that this vital voting bloc is turning their backs on the Democrats and President Obama, yes?

Not if you listen to what these voters themselves told pollsters: When explicitly asked if their votes yesterday were indicative of what they thought about the President, 57% of independents in VA and 60% of them in NJ said —- NO."

Previous Posts
Mountains Out Of Poll Hills
Mountains Out Of Poll Hills - Follow Up
Mountains Out Of Poll Hills - Follow Up II Sphere: Related Content

Mountains Out Of Poll Hills - Follow Up

John Sides at The Monkey Cage asks What NY-23 (and VA and NJ) Mean. Sides addresses the theory that yesterdays results are a referendum on Democratic leadership:

"absent more evidence, we simply don’t know if they were referenda on Obama, on Corzine and Kaine, or on none of the above. Interpretations of elections depend on the reasons for voters’ choices. You can’t simply ask voters why they chose a candidate, or whether a particular factor mattered. People do not accurately report on their own mental processes. You can’t simply look at the at overall levels of opinions — what percentage approves of Obama or is dissatisfied with Corzine, etc."

Sides points out the Washington Post's Dan Balz odd contradiction:"

"Especially when these interpretations are contradictory mush like this from Dan Balz:

Off-year elections can be notoriously unreliable as predictors of the future, but as a window on how the political landscape may have changed in the year since President Obama won the White House, Tuesday’s Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey delivered clear warnings for the Democrats.

Unreliable, yet clear!"

Previous Post Sphere: Related Content

Why Liberals Love David Brooks

Gabriel Sherman at The New Republic explains the relationship between the White House and David Brooks and why liberals read his column. Sherman writes:

"That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. 'I remember distinctly an image of--we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,' Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” In the fall of 2006, two days after Obama’s The Audacity of Hope hit bookstores, Brooks published a glowing Times column. The headline was 'Run, Barack, Run.'"

He continues:

"Brooks concedes that his place on the political spectrum has shifted somewhat over the years. 'I used to think conservatives were right about the big things--the Soviet Union, economic growth,' he explains. 'Now, on a lot of issues, I think liberals have been right about some big things, like rising inequality. Both sides of the education divide are within the Democratic Party. . . . The Republicans are sitting this one out. And, then, the war in Iraq has caused me to rethink things in a much more modest [way], and that is Burkean, too.'"

And:

"As much as any columnist, Brooks speaks to these left-of-center suburbanites. After all, he is known for attracting liberal readers who normally can’t stand conservative pundits. 'I get a lot of people who say, ‘I’m a liberal and you’re the only one I read,’ ' Brooks says. 'Sometimes, it can be a little condescending. . . . But you take the readers where you can get them. I do wish more people walked up to me and said, ‘I’m a conservative and I love you.’ But, mostly, they don’t read the Times.'"

Sphere: Related Content

The State Of The GOP

Former Reagan Economist, Bruce Bartlett, explains the problem with the GOP and why he left the party. Bartlett writes:

"Mindless partisanship has replaced principled conservatism. What passes for principle in the party these days is 'what can we do to screw the Democrats today.' How else can you explain things like that insane op-ed Michael Steele had in the Washington Post on Monday?"

He continues:

"I think the Republican Party is in the same boat the Democrats were in in the early eighties — dominated by extremists unable to see how badly their party was alienating moderates and independents. The party’s adults formed the Democratic Leadership Council to push the party back to the center and it was very successful. But there is no group like that for Republicans. That has left lunatics like Glenn Beck as the party’s de facto leaders. As long as that remains the case, I want nothing to do with the GOP."

Sphere: Related Content

The Affirmative Action Class

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has nailed the problem of nepotism in the pundit and political class. Greenwald wrotes:

"They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from. There's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters."

Sphere: Related Content

Ted Kennedy

The weekend long memorial of Ted Kennedy was surprisingly emotional for me. I don't know why, but I cried. Perhaps it the some strange mythical status that my Irish Catholic (OK not really, but I can't escape all of it) background places on the Kennedy name. I was in Washington D.C. last week when Senator Kennedy pasted away and watched as the flag at the National Zoo was lowered to half staff by a National Park Service officer. I was at the zoo about to see an elephant and a zebra and the sight of a man lowering the flag because someone I had never met died made me sad. I have not gotten very emotional about the passing of other public figures but I felt connected to this one. I can't imagine this will happen to me or the country again for a long time.

I watched most of the services over the weekend, switching back and forth between CNN, MSNBC and Fox News to witness the differences in the coverage. I think the Fox News coverage was better than the other two. I think the Fox folks tended not to get too emotional about the death and the events after. I found that refreshing as I was emotional already. CNN had its usual panel of too many people that made the coverage strange. I think at one point CNN had seven people on their panel, not including Anderson Cooper who was the host. MSNBC's coverage was uncomfortable. First Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews should not be in the same room with each other. Their joint discomfort with each other is palpable even if you are just hearing them speak. Olbermann attempts at soaring rhetoric sometimes seems forced and distracting. While Matthew's feeling is genuine his overt emotions was not comforting. By far the best person involved in covering the events this weekend on the three cable networks was MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Unfortunately she was only involved on Friday.

Of all the written memorials to Senator Kennedy, I found Andrew Sullivan's essay in the Times to be the fullest, but there are many others that were just as good. I enjoyed the Sullivan piece because it is not the gushing liberal writing on the loss of the great liberal senator, it is the thoughtful conservative writing about the loss of the great American and part of the myth that is America.

Sullivan writes:

"Kennedy’s insistence on what he saw as racial justice and his deepest passion, universal healthcare, framed his legacy. There wasn’t a gay rights bill this compulsive heterosexual didn’t champion. Even if you disagreed with him on some issues, as I did, there was nothing subtle or contrived about his liberalism.

It was a big-hearted sort of politics, an expansively righteous sense of duty and, as such, an integral part of what makes Anglo-American politics work. Conservatism needs a Reagan and Thatcher; liberalism needs its Kennedys. Because we all need myth and we all need royalty – even if it is strained through the sieve of democratic rule.

Enoch Powell once remarked that all political careers end in failure. The strange thing about Kennedy is that his own might end posthumously in success. His anointed son Obama and a Democratic Congress will almost certainly pass a bill this autumn that will expand access to healthcare to all Americans. He fought for this for 40 years; and despite extreme resistance, peaking now, it seems clear that the Democrats have the votes to pass universal insurance, paid by government subsidy, for private healthcare."

Sphere: Related Content

Compromising on Health Care Reform, Maybe

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly suggests that Democrats should utilize the opposition talking points as areas of "compromise." Benen writes:

"With that in mind, I have two suggestions going forward. First, reform proponents should probably start telling the public that even Dick Armey thinks the idea of a public option sounds like 'a wonderful gift.'

And second, Democrats should declare, publicly and loudly, that in response to popular demand, they've decided to make the public plan purely optional. Conservatives drive a hard bargain, but reform proponents are not above compromise. As this item, posted by Josh Marshall, put it, 'I think Obama should use all the fictional friction points as bargaining chips. You want us to give up the tyranny of compulsory coverage? You win, Dick Armey. Will you support the bill now?'"

Sphere: Related Content

Dukakis Is A Good Choice For The Interim, And Not A Kennedy For The Long Term

With Gov. Deval Patrick publicly supporting the idea of an interim Senator from Massachusetts and with the legislative leaders seemingly supporting the idea that would that bring both houses back to Boston to fix their errors in succession laws for the U.S. Senate.

I support the appointment of Michael Dukakis to the interim position. My long term hope is that a Kennedy is not the Senator from Massachusetts. The impression of an entitlement to a seat in the Senate has gone on for too long. A Kennedy has been in this seat since 1953, except for the two years after John F. Kennedy was elected President.

If the Democrats want to run a liberal in the image of Ted Kennedy there are plenty of options. Sphere: Related Content

From Cynicism And Immorality To The Moral And Ethical

Is it surprising that some politicians

"don’t want to do the right thing because their self-interest points them toward doing something bad. But it’s impossible to imagine these same Senators stabbing a homeless person in a dark DC alley to steal his shoes. And what’s more, the entire political class would be (rightly!) shocked and appalled by the specter of a Senator murdering someone for personal gain. Yet it’s actually taken for granted that “my selfish desires dictate that I do x” constitutes a legitimate reason to do the wrong thing on important legislation."

Perhaps the possibility of losing the next election is the catalyst for this cynical approach to governing but I don't think there is a direct relationship between what the politician does and what the voters know, believe or understand. The way the commentatorate frames the politicans actions is how the voters understand what happened. It is not the wrath of the voters politicians are afraid of it the rhetoric of the pundits.

David Frum has recently laid out a polemic for the right and has been strongly shunned and criticized for his stand on a principle of what he believes is the right thing to do. Most analysis of his actions are framed in the form of Apostasy. Turning on a politician is much more appealing to the pundit because they know who they are talking to, the pols constituents.

We don't have politicians that have the long term goals of the country in mind. If the oath congress takes to the constitution meant something they would be less willing to fold to pundits or voters in favor of the "moral and ethical dimensions of political disputes and political action." Perhaps this is an argument for term limits but would we get better people? We should also ask when were we at a place where the "moral and ethical" trumped the cold political choices?
Sphere: Related Content

The GOP's Winning Arguments?

Fred Barnes writes in a Wall Street Journal essay today, "What the GOP has done best has been to make and win arguments."

That claim may be sort of true. The GOP has been talking a lot but I would not call what they say sound arguments based on truth.

Barnes claims:

"consider Sarah Palin's controversial statement that Mr. Obama's health-care plan would establish 'death panels' capable of denying care to seniors."

This line of 'argument' has been proven to be lies and huge distortions by a bi-partisan group of commentators.

Barnes writes:

"Better yet, they've stopped bad policies in their tracks. Consider Dick Cheney's decision to challenge Mr. Obama's inclination to go soft in the war on terror in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in May. By winning the argument that the nation needs a vigorous defense against al Qaeda, Mr. Cheney left Mr. Obama little choice but to stick with such Bush era policies as rendition of captured terrorists, immunity for telecommunication companies that cooperated with wiretapping possible terrorists, and targeting terrorist leaders for assassination."

Unfortunately, President Obama and Cheney did not have an argument in this area. How could the GOP win if the President's position is so similar to the GOP's position. Michael Crowley at the TNR writes:

"Cheney won the argument that we need a vigorous defense against al Qaeda? When exactly was Obama arguing it the other way?

And consider the positions into which Barnes says Obama was supposedly badgered by the former vice president. Rendition? It's true that Obama hasn't prohibited the snatching of terror suspects off the streets. But in February he signed an executive order outlawing the extrajudicial 'extraordinary renditions' that were an innovation of the Bush-Cheney era, and will no longer send them to countries where we can expect them to be tortured. Telecom immunity? Obama voted to support it while he was still in the Senate, outraging the liberal left. Targeting terrorist leaders? Obama vowed during the 2008 campaign to do just that--a position conservatives both distorted and ridiculed."

If the arguments are so powerful and true why aren't the independents in the "mass migration" from the President's corner supporting the GOP? Because the GOP is not making and winning arguments. Barnes writes:

"That's not the way politics works. Political recovery comes in two stages. The party out of power must first discredit the majority's ideas and agenda. Public approval comes later. It shows up on Election Day."

Barnes is correct that the Democrat's plan has been somewhat discredited, albeit by lies not arguments, but as David Frum asks what do you do then? If the GOP does not have its own idea how to fix these problems beyond discrediting Democratic proposals, who is going to vote for them. Sphere: Related Content

Benen On Steele

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly has a good reaction to the Michael Steele essay. Benen writes:

"If one sifts through the nonsense, looking for something substantive, what we're left with is Steele's uninformed opposition to the creation of an Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC). The idea is to have appointed IMAC members -- physicians and medical experts, appointed by the White House and confirmed by the Senate -- who would have some added authority to help control what Medicare pays doctors and hospitals. The panel would probably help lower costs more effectively than Congress, which isn't especially good at these technical, medicinal, and scientific questions.

The idea was originally proposed by conservatives, embraced by Democrats, and would serve as part of a larger effort to save money and take political considerations out of the process.

And now Michael Steele wants seniors to think big bad Democrats are trying to undermine Medicare."

Sphere: Related Content

I Think Michael Steele Needs To Go On The Daily Show

Michael Steele, the inept chair of the Republican National Committee, needs to pay a visit to the would be HR department that Jon Stewart runs on the west side of Manhattan. In a essay at the Wash Post today, Steele put forth the same misrepresentations, or lies, that Betsy McCaughey uncontrollably spewed last week. Steele:

"Third, we need to outlaw any effort to ration health care based on age. Obama has promoted a program of "comparative effectiveness research" that he claims will be used only to study competing medical treatments. But this program could actually lead to government boards rationing treatments based on age. For example, if there are going to be only so many heart surgeries in a given year, the Democrats figure government will get more bang for its buck if more young and middle-aged people get them."

Steele goes on to call for a bi-partisan approach on health care. The mind of Steele must have forgotten that President Obama has put health care reform in the hands of our only bi-partisan branch of government only to have anything but flexibility or compromise from the Republican party. Steele writes:

"Reversing course and joining Republicans in support of health care for our nation's senior citizens is a good place to start. Doing so will help him restart the reform process to give Americans access to low-cost, high-quality health care."

Perhaps this faux call for bi-partisanship should start with Michael Steele telling us where the party he leads is flexible and willing to compromise on it core values. I don't think he can do it, obstructing and killing legislation is not a core value. Sphere: Related Content

Is Max Baucus Fighting With Max Baucus

Jonathan Chait at TNR is concerned with the Dem Congressional Health Care leadership. Chait writes:

"So first Baucus announces a deadline. Then he says we don't need no stinking deadline. I'm at a loss. I have been told by somebody in a position to know firsthand that Baucus, to put it delicately, is not an intellectual giant. But is he such an affable dolt that he simply agrees with whoever speaks with him last? Do other Senators routinely trade him shiny new dimes for drab old dollar bills? Just how mentally feeble is this man?"

Sphere: Related Content

Should Dems Make Health Care Debate Last

Mickey Kaus thinks the health care deabte is a much happier place to be as oppoesed to the other big issues that are coming. The longer the Dems are on health care the farther away is immigration reform. Sphere: Related Content

Barack Obama Has To Find His Partisan Balls

The White House needs to abandon dreams of bi-partisanship and get their Democratic Ducks in order.

There will be no health care bill that gets more than one to two Republican votes. It is time for the White House to play harder with the Democrats in Congress, particularly the Senate Dems.

Over the next two election cycles there are eight Democratic Senators running for re-election. It may be time for the party and the President to take advantage of this reality. I don't think it helps these eight Democrats to have a new president under cut on what is likely the biggest policy initiative of his presidency. It would pay off for congressional Democrats to strengthen Barack Obama's political power by passing reform in the strongest form possible.

Since the President, and politics in general, is fond of sports methaphors we can call this last week of August half time. The President needs to set the tone for the team that he leads and have them running out of the locker room with a new game plan and all on the same page. If he can't get firm commitments from the Democrats that strayed from the pack he and the party needs to use real internal party pressure on these politicians. Right now Barack Obama is still the most popular figure in the country and the fundraising possibility is amazing. If the Congressional Democrats want a piece of that they need to get in line. They should be told to imagine the possible electoral and fund raising power of a President that passed a major policy initiative and what that power does for them. Remind them that avoiding huge losses in the mid-terms is good for them as much as it is for the White House.

This week while vacationing in Martha's Vineyard Barack Obama should also make time to sit with Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Democratic legislative leaders to stress the importance of changing state succession laws for the US Senate seats as soon as possible. Along with Patrick, President Obama stress to Senator Kennedy the need to resign if the State does change the succession law. It secures the Senator's legacy if a strong bill passes with him in retirement not if a weak bill fails with him kind of in office. A similar conversation should take place with Senator Robert Byrd in West Virginia.

What is likely to be the most important piece of legislation to come out of the Congress in nearly forty years and will create huge changes in our society over the next forty and beyond should not be held up by the lack of congressional and presidential leadership.

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek writes:

"Obama's message of conciliation worked perfectly in the '08 campaign in part because it's an authentic reflection of his personality. Axelrod harbored doubts about whether Obama's aversion to confrontation when it becomes nasty and personal would hamper him as a candidate. 'When it comes to taking a punch, I don't know whether you're Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson,' Axelrod wrote to Obama in a November 2006 memo reported in a new book that reprises the campaign by Washington Post political reporter Dan Balz and former Post writer Haynes Johnson. Now Obama supporters are wondering about their man. If they're to see what he's made of, Obama has to first get in the ring. Forget the niceties, it's time to fight."

It is past the time for Barack Obama to get involved in this process. He needs to put out some strong speeches about the moral obligations we have to secure health care for everyone but he needs to get the politics in his party together first.


Photo is from Newsweek Sphere: Related Content

Bachmann Hannity 2012 Or Hannity Bachmann 2012 -- Which Do You Prefer?

I don't care who gets top billing. I want to see this campaign.

Hannity said he has not ruled out running for president.

Should we be scared of this idea? Sphere: Related Content

President Obama Gives Ramadan Message

I think it is extremely important that President Obama continue to engage the world in really small but effective measures such as this message about Ramadan.


Sphere: Related Content

Are The Dems Losing Support In The Country

Greg Sargent at The Plum Line Blog breaks down a Research 2000 poll conducted for Daily Kos.

The Plum Line:

"Here are the net favorability ratings for Obama — i.e., the difference between the favorable and unfavorable ratings — broken down by party and compared with the previous week:

DEMOCRATS: +72 (+78)
REPUBLICANS: - 86 (- 84)
INDEPENDENTS: +35 (+39)

And here are the net favorability ratings for Congressional Dems, broken down by party and compared with the previous week:

DEMOCRATS: +55 (+65)
REPUBLICANS: - 90 (- 90)
INDEPENDENTS: - 20 (- 15)

A six point drop in the net fave rating among Dems for Obama; a ten point drop among Dems for Congressional Dems. Pretty telling."

Sphere: Related Content

Grassley Is A Proxy To The Faction Of Anti-Health Care Protesters

Last night I wrote a comment to Rep. Michelle Bachmann's and Sean Hannity's lack of grasp on the US Constitution and the intention of founding of the country. Today Sen. Chuck Grassley has fallen victim to the faction problem that James Madison warned us of in Federalist Paper #10. The faction of anti-health care reformers. A Washington Post story says:

"After being besieged by protesters at meetings across his home state of Iowa, Grassley said he has concluded that the public has rejected the far-reaching proposals Democrats have put on the table, viewing them as overly expensive precursors to ''a government takeover of health care.'"

Grassley has made himself redundant by saying that the people have rejected the current health care proposals. The Post story reports Grassley as saying:

"Calls for reform are 'not quite as loud as people that say we ought to slow down or don't do anything,' he said. 'And I've got to listen to my people.'"

Grassley has joined Bachmann in not understanding his job.

Conor Clarke on the Daily Dish has revisited the Federalist Papers today much as I did yesterday. Clarke writes:

"I think it's worth mentioning that the Grassley theory of 'the public' is pretty much the exact opposite of how American democracy is supposed to function. Famously, public representatives are supposed to distinguish between the 'vicious arts' of faction (Madison's words) and the 'permanent and aggregate interests of the community' (Hamilton's). Of course, it might be the case that protestors laying seige to Fort Grassley actually represent the aggregate interests of the public. But you won't find evidence for that conclusion at a townhall meeting.

On the other hand, there's a pretty interesting question about the nature of democracy here: Formal democracy measures only the number of preferences (tallying votes), and not the intensity of preferences (like passionate townhall protests) or the quality of preferences (like the opinion of some group of philosopher kings). But I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Senator Grassley is not asking those rich philosophical quesitons."

Clarke is correct Grassley is not pursuing any grand philosophical goal. He is playing politics and not doing his job.

Sphere: Related Content

Kennedy Makes Plans For Departure From Senate

The Boston Globe reports that Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts has begun conversations to modify the state succession law to ensure that Mass. has two senators.

Hopefully the Mass. legislature can make this change quickly. This announcement from Kennedy does sound as if he plans to step down when the law is changed if he does not die before then.

Unfortunately the Globe reports that there may not be any political will to change the law.

I have asserted in the past that Kennedy and Senator Robert Byrd both retire giving Dems two useful votes in the senate. Sphere: Related Content