What was that Atrios line? "And the millions of unemployed cheered themselves hoarse"? Yeah, that. I especially like the part where he eliminates Pell Grants and screws post-secondary students over on interest charges. Now THAT'S "winning the future", Barry!
Wrong time, wrong target. And as Paul Krugman ably demonstrates, one that's only going to piss people off when the thing you cut is something they like. Obama was voted partially to be a president that sets aside Washington's ridiculous GroupThink on issues like deficits, and focus on what's really bothering Americans. Guess that just doesn't happen.
But, hey, it isn't just his fault. It's also yours. Remember: you voted for this. You voted in a whole lotta Republicans who were wailing about budget deficits. You didn't just toss out those "blue-dog" idiots, either, which would be understandable and excusable; you also threw out Democrats like Howard Feingold and Alan Grayson who were solid on the issues and knew what they were talking about.
You chose a Republican House that will do its best to drag the country into the abyss and told the president that he should follow their lead. You chose to have your government focus on deficits by fucking the poor and jobless. That's what the Republicans were selling, and you bought it.
There were an awful lot of "experts" telling you that it was necessary, of course. The media's owned by the very corps whose execs and owners benefit so handsomely from the total wealth transfer to the richest 1% that's going on in America. It would make sense that they'd bring in the very finest expert opinion money can buy. But you DO still have options, especially in this day and age.
Ah well, you've got two years to suffer, and then maybe you can throw THESE bums out too. Assuming you aren't too distracted by Snooki and The Situation to pay attention. I can only hope.
Showing posts with label 2010 American Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 American Election. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Hidden Story About Dixie Blue Dems
Politico's going through a whole song and dance about how Dixie Dems are extinct. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. I've heard that sort of thing before.
But I wanted to highlight a somewhat buried point here.
ConservaDems and supporters of ConservaDems should pay very, very close attention to that. Taking a stand against a bill that your state or district won't like won't make a bit of difference. You're going to get blamed regardless. The only hope you have is that the bill in question gets out-and-out killed, and even then you might get punished for your party having proposed it in the first place. You can't win by opposing.
So what CAN you do? Something that may be almost bizarre: you can try to make the best legislation you know how. ObamaCare is so controversial not because people think it went too far, but because of the concessions made to to try and get votes from recalcitrant conservative Senators. Those concessions were what made it such a pretzel of industry handouts and half-hearted regulation; without them, it would have almost certainly been a cleaner, more focused, more effective piece of legislation. With a public option, no less. If everybody involved had been focused on the quality of the legislation, instead of optics of "conservative" v. "liberal", they would have produced a reform bill that would stand up all on its own. Sure, the Republicans and the conservative movement would have taken shots at it, but what would have mattered would be how it improved people's lives.
Yes, this isn't necessarily going to help House ConservaDems that much, since the problem is primarily in the Senate, not the House. Senators will have to learn this lesson as well. But at least said CDs will realize that they can't run against their party like they used to. Dems, like the Founders, need to "hang together, or hang separately". Useful lesson, that.
But I wanted to highlight a somewhat buried point here.
Most people in north Alabama cannot identify with Nancy Pelosi” is how incoming Alabama House Speaker and state GOP Chairman Mike Hubbard put it.I'm sure you noticed the key point there: it doesn't matter how you voted. Melancon voted against the Health Care Reform bill, and guess what? People blamed him for it anyway. They were convinced that he voted for it, because his party voted for it. The "D" beside his name meant "health care" no matter what he did. His actual vote didn't make a lick of difference.
But it also has to do with the narrative Republicans have ceaselessly driven.
“Democrats are the party of entitlement and of more government intrusion,” said Hubbard, calling health care reform “socialistic.”
And while Southern Democrats once could’ve avoided being painted with that brush thanks to personal relationships and influential newspapers in their region, the explosion of new media has made it more difficult for them to differentiate themselves from the national brand. How people get news about politics, and much else, has fundamentally changed.
Melancon, a Blue Dog Democrat, recalled how people would approach him in the final weeks of his Senate campaign to ask why he voted for health care reform. He hadn’t.
“I’d ask folks, ‘Where did you hear that?’ and they’d say, ‘I don’t know,’” he recalled.
Often, they would cite a forwarded e-mail.
“I have to tell my own friends to not forward me that gobbledygook unless they’ve fact-checked it,” Melancon lamented. “If you’re going to forward it without taking the time to figure out if it’s true, then you’re as bad as the person who sent it.”
ConservaDems and supporters of ConservaDems should pay very, very close attention to that. Taking a stand against a bill that your state or district won't like won't make a bit of difference. You're going to get blamed regardless. The only hope you have is that the bill in question gets out-and-out killed, and even then you might get punished for your party having proposed it in the first place. You can't win by opposing.
So what CAN you do? Something that may be almost bizarre: you can try to make the best legislation you know how. ObamaCare is so controversial not because people think it went too far, but because of the concessions made to to try and get votes from recalcitrant conservative Senators. Those concessions were what made it such a pretzel of industry handouts and half-hearted regulation; without them, it would have almost certainly been a cleaner, more focused, more effective piece of legislation. With a public option, no less. If everybody involved had been focused on the quality of the legislation, instead of optics of "conservative" v. "liberal", they would have produced a reform bill that would stand up all on its own. Sure, the Republicans and the conservative movement would have taken shots at it, but what would have mattered would be how it improved people's lives.
Yes, this isn't necessarily going to help House ConservaDems that much, since the problem is primarily in the Senate, not the House. Senators will have to learn this lesson as well. But at least said CDs will realize that they can't run against their party like they used to. Dems, like the Founders, need to "hang together, or hang separately". Useful lesson, that.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
"We're All Socialists Now" (Edit: Now With Election Stuff)
Lawrence O'Donnell edumacates America and Glenn Beck about an ideology that America has (perhaps unwittingly) embraced: Socialism.
(Had an embed, but it was handling the content column size somewhat badly. I'll replace it with a link for now.)
He makes the point that any modern economy is a mix of capitalist and socialist elements; that the attacks on social security and medicare as "socialist" actually had a factual basis, because they WERE socialism. They were just also the right thing to do at the time.
I somewhat disagree. I don't think that these things are incompatible with either liberalism or an appreciation of markets. They are contradictory with market fundamentalism, yes. But market fundamentalism doesn't make you a capitalist. It makes you an idiot. Capitalism requires governmental frameworks and institutions in order to properly function. To call that "socialism" is like calling someone a vegetarian because they like a baked potato and some grilled vegetables with their steak.
Still, it's arresting enough to see someone call themselves a "socialist" on a major cable news channel that, honestly, I could give a rats ass about whether or not the name is completely apropos. I have no idea how long O'Donnell is going to keep it, but I know that I'll keep tuning in.
(Edit: That said, I agree far more with Gleen Greenwald on why the Dems lost than O'Donnell. It has nothing to do with being "liberal" vs. being "conservative". There's simply no way that a significant plurality of the electorate changed its deepest political philosophy between 2004 and 2006, or between 2008 and 2010. To think that it's about ideology is to be naive about ideology. It was about all the people who were out of work, the Democratic disconnect with main-street concerns, the Republicans' better messaging, and the perception that the Dems were ineffective due to their complete inability to pass legislation.
(Which had nothing to do with the Republicans for a long time; it was 'blue dogs' that were blocking things, not Republicans. The Dems had no excuse when they had 60 votes.)
None of those things have anything to do with ideology, except to the extent that Democrats' pants-wetting fear of their own beliefs makes them look like frightened children when paired against Republican zealots. Independents didn't shrink from repulsive ideology; they shrank from a broken party.
(Had an embed, but it was handling the content column size somewhat badly. I'll replace it with a link for now.)
He makes the point that any modern economy is a mix of capitalist and socialist elements; that the attacks on social security and medicare as "socialist" actually had a factual basis, because they WERE socialism. They were just also the right thing to do at the time.
I somewhat disagree. I don't think that these things are incompatible with either liberalism or an appreciation of markets. They are contradictory with market fundamentalism, yes. But market fundamentalism doesn't make you a capitalist. It makes you an idiot. Capitalism requires governmental frameworks and institutions in order to properly function. To call that "socialism" is like calling someone a vegetarian because they like a baked potato and some grilled vegetables with their steak.
Still, it's arresting enough to see someone call themselves a "socialist" on a major cable news channel that, honestly, I could give a rats ass about whether or not the name is completely apropos. I have no idea how long O'Donnell is going to keep it, but I know that I'll keep tuning in.
(Edit: That said, I agree far more with Gleen Greenwald on why the Dems lost than O'Donnell. It has nothing to do with being "liberal" vs. being "conservative". There's simply no way that a significant plurality of the electorate changed its deepest political philosophy between 2004 and 2006, or between 2008 and 2010. To think that it's about ideology is to be naive about ideology. It was about all the people who were out of work, the Democratic disconnect with main-street concerns, the Republicans' better messaging, and the perception that the Dems were ineffective due to their complete inability to pass legislation.
(Which had nothing to do with the Republicans for a long time; it was 'blue dogs' that were blocking things, not Republicans. The Dems had no excuse when they had 60 votes.)
None of those things have anything to do with ideology, except to the extent that Democrats' pants-wetting fear of their own beliefs makes them look like frightened children when paired against Republican zealots. Independents didn't shrink from repulsive ideology; they shrank from a broken party.
Monday, November 08, 2010
One Of the Big Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives
When liberals win big, as in 2006 and 2008, you never hear people say that it's a triumph for liberalism.
When conservatives win big, as they did this year, you CONSTANTLY hear people say that it's a triumph for conservatism.
If it were just the media, then that'd be annoying but understandable. They take their cues from Fox, and Fox is a propaganda arm of the conservative movement. What's bizarre is that liberals never claim victory either. They are, as we see over and over again with that "progressive" bullshit, totally afraid to claim victory for their ideology. Hell, they're unwilling to even DISCUSS their ideology. They'll talk about the economy, they'll talk about warfare, they'll talk endlessly about political missteps and tactics and strategies and all that horse-race crap that only the media actually cares about. But you never hear them say "this shows that the American public is actually pretty liberal; it's just had the word demonized by agitprop from the well-heeled-and-amoral."
Meanwhile, every two-bit conservative from Canada to Mexico is crowing about how the 2010 results are a victory for conservatism. People like Mike Pence babble on and on about how the results are "a victory for conservative values". They're shouting their ideology from the rooftops.
The results aren't any sort of victory for conservatism, of course. How could they be? It's been a grand total of two years since Obama swept the nation. People's beliefs don't change that fast. No, they're a reaction to an unbelievably shitty job market, combined with the regression from the Democratic wave of 2008 and a metric tonne of Citizens United-spawned attacks ads. Americans are no more "conservative" in values than they were two years ago, and every time you actually poll them about their REAL beliefs, they end up coming across as fairly liberal. Hell, most want to repeal Obama's health care legislation because they want to add a public option. That ain't "conservative".
And what'd be nice if a liberal was actually out there saying that. If one of these talking heads said "most Americans are liberal, but don't realize it, because they've been told all their lives that liberals eat babies for breakfast". I know it's not popular and, perhaps, not politically savvy to tell the American people that they're being bamboozled by agents and apologists of that 1% of the population that's walking away with a full quarter of America's income. Such talk always seems to raise the spectre of the Cold War Commies in the American mind. Class inequality was the cause of The Enemy.
Nonetheless, it's true. And wouldn't it be nice if liberals calmly, forthrightly, and unapologetically spoke the truth for once?
When conservatives win big, as they did this year, you CONSTANTLY hear people say that it's a triumph for conservatism.
If it were just the media, then that'd be annoying but understandable. They take their cues from Fox, and Fox is a propaganda arm of the conservative movement. What's bizarre is that liberals never claim victory either. They are, as we see over and over again with that "progressive" bullshit, totally afraid to claim victory for their ideology. Hell, they're unwilling to even DISCUSS their ideology. They'll talk about the economy, they'll talk about warfare, they'll talk endlessly about political missteps and tactics and strategies and all that horse-race crap that only the media actually cares about. But you never hear them say "this shows that the American public is actually pretty liberal; it's just had the word demonized by agitprop from the well-heeled-and-amoral."
Meanwhile, every two-bit conservative from Canada to Mexico is crowing about how the 2010 results are a victory for conservatism. People like Mike Pence babble on and on about how the results are "a victory for conservative values". They're shouting their ideology from the rooftops.
The results aren't any sort of victory for conservatism, of course. How could they be? It's been a grand total of two years since Obama swept the nation. People's beliefs don't change that fast. No, they're a reaction to an unbelievably shitty job market, combined with the regression from the Democratic wave of 2008 and a metric tonne of Citizens United-spawned attacks ads. Americans are no more "conservative" in values than they were two years ago, and every time you actually poll them about their REAL beliefs, they end up coming across as fairly liberal. Hell, most want to repeal Obama's health care legislation because they want to add a public option. That ain't "conservative".
And what'd be nice if a liberal was actually out there saying that. If one of these talking heads said "most Americans are liberal, but don't realize it, because they've been told all their lives that liberals eat babies for breakfast". I know it's not popular and, perhaps, not politically savvy to tell the American people that they're being bamboozled by agents and apologists of that 1% of the population that's walking away with a full quarter of America's income. Such talk always seems to raise the spectre of the Cold War Commies in the American mind. Class inequality was the cause of The Enemy.
Nonetheless, it's true. And wouldn't it be nice if liberals calmly, forthrightly, and unapologetically spoke the truth for once?
Saturday, November 06, 2010
REPEAL HEALTH CARE! (FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION!!?)
Yep, that's right. You know all those people who say they want to repeal the health care legislation? The ones that wingnuts are always trumpeting?
What they AREN'T telling you is that, for more than half, it's because they want a public option added.
That's why it's important to get past the hype and look more closely into what people really want. Even THEY might not be totally sure what they really want; but it's not the pro-business status-quo that the Republicans are selling. They want something better, and it's tragic that neither the Republicans nor Dems appear to be willing or able to give it to them.
What they AREN'T telling you is that, for more than half, it's because they want a public option added.
Many have assumed that those advocating for repeal wanted Congress to take no further action on health care reform. However, this survey found that 48 percent of Americans actually would like for Congress to continue working on health care system reforms as opposed to focusing on other topics. In fact, the survey found that 63 percent of those individuals who supported repealing the legislation also were in favor of Congress continuing to work on health care system reforms.They do want health care reform. They just don't necessarily want this form of health care reform. Which is understandable, since the Senate passed a dog's breakfast of a system that is largely a handout to health insurance corps.
When asked how important they thought it was for Congress to work on “establishment of a public option that would give individuals a choice between government provided health insurance or private health insurance,” 67 percent of Americans rated this as an important topic to address. This finding is even more striking given the fact that 59 percent of those in favor of repealing the health care reform legislation rated the public option as important to pursue. Another surprise is that 67 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Independents also agreed that the public option was an important topic to be addressed by Congress.
That's why it's important to get past the hype and look more closely into what people really want. Even THEY might not be totally sure what they really want; but it's not the pro-business status-quo that the Republicans are selling. They want something better, and it's tragic that neither the Republicans nor Dems appear to be willing or able to give it to them.
Friday, November 05, 2010
*Olbermann* Was Suspended For Partisanship?
If I didn't see it...
Yes, despite the fact that Fox News is either a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party or vice versa, it's Keith Olbermann of MSNBC that is taking a hit for supposed partisanship. Apparently he donated a few bucks to the Dems, and now he's taking heat for it.
Supposedly this is because NBC has standards about this sort of thing that Fox doesn't. Will this help those standards? Nope. Fox will just keep gaining ground. Will it be a blow for journalistic integrity? Nope, it'll just buttress Fox's position while harming MSNBC.
Oh, and NPR didn't let their people attend Jon Stewart's rally, either.
This is one of the reasons why the right inevitably wins. Because progressives can be such IDIOTS about this sort of thing. They handicap themselves, over and over, for reasons that mean NOTHING and accomplish even less.
(Not that NBC is that progressive, of course. But it's a damned sight better than Fox.)
Yes, despite the fact that Fox News is either a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party or vice versa, it's Keith Olbermann of MSNBC that is taking a hit for supposed partisanship. Apparently he donated a few bucks to the Dems, and now he's taking heat for it.
Supposedly this is because NBC has standards about this sort of thing that Fox doesn't. Will this help those standards? Nope. Fox will just keep gaining ground. Will it be a blow for journalistic integrity? Nope, it'll just buttress Fox's position while harming MSNBC.
Oh, and NPR didn't let their people attend Jon Stewart's rally, either.
This is one of the reasons why the right inevitably wins. Because progressives can be such IDIOTS about this sort of thing. They handicap themselves, over and over, for reasons that mean NOTHING and accomplish even less.
(Not that NBC is that progressive, of course. But it's a damned sight better than Fox.)
Dem-Leaning Indies Stayed Home
Greg Sargent reinforces something that I'd seen yesterday in the CBS exit polls: The makeup of the electorate may have changed more than the beliefs of the American people as a whole.
There's a lot to be said for this. The part about Independents "not being a monolith" is very important to remember. Democrats and Republicans aren't monoliths, either, but at the very least they have shared stated loyalty to a political party. Independents don't even have THAT, and are almost certainly not going to decide to vote or NOT vote as a bloc.
So why did they stay home? Sargent doesn't know. Fair enough. It could be likely that it has a lot to do with enthusiasm. Dem-leaning groups are already less inclined to vote than Rep-leaning groups. If you're a registered Dem, you'll be a little bit more invested in the process; but if you're a Dem-leaning Independent, you probably have nothing invested in the process at all. You won't vote as a matter of course; you need a REASON to get your carcass out to the polling station, wait in line, and pull those levers or push those buttons.
Have the Dems given them those reasons? No, they have not. They didn't even run a fiercely negative campaign about all the damage that the Republicans would do. As far as I can tell, they barely ran a campaign at all. Individual candidates ran campaigns, definitely; but how can that help against national trends?
Even a negative campaign may not have been enough, though. Dem-leaning Independents need a reason to go vote for you in the first place. That's one of the ways that Obama was so successful in 2008: he made a point of ensuring that people had a reason to go vote for him. The Dems never provided those reasons this time. How could they? They couldn't credibly promise a damned thing: Obama had broken many of his—or half-assed their fulfillment—and Congressional Democrats couldn't even marshall the votes of Senate DEMOCRATS, let alone Republicans! Even when they HAD sixty seats, they were being filibustered by their own supposed partisans!
So what the hell is the Congress supposed to promise the American people, exactly? A shitton of decent House bills sitting uselessly in Senate limbo! Dem-leaners won't turn out for that, especially when everything else in their lives is so depressing right now. They may not vote Republican, but they won't necessarily vote Democratic, either.
Kudos to Sargent and the PPP for bringing this up. I can only hope it gets spread quickly and helps challenge the coalescing media consensus that this is about liberalism. It isn't, of course. If it were, then 2006 and 2008 would also have been about conservatism, and the same people who avoided ideological conclusions then would be avoiding ideological conclusions now. The extent to which this is blamed on liberalism just shows the fundamental character of the American media.
Edit: On the other hand, maybe non-voters were satisfied after all?
The key finding: PPP asked independents who did vote in 2010 who they had supported in 2008. The results: Fifty one percent of independents who voted this time supported McCain last time, versus only 42 percent who backed Obama last time. In 2008, Obama won indies by eight percent.And, again, a lot of the people who DID switch were almost certainly influenced by their economic troubles.
That means the complexion of indies who turned out this time is far different from last time around, argues Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. His case: Dem-leaning indys stayed home this time while GOP-leaning ones came out -- proof, he insists, that the Dems' primary problem is they failed to inspire indys who are inclined to support them.
"The dumbest thing Democrats could do right now is listen to those like Third Way who urge Democrats to repeat their mistake by caving to Republicans and corporations instead of fighting boldly for popular progressive reforms and reminding Americans why they were inspired in 2008," Green says.
There's a lot to be said for this. The part about Independents "not being a monolith" is very important to remember. Democrats and Republicans aren't monoliths, either, but at the very least they have shared stated loyalty to a political party. Independents don't even have THAT, and are almost certainly not going to decide to vote or NOT vote as a bloc.
So why did they stay home? Sargent doesn't know. Fair enough. It could be likely that it has a lot to do with enthusiasm. Dem-leaning groups are already less inclined to vote than Rep-leaning groups. If you're a registered Dem, you'll be a little bit more invested in the process; but if you're a Dem-leaning Independent, you probably have nothing invested in the process at all. You won't vote as a matter of course; you need a REASON to get your carcass out to the polling station, wait in line, and pull those levers or push those buttons.
Have the Dems given them those reasons? No, they have not. They didn't even run a fiercely negative campaign about all the damage that the Republicans would do. As far as I can tell, they barely ran a campaign at all. Individual candidates ran campaigns, definitely; but how can that help against national trends?
Even a negative campaign may not have been enough, though. Dem-leaning Independents need a reason to go vote for you in the first place. That's one of the ways that Obama was so successful in 2008: he made a point of ensuring that people had a reason to go vote for him. The Dems never provided those reasons this time. How could they? They couldn't credibly promise a damned thing: Obama had broken many of his—or half-assed their fulfillment—and Congressional Democrats couldn't even marshall the votes of Senate DEMOCRATS, let alone Republicans! Even when they HAD sixty seats, they were being filibustered by their own supposed partisans!
So what the hell is the Congress supposed to promise the American people, exactly? A shitton of decent House bills sitting uselessly in Senate limbo! Dem-leaners won't turn out for that, especially when everything else in their lives is so depressing right now. They may not vote Republican, but they won't necessarily vote Democratic, either.
Kudos to Sargent and the PPP for bringing this up. I can only hope it gets spread quickly and helps challenge the coalescing media consensus that this is about liberalism. It isn't, of course. If it were, then 2006 and 2008 would also have been about conservatism, and the same people who avoided ideological conclusions then would be avoiding ideological conclusions now. The extent to which this is blamed on liberalism just shows the fundamental character of the American media.
Edit: On the other hand, maybe non-voters were satisfied after all?
Thursday, November 04, 2010
The "Hold Your Nose" Factor (Along With Economies and ConservaDems' Responsibility)
I've been going over some exit poll results on CBS's website. A lot to digest, but something jumped out at me.
Now the Republicans:
Another bit that grabbed me was a possible indicator that this is a different electorate than in 2008 rather than just a change in views in the same electorate: the McCain/Obama numbers. McCain and Obama numbers were evenly split at 45% each. Now this may be people misremembering, but it was only two years ago and a big deal besides. I believe this better shows that these are not all the same people who voted in the last election. More McCain voters showed up because they were energized; Obama voters declined precipitously.
Oh, and one more thing. Look at this. It shows the importance of the economy as a factor.
(After all, that very same group punished the Republicans two years ago.)
This isn't a repudiation of liberalism. It was "the economy, stupid". If Obama had delivered a better economy, the group of people who are better off and thought the economy was recovering would have been larger, and delivered more votes for his people on Tuesday.
So, now, the battle appears to be over who gets blamed for the terrible economy in 2012. So far, I'm not optimistic it's going to be the Republicans.
Edit: There's a bit in TAP by Jamelle Bouie that reinforces this point.
Dispirited youth and minorities stayed home. Energized, "fuck-you" oldsters went to vote. People who were worse off went (R), and the Senate's "moderates" screwed everybody else. Just another election in America, during the long, slow, brutal slide to irrelevance.
Is your opinion of the Democratic Party:So only 10% of people "held their nose and voted Democratic". That's really, really small. Pretty clear that the only way you were going to vote Democratic is if you liked the Dems.
Favorable (43%)
House Vote Democrat: 91%, House Vote Republican 8%
Unfavorable (53%)
House Vote Democrat: 10% House Vote Republican 88%
Now the Republicans:
Is your opinion of the Republican Party:See the difference? Almost a quarter of people with unfavorable views of the Republican party voted for it anyway! That suggests, to me, that there were a lot of people who pulled the "R" despite themselves. They didn't like the Republicans, and may not have even shared their agenda; but they're ticked off enough about the economy that they decided to punish the Democrats regardless.
Favorable (42%)
House Vote Democrat: 11%, House Vote Republican: 88%
Unfavorable (52%)
House Vote Democrat: 75%, House Vote Republican: 23%
Another bit that grabbed me was a possible indicator that this is a different electorate than in 2008 rather than just a change in views in the same electorate: the McCain/Obama numbers. McCain and Obama numbers were evenly split at 45% each. Now this may be people misremembering, but it was only two years ago and a big deal besides. I believe this better shows that these are not all the same people who voted in the last election. More McCain voters showed up because they were energized; Obama voters declined precipitously.
Oh, and one more thing. Look at this. It shows the importance of the economy as a factor.
Do you think the condition of the nation's economy is:The Dems FAR outperformed their average among people who thought the economy was doing well. The farther down, the poorer the evaluation. It carried over to financial situation, too: if you are BETTER off or "about the same", you were more likely to vote Democratic; if you were WORSE off, you were more likely to vote Republican. Which fits the "punishing the Dems for the poor economy" thesis quite well, rather than some kind of wholesale embrace of Republican ideology.
Good (9%) House Dem:79%, House Rep: 20%
Not so good (52%) House Dem: 52%, House Rep: 45%
Poor (37%) House Dem: 26%, House Rep: 71%
(After all, that very same group punished the Republicans two years ago.)
This isn't a repudiation of liberalism. It was "the economy, stupid". If Obama had delivered a better economy, the group of people who are better off and thought the economy was recovering would have been larger, and delivered more votes for his people on Tuesday.
So, now, the battle appears to be over who gets blamed for the terrible economy in 2012. So far, I'm not optimistic it's going to be the Republicans.
Edit: There's a bit in TAP by Jamelle Bouie that reinforces this point.
Almost all districts voted more Republican in this election than in 2008, but much of that shift came from states hit hard by the recession. Republicans made big gains in Michigan (13 percent unemployment), Florida (11.9 percent unemployment), and Ohio (10 percent unemployment). The national unemployment average, by contrast, is 9.6 percent.Well put. There's another point made there, too: that the Senate might have seriously hurt the house, even on unpopular bills.
So, are liberals responsible for the 15 other seats Republicans won on Tuesday? Yes and no. Congressional liberals were clearly the driving force behind adopting a climate bill in the House of Representatives, with strong support from progressive activists. Passing that bill required hard votes from vulnerable members in rural, conservative districts. If the Senate had passed a climate bill, those members might have been able to make lemonade from lemons. But the Senate failed to act on climate legislation, and the bill became dead weight for a number of rural Democrats. By all accounts, Rick Boucher, a 14-term representative in Virginia's 9th District, wouldn't have faced a serious competitor -- and would have cruised to re-election -- had he voted against cap-and-trade. Likewise, Tom Perriello, a freshman Democrat in Virginia's 5th District, might have edged out his Republican opponent (or come closer to doing so) had he voted against health-care reform or any other piece of major labor.The parts I bolded are absolutely key, and likely to get overlooked. Voting for legislation that ultimately founders in the other chamber is likely to cripple you. This is ESPECIALLY true for legislation that is going to be easy to caricature, like cap-and-trade. The Senate, by blocking House bill after House bill, just made sure that House members had nothing to show for tough votes. And on the economy, it was ESPECIALLY disastrous, since as we saw people who feel "worse off" voted primarily Republican, and often did it even if they didn't LIKE Republicans.
That said, you can only go so far with this; the economy was the issue for most voters, and had centrist Democrats been willing to support a more liberal stimulus with larger payouts and fewer tax cuts, they might have saved a few of those vulnerable seats. Which is to say that moderate and conservative Democrats -- by reflexively opposing President Barack Obama on so many items -- bear as much responsibility for Tuesday as liberals do.
Dispirited youth and minorities stayed home. Energized, "fuck-you" oldsters went to vote. People who were worse off went (R), and the Senate's "moderates" screwed everybody else. Just another election in America, during the long, slow, brutal slide to irrelevance.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
An Obvious Point About Political Ideology That Still Needs Stating
America is not significantly more conservative than it was two year ago.
No. Sorry. It isn't. Political ideology doesn't work that way. You don't whipsaw back and forth. If anything, once somebody fixates on something it's impossible to move them thanks to cognitive dissonance. Again, we'll have to see exit polls and data manipulation over the next few weeks as things settle, but one can safely grant that that wasn't what happened. The same America that tossed out the Republicans four years ago and embraced Obama two years ago is the one that swung Republican now.
What people can become in two years or four years is angry, scared, and frustrated. Most Americans believe that their country is on the wrong track, and haven't seen any benefits from Obama's (poorly crafted and poorly targeted) legislation. They won't have seen any benefit from the health care reforms, they didn't get to keep their house because HAMP never worked properly, and as for the bank bailouts that may have saved the economy, well, the less said the better.
Sure, some sources are saying that the electorate yesterday was more "conservative". That doesn't mean people changed their position. It means what we expected: Democratic partisans were dispirited and barely saw the point of voting, whereas Republican voters were activated by the combination of a deluge of corporate advertising and one of the biggest astroturfing campaigns the world has ever seen. As I said in my last post, the "tea partiers" are the same old white, conservative, well-off males that ALWAYS vote Republican; the only difference is that they were given a standard to rally around.
(Obama provided that for progressives in 2008, and then abandoned it in the dirt. I only wonder whether the Republicans will make the same mistake.)
I think that the big story here may well turn out to be Citizens United and the spending. There's some great research waiting to be made about the amount of spending that corps and their various advocates made in various districts and the succcess of the Republican candidate there. Yes, the Republicans have a better ground game and, yes, the Tea Party activated conservatives. But TV advertising still matters a LOT, especially among the older, white Americans that the Republicans were courting. I suspect that it will have made a big difference.
The only silver lining here is that the Republicans have probably taken the wrong lesson from this. They'll think they've received a mandate for conservatism. They haven't. They, like Obama, received a mandate for change. Since the only changes they can make are disastrous and stupid, I suspect that they won't last very long. I could be wrong, and maybe America will fall back into Republican hands only four short years after the Republicans helped destroy its economy.
But, again, the country that voted for Boehner's bunch tonight voted in Pelosi's crew in 2006, and swept Obama to power in 2008. Never forget that.
Edit: Cenk Uygur makes a good point about the Dems over on FDL:
The ironic thing is that Americans WOULD have gotten that change, had the Republicans not blocked it and had Reid and Obama not coddled them while doing so. We'll never know how they would have voted had Pelosi had the votes she needed in the Senate.
No. Sorry. It isn't. Political ideology doesn't work that way. You don't whipsaw back and forth. If anything, once somebody fixates on something it's impossible to move them thanks to cognitive dissonance. Again, we'll have to see exit polls and data manipulation over the next few weeks as things settle, but one can safely grant that that wasn't what happened. The same America that tossed out the Republicans four years ago and embraced Obama two years ago is the one that swung Republican now.
What people can become in two years or four years is angry, scared, and frustrated. Most Americans believe that their country is on the wrong track, and haven't seen any benefits from Obama's (poorly crafted and poorly targeted) legislation. They won't have seen any benefit from the health care reforms, they didn't get to keep their house because HAMP never worked properly, and as for the bank bailouts that may have saved the economy, well, the less said the better.
Sure, some sources are saying that the electorate yesterday was more "conservative". That doesn't mean people changed their position. It means what we expected: Democratic partisans were dispirited and barely saw the point of voting, whereas Republican voters were activated by the combination of a deluge of corporate advertising and one of the biggest astroturfing campaigns the world has ever seen. As I said in my last post, the "tea partiers" are the same old white, conservative, well-off males that ALWAYS vote Republican; the only difference is that they were given a standard to rally around.
(Obama provided that for progressives in 2008, and then abandoned it in the dirt. I only wonder whether the Republicans will make the same mistake.)
I think that the big story here may well turn out to be Citizens United and the spending. There's some great research waiting to be made about the amount of spending that corps and their various advocates made in various districts and the succcess of the Republican candidate there. Yes, the Republicans have a better ground game and, yes, the Tea Party activated conservatives. But TV advertising still matters a LOT, especially among the older, white Americans that the Republicans were courting. I suspect that it will have made a big difference.
The only silver lining here is that the Republicans have probably taken the wrong lesson from this. They'll think they've received a mandate for conservatism. They haven't. They, like Obama, received a mandate for change. Since the only changes they can make are disastrous and stupid, I suspect that they won't last very long. I could be wrong, and maybe America will fall back into Republican hands only four short years after the Republicans helped destroy its economy.
But, again, the country that voted for Boehner's bunch tonight voted in Pelosi's crew in 2006, and swept Obama to power in 2008. Never forget that.
Edit: Cenk Uygur makes a good point about the Dems over on FDL:
Did you deliver for the average American voter or did you deliver for Wall Street? Come on, look at the numbers. Wall Street is backing to make record profits and bonuses and we’re at nearly 10% unemployment. People aren’t stupid. They got robbed. The system didn’t get fixed. It’s still rigged in favor of the rich and powerful.The bit I bolded couldn't have been better stated. Americans don't just want a change in how they're governed. They NEED a change. The Republicans sort of understand that, which is why Boehner kept blubbering on about change last night. It isn't a change in ideology, it's a change in structure and attitude.
Some liberals, progressives and Democrats will accuse me of party treason for saying that. They’re right, I don’t give a damn about the parties. In this day and age, I would never vote for a Republican in a national election because they have shown themselves to be a completely owned subsidiary of the rich and the powerful. They have demonstrated gross incompetence and are purposely derelict in their duty to the voters. But that doesn’t mean I have to be excited about the Democrats. Who is excited by Blanche Lincoln? Other than corporations who bought her years ago.
The Democrats said they were going to bring change – and they didn’t. That is their fundamental error. And that is why they are being voted out right now. But knowing how Washington works, they will not get that through their thick skulls. Instead, they will probably go further toward the jackals on the right after this election. They will cater to big business, Wall Street and the top 1% of this country even more after this election – and then wonder why people don’t trust them.
The ironic thing is that Americans WOULD have gotten that change, had the Republicans not blocked it and had Reid and Obama not coddled them while doing so. We'll never know how they would have voted had Pelosi had the votes she needed in the Senate.
Lessons from the 2010 Election
So there seem to be, in absence of detailed exit poll data, certain things that we CAN take away from this debacle.
First, to misquote Gordon Gekko, obstructionism WORKS. Obstructionism is GOOD. The American people voted in the Dems in 2006 and in 2008 to enact real, positive change. The Republicans made damned sure that wouldn't happen by posing a united front in the Senate. The Dems tried, over and over again, to try to pin the Senate's failure to enact cloture on the Republicans. It never stuck. It was never GOING to stick; the press was too busy focusing on horse races, and the public doesn't give a damn. They'll blame whomever is in power.
That also goes for the Republicans' negotiation tactics. Playing at being convincible when talking with the President and Congressional leadership, extracting concession after concession with no concession in turn, and then walking away at the end worked SPECTACULARLY well for the Republicans. It might not have if they ended up getting blamed for the resulting legislation, but they never, ever did. Part of that was due to Obama's own overly-concession-prone negotiation style, and the Dems' inability to create and stick to a message. But I think a lot of it is just the simple fact of politics, and something the Dems should remember going forward when they work to frustrate the Republican house.
Second, Citizens United paid off BIG for the Republicans. I don't think there's any doubt about that. Dems were yelling that they were getting HAMMERED with corporatist advertising in State after State. Obama tried to tie the ads to big money; but, again, the public was simply not in the mood for justifications or excuses. It's only going to get worse; I think that 2012 may be the first election that is basically bought-and-paid-for if things go badly.
Third, I also think that the teabaggers paid off for the Republicans, too. Sure, they lost Nevada, but Rand Paul managed to pull it off, along with others. More importantly, they did what they needed to do to relabel their party. The teabaggers are really just the same old, white, upper-middle-class conservative males that have ALWAYS been the backbone of both the conservative movement and the Republican party. What's changed is that now they have an identity to look at, and that the media can freak out over. That's something the progressives don't have, and have never really had. Partially it's because of their tendency to splinter, but I think it also has to do with our fourth reason.
Fourth, the Dems completely destroyed their electoral machine. OFA is a sad shadow of what it used to be. It was never going to be as big as it was in 2008, of course. But as one of the people on CNN pointed out, Reagan made sure that he kept his young Republican groups engaged throughout the term, instead of just trying to rally them when election time rolled around. The rest of the progressive groups were if anything WORSE off, thanks to the combative, hostile relationship the Obama administration had with its own base. The enthusiasm gap was dramatic throughout the race, and I expect that in the days ahead we'll find out just how dramatic it was. But I think it didn't need to be, and that it's Obama's own fault that it
And finally, the combination of the hatred of BOTH parties and the results, along with the economic situation, shows that the American people still want change and not necessarily what the Republicans are peddling. This may be the Republicans' undoing, since their policy prescriptions will NOT make thing batter. The best they can hope for is a slight spike from businesses and investors who assume that their party will be pro-business, but I suspect that the fundamental problems will likely reassert themselves soon enough. The Republicans' plans are economically suspect at best, and likely catastrophic; they would be best buried by the Democratic president and Senate. But since I doubt the Dems will have that kind of sense, it's likely that they'll try to "work with the Republicans" in enacting part of the Republican agenda. Then, when things get WORSE, the finger-pointing will begin.
This isn't what I would have wanted. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. The Dems and the President should have known that this would be the ultimate end of their frustrated, inadequate, poorly-focused efforts over the past two years. THIS is what happens when you listen to people like Rahm Emanuel. THIS is why they need real victories to show the American people. THIS is why catering to the blue dogs to the exclusion of all else doesn't work. (They got hammered tonight.) THIS is why you don't abandon the networks you built up. And THIS is why you need to develop a strong identity and pay close attention to your Supreme Court nominees.
But I suspect that they'll get the wrong message. They'll think that they've "moved too far left" or some such nonsense. It's not about left and right. It never was. It's about people wanting some security and prosperity in their lives. And when the Republicans fail at providing it, things are going to get a whole lot uglier.
First, to misquote Gordon Gekko, obstructionism WORKS. Obstructionism is GOOD. The American people voted in the Dems in 2006 and in 2008 to enact real, positive change. The Republicans made damned sure that wouldn't happen by posing a united front in the Senate. The Dems tried, over and over again, to try to pin the Senate's failure to enact cloture on the Republicans. It never stuck. It was never GOING to stick; the press was too busy focusing on horse races, and the public doesn't give a damn. They'll blame whomever is in power.
That also goes for the Republicans' negotiation tactics. Playing at being convincible when talking with the President and Congressional leadership, extracting concession after concession with no concession in turn, and then walking away at the end worked SPECTACULARLY well for the Republicans. It might not have if they ended up getting blamed for the resulting legislation, but they never, ever did. Part of that was due to Obama's own overly-concession-prone negotiation style, and the Dems' inability to create and stick to a message. But I think a lot of it is just the simple fact of politics, and something the Dems should remember going forward when they work to frustrate the Republican house.
Second, Citizens United paid off BIG for the Republicans. I don't think there's any doubt about that. Dems were yelling that they were getting HAMMERED with corporatist advertising in State after State. Obama tried to tie the ads to big money; but, again, the public was simply not in the mood for justifications or excuses. It's only going to get worse; I think that 2012 may be the first election that is basically bought-and-paid-for if things go badly.
Third, I also think that the teabaggers paid off for the Republicans, too. Sure, they lost Nevada, but Rand Paul managed to pull it off, along with others. More importantly, they did what they needed to do to relabel their party. The teabaggers are really just the same old, white, upper-middle-class conservative males that have ALWAYS been the backbone of both the conservative movement and the Republican party. What's changed is that now they have an identity to look at, and that the media can freak out over. That's something the progressives don't have, and have never really had. Partially it's because of their tendency to splinter, but I think it also has to do with our fourth reason.
Fourth, the Dems completely destroyed their electoral machine. OFA is a sad shadow of what it used to be. It was never going to be as big as it was in 2008, of course. But as one of the people on CNN pointed out, Reagan made sure that he kept his young Republican groups engaged throughout the term, instead of just trying to rally them when election time rolled around. The rest of the progressive groups were if anything WORSE off, thanks to the combative, hostile relationship the Obama administration had with its own base. The enthusiasm gap was dramatic throughout the race, and I expect that in the days ahead we'll find out just how dramatic it was. But I think it didn't need to be, and that it's Obama's own fault that it
And finally, the combination of the hatred of BOTH parties and the results, along with the economic situation, shows that the American people still want change and not necessarily what the Republicans are peddling. This may be the Republicans' undoing, since their policy prescriptions will NOT make thing batter. The best they can hope for is a slight spike from businesses and investors who assume that their party will be pro-business, but I suspect that the fundamental problems will likely reassert themselves soon enough. The Republicans' plans are economically suspect at best, and likely catastrophic; they would be best buried by the Democratic president and Senate. But since I doubt the Dems will have that kind of sense, it's likely that they'll try to "work with the Republicans" in enacting part of the Republican agenda. Then, when things get WORSE, the finger-pointing will begin.
This isn't what I would have wanted. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. The Dems and the President should have known that this would be the ultimate end of their frustrated, inadequate, poorly-focused efforts over the past two years. THIS is what happens when you listen to people like Rahm Emanuel. THIS is why they need real victories to show the American people. THIS is why catering to the blue dogs to the exclusion of all else doesn't work. (They got hammered tonight.) THIS is why you don't abandon the networks you built up. And THIS is why you need to develop a strong identity and pay close attention to your Supreme Court nominees.
But I suspect that they'll get the wrong message. They'll think that they've "moved too far left" or some such nonsense. It's not about left and right. It never was. It's about people wanting some security and prosperity in their lives. And when the Republicans fail at providing it, things are going to get a whole lot uglier.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Election Day!
No, I don't expect it to go well. No, I don't think the Dems have proven their case. (I don't think the Republicans have, either, but they aren't in power right now.)
And I'm with Krugman; I suspect that the next few years will bring little good. The chance was Obama and the Dems' to waste: and sure enough they wasted it. They did SOME good, of course. Health Care may well be better than nothing, as is FinReg. But only barely, and considering the outsized majorities they had, well...
In any case, the frustrating part will be if the Republicans DO win back the Senate. Because when they pass bill after bill, counting on the Dems to let them get cloture, I can guarantee all of you that neither the Dems nor the media will make a peep about the fact that the Republicans convinced all of them that a Democratic Senate needed a sixty-seat majority to pass legislation, while a Republican Senate does not.
In any case, go vote. It may or may not help. But there ARE good Dems out there; your Feingolds and Graysons and whatnot. They DO deserve your support. Even the Blue Dogs might, barely, if the alternative is one of those "Tea Partiers" snug in the pockets of the Koch brothers.
But while you vote, stop and think about how the Republicans were given up for dead two years ago. Think about what changed. And think about why.
And I'm with Krugman; I suspect that the next few years will bring little good. The chance was Obama and the Dems' to waste: and sure enough they wasted it. They did SOME good, of course. Health Care may well be better than nothing, as is FinReg. But only barely, and considering the outsized majorities they had, well...
In any case, the frustrating part will be if the Republicans DO win back the Senate. Because when they pass bill after bill, counting on the Dems to let them get cloture, I can guarantee all of you that neither the Dems nor the media will make a peep about the fact that the Republicans convinced all of them that a Democratic Senate needed a sixty-seat majority to pass legislation, while a Republican Senate does not.
In any case, go vote. It may or may not help. But there ARE good Dems out there; your Feingolds and Graysons and whatnot. They DO deserve your support. Even the Blue Dogs might, barely, if the alternative is one of those "Tea Partiers" snug in the pockets of the Koch brothers.
But while you vote, stop and think about how the Republicans were given up for dead two years ago. Think about what changed. And think about why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)