Yes, yes, all of the news stations have been having a field day with something that Justice Alito mouthed something, yes, mouthed. The amazing unprecedentedness of Alito's non-statement is so amazing that it captivates the news cycle for hours. It relates to the SC decision and Obama's condemnation of it, and I will address all of these things once in a later post.
For now I'd like to call some attention to a comment by Chris Matthews (MSNBC commentator) that is elucidated in this article. He said that he "forgot Obama was black for about an hour" during the SOTU speech. This is the "Black Voices" section of AOL news which actually gives some interesting view points on issues (supposedly) important to black America. Ignoring the obvious marketing therein, the perspective of the article, I think, is decidedly NOT post racial. It's obvious that the author did not grow up with exposure to the growing consensus of the "millennial" generation, that collective differences of all kinds are pollutants in the pursuit of viewing unique personhood in terms of individuality.
What that means is that it is in society's interest to eliminate superficial differences as categorizing social comprehensions, i.e. sex, skin color, sexual preference, etc...
Instead we should categorize by things that people CAN change and CHOOSE to buy into, and which represent their individuality, like moral values, political party, behavior, interests, social demeanor, etc.
If you choose to buy into a social group that is based on superficiality and choose to let it define you, great, fine, do that, but don't expect everyone to buy into it, and don't get insulted when people try to genuinely look beyond superficiality for a change. Having any kind of superficial pride is damaging to our ability to create an equal society that judges everyone based on their own merits, not merits imposed upon them by groups trying to confine or groups trying to define themselves based on something that is non-merit. In short, and this sounds racist by how radical it is, but in short, blacks who take pride in their blackness as a separate identity (or in contrast to others) are holding back progress as much as I would be by taking pride in the distinctness and separateness of my sex in contrast to the other sex. I am not a male who is James. I am a JAMES WHO HAPPENS TO BE MALE. If I let my maleness or whiteness define me instead of my Jamesness I am no longer judged as me, and I hold back anyone who doesn't want their maleness to define them.
Most people say we're not ready for that kind of perspective; there are too many people who are racist so we need things like affirmative action to tip the scale back the other way. But the only thing racial distinctions do is cause more racial distinctions, even if the purpose of making said distinctions is to fight for "equality".
So in short, I think it's great that Matthews is being honest about being able to look past race for a while. I actually had a very similar moment while watching the speech. What these moments show is that we have a long way to go in erasing race and racial stereotypes from the public consciousness because we still ultimately go back and say "I forgot he was a black man for a sec", as if Obama was (before the moment and after the moment) a black man, but only lost that distinction temporarily. Maybe if we never saw him as having that LOADED distinction in the first place, we might surprise ourselves every once in awhile by noticing... "wow i never noticed his skin color is different (or he has brown hair, or straight teeth, or that freckle on his cheek), but it has no bearing on his personhood, personality, or my understanding of him"... and then it becomes dropped as something ever used to define even our President.
This is a complex issue, and there are a lot of people who are insulted by a white male saying things like this. Just remember, my whitemaleness doesn't exempt me from being just as much a valid individual as everyone else. And anyone who calls me out based on that distinction is being unfair to me as a person. I will always recognize the difference in my experience, but that should not prevent me from speaking out about what I see when I look through my own eyes at the world.
Thanks Chris, you have great honesty and courage by daring to point out this subject, and by admitting that as a socialized white-male, it's only in rare windows that it seems possible to see people as they truly are. As a people, we all need to do better.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
SOTU
I have a series of comments and quotes that were of especial significance to me during the President's speech that will be mentioned below. Overall I think that his speech, as most of his speeches was phenomenal, and this one in particular was invigorating. Most important for people like me, (and liberals as such) I think seeing his confidence slowly radiate out into the Democratic Caucus despite Brown's win and health care's halt (a grinning, cheeky?, Nanci Pelosi behind him helped), as he patiently shuffled center while yet nudging left where it counted. It was a populist speech. And it will, you watch, poll very well. His approval ratings may gain as much as 5 points over night.
Here starts the commentary. If you didn't have a chance to watch the speech, I recommend you watch it; I was literally riveted for the almost full hour and a half. If speech watching isn't your thing, read on anyway, this will give you an idea. My initial comments on the speech as I watched are in bold. Comments on the comments continue afterward.
Here starts the commentary. If you didn't have a chance to watch the speech, I recommend you watch it; I was literally riveted for the almost full hour and a half. If speech watching isn't your thing, read on anyway, this will give you an idea. My initial comments on the speech as I watched are in bold. Comments on the comments continue afterward.
1. “I do not accept 2nd place for America” He says. Of course he's going to get applause. Honestly I'm tired of the 'we're number one!' rhetoric; why do we need to be in competition with other countries, why can't we have cooperation, what, seriously is the big deal with being 'number 2' or worse in some aspects. We certainly are not #1 in education, health care, employment, per capita GDP, taxes (too much or little), exports, gay rights, civil rights (in general), religious toleration, environmental cooperation, population... do I need to go on? It seems that the only thing we're #1 at is military spending and nukes. That's a good track record. Let's drop the rhetoric... America is kinda becoming second rate, that is WHY we must DO something about it. We'll get there one day. The day we realize true patriotism is seeing where/how your country is messed up, and trying to fix it.
2. “the country that leads the clean energy economy is the country that leads the global economy” Thank goodness. Ive been waiting for a real stand to be taken here. This says something progressives can get behind. Now what happened in Copenhagen, again?
3. “double exports over the next 5 years” creating 2 million jobs I really like this issue, we need to make more things in America and give 'em to other people. This is how our economy doesn't collapse. Like every other major empire.
4. Talk about nuclear weapons! (I had a sudden need. He does later, quite nicely)
5. “In the 21st century the best anti-poverty program around is a world class education” YES YES YES. We need more money for schools particularly colleges. This is a key issue for him to rally around because it is hugely popular.
6. Colleges nice. Right, like I said.
7. Talk about Afghanistan, talk about health care. (be patient!)
8. 10,000 dollar tax credit for 4 years of college, very nice Now let's do more than propose, let's pass!
9. Debt 10 years 20 years "no one should go broke just because they chose to go to college" Reminiscing on our own college debt, are we? He's referring to banks giving out college loans, and pushing for legislation which would erase college debt after 10 years or 20 years depending on the situation, and require only a 10% payment of debt per year? Something like that... but how will he cause banks to do that? With the erasure of the tax breaks on college loans for banks? I would like to see more of what Congress does with this.
10. Very centrist/populist sounding
11. Health insurance reform, why come only Dems stand up? Repubs don’t want reform? He finally mentioned it! My pet issue! But yes this is interesting, a contingent of the Republicans definetely kept their butts parked when Obama said the status quo isn't enough, we need to change something. Is this because they really don't want anything to happen, or because they think all Obama reform is just Obamacare (i still don't know what that means exactly, or why it's an insult to Obama's health care)
12. ”by now it should be clear that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics” Damn straight. Nice line.
13. CBO: bring down defict by 1 trillion dollars in two decades He's talking about the current Senate health care bill which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says will lower the deficit (very slowly). Still Dems should use this talking point more, even though Americans aren't likely to believe them.
14. I’m so excited by how happy Nancy seems to be with our president, some of her dreamy looks suggest she might have a crush on somebody… Seriously, watching her during the speech is almost more fun than the President
15. “Don’t walk away from reform, not now when it’s so close… let’s get it done” He's talking directly to me, I can feel it.
16. Made some several clear references to the 8 years of the XXX administration; 'don’t blame me yet!' Not porn. This is the smartest move I've seen him make in months. The Bush Presidency is still really fresh in the minds of Americans and if Obama can continue to frame the issues here as his predecessor's problems, he will be able to capitalize on a little more good will for, well... maybe he can squeeze it out for another 6 months or so.
17. “deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works” yet when he speaks i go into a trance-like state and I just feel like mindlessly OBEYing, doubting NOTHING. NO it's the liberal education mind control they've been warning me about!
18. Sounds like a campaign speech, well done Obama back in the game : ) doesn't take much to hit his stride
19. What about the SC? Yeah there it is… corporations can now spend without limit in our elections… pass a bill that corrects this In other words, Obama really seemed not to like the SC decision (about which I will have a post soon enough, hang on) and recommends Congress pass a bill to re-regulate campaign finance. It will be very interesting to see if there is the political will to really do this...
20. Earmark reform ..bleah It's a BS issue honestly. No Senator is willing to get rid of earmarks; it's what helps them get re-elected.
21. Everyone seemed to like the idea of earmark reform… outwardly But every senator has to outwardly support it and pretend that it's not THEM but everyone else who's earmarking. You assholes.
22. “perpetual campaign” neither party should delay every bill just because they can yeah hot shot, poke them Republicans, they don't even have 42 votes! Again the question, he didn't call for a bill to reform filibuster rules, but will there be the political will to remove the filibuster?
23. : ) how can this guy not win re-election? He’s just such a good speaker… this is what we need. America's image abroad and at home matters a lot. Regardless of whether or not Obama delivers, it's wonderful to have an intelligent, pragmatic, practical person at the head.
24. Democrats have the largest majority in decades, so don’t run for the hills he points out. The confidence in the room is building. They really liked the republican jabs.
25. If republicans will insist that a supermajority …. “Just saying no… is not leadership” ...that’s what the left wants to hear, Obama
26. It just occured to me (and made me feel a little safer): God no matter what happens in 2010, at least Obama will be around for 3 more years
27. “all of us are committed to [America’s] defense” “All of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this office” key word: combat troops “this war is ending and all of our troops are coming home” bullshit I really don't believe it. We'll have bases in the region for precision strikes. That means NOT all troops are coming home, sir. I'm tired of this semi-hawkishness in your foreign policy. At the least tell us the truth!
28. “greatest danger to the American people” is the threat of nuclear weapons I been waiting. It's true.
29. “farthest reaching arms control treaty in nearly 3 decades” He means with Russia. I certainly hope so.
30. “America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity, always” but do we really draw upon that ideal by engaging with wars in two countries? oh the quintessential American hypocrisy, but don'tcha love it?
31. Repeal don’t ask don’t tell! YES!!! “it’s the right thing to do”
32. His social issues parade hurry get through it; hey, progressives, like me?! plz? he'd really like them to
33. A little too mushy here at the end, but it's the end of an Obama speech, what do you expect. Solid finish. Pretty speech. This may seem strange but whether or not he can walk the walk, at least he can talk the talk somethin' beautiful
I touched that man!
I was watching a re-run of the President's SOTU (apparently that's the lingo these days) speech, and saw his entrance with all those people reaching desperately to shake his hand.
Not to brag or anything, but I was in direct physical contact with President Obama for no less than 1 full second, and yes his hands are as smooth and soft as they look.
Sometimes I'm just really special, you know?
Not to brag or anything, but I was in direct physical contact with President Obama for no less than 1 full second, and yes his hands are as smooth and soft as they look.
Sometimes I'm just really special, you know?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Future of PL and Future of the Nation
First, a note on important posts coming up. As requested, there will be a post regarding the recent Supreme Court decision about campaign finance, one on Afghanistan specifically, and one on war policy conceptualization. First however I will post comments on the State of the Union, noting in particular where Obama seems to be hedging/pivoting, and where he is not, referencing a question posed: from where exactly is Obama governing?
For now though I thought I would be right up on the news cycles, drawing attention to a (9 hours ago) fresh off the press CNN/Opinion Research Poll that deals with the health care legislation options. It will, in some clear measure answer some of the questions I've asked earlier about what it is the American people actually want by this "change" they have supposedly been voting for. And whether or not Massachusetts has signaled some significant shift on health care opinion.
Here's the rundown:
38% "generally favor" legislation that Congress has been considering
58% "generally oppose" the same legislation
While I would be someone who "generally favors" Congress' considerations, I can see it as reasonably possible that some disenfranchised liberals would fall into the "generally opposed" category, especially because it's only recently that I've even come into that general favorability myself.
48% thinks Congress should start over on health care
30% thinks Congress should continue with what they've got
and only 21% thinks Congress should just stop with this health care stuff
This is good news! Only 21% of people in the nation seem to be of the opinion that we shouldn't mess with health care, so if Congress passes something, they will be (hopefully) satisfying 80% of the public.
The rest of the poll doesn't do a good job of answering the important questions I've posed after all... The problem inherent in the whole thing is that Americans want a very large diversity of things with regard to health care, but mainly they want something positive to happen, and to conclude, 51% seem to look quite kindly upon the idea of health care reform that does substantially increase the number of people covered, as opposed to a health care bill that only changes industry regulations. What this doesn't say is how the American people would like more coverage to happen. What a mess.
Senate Democrats in particular aren't showing leadership on this issue, mainly because they're running terrified of what to do when the American people don't seem to know either. In the House, apparently, there is a growing consensus, particularly in the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) that if the Senate can jump onto the reconciliation bandwagon, a few minor changes can be made to the Senate bill without branding the entirety of health care under reconciliation... this would circumnavigate the so called Byrd Rule which governs what is "budget" and not. In that regard still, health care is a stretch, y'all. Good luck to the House, but the Senate will always be the big dog on the hill : (.
This might be an appropriate time to rail against whoever the hell decided that we'd have a powerful bureaucratic Federal Government with silly checks like every state gets the same representation regardless of population in arguably the most powerful legislative body in the world. Imagine if all of Europe was a country (becoming less and less difficult as time goes on) and a country the size of Luxembourg or Greek Cyprus has as much power (literally EQUAL power) to a country the size of Spain or France. This is a rough estimate to the relative differences between the populations of Wyoming and California. This is a 1 to 70 difference; one person in Wyoming has the same voice as 70 people in California, and most importantly receives 70 times more federal funding. I'll have a longer rant to this degree in the future as well. There is an easy way to dramatically improve our legislative body without significantly revamping it, (though that's what we're owed by now as our old creaky system approaches 225 years of age) including our voting system, voting days and much more... but that is a subject for another day.
In closing I just wanted to make a somewhat unrelated additional note. I would like to remind my readers that in one (twisted?) way it is a damn good thing that the Democrats are scared of what happened in Massachusetts. No, I don't mean because they'll get their act together. I mean I'm glad Democrats and Republicans are still scared to death of the whims of the voter. It means that they are not comfortable enough with their position and power to brush off the (alleged) feelings of the people, and that corporate money can only go so far with an angered public. How wonderful that we live in a country where every once in a while we get to remind our leaders that even the most powerful among them must beware the ire of the temporarily all powerful voters. That reminder, though in this case provoking a truly misguided reaction by the leaders, is almost enough to be proud of the capability of the American people to defy expectations and terrify the establishment, even if that reminder is represented by a Republican being elected in Massachusetts.
Almost : ).
For now though I thought I would be right up on the news cycles, drawing attention to a (9 hours ago) fresh off the press CNN/Opinion Research Poll that deals with the health care legislation options. It will, in some clear measure answer some of the questions I've asked earlier about what it is the American people actually want by this "change" they have supposedly been voting for. And whether or not Massachusetts has signaled some significant shift on health care opinion.
Here's the rundown:
38% "generally favor" legislation that Congress has been considering
58% "generally oppose" the same legislation
While I would be someone who "generally favors" Congress' considerations, I can see it as reasonably possible that some disenfranchised liberals would fall into the "generally opposed" category, especially because it's only recently that I've even come into that general favorability myself.
48% thinks Congress should start over on health care
30% thinks Congress should continue with what they've got
and only 21% thinks Congress should just stop with this health care stuff
This is good news! Only 21% of people in the nation seem to be of the opinion that we shouldn't mess with health care, so if Congress passes something, they will be (hopefully) satisfying 80% of the public.
The rest of the poll doesn't do a good job of answering the important questions I've posed after all... The problem inherent in the whole thing is that Americans want a very large diversity of things with regard to health care, but mainly they want something positive to happen, and to conclude, 51% seem to look quite kindly upon the idea of health care reform that does substantially increase the number of people covered, as opposed to a health care bill that only changes industry regulations. What this doesn't say is how the American people would like more coverage to happen. What a mess.
Senate Democrats in particular aren't showing leadership on this issue, mainly because they're running terrified of what to do when the American people don't seem to know either. In the House, apparently, there is a growing consensus, particularly in the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) that if the Senate can jump onto the reconciliation bandwagon, a few minor changes can be made to the Senate bill without branding the entirety of health care under reconciliation... this would circumnavigate the so called Byrd Rule which governs what is "budget" and not. In that regard still, health care is a stretch, y'all. Good luck to the House, but the Senate will always be the big dog on the hill : (.
This might be an appropriate time to rail against whoever the hell decided that we'd have a powerful bureaucratic Federal Government with silly checks like every state gets the same representation regardless of population in arguably the most powerful legislative body in the world. Imagine if all of Europe was a country (becoming less and less difficult as time goes on) and a country the size of Luxembourg or Greek Cyprus has as much power (literally EQUAL power) to a country the size of Spain or France. This is a rough estimate to the relative differences between the populations of Wyoming and California. This is a 1 to 70 difference; one person in Wyoming has the same voice as 70 people in California, and most importantly receives 70 times more federal funding. I'll have a longer rant to this degree in the future as well. There is an easy way to dramatically improve our legislative body without significantly revamping it, (though that's what we're owed by now as our old creaky system approaches 225 years of age) including our voting system, voting days and much more... but that is a subject for another day.
In closing I just wanted to make a somewhat unrelated additional note. I would like to remind my readers that in one (twisted?) way it is a damn good thing that the Democrats are scared of what happened in Massachusetts. No, I don't mean because they'll get their act together. I mean I'm glad Democrats and Republicans are still scared to death of the whims of the voter. It means that they are not comfortable enough with their position and power to brush off the (alleged) feelings of the people, and that corporate money can only go so far with an angered public. How wonderful that we live in a country where every once in a while we get to remind our leaders that even the most powerful among them must beware the ire of the temporarily all powerful voters. That reminder, though in this case provoking a truly misguided reaction by the leaders, is almost enough to be proud of the capability of the American people to defy expectations and terrify the establishment, even if that reminder is represented by a Republican being elected in Massachusetts.
Almost : ).
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Are liberals lazy, or abandoned?
I was reading an interesting article from the Pew Research Center that is worth looking at. Echoing my previous post about Liberal disillusionment, apparently,
"When asked in December, most Republicans (66%) think Obama is listening most to his party's liberals. But just 20% of liberal Democrats believe that. For the most part, they think the president is listening to moderates (54%) or that they are not sure who has his ear (25%)."
"When asked in December, most Republicans (66%) think Obama is listening most to his party's liberals. But just 20% of liberal Democrats believe that. For the most part, they think the president is listening to moderates (54%) or that they are not sure who has his ear (25%)."
Emphasis mine again. Obama has allowed conservative talking heads to take control of this debate. Once again I ask, if you will be branded as a liberal either way, what's the harm in playing to your base, since that's the group that needs convincing at this point?
Gitmo is now closed!
I had you for a second, didn't I? It's been a year since Obama made those Executive Orders to scrap the place, so I just wanted to briefly mention, after noting outcries by two of my favorite human rights groups: "an administration task force has recommended the detention without trial of nearly 50 of the 198 prisoners held there because 'they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release.'" via ACLU, my bold for emphasis.
Guantanamo Bay is one of the cited reasons for anger against the United States in the Muslim world and elsewhere abroad and it is clear that our closing of the facility, an end President Obama seemed to be pursuing as of a year ago, will notably increase our rapport with the people of nations who have been the victims of illegal detention facilities. Not only that, it will say that we are not stooping to the level of terrorism and illegal activity against which we are currently fighting.
One of the serious problems with Guantanamo is that many administration officials in the Bush and Obama Presidencies will tell you that Guantanamo Bay is a very useful "terrorist" recruiting center even within the prison, and even if any of the people aren't extremist when they come in, they certainly are when they come out. Those proven innocent of crimes or released with lack of evidence often go straight to the front lines and join Al Qaeda in the fight against the United States. Given this result, it's not surprising that the administration task force would want to continue to indefinitely detain some of the more dangerous (looking) "terrorists". The reasonable problem with this approach is that it's not certain that all of the 50 or so people who would be detained have actually done anything against the law. Especially if the government can't come up with the evidence to try them, there is more risk of this problem.
If even one of the people who may be indefinitely detained was innocent, it would make unjust the entirety of the rest of the detentions. This is not an opinion shared by most Republicans, and even a lot of Democrats, but if Obama is serious about keeping the "moral high ground" on this issue, he will follow through on his word and close the facility like he promised one year ago to accomplish IN ONE YEAR. This includes accepting the responsibility that American policy-makers and... American citizens... share for using Guantanamo Bay in the first place, and dealing with these people only once it's certain they have taken criminal action. Until then, we are not better than the "terrorists", because neither do we respect the rule of law.
Guantanamo Bay is one of the cited reasons for anger against the United States in the Muslim world and elsewhere abroad and it is clear that our closing of the facility, an end President Obama seemed to be pursuing as of a year ago, will notably increase our rapport with the people of nations who have been the victims of illegal detention facilities. Not only that, it will say that we are not stooping to the level of terrorism and illegal activity against which we are currently fighting.
One of the serious problems with Guantanamo is that many administration officials in the Bush and Obama Presidencies will tell you that Guantanamo Bay is a very useful "terrorist" recruiting center even within the prison, and even if any of the people aren't extremist when they come in, they certainly are when they come out. Those proven innocent of crimes or released with lack of evidence often go straight to the front lines and join Al Qaeda in the fight against the United States. Given this result, it's not surprising that the administration task force would want to continue to indefinitely detain some of the more dangerous (looking) "terrorists". The reasonable problem with this approach is that it's not certain that all of the 50 or so people who would be detained have actually done anything against the law. Especially if the government can't come up with the evidence to try them, there is more risk of this problem.
If even one of the people who may be indefinitely detained was innocent, it would make unjust the entirety of the rest of the detentions. This is not an opinion shared by most Republicans, and even a lot of Democrats, but if Obama is serious about keeping the "moral high ground" on this issue, he will follow through on his word and close the facility like he promised one year ago to accomplish IN ONE YEAR. This includes accepting the responsibility that American policy-makers and... American citizens... share for using Guantanamo Bay in the first place, and dealing with these people only once it's certain they have taken criminal action. Until then, we are not better than the "terrorists", because neither do we respect the rule of law.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Was the Massachusetts Special Election as telling as everyone seems to think it is?
That's an interesting question, and may have a surprising answer.
Exhibit A: The Massachusetts Special Election was, not surprisingly very special, as I've already written about. This means it's not an indicator of what should normally happen in Massachusetts during a regular election.
Exhibit B: The win margin was not very high. Brown won by 5 points, which means he won 52% to 47%. I really think it's worth not overlooking this fact. If he had won by a significant margin, like, say the Virginia Gubernatorial (Governor) 2009 election where the same Republican resurgence caused Republican Bob McDonnell to trounce his opponent (Deeds) by 18 points, 59% to 41%, it would be a different story. But unlike all of the news media is reporting it, Brown barely eked out a win here. Compare a map of the Massachusetts results with a map of the Virginia results. Unlike Virginia which is a sheet of red, in Massachusetts Democratic strongholds still remain in Boston, in the west, and in various other sporadic locations. If Scott Brown had been able to tangibly convert these areas, particularly in Boston, this would be a much more significant victory. But lack of Republican penetration there is telling. In fact, the main reason that he won brings us to the next exhibit.
Exhibit C: Turnout. Turnout is absolutely the most important factor to consider in analyzing a special election, and in Massachusetts the turnout was surprisingly high, almost 55% of the registered electorate. This is not a high value for a regular election year, but closer to an "off" (non-presidential) regular election year. For comparison, the 2008 election had a turnout of 66%. In the above link it is also clear that turnout was the highest among Brown strongholds, and on the other end, fairly low in Coakley strongholds, particularly in Boston. What this means to me, is that there was less turnover than it looks. In other words, Brown generated enthusiasm and he got out the vote, but he did not win the kind of substantial conversion amongst independents that he needed to to make this election very significant. It is relatively safe to say that Brown's voters are the roughly 1 million that turned out to vote for McCain during the election in 2008 including a modest conversion of independents. But the 1 million or so who voted for Coakley don't seem to include the other million who voted for Obama last time (Obama had about 2 million votes; McCain acquired about 1 million). This factor coupled with the fact that it was Coakley strongholds which saw the least turnout points to the conclusion that Brown won more because Democrats and Democratic supporting independents didn't show up than because he had converted large swaths of the electorate. This conclusion would indicate that Brown really will have to fight for his seat when he's up for re-election, and that the Democrats should be more worried about re-energizing Democrats than fearing a Republican resurgence especially in traditionally blue states like Massachusetts.
Exhibit D: Coakley was not a good candidate, most pundits have over talked this issue, but it seems clear that if she had been more engaging and a little more anti-establishment she would have probably beat Brown at his own game.
Exhibit E: Brown, while being a Republican and while agreeing to block health care reform, is not that conservative. This is Massachusetts we're talking about. Socially, he's not so far behind the times, and his credentials suggest that he will be a different, more independent-minded kind of Republican. I really believe that Massachusetts was voting more for the person than the party in this case, which means this isn't as much a victory for Republicans as it is a defeat for Democrats. And a close defeat at that.
So maybe this election isn't as foreboding as it has appeared to be. Yes this temporarily puts a wrench in the works, but the Dems still have 59 seats, and are unlikely to lose 9 of them in the 2010 election, at least not at this point, and not with the economy on the rebound. They may be more hard pressed to successfully make progress, but at the very least this little election isn't going to propel us back to the Bush years, not even close.
Exhibit A: The Massachusetts Special Election was, not surprisingly very special, as I've already written about. This means it's not an indicator of what should normally happen in Massachusetts during a regular election.
Exhibit B: The win margin was not very high. Brown won by 5 points, which means he won 52% to 47%. I really think it's worth not overlooking this fact. If he had won by a significant margin, like, say the Virginia Gubernatorial (Governor) 2009 election where the same Republican resurgence caused Republican Bob McDonnell to trounce his opponent (Deeds) by 18 points, 59% to 41%, it would be a different story. But unlike all of the news media is reporting it, Brown barely eked out a win here. Compare a map of the Massachusetts results with a map of the Virginia results. Unlike Virginia which is a sheet of red, in Massachusetts Democratic strongholds still remain in Boston, in the west, and in various other sporadic locations. If Scott Brown had been able to tangibly convert these areas, particularly in Boston, this would be a much more significant victory. But lack of Republican penetration there is telling. In fact, the main reason that he won brings us to the next exhibit.
Exhibit C: Turnout. Turnout is absolutely the most important factor to consider in analyzing a special election, and in Massachusetts the turnout was surprisingly high, almost 55% of the registered electorate. This is not a high value for a regular election year, but closer to an "off" (non-presidential) regular election year. For comparison, the 2008 election had a turnout of 66%. In the above link it is also clear that turnout was the highest among Brown strongholds, and on the other end, fairly low in Coakley strongholds, particularly in Boston. What this means to me, is that there was less turnover than it looks. In other words, Brown generated enthusiasm and he got out the vote, but he did not win the kind of substantial conversion amongst independents that he needed to to make this election very significant. It is relatively safe to say that Brown's voters are the roughly 1 million that turned out to vote for McCain during the election in 2008 including a modest conversion of independents. But the 1 million or so who voted for Coakley don't seem to include the other million who voted for Obama last time (Obama had about 2 million votes; McCain acquired about 1 million). This factor coupled with the fact that it was Coakley strongholds which saw the least turnout points to the conclusion that Brown won more because Democrats and Democratic supporting independents didn't show up than because he had converted large swaths of the electorate. This conclusion would indicate that Brown really will have to fight for his seat when he's up for re-election, and that the Democrats should be more worried about re-energizing Democrats than fearing a Republican resurgence especially in traditionally blue states like Massachusetts.
Exhibit D: Coakley was not a good candidate, most pundits have over talked this issue, but it seems clear that if she had been more engaging and a little more anti-establishment she would have probably beat Brown at his own game.
Exhibit E: Brown, while being a Republican and while agreeing to block health care reform, is not that conservative. This is Massachusetts we're talking about. Socially, he's not so far behind the times, and his credentials suggest that he will be a different, more independent-minded kind of Republican. I really believe that Massachusetts was voting more for the person than the party in this case, which means this isn't as much a victory for Republicans as it is a defeat for Democrats. And a close defeat at that.
So maybe this election isn't as foreboding as it has appeared to be. Yes this temporarily puts a wrench in the works, but the Dems still have 59 seats, and are unlikely to lose 9 of them in the 2010 election, at least not at this point, and not with the economy on the rebound. They may be more hard pressed to successfully make progress, but at the very least this little election isn't going to propel us back to the Bush years, not even close.
Apparently yes...
Well she's being pessimistic.
"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said. "I don't see the votes for it at this time."
From a CNN article. Great. Well can't say I didn't warn you.
Maybe members of the House should read Nate's article-- see below.
"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said. "I don't see the votes for it at this time."
From a CNN article. Great. Well can't say I didn't warn you.
Maybe members of the House should read Nate's article-- see below.
Are the Dems and Dem leaders on tilt?
As I wrote my last post, little did I know that once again Mr. Silver over at 538 has been echoing my sentiments, and putting things quite cleverly. I wandered over to his article after posting my own, and thought it was so relevant to what I had been saying that I needed to recommend it to you here, if you have some extra time. If if you don't have time, the gist is that Nate argues Democrats will run a serious risk if they let health care be watered down to nothing: "The risk is that, when we get to November, the base looks at the fact that significant progress has not been made on any of those core, defining issues, that the political and procedural hurdles are immense, that Democratic majorities will (at best) shrink, and that the party leadership seems nonchalant in good times and panicky in bad ones. And they'll conclude that the progressive party is incapable of making progress." And then they'll just give up.
Emphasis mine. This is also my fear, the main fear that drove the publishing of my last post. Democratic leadership and regular old congresspeople, if the base loses hope and gives up, it won't matter how many independents want to join your cause, you've lost the very force that defined you in the first place. Or, as I would argue, the very people who elected you, Mr. President, need this. They haven't had anything to be excited about in 8 long years of Bush, arguably longer, if they aren't shown something, anything, you really might lose them. Not all of them have as much patience as I have shown. And even now I'm really beginning to lose mine.
Emphasis mine. This is also my fear, the main fear that drove the publishing of my last post. Democratic leadership and regular old congresspeople, if the base loses hope and gives up, it won't matter how many independents want to join your cause, you've lost the very force that defined you in the first place. Or, as I would argue, the very people who elected you, Mr. President, need this. They haven't had anything to be excited about in 8 long years of Bush, arguably longer, if they aren't shown something, anything, you really might lose them. Not all of them have as much patience as I have shown. And even now I'm really beginning to lose mine.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The aftermath...
So the talk on the hill is that Democrats are putting everything on pause until Scott Brown is seated, in what appears to be an attempt to look cool, calm, and confident after losing their precious Senate seat. What that means is that it's looking increasingly likely that Dems will revamp the entire bill to try to include Olympia Snowe rather than "ramming something" through the Senate or having the House pass the Senate version of the bill.
If Democrats take that course, it will be, in my humble opinion, a tragic mistake. But if Democrats don't take that course, it appears to them to be a tragic mistake as well. This is why:
Democrats, those vulnerable and not, seem to be under the impression that by scaling back the health care legislation considerably to a few key points and including at least one Republican in the next version passed they will be creating a non-back-room-deal, populist-ish, and ultimately popular legislation. They can claim bipartisanship, they can claim to be listening to the pulse of the American public, and they can claim more of a victory than they would have claimed if they had again quote un-quote rammed something through. This is part of a larger pitch/message strategy that Obama and other key Dems are pursuing, that echoes rumblings about the voters still wanting "change," but feeling misrepresented by Democrats. The idea behind this is that if Democrats can reclaim the anti-insider, "change" message that Obama claims propelled him to victory, they can avoid catastrophic losses in 2010. They can also, if possible, get done with health care as soon as possible, try to make it not as big a deal as it has been over the last 9 months, and move on to economy stupid and job creation which poll much better. They seem to realize that health care has always been an issue that held substantially more resonance with the base than with the general public.
Here's the serious problem I see with that course of action. First I need to make a disclaimer: I'm not a politician and I have not been in public office for the unbelievable amount of time that many of these congresspeople have, so I'd trust their tactics over the voice of one young American blogger. There are probably other things at stake that I do not have an understanding about.
However, I think it would be wiser to do as the SEIU (!!!) suggests and have the House pass the Senate version of the health care bill. (The exclamation points are to indicate how surprising it is that SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, would support the Senate bill after so clearly hating it just a week ago. They had a problem with a particular tax that would be used in the Senate bill to pay for the health care changes called a Cadillac Tax which would in some manner or another hurt union negotiations for those who get (very good) health care through their insurer) Now first off this will require the House not to be that stubborn and go ahead and pass the Senate version of the bill. I personally believe that if the President really pushed it and explained why, the House would, albeit begrudgingly get on board, but it's possible that the House has been too spooked by what happened in Massachusetts to vote it on through.
Still, it would be the fastest way to get the bill on the President's desk, signed and done, with a much more satisfactory base approval than a watered down "bipartisan" bill. I don't, like the Dems seem to, believe that the public will get behind a watered down health care bill. They won't believe it's bipartisan if ony one or two Republicans join in, and they won't believe it's not full of backtoom dealing just because it's watered down. In fact, my guess is that the Republicans will be able to spin this to their favor as long as Democrats have health care on the table. Now tha;t a fairly scary proposition, because it suggests that the public really can't be moved back in support of the bill. I think it's true! Health care fatigue has been taking hold for months already! In a few months no one will remember what version of health care was passed, except perhaps the base, where the Dems have the most to lose by passing something without teeth! The other, and most important thing that the SEIU pointed out, is that Congress has the capacity to revise the bill over the 3 years it takes for it to come into effect. Perhaps after the 2010 elections have taken place, and Democrats feel safe to bring up hot issues again.
If they do pass something less liberal, everyone loses, including the Democrats, because I don't really believe anyone will agree on their claimed victory, conservatives or liberals.
I will allow a significant counter argument to the one I am currently making, and that is that the base won't be substantially more satisfied by the Senate bill than another watered down bill. After all the Senate and House bills minus a PUBLIC OPTION *shining glory* was not "worth passing" in the first place. I admit, it is definitely a possibility that the base would be even happier with a watered down health care bill, because it wouldn't include a mandate for buying insurance which some argue just ends up helping insurance companies. This is a real question worth asking, but either answer is not convincing enough for me to change my position in the debate.
One way or another, it looks like Dems are damn well screwed.
**One note on reconciliation, the budget process that I mentioned in the last post. Apparently, while reconciliation is still feasible, it would take a long time to figure out how to make the health care bill fit, not to mention procefural blocks to slow down the process by Republicans. In the end there may be only 51 votes needed, but apparently the political damage it would do simply by dragging out the process would be too much for almost any subsequent victory to overcome.
**On another side note I'd like to point out that I am clearly a partisan. In other words I'm someone who believes that a Democratic agenda is better for the country than a Republican one, and I'm a realist in the sense that I pretty well genuinely believe that there are only two choices, at least at this point in National American politics, Republican and Democrat. As such, I'm someone who believes that what ever is better for the preservation of the party (in opposition to Republicans) is better for liberals and creates left leaning agenda. Sometimes it's not as left as I'd like, sometimes it's downright, well, right (conservative). Like the Afghanistan decision by the President, or the compromises on the Public Option in the health care bill. These are things that as a partisan I am willing to swallow, even though they make me unhappy, because I know that overall, having Democrats in power is the lesser of two evils (and causes a lot of good, generally). So far, Democrats have not compromised themselves too much for me to stop supporting them, unlike some progressives who want moderate Dems out. It doesn't mean, however, that it's not worth voting for the most progressive candidate possible in the primary... unless they're likely to lose. In other words, I'd rather have a Blue Dog like Heath Shuler, than almost any kind of Republican.
The glaring problem in our system is that somehow those are the only two choices.
If Democrats take that course, it will be, in my humble opinion, a tragic mistake. But if Democrats don't take that course, it appears to them to be a tragic mistake as well. This is why:
Democrats, those vulnerable and not, seem to be under the impression that by scaling back the health care legislation considerably to a few key points and including at least one Republican in the next version passed they will be creating a non-back-room-deal, populist-ish, and ultimately popular legislation. They can claim bipartisanship, they can claim to be listening to the pulse of the American public, and they can claim more of a victory than they would have claimed if they had again quote un-quote rammed something through. This is part of a larger pitch/message strategy that Obama and other key Dems are pursuing, that echoes rumblings about the voters still wanting "change," but feeling misrepresented by Democrats. The idea behind this is that if Democrats can reclaim the anti-insider, "change" message that Obama claims propelled him to victory, they can avoid catastrophic losses in 2010. They can also, if possible, get done with health care as soon as possible, try to make it not as big a deal as it has been over the last 9 months, and move on to economy stupid and job creation which poll much better. They seem to realize that health care has always been an issue that held substantially more resonance with the base than with the general public.
Here's the serious problem I see with that course of action. First I need to make a disclaimer: I'm not a politician and I have not been in public office for the unbelievable amount of time that many of these congresspeople have, so I'd trust their tactics over the voice of one young American blogger. There are probably other things at stake that I do not have an understanding about.
However, I think it would be wiser to do as the SEIU (!!!) suggests and have the House pass the Senate version of the health care bill. (The exclamation points are to indicate how surprising it is that SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, would support the Senate bill after so clearly hating it just a week ago. They had a problem with a particular tax that would be used in the Senate bill to pay for the health care changes called a Cadillac Tax which would in some manner or another hurt union negotiations for those who get (very good) health care through their insurer) Now first off this will require the House not to be that stubborn and go ahead and pass the Senate version of the bill. I personally believe that if the President really pushed it and explained why, the House would, albeit begrudgingly get on board, but it's possible that the House has been too spooked by what happened in Massachusetts to vote it on through.
Still, it would be the fastest way to get the bill on the President's desk, signed and done, with a much more satisfactory base approval than a watered down "bipartisan" bill. I don't, like the Dems seem to, believe that the public will get behind a watered down health care bill. They won't believe it's bipartisan if ony one or two Republicans join in, and they won't believe it's not full of backtoom dealing just because it's watered down. In fact, my guess is that the Republicans will be able to spin this to their favor as long as Democrats have health care on the table. Now tha;t a fairly scary proposition, because it suggests that the public really can't be moved back in support of the bill. I think it's true! Health care fatigue has been taking hold for months already! In a few months no one will remember what version of health care was passed, except perhaps the base, where the Dems have the most to lose by passing something without teeth! The other, and most important thing that the SEIU pointed out, is that Congress has the capacity to revise the bill over the 3 years it takes for it to come into effect. Perhaps after the 2010 elections have taken place, and Democrats feel safe to bring up hot issues again.
If they do pass something less liberal, everyone loses, including the Democrats, because I don't really believe anyone will agree on their claimed victory, conservatives or liberals.
I will allow a significant counter argument to the one I am currently making, and that is that the base won't be substantially more satisfied by the Senate bill than another watered down bill. After all the Senate and House bills minus a PUBLIC OPTION *shining glory* was not "worth passing" in the first place. I admit, it is definitely a possibility that the base would be even happier with a watered down health care bill, because it wouldn't include a mandate for buying insurance which some argue just ends up helping insurance companies. This is a real question worth asking, but either answer is not convincing enough for me to change my position in the debate.
One way or another, it looks like Dems are damn well screwed.
**One note on reconciliation, the budget process that I mentioned in the last post. Apparently, while reconciliation is still feasible, it would take a long time to figure out how to make the health care bill fit, not to mention procefural blocks to slow down the process by Republicans. In the end there may be only 51 votes needed, but apparently the political damage it would do simply by dragging out the process would be too much for almost any subsequent victory to overcome.
**On another side note I'd like to point out that I am clearly a partisan. In other words I'm someone who believes that a Democratic agenda is better for the country than a Republican one, and I'm a realist in the sense that I pretty well genuinely believe that there are only two choices, at least at this point in National American politics, Republican and Democrat. As such, I'm someone who believes that what ever is better for the preservation of the party (in opposition to Republicans) is better for liberals and creates left leaning agenda. Sometimes it's not as left as I'd like, sometimes it's downright, well, right (conservative). Like the Afghanistan decision by the President, or the compromises on the Public Option in the health care bill. These are things that as a partisan I am willing to swallow, even though they make me unhappy, because I know that overall, having Democrats in power is the lesser of two evils (and causes a lot of good, generally). So far, Democrats have not compromised themselves too much for me to stop supporting them, unlike some progressives who want moderate Dems out. It doesn't mean, however, that it's not worth voting for the most progressive candidate possible in the primary... unless they're likely to lose. In other words, I'd rather have a Blue Dog like Heath Shuler, than almost any kind of Republican.
The glaring problem in our system is that somehow those are the only two choices.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Health Care or Bust
It seems clear at this point that the Democratic majority will continue to make attempts at health care reform until... well, bust-- if only because the political ramifications of not successfully passing SOMETHING after 9 months of this ridiculousness is much greater than any backlash the public might have about the way the bill is passed or the contents of the bill. I for one think it's about damn time to stop the hedging and pass the damn thing, in the dirtiest way possible if necessary, and as liberal as possible, if possible.
At this point I believe that energizing the base is much much more important than trying to continue to reach out to the few independents and centrists who seem to still like the Democrats, primarily because it's the base that elects these people (they volunteer, they fund, they scream). Now, I know that's not the direction the Democrats have been going these days, they are trying to incorporate a large variety of views and people into the party to make it as large and powerful as possible (diluting as well, unfortunately), the big tent approach. At this point however, the Republicans seem to have managed to brand a relatively centrist approach to government as so liberal it's going to change the entire world, and end it, and the only good thing that might come out of it is that Jesus definitely will come back when the world has gone that much to shit. So at this point, what do Dems have to lose by appearing as dirty and liberal as Republicans have branded them? Hey Democrats, why not go ahead and "force health care down the throats of Americans," since no matter what you do, they'll think something is being forced somewhere, regardless of how pretty you try to make the process. The faster you can shove a bill up the Republicans' proverbial ass, the faster you can remove their talking points, and move on to letting America forget you ever brought up the subject in the first place. Which is where you want to be right now, trust me. America can remember again in a few years when the thing kicks in, and they realize they wanted it all along.
Nate Silver over at 538 has a terrific article suggesting, I think very correctly as I've pointed out here, that not just on health care, "what Obama has wound up with is an unpopular, liberal sheen on a relatively centrist agenda." Check out what he has to say, it was partly inspiration for this piece.
One development that seems to be worth watching is the increasing unease House Democrats have with passing the Senate version of the health care bill. As the unlikeliness of that vote increases, so does the unlikeliness of passing health care before the President's State of the Union Speech. There had been a vested interest in passing health care before the speech, so that the President could tangibly declare victory and move on. As the speech approaches don't be surprised to suddenly find Democrats at the cusp of a clear solution, one way or another.
At this point I believe that energizing the base is much much more important than trying to continue to reach out to the few independents and centrists who seem to still like the Democrats, primarily because it's the base that elects these people (they volunteer, they fund, they scream). Now, I know that's not the direction the Democrats have been going these days, they are trying to incorporate a large variety of views and people into the party to make it as large and powerful as possible (diluting as well, unfortunately), the big tent approach. At this point however, the Republicans seem to have managed to brand a relatively centrist approach to government as so liberal it's going to change the entire world, and end it, and the only good thing that might come out of it is that Jesus definitely will come back when the world has gone that much to shit. So at this point, what do Dems have to lose by appearing as dirty and liberal as Republicans have branded them? Hey Democrats, why not go ahead and "force health care down the throats of Americans," since no matter what you do, they'll think something is being forced somewhere, regardless of how pretty you try to make the process. The faster you can shove a bill up the Republicans' proverbial ass, the faster you can remove their talking points, and move on to letting America forget you ever brought up the subject in the first place. Which is where you want to be right now, trust me. America can remember again in a few years when the thing kicks in, and they realize they wanted it all along.
Nate Silver over at 538 has a terrific article suggesting, I think very correctly as I've pointed out here, that not just on health care, "what Obama has wound up with is an unpopular, liberal sheen on a relatively centrist agenda." Check out what he has to say, it was partly inspiration for this piece.
One development that seems to be worth watching is the increasing unease House Democrats have with passing the Senate version of the health care bill. As the unlikeliness of that vote increases, so does the unlikeliness of passing health care before the President's State of the Union Speech. There had been a vested interest in passing health care before the speech, so that the President could tangibly declare victory and move on. As the speech approaches don't be surprised to suddenly find Democrats at the cusp of a clear solution, one way or another.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Does this surprise you?
It shouldn't. But it should worry you. Yes Scott Brown has won the Senate Special election in Massachusetts. It is the end of the world. Many of the reasons why are discussed in the previous post.
Ok, so it's not the end of the world, and not even the end of health care reform. It's interesting to hear Chris Matthews (MSNBC commentator) already ask whether Scott Brown could be the fresh face Republicans need for 2012. He was immediately rebuked by his interviewee as getting a little ahead of himself. I agree.
I need to make two points that I didn't make earlier. First Coakley ran a pretty terrible campaign, with some serious gaffes which left her appearing quite out of touch, despite her profile as Attorney General. You'll see the Dems using that talking point tonight and tomorrow. Second, I should have been more clear, Massachusetts registered voters include a majority which are registered independent/unaffiliated. Scott Brown has largely run a race trying to portray himself as non-Washington-insider; maybe even non-partisan. He's an every-guy. And he appealed to the majority of independents who want to see change in Washington from health care and the partisanship and special interests. One quote mentioned on MSNBC tonight said that people are still voting for the change they voted for in 2008, because they haven't seen it yet. On one level I think I agree.
On another level, this was a special election, and quite frankly I believe Scott Brown does NOT represent the beliefs of most Massachusetts registered voters. What he and this election do represent, however, is stunning enthusiasm from Republicans that should give Dems a serious pause. Not the fact that he won. The fact that he mobilized, and generated excitement. The GOP brand is evolving. The GOP brand is resurrectable.
One option for Democrats is to urge the House to pass the Senate version of the health care bill. This would allow the bill not to go back to the Senate, would rob Brown of his vote, and Congress could revise the bill (which wouldn't go into effect for a few years anyway) as problems arose. House members are already frustrated that they would be asked to swallow the Senate bill, and it's unclear whether or not it would pass at all.
Another option would be to use the reconciliation process reserved for complex and contentious budget bills in the Senate to treat health care as a budget issue. It allows the senate to bypass any filibuster options by the Republicans, and would require only 51 votes to pass. Arguably this is how the Founders intended the Senate legislative process to work. I don't really know how they'd feel about the procedural filibuster which forces a 2/3rds vote on everything with virtually no political consequences for the blocking party.
Anyway, I don't really understand everything about reconciliation except that it may be difficult to apply to health care, and also that it might be spun as a dirty move by Republicans who would see it as a way to force a bill down the public's throat. Some progressives are still holding out hope that they can create a public option through reconciliation, since at least 51 Senators would be on board. I personally think this is highly unlikely.
The last option is to go back to the drawing board and try to bring Olympia Snowe (most moderate Republican from Maine) in on the negotiations for an even more moderate bill. Not many people will be happy with that on the left.
And possibly there's another plan that I don't yet foresee. Time will tell.
For now, toast to Brown. Like it or not, he's #41.
Ok, so it's not the end of the world, and not even the end of health care reform. It's interesting to hear Chris Matthews (MSNBC commentator) already ask whether Scott Brown could be the fresh face Republicans need for 2012. He was immediately rebuked by his interviewee as getting a little ahead of himself. I agree.
I need to make two points that I didn't make earlier. First Coakley ran a pretty terrible campaign, with some serious gaffes which left her appearing quite out of touch, despite her profile as Attorney General. You'll see the Dems using that talking point tonight and tomorrow. Second, I should have been more clear, Massachusetts registered voters include a majority which are registered independent/unaffiliated. Scott Brown has largely run a race trying to portray himself as non-Washington-insider; maybe even non-partisan. He's an every-guy. And he appealed to the majority of independents who want to see change in Washington from health care and the partisanship and special interests. One quote mentioned on MSNBC tonight said that people are still voting for the change they voted for in 2008, because they haven't seen it yet. On one level I think I agree.
On another level, this was a special election, and quite frankly I believe Scott Brown does NOT represent the beliefs of most Massachusetts registered voters. What he and this election do represent, however, is stunning enthusiasm from Republicans that should give Dems a serious pause. Not the fact that he won. The fact that he mobilized, and generated excitement. The GOP brand is evolving. The GOP brand is resurrectable.
One option for Democrats is to urge the House to pass the Senate version of the health care bill. This would allow the bill not to go back to the Senate, would rob Brown of his vote, and Congress could revise the bill (which wouldn't go into effect for a few years anyway) as problems arose. House members are already frustrated that they would be asked to swallow the Senate bill, and it's unclear whether or not it would pass at all.
Another option would be to use the reconciliation process reserved for complex and contentious budget bills in the Senate to treat health care as a budget issue. It allows the senate to bypass any filibuster options by the Republicans, and would require only 51 votes to pass. Arguably this is how the Founders intended the Senate legislative process to work. I don't really know how they'd feel about the procedural filibuster which forces a 2/3rds vote on everything with virtually no political consequences for the blocking party.
Anyway, I don't really understand everything about reconciliation except that it may be difficult to apply to health care, and also that it might be spun as a dirty move by Republicans who would see it as a way to force a bill down the public's throat. Some progressives are still holding out hope that they can create a public option through reconciliation, since at least 51 Senators would be on board. I personally think this is highly unlikely.
The last option is to go back to the drawing board and try to bring Olympia Snowe (most moderate Republican from Maine) in on the negotiations for an even more moderate bill. Not many people will be happy with that on the left.
And possibly there's another plan that I don't yet foresee. Time will tell.
For now, toast to Brown. Like it or not, he's #41.
This isn't good
You probably already know what I'm talking about.
Martha Coakley is going to lose the Senate Special Election in Massachusetts, not just ending the Democratic Kennedy legacy(Ted Kennedy passed away, for those out of the loop), but allowing Scott Brown to become the first Republican in 30 years to occupy a Massachusetts Senate seat. Brown has promised to vote AGAINST the health care bill, completely undoing all the progress Democrats made in trying to put the votes together.
How could this happen!? Isn't Massachusetts one of if not the most liberal/Democratic state in the union? Well, the fact that Brown can win is what makes this election special.
Let's look at the last 2008 Presidential election to explain how this is possible. John Kerry, a popular incumbent, got 66% of the vote; his Republican opponent acquired 31%. This is a strong Senate victory, but not surprising for an incumbent in a state with Cook PVI of D+12. (The Cook Partisan Voting Index is a rating of how well Democrats and Republicans will do on a general congressional ballot--in other words non-incumbency, two unknown candidates, literally would you vote for the D or the R regardless of personality or credibility, in general).
Here's two realities that need to be figured. 1. Just because a state is blue, or even "the most" blue, it is not ALL blue. There are a lot of Republicans in Massachusetts; almost 1 million voted in the 2008 election, and the Republicans who did vote are the ones who care THE MOST. Keep that in mind. 2. The Cook PVI for Massachusetts is only D+12 in Massachusetts; put another way Democrat gets 56%, Republican gets 44%. This is not an insurmountable margin, especially because neither Coakley nor Brown is an incumbent, and neither has a significantly notable name recognition lead.
The final and most important reality is that this is a Special Election. That means it's an election which will temporarily fill a suddenly vacated seat until the next regular election. Turnout for special elections is very, very low and only the most enthusiastic voters will take the time to vote. No one else is on the ballot, so having a powerful Democratic establishment in Massachusetts does not help as much as it should. All of these factors have conspired to allow Brown to ease on up on Coakley in the polls, but still, why might he WIN?!
Pundits have allotted different levels of blame toward sagging Presidential approval, a poor, gaffe-ridden candidate choice by the Democrats, a personable semi-moderate Republican choice by the opposition... But the key, I think, is one thing: Scott Brown will vote against the increasingly unpopular Democratic health care bill. Or more importantly, he'll filibuster it to prevent it from coming to a vote-- the Dem caucus will only have 59 members instead of 60, which means they can't overcome a filibuster. And, and! Guess what! Republicans have noticed how much of a difference this one tiny election in Massachusetts can make so they've poured all their resources into creating an upset. And they very well might. Now it will be considered an upset if Coakley wins.
Conservatives are quite fired up about the idea of defeating the health care bill and liberals are not very excited about passing it. All of the enthusiasm and energy is coming from the Conservative resurgence and anti-big-government "Tea Party" movements which fueled Republican Governor wins in NJ and VA a few months ago. Many liberals, on the other hand, are ambivalent or even in opposition to the health care bill, and an inability to tap into that base is crippling Democrats in a Special Election where enthusiasm is almost everything.
Could the Democratic establishment still win out? Odds at Intrade and Fivethirtyeight are around 25%, but it's probably more than that. There's a lot to be said for establishment (Convicted of corruption charges -for hiding bribe? money in his freezer- Jefferson, the Democratic candidate in Louisiana's 2nd district still ALMOST WON the election there in 2008. The reason? Heavy Democratic establishment...) and Coakley, despite not generating much enthusiasm might win by default of having the D next to her name. Time will tell. After all, Obama and the Democratic party have pulled out all the stops to try to get her to win, even sending the President to Massachusetts to campaign for her, putting his personal credibility on the line.
Because of this, if Coakley does lose, Republicans will have an absolute field day with the results, claiming that it's a referendum on Obama (which is only a little bit true) and Democratic leadership (which is a little more true) and ignoring the fact that it was a Special Election and that the results were very, very close. It'll be hard for Democrats to spin this any other way than... we messed up, big time.
Despite my bold announcement at the beginning, I don't actually know who's going to win; it looks like Brown has the momentum and odds in recent polling (not to mention that enthusiasm, which again, is everything), but I think it's a lot closer than a 25% chance that she'll win, and that the margin will be + or - 5% one way or another. Still, she's looking at pulling an upset akin to Clinton's win in the NH primary back in 2008
After seeing the results of the election tonight, I'll have another post with analysis on what it will mean for health care (obviously if Coakley wins it'll be shorter), but Democrats have a few (kinda desperate and dirty) cards up their sleeves if Brown steals this seat.
And Republicans really shouldn't get too excited. If Brown wins it really will be a rare steal. I believe his seat will almost certainly go right back to the Dems next real election cycle.
On a side note, according to the Cook PVI, Hawaii and Vermont are the most Democratic states, but being a Democrat in one state might mean something different than in another, so this may have no bearing on how "liberal" a state may be. Vermont's my pick for most liberal state, if only for the presence of Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator, and almost- almost... socialist.
Martha Coakley is going to lose the Senate Special Election in Massachusetts, not just ending the Democratic Kennedy legacy(Ted Kennedy passed away, for those out of the loop), but allowing Scott Brown to become the first Republican in 30 years to occupy a Massachusetts Senate seat. Brown has promised to vote AGAINST the health care bill, completely undoing all the progress Democrats made in trying to put the votes together.
How could this happen!? Isn't Massachusetts one of if not the most liberal/Democratic state in the union? Well, the fact that Brown can win is what makes this election special.
Let's look at the last 2008 Presidential election to explain how this is possible. John Kerry, a popular incumbent, got 66% of the vote; his Republican opponent acquired 31%. This is a strong Senate victory, but not surprising for an incumbent in a state with Cook PVI of D+12. (The Cook Partisan Voting Index is a rating of how well Democrats and Republicans will do on a general congressional ballot--in other words non-incumbency, two unknown candidates, literally would you vote for the D or the R regardless of personality or credibility, in general).
Here's two realities that need to be figured. 1. Just because a state is blue, or even "the most" blue, it is not ALL blue. There are a lot of Republicans in Massachusetts; almost 1 million voted in the 2008 election, and the Republicans who did vote are the ones who care THE MOST. Keep that in mind. 2. The Cook PVI for Massachusetts is only D+12 in Massachusetts; put another way Democrat gets 56%, Republican gets 44%. This is not an insurmountable margin, especially because neither Coakley nor Brown is an incumbent, and neither has a significantly notable name recognition lead.
The final and most important reality is that this is a Special Election. That means it's an election which will temporarily fill a suddenly vacated seat until the next regular election. Turnout for special elections is very, very low and only the most enthusiastic voters will take the time to vote. No one else is on the ballot, so having a powerful Democratic establishment in Massachusetts does not help as much as it should. All of these factors have conspired to allow Brown to ease on up on Coakley in the polls, but still, why might he WIN?!
Pundits have allotted different levels of blame toward sagging Presidential approval, a poor, gaffe-ridden candidate choice by the Democrats, a personable semi-moderate Republican choice by the opposition... But the key, I think, is one thing: Scott Brown will vote against the increasingly unpopular Democratic health care bill. Or more importantly, he'll filibuster it to prevent it from coming to a vote-- the Dem caucus will only have 59 members instead of 60, which means they can't overcome a filibuster. And, and! Guess what! Republicans have noticed how much of a difference this one tiny election in Massachusetts can make so they've poured all their resources into creating an upset. And they very well might. Now it will be considered an upset if Coakley wins.
Conservatives are quite fired up about the idea of defeating the health care bill and liberals are not very excited about passing it. All of the enthusiasm and energy is coming from the Conservative resurgence and anti-big-government "Tea Party" movements which fueled Republican Governor wins in NJ and VA a few months ago. Many liberals, on the other hand, are ambivalent or even in opposition to the health care bill, and an inability to tap into that base is crippling Democrats in a Special Election where enthusiasm is almost everything.
Could the Democratic establishment still win out? Odds at Intrade and Fivethirtyeight are around 25%, but it's probably more than that. There's a lot to be said for establishment (Convicted of corruption charges -for hiding bribe? money in his freezer- Jefferson, the Democratic candidate in Louisiana's 2nd district still ALMOST WON the election there in 2008. The reason? Heavy Democratic establishment...) and Coakley, despite not generating much enthusiasm might win by default of having the D next to her name. Time will tell. After all, Obama and the Democratic party have pulled out all the stops to try to get her to win, even sending the President to Massachusetts to campaign for her, putting his personal credibility on the line.
Because of this, if Coakley does lose, Republicans will have an absolute field day with the results, claiming that it's a referendum on Obama (which is only a little bit true) and Democratic leadership (which is a little more true) and ignoring the fact that it was a Special Election and that the results were very, very close. It'll be hard for Democrats to spin this any other way than... we messed up, big time.
Despite my bold announcement at the beginning, I don't actually know who's going to win; it looks like Brown has the momentum and odds in recent polling (not to mention that enthusiasm, which again, is everything), but I think it's a lot closer than a 25% chance that she'll win, and that the margin will be + or - 5% one way or another. Still, she's looking at pulling an upset akin to Clinton's win in the NH primary back in 2008
After seeing the results of the election tonight, I'll have another post with analysis on what it will mean for health care (obviously if Coakley wins it'll be shorter), but Democrats have a few (kinda desperate and dirty) cards up their sleeves if Brown steals this seat.
And Republicans really shouldn't get too excited. If Brown wins it really will be a rare steal. I believe his seat will almost certainly go right back to the Dems next real election cycle.
On a side note, according to the Cook PVI, Hawaii and Vermont are the most Democratic states, but being a Democrat in one state might mean something different than in another, so this may have no bearing on how "liberal" a state may be. Vermont's my pick for most liberal state, if only for the presence of Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator, and almost- almost... socialist.
Sorry I had things to do!
Sorry for not a post in 20 days, but this will change starting this week. Be prepared for at least a post every other day, depending on political news. Trying to keep people up on it, so to speak!
Ed. 6:47pm: I'll have a somewhat in-depth post on Afghanistan and our approach to war in this society in the next week that will be worth watching out for.
Ed. 6:47pm: I'll have a somewhat in-depth post on Afghanistan and our approach to war in this society in the next week that will be worth watching out for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)