Alexander Burns at Politico is thinking along similar lines to the ones I posted on this morning:
We’re 24 hours away from what countless candidate have told us is the only poll that really matters. On the one hand, it’s easy to say who has a lot to gain or lose this week. Everyone does. But here’s Morning Score’s attempt to narrow that list to the people and groups that have the absolute most at stake – beyond the candidates themselves:
(1) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will be the most watched Democrat in the country on Wednesday morning, no matter what happens Tuesday night; (2) The Obama reelect, which could get a bit easier or a lot harder, depending on the governor’s races in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, among other states; (3) Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, the only 2012 contender who leads a campaign committee this year, and whose national prospects get stronger the better the RGA does; (4) The Tea Party Express, which needs to win at least one Senate race from a list that includes Alaska, Nevada and Delaware, or risk being openly labeled saboteurs by the GOP elite; (5) Texas Sen. John Cornyn, whose personal political fortunes will rise or fall based on how a few toss-up races – Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, etc. – come out, especially if they all fall in the same direction; (6) Public Policy Polling, the Democratic-leaning firm that’s been the breakout polling sensation of the 2010 cycle, and handed down a flood of new numbers of the weekend that will either confirm or qualify its reputation.
I think he’s underestimating, if anything, the political infighting that will go on among Congressional Republicans if they win big. It won’t be just a return to the status quo ante of 2006. The freshman Republicans are likely to be much more fiscally conservative than the Republicans of those long ago days (just four years ago).
I don’t think this is the battle that the present Republican leadership was preparing to fight. I think they’ve been preparing to fight the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, not the new hands in their own midst.
I hope what you suggest is actually the case. (and I think you are correct) I obviously am Republican, but the last thing I want to see is a large victory and have the economic tendencies of the new Republican crop mimic the tendencies of the Republicans who lost their way – and basically behaved like Democrats – circa 1998 – 2006. That would be a disaster, for the party, the economy and the country.
Separately, I’m wondering if anyone sees this election the way I do: not as a referendum on the economy, as so many cite, but squarely as a referendum on P. Obama.
From where I sit he has been shown to be a) all talk, and no substance, on what captured the imagination of many independants: post partisanship, taking race out of the political debate, etc. b) far, far more left in his policy positions than many thought he would be (including foreign policy), and c) ineffectual (and for my two cents – with all due acknowledgement of being dealt a bad hand – counterproductive) wrt the economy.
Drew,
Your partisan filter here is ridiculous. Why under G.W. Bush you’d have been quite happy with this outcome.
Seriously though, I too am hoping for a nice amount of gridlock. Right now at this point paralyzing D.C. and their ability to muck around and do anything Bigâ„¢ would be good.
I know some people think that there is such a thing as good policy, but in looking at the performance of the economy (e.g. GDP growth and labor markets) where is this good policy?
“Your partisan filter here is ridiculous. Why under G.W. Bush you’d have been quite happy with this outcome.”
You’ll be happy to know that over the weekend I went out and bought, then read, “Mind Reading for Dummies.” And I know exactly what JP is thinking right now. Although, the field set is alarmingly sparse.
nyuk, nyuk, nyuk
As for policy, put on the spending and regulatory brakes, stop the taxation impulse, and prepare for a decade of slow improvement. We are like the 300 lb guy who finally decides to get back to 180. Ain’t gonna happen fast.
Actually James is usually the one to remand you of Obama’s personal approval rating. I assume you just ignore data outside your worldview, while pretending it’s all me of course.
And now for something completely different . . .
Nuts!!!
http://blogs.suntimes.com/blago/2010/11/rod_blagojevich_goes_nuts.html
Btw, I thought Best Comment on OTB was “we’ve had three successive ‘change’ elections …” with the idea that they could keep coming until conditions change.
THAT is the nonpartisan view.
Summer of Recovery, er, Somewhere There is Recovery, or sumthin’…….
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/01/personal-income-drops-for-first-time-in-14-months-spending-slows/
My favorite R&B guitarist speaks: (courtesy, Mankiw)
Friday, October 29, 2010
A Rolling Stone gathers no taxes
For skeptics about the incentive effects of taxation:
The Stones are famously tax-averse. I broach the subject with Keith [Richards] in Camp X-Ray, as he calls his backstage lair. There is incense in the air and Ronnie Wood drifts in and out–it is, in other words, a perfect venue for such a discussion. “The whole business thing is predicated a lot on the tax laws,” says Keith, Marlboro in one hand, vodka and juice in the other. “It’s why we rehearse in Canada and not in the U.S. A lot of our astute moves have been basically keeping up with tax laws, where to go, where not to put it. Whether to sit on it or not. We left England because we’d be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all. I don’t want to screw anybody out of anything, least of all the governments that I work with. We put 30% in holding until we sort it out.” No wonder Keith chooses to live not in London, or even New York City, but in Weston, Conn.
Source. (HT: Matthew Kahn)
This of course is impossible, and absurd. I have it on good authority from a certain author that you just write a few more pages and pay just like the bigger light bill.
I would like to point out that gridlock will not be good for the country. This is not 1994. Here’s a list of differences that I can think of off the top of my head:
1. No Peace Dividend in 2010 due to the end of the Cold War. Starting with the first Bush Presidency less money went into war spending for many years.
2. The economy is a disaster now, unlike 1994.
3. Business productivity gains due to “Computerization” will not happen following 2010 because it already occurred decades ago, especially in the years before and after 1994.
and most importanly
4. Barack Obama, unlike Bill Clinton, actually got some of his signature pieces of legislation enacted as law.
So gridlock will be a disaster. Gridlock means:
a) The Bush tax cuts expire in their entirety. I think the entire federal tax system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. But since that won’t happen we should probably not look to reduce personal income for most Americans any more than necessary. Almost no one thinks that is a good idea in this environment.
b) As an example of what the already enacted legislation will do, the idiotic $600 1099 rule will remain in effect starting in 2011.
c) The executive branch of federal government will continue to write and implement new regulations relating to the healthcare reform act.
d) The executive branch and various extra-constitutional agencies will write regulations to enact the financial reform bill. Best case scenario we get SOX II.
e) The ongoing implementation of of TARP, HAMP, the stimulus and a whole lot of other stuff will continue.
This is not 1994, and what “worked” then is bloody goddamned unlikely to “work” now.
The sad thing about “Recovery Summer” is that it was also a summer without full implementation of anyone’s remedies. We got compromise bills out of congress and ran with those. We stalled on action after that as everyone tired of stimulus, but didn’t know what to do next.
No one (sane) accepts responsibility without authority.
In addition to the list above, I would add:
(7) Blue Dog democrats. Somewhere around half of the Democratic seats projected to be lost are in the South; we may finally be seeing the death of the white Southern Democrat. And how does the Democratic Party respond to the decimation of it’s populist wing? Does it write it off, or find a way to save it?
(8) Does Harry Reid survive as leader even if he wins? I’ve heard rumors that his leadership might be over regardless.
As far as what happens next, I have no prediction. I hope for pragmatism and bills hammered toward a moderate compromise … but have no way to gauge the probability of that.
“The freshman Republicans are likely to be much more fiscally conservative than the Republicans of those long ago days (just four years ago).”
Nope, I dont think so. We will just see tax cuts and attempts to sabotage or repeal prior legislation. I predict we will see no action on Medicare.
“Separately, I’m wondering if anyone sees this election the way I do: not as a referendum on the economy, as so many cite, but squarely as a referendum on P. Obama.”
The right decided Obama was the worst president in history as soon as he was elected. Meh. It’s the economy ……
Steve
Whew, that’s good, here I was thinking it was just like 1994…wait a minute….
Or:
Drew: I’m hoping for gridlock.
Steve: Me too.
Icepick: It will be a disaster because 2010 is not like 1994!
Steve: Uhmmmm, okay, but exactly what does that have to do with my hope for gridlock?
Or, I wasn’t thinking it would be like 1994, thus this kind of objection is really nothing but a strawman.
John will probably accuse me of being partisan now.
Steve: Uhmmmm, okay, but exactly what does that have to do with my hope for gridlock?
I stated what gridlock would mean. Why not address that instead of selectively editting my comment and pretending that’s all there was to it? Not terribly honest, Stevie, but not entirely atypical.
What do you think gridlock will achieve? Gridlock means nothing happens, and I stated what “nothing happening” means in the present environment. Do you think gridlock magically means that something else GOOD happens? Or can you tell me how the bad things I outline above either (a) won’t happen or (b) are actually good things.
I didn’t make a straw man arguement, I actually made a case. Calling it a straw man doesn’t make it so. Of course, it’s easier to state an arguement is a straw man than it is to engage it. Not that I expect you do anything but parrot some libertarian-style boilerplate, but it would be nice if you made the attempt.
Or, I wasn’t thinking it would be like 1994, thus this kind of objection is really nothing but a strawman.
Okay, let’s look at this. Earlier you stated
Right now at this point paralyzing D.C. and their ability to muck around and do anything Bigâ„¢ would be good.\
As I pointed out, DC has already done several somethings Big – and the ongoing implementation of those Big somethings means that gridlock between Congress and the President doesn’t actually stop the executive branch of the government from mucking around in a lot of different areas. Since you are apparently assuming gridlock would stop that, yes, you ARE claiming this is like 1994.
So man up and address an arguement for a change.
“The right decided Obama was the worst president in history as soon as he was elected. Meh. It’s the economy ……”
Words matter. Most ill prepared and undeserving was, and is, the dialogue – and well earned. “Worst” is yet to be determined.
The question remains: economy, or Obama? One has to ask why a bunch of starry eyed college kids, still not affected by the economy, have lost faith in the 2008 image. Why have so many independants, employed, lost faith? Did the image have zero substance?
If polls are to be believed, people don’t lay the economy at Obama’s doorstep. Is it really the economy? Or is it the fact that the candidate in office isn’t anything like the media made rock star of the campaign? Its a bitch when you walk on stage, the lights go on, and your guitar goes spring, boing, splang, wang…….
Kreskin you ain’t and stop telling other people what they are thinking it is arrogant and presumptuous.
I never said it would necessarily stop legislation that has already been passed. That is something you pulled out of your fourth point of contact once you got your head out of the way.
While gridlock may not make things better, I’d argue that it would make it harder, going forward, for our Dear Leaders, to muck things up. Would we have rainbows and unicorns like in the 1990’s? No. Would we have either rainbows or just unicorns? Probably not. Would we see an emboldened Obama take another stab at things like carbon credits and other big ticket legislation? No. In fact, unless Obama triangulates, which he is showing no signs of even considering, it will mean nothing new and big is likely to happen for at least a couple of years. Its kind of do no (more) harm view, than a “this will be just what we need!” view.
The question remains: economy, or Obama?
Half and half. A majority of people are not happy about Obama’s biggest policy victories. Some of that unhappiness has to do with how policies were passed – I imagine a fair number of people that like the healthcare reform bill overall must be unhappy with the ugly manner of its passage.
But a lot of it has to do with the policies themselves. It’s hard to seen how the 1099 issue with the healthcare reform bill is good in any context. That’s one relatively minor bit (in terms of media coverage) but it is illustrative.
However, some of the unhappiness with the stimulus bill has to be that it hasn’t worked as advertized. So much for the rosy unemployment projections. If it HAD worked as advertized then it would be much more popular. (Mistakenly so, in my opinion.)
People may not (on the whole) blame Obama for creating the economic mess – but they’re certinaly unhappy that he hasn’t done more about it.
As for you points about college students and independents. Students who were juniors or seniors in 2008 ARE looking for work now. And the then underclassmen must be aware that their job prospects are much diminished. The independents with jobs almost certainly know people who are deep in the shit. When I’ve been around groups of employed people it seems like they all have family members AND close friends with serious long-term employment problems. I mean people other than me and other than those who are common aquaintences.
So I think both of those groups are thinking about the economic prospects of people close to them.
Steve V, it’s funny that you’re telling me to not read other people’s minds when you were doing just that with Drew in your first comment.
But claiming that gridlock means they won’t do any further harm still doesn’t hold up. NOT addressing the impending expiration of Bush’s tax cuts IS doing more harm. So is NOT addressing the obvious problems with legislation recently passed. You aren’t advocating doing no harm, you are advocating allowing harm to continue to happen. If you think that’s the best that can happen that’s fine. But it isn’t a great outcome, it’s a disasterous outcome.
Saw an interesting poll in which voters were asked if their flip Republican was temporary or permanent – 60% or so say permanent
Other than that, when you say “Obama” remember how it polls. People are down on Congress, both parties, but esp. Dems, and double esp. Pelosi.
Pelosi has genuinely bad numbers.
I said permanent! The danger of phone pecking — I meant 60% temporary
Icepick,
Now you are starting to get it. The non-disaterous outcomes are not politically feasible, IMO.
As I’ve said before in one post or another or in the comments here or OTB, to the extent that this election is a referendum, it’s a referendum on the Democratic Congressional leadership more than it is on President Obama. Note that his approval ratings aren’t much different from Reagan’s or Clinton’s at this point in his presidency.
Since the Democratic Congressional leadership is highly likely to take a drubbing, I’d say it’s a somewhat perverse sign of hope.
Steve and Drew will think you are being partisan 😉
Now you are starting to get it. The non-disaterous outcomes are not politically feasible, IMO.
Well it would have helped if you had actually stated what you thought instead of making fallacious and dishonest arguements until I finally stumbled upon your meaning.
Your best case scenario is that we will continue to experience near-catastrophic failure. (And calling it near-catastrophic is being generous.) I don’t see how that’s any different than the Dems miraculously winning a fillibuster-proof majority tomorrow and enacting every bad policy proposal on their wish-list on Wednesday. Hang on to the cliff edge for a minute or an hour, you’re still dead meat when you finally fall. From your perspective (after I finally dragged it out of you) I don’t really see what difference it makes who wins tomorrow.
Note that [Obama’s] approval ratings aren’t much different from Reagan’s or Clinton’s at this point in his presidency.
I don’t believe the stated approval ratings for Obama. I almost never run into anyone who has a positive opinion of what he’s doing. That’s not surprising with my old friends, who range from social conservatives to fiscal conservatives to Objectivist libertarians to damn-near anarchists. But when I’m out and about I almost never hear anyone say that they think he’s doing a good job. I don’t hear it in the conversations I involved with, I don’t overhear it in others conversations, and I don’t hear it in snippets as people walk by. I hear a lot of opposing opinions, however. And Orange County Florida is a “purple” locale. Where is this forty-something percent who think he’s doing a good job? Do other commenters have similar experiences to mine or am I just a statistical anomoly?
Saw an interesting poll in which voters were asked if their flip Republican was temporary or permanent – 60% or so say [temporary].
Best news I’m likely to hear this week. Decreasing loyalty to these two political parties (Dems and Reps) would be a good start – especially if people stopped being loyal to their own incumbents too. Too bad that won’t happen.
It would nice to see some political science in the coming weeks to identify the comparative frequency of Pelosi or Obama in the House campaigns. Intelectually Dave’s point is sound, the House leadership is most likely impacted by House elections. But I’m not sure people think it through that way.
It will be interesting to see how many Democrats that voted against controversial legislation like HCR lose. That would mean more voters have cracked the code.
I would think it is a combination of regional and individual positioning, that makes it seem Pelosi or Obama.
I can tell you that in California no one seems to be running against Obama. Meanwhile, my city council is competing on closeness to Reagan 😉
Dave –
It would be hard to argue that 4 years of Reid and Pelosi aren’t grating on people, but it seems like the election of Obama – and his policy advocacy – put the grating on steroids.
Icepick,
It isn’t my fault you made an assumption and ran with it.
BTW, swim upstream a bit and read the post on deficits and government spending…then read my comments. You’ll see why I don’t think we can do a damn thing about the mess we are in. You might think Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a tale about how great Democracy is…but that is the wrong message, IMO.
My assumption was that you meant what you wrote. You wrote that gridlock would be good.
Seriously though, I too am hoping for a nice amount of gridlock. Right now at this point paralyzing D.C. and their ability to muck around and do anything Bigâ„¢ would be good.
Apparently what you meant was that gridlock would be a total fucking disaster but it would be slightly less calamitous than NOT gridlock. It took many additional posts in which I had to drag it out of you for that to become clear. Great performance, Stevie, very clear and concise