The Ugly Truth

Ezra Klein nails it on his blog (link).

Democrats won their massive majority because of an economic collapse. They've passed so much legislation because they have a massive majority based on an economic collapse. But the economic collapse isn't over. And having a lot more seats than the other party means 1) voters blame you for the condition of the country, and 2) you have a lot of seats to lose. What the bad economy and the huge majority giveth, the bad economy and the huge majority taketh away. Om. 

If there's a tension here, it's in the way that public opinions and the system interact -- or, more specifically, the way they don't. You can look at this and ask why Democrats passed all this legislation that made them unpopular. But if Democrats had sat around and done nothing after the stimulus, does anyone think they'd be more popular? On some level, Democrats understand that if people's incomes had gone up over the last year, their agenda would be popular enough, but that in the presence of persistent joblessness, they're going to lose the election. The only thing to do in the meantime is try and pass legislation that'll make the country better off. That's what they've done, or at least what they think they've done.

It's ugly in the sense that policy is irrelevant to the outcome of most elections.  I'd really like to believe that this isn't true, and political parties would be rewarded and punished on the basis of the policies that they enacted or blocked.  But, as usual, the relationship is much clearer than that.  Here's the chart Ezra uses to demonstrate the correlation:

Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick...

Per Charlie Cook (link), time to change the political dynamic before the mid-terms is almost out:

Two of the most common clichés in American political circles are "all politics is local" and "a few months is a lifetime in politics." Each contains a kernel of truth, but both have become all-too-handy excuses for pols seeking to explain away unpleasant realities.

...

In this election year, the circumstances and dynamics have not materially improved for Democrats since Labor Day. With a little more than four months to go before the November election, the chances of this contest's trajectory fundamentally changing decline with every passing week.

Great poll interpretation in the rest of the article.  If you think the GOP has already peaked this cycle, you may want to change your assessment.

Meet the new boss. It's the same as the old boss.

Ezra captures the strange irony of the political results so far this cycle (link):

Part of the narrative that's emerged is that these primaries show an anti-incumbent, anti-Washington, year. That's right, but it's mixed, incoherently, with pro-party -- which is to say, pro-Washington establishment -- results. The different bases are eliminating politicians who've been insufficiently dedicated to holding their party's line. The result will be much more significant than merely the election of three new senators. Rather, surviving senators will upgrade the threat an unhappy base poses to their reelection and trim their independence accordingly. The moderates and compromisers who are left will stop acting like moderates and compromisers. This election looks, if nothing else, like it's going to be a big step forward in bringing strong party discipline to the Senate.

Of course, The Who would see nothing strange about this (link).

Crazy is as crazy does

Yesterday, I noticed this headline over at RedState.com: "Sestak Job Offer Violated Federal Law?".  Which made me remember this post over at Ezra Klein's blog by Jonathan Bernstein (link):

The incentives all run to impeachment, as far as I can tell. The leaders of such an effort would find it easy to cash in (literally, I mean) with books and appearances on the conservative lecture circuit. It's hard to believe that Rush, Beck and the rest of the gang wouldn't be tripping over each other to wear the crown of the Host Who Brought Down the socialist gangster president. And we've seen the ability, or I should say the lack thereof, of rank-and-file GOP pols to stand up to the talk show yakkers. Besides, it's not as if a new Republican majority would have a full agenda of legislative items to pass, and what they did have would face an Obama veto (and most likely death in the Senate at any rate). Against all that is the collective preference of the Republican Party not to have a reputation as a pack of loons, but that doesn't seem to be much of a constraint in practice. Of course, also against impeachment is the lack of a serious offense by the president, but I don't see that as a major impediment -- if offering a job to a potential Senate candidate is an impeachable offense (and see Jonathan Chait if you think it really is), then they'll have no trouble at all coming up with something.

I'm beginning to fear the political impact of the oil spill on the mid-term elections.  I don't want to under-emphasize the environmental/economic catastrophe by making it seem that the only impact I care about is the political one.  Especially given the horse race sensibility of my comment.  So please read this as only one aspect of my thinking.

Basically, the oil spill contributes to the growing sense of frustration on the part of the citizenry.  This leads to greater anger at incumbents.  As the GOP is out of power, this increases their likelihood of retaking the house and possibly the senate.  And because the crazies are running the GOP show, we get to the Bernstein impeachment prediction.  Which is crazy.

This sounds nuts.  And I would bet against it today.  But what else would need to happen to change my bet?  If today wasn't in June but was in late October, would my bet change?

I'm real hesitant to blog this...

Because, I hate to raise expectations.

But, I keep reading this kind of sentiment (From PPP):

It's just another data point showing that Democratic troubles this year are not the result of them losing the center, but of conservative voters being more motivated to turn out.

And (From Charlie Cook):

Although no single district can be an accurate microcosm of a larger set of competitive districts, Pennsylvania's 12th District seemed to be a good example of a certain type. It is blue-collar with a mix of small towns, cities and rural areas. The Republican candidate was competent, well-funded and had a good story. Obama's job approval ratings in the district were below the national average. It might not have been a gimme, but it was a race the Republicans should have won. Not only did they lose, though, they lost by 8 points, just shy of the traditional 10-point yardstick of a landslide.

What happened? ....The Republican analysis seems to imply GOP victory is dependent upon Democratic vote depression, and for them to win, Democratic voters must be lethargic and not show up.

And (From Ed Kilgore at 538.com):

Moreover, a more stridently ideological posture by Republicans could arguably play into the hands of Democrats who are frantically trying to make the next two election cycles revolve around a "two futures" choice between two very different agendas rather than a referendum on Democratic governance. 

And (From Adam Abramowitz at The Democratic Strategist):

Evidence from U.S. Senate elections since 2000 provides strong support for the median voter theory of U.S. elections. This evidence shows that conservatism had a significant negative effect on the electoral performance of Republican incumbents. Based on these results, efforts by the Tea Party movement and other conservative activist to purge moderate incumbents and pressure Republican candidates into taking more consistently conservative positions are likely to have a detrimental impact on the GOP's performance in future elections.

I'd really like to see the GOP punished for their tea party nonsense.  Based on these readings, the mid-terms may hinge on how far to the right the GOP has moved.  If Democratic voters do turnout, then there will be a chance to turn back the red tide. You can't know what will happen in this next round of national elections, but maybe the GOP really has taken their rhetoric a step too far.

Note: He's Up By 25 Points

Rand Paul, the GOP primary winner put his foot in mouth yesterday (link) and its unclear to me if it will matter at all.  However, if it does, then Ezra Klein knows why (link):

What's gotten Paul in trouble, however, is that he's so skeptical of government power that he's not even comfortable with the public sector telling private businesses that they can't discriminate based on race. That, I fear, does have public policy implications.

For instance: Can the federal government set the private sector's minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors? These are the sort of questions that Paul needs to be asked now, because the issue is not "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." It's "area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly."

Interestingly, Rasmussen has him up over Conway (D) in the polls by 25 (link).

As a side note, Rasmussen is a very reputable polling company that has a strong 'house effect'.  Their polls have leaned more towards the GOP during this cycle than all the other pollsters.  This doesn't mean that their polls are wrong, but has more to do with how they are modeling for likely voters.  For more on this, here is Nate Silver (link).  And for those who like a good conspiracy, here is Daily Kos on the Rasmussen house effect (link).

Beware The Easy Story Line

When you start hearing the same story line again and again and again from the media, it's good to be skeptical.  Here's Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly (link):

But it's the nuances and details that poke some important holes in the "anti-incumbent" narrative. Specter didn't struggle because he's a sitting senator; he lost because he ran in a Democratic primary after serving as a Republican for 30 years -- a Republican who backed Bush, Cheney, Santorum, McCain, and Palin. Lincoln's career isn't in jeopardy because she's already in office; she's in trouble because Democratic voters aren't pleased with her voting record and aren't convinced she can win in November.

Even among Republicans, the major shake-ups -- in Kentucky, in Florida, in Utah -- have very little to do with incumbency and a great deal to do with ideology.

The media's rush to oversimplify things is consistent with how major outlets cover developments like these. It's just what they do. But it also leads to unhelpful reporting that doesn't fully capture the larger dynamic.

To be clear, this doesn't mean anti-incumbency isn't going to be a factor this fall.  What it does mean is that the press often picks the facts (or lack of facts) to fit a pre-existing, easy to understand, narrative.  And mainstream reporting seems to have done that again with their headline analysis of yesterday's outcomes.

Hat Tip:  Eric Wagner - Thanks for sending the link along!

'Tea Party Candidate'

I heard that the 'Tea Party Candidate' won in Kentucky.  I have mixed thoughts on this kind of headline.

1. Isn't 'Tea Party Candidate' just a reference that means a member of the GOP who panders to the worst elements of the base by using irrational and populist slogans?
2. This is likely good for the democrats.  It means that the crazies are running the show in the opposition party.  It also means that the opposition is putting up candidates that have the lowest chance of appealing to, so-called, independent voters.
3. On the other hand, its probably bad for the country.  I've yet to read a policy position from the 'Tea Party' that could stand up to questioning.  The fact that this group attracts a strong enough following to win primaries, is awful.  Why can't we have a sane opposition?  I have a hard time believing that the democrats will hold onto power for long enough for the GOP to become rational.  When the extremists start winning seats we may see some truly bad government policy.

If you are following the political races, here's one the only link (538.com) you need to click for the significance of yesterday's outcomes.

Sometimes Playing The Outside Game Is All You Need For The Win

Here's part of a nice post from Nate Silver at 538.com (An absolute must-read site; especially as we get closer to the mid-terms).

In addition, obviously, there is significant anti-incumbent sentiment within the country which seems to cross all political boundaries. While Mollohan lost to a challenge from his right -- not incredibly shocking in a state where just 34 percent of the Democratic primary electorate describes itself as liberal -- incumbents of all kinds are having problems:

-- Republican Senator Bob Bennett was eliminated at Utah's nominating convention last week by Tea Party-supported candidates.

-- Also in Utah, Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson was forced into a primary after delegates gave 45 percent of their votes to Claudia Wright, a retired schoolteacher who ran sharply to his left.

-- Arlen Specter appears more likely than not to lose to Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania next week. Sestak has made a point of running to Specter's left, although polling indicates ambiguous patterns of preferences according to voter ideology. (In Rasmussen's cross-tabs [gated], Sestak leads 56-39 among liberal primary voters but also 51-38 among conservatives; Specter leads 46-37 among self-described moderates.)

-- Recent polling shows Democratic challengers closing on incumbent Senators Richard Burr in North Carolina and Chuck Grassley in Iowa.

-- John McCain, having released this strange ad, seems to be nervous about his position in Arizona, where J.D. Hayworth is challenging him and has been close in some polls.

We scarcely need to mention, of course, how many Democratic incumbents are liable to lose their general election bids.

I don't look forward to the possibility of a 'Tea Party' controlled House.  But, they are definitely playing the 'outside game'.

Midterm Tea Leaves (or: The People Are Pissed Off)

Here's Charlie Cook's take (link):

When one party has control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, a midterm election is pretty much a referendum on that party. The electorate's anti-everything mood is likely to manifest itself only one way in November -- that is, against Democrats. Between now and then, however, a different dynamic could be in play. Republicans in particular should watch upcoming primaries apprehensively to see whether their party is nominating candidates with the potential to attract broad-based support and take full advantage of the anti-Democratic tide, or if it is opting for candidates who might be too extreme even in what should be a great year for the GOP.

But have no doubt: The anger is real. The only question is precisely how it will be channeled.

I've been reading this kind of thing all year and will probably continue to read it.  Here's the part I don't entirely get: