Peter Baker, writing in the New York Times, suggests "In Losing the Midterms, There May Be Winning":"Divided government, of course, is rarely pretty, and a Republican victory would mean the end of some of Mr. Obama’s most expansive ideas, at least for now. If Democrats were frustrated pushing through their initiatives the last two years, they might soon look back at 2009 and 2010 as the glory days. "
Bill Berkowitz of The Smirking Chimp reports on the sentiment among Jewish voters and quoting Larry Sabato in "Larger Than Usual Block of Jewish Voters Appear Dissatisfied":"Commenting on the congressional elections, Sabato said that "If 33 percent of Jewish voters say they prefer a GOP Congress, that tells me that the argument for 'checks and balances' has taken hold broadly, and that we are likely headed for divided government in some form."
Charles Gasparino is pumping his new book and is quoted in Moneynews.com: "Wall Street Will Back Obama in 2012":"Wall Street’s support of Republican candidates in this year’s elections simply reflects the fact that it wants to be on the winning side, Gasparino, author of the new book “Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street,” tells Newsmax.TV. It’s a hedge,” he says. “Wall Street likes divided government, but the question is will they support this president, and I believe in 2012 they will. They are telling me that they are willing to support him as much as they support a Republican."
The Rattlesnake blogging at Electoral Vote Predictor was featured in this Carnival last week, and secured a repeat appearance by subsequently linking back to this blog with "Some Statistical Analysis of Parties in Power":"There is certainly some anecdotal evidence to support the notion that divided government works. The time period from 1995-2000 perhaps best illustrates this trend, as that period was typified by strong economic growth and a balanced federal budget while Congress was mostly controlled by the GOP and President Clinton was in office. Many would also site the period from 1983-1989, when Democrats controlled Congress and Ronald Reagan was in office, which saw a similar strong economic uptrend (although without the balanced budget, in that case.) All of this got me to wondering...is there a statistical correlation between divided government and economic growth. "
Lambert at Corrente is looking forward to the midterms with fear and loathing, but finds a sliver of hope in "The mid-terms...":"Personally, the minor hope that I have is that Rs win either the Senate or the House, and not both. Given the givens, a divided government that has ceased to function is the best option available, since the current government has done nothing but make matters worse. And the major hope that I have is that third parties, like the Greens, and NOTA do very well."
Alex Eichler wonders aloud at the Atlantic Wire - "Would Losing Congress Really Be So Bad for Obama?""Republicans are expected to clean up in the midterm elections, regaining control of the House and picking up a number of seats in the Senate as well. For obvious reasons, it's generally believed that this would be a bad thing for President Obama as he embarks on the latter half of his term. But some analysts think the challenges facing Obama wouldn't necessarily be so great--and that if he's canny about it, he could even turn a divided government to his advantage."
Bernie McSherry opines in the Great Speculation column at Forbes, suggesting we think of "Nancy Pelosi as Joe Frazier, John Boehner as George Foreman":"The markets seem comforted that the new political regime may consist of a divided government that forces both parties towards the center. If the expected result comes to pass, regime uncertainty may be reduced as radical policy options are taken off the table. Traders appear to be anticipating that the shift towards a more certain future will help the economy get off the ropes and back into fighting trim.”
I quoted Adam Shell writing in USA Today and at Azcentral.com in an expanded "Investors Still Love Divided Government" cross-post at Donklephant. He reinforces my earlier post by reporting that "Voters may sway stocks with possible policy changes.":"Historically, divided government has been bullish for stocks because it results in what Wall Street refers to as legislative gridlock. And in the words of many Wall Street analysts and economists: Gridlock is good. An analysis of stock returns based on who controls Congress and the White House found that the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has fared better when government is divided. The biggest gains, an average return of 14.6%, have been posted when a Democratic president has been coupled with a Republican-led Congress, Strategas Research Partners says."
Dale Williams of Free West Radio quotes Tunku Varadarajan (as I did) and comes to a slightly different conclusion explaining "My First Instinct as a Libertarian is an All-Consuming Contempt for Politics":" I can see cheering for divided government on Election Night. I can see hoping for a GOP Congress to counter Obama’s historic expansion of the federal government. But there’s no reason a libertarian’s “first instinct” should be to root for Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter). And it’s certainly not obvious enough to merit an of course."
Joe Gandelman, founder and editor of The Moderate Voice looks into Larry Sabato's crystal ball and places his bets saying: "Republicans Are More Enthused":"The most likely bet: The University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato’s contention that the overall numbers have not changed and that the GOP will get the House and possibly just miss the Senate. Possibly it can pick up the Senate too. Forget Dick Morris or other ideology based analysts and pundits. Follow Sabato HERE. He now sees the GOP as picking up House seats (they take the House) and 8-9 Senate seats (they don’t get the Senate). And Americans will get the divided government they often seem to prefer.Least likely bet: Various theories that due to a painstaking ground game, the Democrats will somehow hold onto the House."
Doyle McManus of the LA Times is looking for a bellwether on election night, and determines it is to be found in "The Pennsylvania Story":"Pennsylvania is a big swing state; it has voted for Democratic presidential candidates five times in a row, but often by small margins. Arlen Specter, the sitting senator whose seat is being fought for, left the Republican Party after Toomey mounted a conservative challenge, and then lost the Democratic primary to the more liberal Sestak. Many of the state's white, working-class voters wanted Hillary Rodham Clinton for president; they got Obama instead. Pennsylvania is increasingly post-industrial, but it's still been battered by the recession, with unemployment at about 9%...
According to the most recent polls, the race is too close to call. If I had to guess, I'd give Toomey the edge, based on the enthusiasm gap between the two parties' voters, but that's only a hunch. The outcome will depend, of course, on how many voters each side can turn out. Those numbers will tell us something about whether the Republicans' expected wave is a tsunami or merely a ripple — and whether the GOP will have a mandate for big change or merely benefit from Americans' disappointment with Obama and their long-held preference for divided government."
Chuck Todd et.al. weighs in on an MSNBC First Read compilation on the subject of "Checks and Balances":"If Republicans take back control of the House and maybe even the Senate, it will return American politics to its standard state: divided government. In the 21 Congresses after LBJ’s presidency, one party has held full control of the House, Senate, and White House just six times. Also since LBJ, the longest one party has controlled those three bodies is just for four years (1977-1981 and 2003-2007). And get this: Every time a party has had control of the three bodies, it ended in a wave election for the other side (1980, 1994, and 2006). So is what we’re witnessing just American politics returning to its natural state? Indeed, our NBC/WSJ poll in late August found that 62% of respondents said it was better if different parties control the White House and Congress, while only 29% preferred one party in command of both."
Kevin Bogardus reports on an FTI Consulting Poll for The Hill, finding that while "Backing GOP, business leaders stop short of repeal of Dems' agenda":"...while not pushing for repeal of either the healthcare or financial services bill, they say the legislation is having a negative affect on their business interests. Sixty-nine percent say healthcare reform is hurting their business while 65 percent say financial services reform is doing the same. “
Right now, businesses are choosing the status quo over calls for change. They believe the most favorable environment for them would be to slow down change, and they see that as more likely with divided government,” said Edward Reilly, CEO Americas of FD, the communications arm of FTI. That is backed up by other findings of the poll. For example, 63 percent say their business interests would improve if Republicans were able to gain control of at least the House, leading to a “divided government” scenario."
It had to be District "23". This obscure upstate New York Congressional district is getting a lot of national attention, and deservedly so. So many interesting elements - where to begin?"It is probably not wise to draw broad lessons from Tuesday’s results about what might happen in next year’s midterm Congressional elections and high-profile governor’s races."
Hoffman (I) 52%I'll update later, with some more thoughts as the votes are counted.
Owens (D) 44%
Scozzofava (R) 4%
Candidate Party Votes Pct. Bill Owens Dem. 66,526 49.0% Doug Hoffman Con. 62,308 45.9 Dede Scozzafava Rep. 6,986 5.1
"People voted for Owens because of the candidate, the man, and the issues he stands for."Interesting hypothesis. It could happen I guess. Still... I expect in an election as fractured and close as this one, it is the feet on the ground that make the difference. I understand from an unnamed source that the Dems recruited, relocated and paid top dollar for the best field operatives they could find for this election.
Only battle tested vets from the 2008 Obama campaign were considered for this front line effort. Hard core, hard working, committed mercenaries willing to do the kind of grunt work on the phones and on the street that make the difference in local elections. Democratic congress critters with close 2010 elections in conservative districts would do well to recruit operatives with the 2009 Owens campaign on their resume. A few hundred of these carpetbagging political street fighters will more than cancel out dozens of carpetbagging national political drive-by pundits, politicos, and media windbags.The Owens victory was important, if for no other reason that it permitted Democrats as well as Republicans to claim victory on Tuesday. What it didn't do, is permit anyone to continue to beat the dead horse that the Obama election represented a transformational permanent realignment in the political landscape.
The final word on the real meaning of Tuesday's election will be spoken - not by the words of pundits or politicians, but by the actions of the blue dog Democrats. Particularly those facing re-election in previously Republican districts in 2010. Dems like the man Fox anchor Neil Cavuto called "the biggest of the blue dogs" - Pennsylvania Representative Jason Altmire. In this recent interview with Cavuto, Altmire very diplomatically explains why he probably won't support Pelosi's health care bill:
CAVUTO: "...if voters and candidates a signal that they have had it it with runaway spending, the runaway beneficiaries could be the very fiscally conservative democratic congressman... you guys were arguing for finding a substantive way to pay for healthcare reform... Now - how crucial was this election."
ALTMIRE: "I'm in the process of going through the bill talking to my constituents and trying to make a determination. To determine if moving the ball forward is the best course of action... I'm not convinced that this bill is it, whether it is substantially different enough that's going to allow me to vote for... I think the discussion on the income tax increase is misguided and misplaced as part of the health care bill. There's no question that they've increased the threshold. They've done the same on the small business aspect. It still takes a punitive approach. It's my opinion if you don't offer health care to your employees as a small business owner, it is not that you don't want to, it's because you can't. And the better approach is to help small businesses afford is not to penalize those that don't. So I do still have some concerns."
"..we have images to share that are harmonizing, not polarizing -- black and white students cheering and celebrating in front of the White House and the warm and fuzzy obsession about what kind of hypoallergenic puppy Sasha and Malia will get. It's cool that President-elect Cool has gotten everybody chatting, even if it's awkward small talk. And it's fun, after so many years of unyielding barriers, to feel sentimental."
"Obama's victory creates the prospect of a new "real" America. We can't possibly know its contours yet, although I suspect the headline is that it is no longer homogeneous. It is no longer a "white" country, even though whites remain the majority. It is a place where the primacy of racial identity — and this includes the old, Jesse Jackson version of black racial identity — has been replaced by the celebration of pluralism, of cross-racial synergy...It is a country that retains its ability to startle the world — and in a good way, with our freedom. It is a place, finally, where the content of our President's character is more important than the color of his skin."
"But it has seemed to me that every study that's ever been made about prejudice between groups of people, and it doesn’t matter if we’re talking racial or religious or ethnic or societal or any kind of other differences between people, when you personally know someone of the so-called other group, your likelihood to be prejudiced or doubtful of them seems to drop from about 90 percent to about 10 percent. In some respects, a president-elect, soon we expect to be the president of the United States, is almost a figure in the family of everybody in the country, almost as well known as some at least distant relative. Will this have a material impact in knocking down what remains of prejudice in this country?"
"I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.. But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president ...convinced me. Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it."
"But the fact is that those kind of heinous arguments I think are a minor chord in the Democratic party, and they have been in the Republican party, but they are far more of a major chord. And I think that a lot of this, especially out in poor middle class white American is based in racial fears."
"...in the Candyland world of racism dressed up as anything else, they will believe anything about the president and they will believe any rationalization, no matter how transparent, that what they‘re feeling is not racism... The White House green jobs adviser Van Jones resigned in the middle of a storm in a tea pot over the holiday weekend... A former chair for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights John Anner who was a friend of Mr. Jones has said what many are thinking here to quote it, “It struck me why go after this guy. He‘s a minor player. He has no power, no budget. Why take him? It‘s because he looks like Obama and he has all of those same attributes of being well-educated and he‘s an electrifying speaker with an elite education.”
"The only question I have about Van Jones' resignation as the White House green czar is why didn't they call me before they hired him. You would think that, as part of the vetting process, they would have called the mayor of the city where he was from. I would have said, "Yeah, I know a lot about him. He's really a pain in the ass. When he ran Bay Area PoliceWatch, he slanted every case to make the cops look as bad as possible. And while he might be talented enough, he's totally and completely unreliable."
I guess what I find amazing about this discussion is that we are treating the racism claim about Obama’s opposition as if it were some kind of productive conversation starter.
It isn’t that, nor is it intended to be by those that offer it. It seems to me that whenever and wherever this argument is initiated, those initiating it do so in order to de-legitimize Obama’s opposition in its entirety and stop the policy conversation. Opponents are not portrayed as being influenced by a racial agenda, but as being controlled by it. The entire purpose is to deny them the sanction of reason so that their arguments may be ignored.
And that is garbage. Pure, unadulterated swill. If opposition to the policies of the President is going to be categorized in racial terms, then no national discussion is possible; there can be no negotiation with a fundamentally irrational opponent.
The tenor of the discussion over the last few weeks has put paid to any claim that Obama can be the first “post-racial” president, or any kind of transcendental figure on the issue. His own supporters have demolished that promising myth.
The blogosphere and MSM are buzzing with excitement and twittering in anticipation of the new, improved, updated and revised administration strategy to pass health care reform. As leaked to Ambinder yesterday, Politico reports today that Presidient Obama will be "specifying what Obama wants to see in a compromise health care deal" and "is considering detailing his health-care demands in a major speech as soon as next week".
Dear Friend, Family, or Complete Stranger whose e-mail address happens to be in my possession,
Two weeks ago, I received the "longest most important e-mail " that David Axelrod has ever sent. I was flattered to learn that President Obama's closest political adviser considered me a friend. I know this because he started the letter with the salutation "Dear Friend". Later I was disappointed to learn that he did not sent this e-mail to only his friends. In fact the e-mail was sent to any e-mail address that could be either be legitimately or illegitimately acquired by the chief White House political officer. No matter. I still appreciate the sentiment.
David suggested in this letter we "start a chain email of our own" on the topic of health care reform, and asked me to forward his e-mail to everyone I know. He was quite insistent, concluding the note by saying "So what are you waiting for? Forward this email". Now, I've always thought an unsolicited e-mail broadcast to millions of accumulated e-mail address fit the definition of "E-mail SPAM" and was considered bad form, rude, and kind of illegal. But - my spam filter did not flag David's e-mail - so I guess it was ok.
I frequently find chain-letter style e-mails in my in-box, as well as exciting business opportunities from Nigerian bureaucrats who have stumbled on secret bank accounts and soliciting my help to transfer funds to the U.S. However, because I thought chain e-mails epitomized bad e-mail etiquette, I never forward the chain e-mails (although I do sometimes forward the Nigerian e-mails). I don't even forward the ones that say I will be cursed with bad luck if I break the chain. I take that risk and have probably lost several hundred dollars in lucrative football parley wagers as a consequence. But I digress.
This chain letter was different. This chain letter came from the White House, from the President's closest adviser. I've always thought that if the White House asks you to do something, as an American, you should do it. If it is unpatriotic to show up at a town meeting and complain about the President's policies, surely it is unpatriotic to directly refuse a personal White House request like this, is it not? So I am forwarding David's e-mail to you, my close friend, family member, or complete stranger whose e-mail is in my possession and I would like you to forward it to all of your friends, family and any other e-mail addresses you happen to have in your possession.
I do have one concern. I received this e-mail directly from David Axelrod two weeks ago, and have yet to receive any additional copies from my friends, family or complete strangers. This would indicate that this viral chain e-mail is not working as well as the White House and David Axelrod hoped. Perhaps I can help.
Many of the viral chain e-mails I receive share certain characteristics. Either they are humorous, or they are pornographic, or they contain virulent partisan rants. David's e-mail is - to be quite honest - boring. Boring e-mails rarely become viral. Since David Axelrod is humorless, and sending paparazzi photos of starlets is inappropriate for the White House, this only leaves the partisan rant. David did make an effort in the letter. It was pretty clever to claim that opponents of the President's healthcare plan were "spreading all sorts of lies and distortions" shortly before David Axelrod himself started spreading all kinds of lies and distortions in the same letter. Good one David! But just not good enough to go viral. To go viral you need a rant that has a little more vitriol and energy. As an example - maybe something like this:"David Axelrod is a corrupt Chicago machine political hack and a lying sack of shit. He was instrumental in cutting a deal with big pharma promising to protect their profits, gutting ObamaCare in exchange for millions in advertising funds that coincidently flowed to his ex-partners in his ex-firm where his current son is currently employed and from whom he is currently receiving buyout payments."The above paragraph is for illustrative purposes only.
I have a few other suggestions for David. His e-mail is confused about which are the myths and which are the reforms. Next time, he should have someone read it before sending it.
Also, it is best not to outright lie. Like when David says in this e-mail that ObamaCare "reform will stop rationing" of heath care. Nobody believes a whopper like that. Not even the most kool-aid addled Obamite. Proponents can argue that it will be better rationing than occurs now, and the opponents will argue that it will be far worse rationing than occurs now. But no one (except David Axelrod) argues that reform means no rationing of healthcare at all. A statement of belief in Santa Claus of that kind of undermines everything else one has to say, except maybe to a two year old.
My final suggestion for David Aexlrod to improve his chain e-mail is this... If he is going to insist on spamming a sales pitch, it should be for a product that Americans are vaguely interested in buying. Now, I could be wrong, but if I were to guess what the American people are looking to buy, it would be something that can be articulated pretty simply and emerges from some basic American values of fairness and common sense. I’d say it is really about these three things:
- Every American gets a baseline level of solid health care. No one is left behind.
- No American need be at risk of financial ruin or bankruptcy because they get sick.
- The program is manageable and fiscally responsible. Americans want to feel reasonably certain we won’t see mushrooming costs like with Medicare and the prescription drug plan.
That’s it, David., that is all that is needed - not long lists of half truths, dubious benefits, or even a set of ginsu steak knives. Interestingly, ObamaCare HR 3200 at best accomplishes one of the three, while the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act (S 391) actually does accomplish all three. Perhaps that will be a better choice for Mr. Axelrod's next chain e-mail promoting ObamaCare 2.0.
Hopefully this was helpful. I am linking a short slide presentation to highlight the difference between ObamaCare and Wyden-Bennett for his future reference. It is also embedded in an allegorical tale linked here for the enlightenment and education of anyone who would like to learn more about a widely ignored bipartisan healtcare bill that offers real reform without bankrupting the country.
And remember - David Axelrod would like you to do your patriotic duty and forward this to all of your friends, family and any other e-mail addresses you happen to have in your possession whether they asked for it or not.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Your Friend, mw
| ||||||||||||
