Suzy Khimm reports that the Senate confirmed a district judge today, over the objections of six diehard Republicans, led by Mike Lee of Utah, who had threatened to block every nomination to retaliate for Barack Obama's recess appointments. That sort of retaliation, apparently, is not going to happen.
To which I'll say: called it!
OK, it's not my style to pat myself on the back too often, but it's worth doing here because if I could see it, then Obama's Congressional liaison people should be been able to see it. And that means they should have had him threatening to use and then using the recess appointment power right from the beginning. He should have made it clear that he considered the 60 vote Senate on executive branch nominations absolutely unacceptable, and I suspect he could have made it stick. Not on bills, and not on judicial nominations (where recess appointments are not very valuable compared to the lifetime tenure for regular confirmations), but certainly on exec branch appointments.
There are limits to how often Obama or any president would want to use recess appointments, even in the executive branch. And, to tell the truth, a president who tried to bypass a reasonable Senate would correctly be taken to task by virtually everyone in Washington (at which point the Senate would probably retaliate by really staying in session). But other than that kind of abuse, regular and aggressive use of that Constitutional power increases, not decreases, a president's leverage in the Senate. Obama has been wrong on this one from 2009 on, and if he does win a second term it's one area where dramatic improvement is possible.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Mega PACs? No Thanks
Chris Blattman has an idea to effectively cap the amount of money going into presidential campaigns, which is hard to do now under Court findings from Buckley to Citizens United:
If some process-oriented very rich people have "several hundred million" dollars that they want to give to make the political system work better, I'd much rather they provide "public" financing to House elections. Several hundred million? If that's in the neighborhood of $435 million, it'll finance $500K to each major party nominee in every House seat. In my view, there's no obvious reform out there that would have as positive an effect.
On a marginally related topic, I would very much like to see better disclosure laws and better disclosure enforcement. But, c'mon, we all know that Sheldon Adelson is funding Newt's campaign, and it doesn't seem to have made a difference to anyone. Nor did people turn away from Republicans in 2010 because of publicity about the Koch brothers. And rightly so; it's not as if Newt was hiding his support for Israel (or at least Adelson's version of what constitutes support for Israel), nor the GOP hiding their opposition to dealing with climate change. Knowing who was behind those positions was completely useless information to voters, as far as I can tell. I know that's not true across the board, and again I would like to see meaningful disclosure (that is, who the actual people or companies are who are giving, not the phony shell names, and in plenty of time for the press and opposing candidates to look at it). I just don't have a huge amount of confidence that it would make much difference.
One fabulously rich person (or a gaggle of them) would put X million dollars into a trust that expires November 9th. X would have to be very large. Probably several hundred million.Would it work? Maybe, maybe not. But I disagree with the premise. Why should we cap total spending? I like spending on elections. It helps voters gather information, and makes politics generally more salient. I like all of that.
The rules would be simple. You could choose a funding cap for all candidates, x, which is much, much smaller than X. Say, $100 million. Plenty of money for a modest number of attack ads, since the parties must have a little fun.
The key: If any one candidate’s super PACs raised more than x, then the trust would automatically release an equivalent amount of funds to the opponent’s super PACs. The trust would be ready to hurl all its money if it must.
If some process-oriented very rich people have "several hundred million" dollars that they want to give to make the political system work better, I'd much rather they provide "public" financing to House elections. Several hundred million? If that's in the neighborhood of $435 million, it'll finance $500K to each major party nominee in every House seat. In my view, there's no obvious reform out there that would have as positive an effect.
On a marginally related topic, I would very much like to see better disclosure laws and better disclosure enforcement. But, c'mon, we all know that Sheldon Adelson is funding Newt's campaign, and it doesn't seem to have made a difference to anyone. Nor did people turn away from Republicans in 2010 because of publicity about the Koch brothers. And rightly so; it's not as if Newt was hiding his support for Israel (or at least Adelson's version of what constitutes support for Israel), nor the GOP hiding their opposition to dealing with climate change. Knowing who was behind those positions was completely useless information to voters, as far as I can tell. I know that's not true across the board, and again I would like to see meaningful disclosure (that is, who the actual people or companies are who are giving, not the phony shell names, and in plenty of time for the press and opposing candidates to look at it). I just don't have a huge amount of confidence that it would make much difference.
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to Jim Barr, 64. I don't really have specific memories of seeing him pitch for the Phoenix Giants in 1971, but I must have -- he appeared in 47 games, and I believe I went to quite a few games that year. Here's how baseball used to be. Barr was actually an excellent pitcher from ages 24 through ages 28
1. I like Jonathan Chait's view of what GOP party actors are up to with regard to Mitt Romney. It's not quite what I've been arguing, but they go together nicely.
2. Steve Kornacki's epic history of misplaced hopes of a deadlocked convention.
3. Matt Glassman talks about public policy issues and elections.
4. Excellent overview from Stan Collender of the various types of leaks about the budget, as he tries to assess why there haven't been many leaks this year. The trick for news consumers: how to figure out which type of leak you're reading.
5. And right-wing pick-up artists, reported by Benjy Sarlin.
1. I like Jonathan Chait's view of what GOP party actors are up to with regard to Mitt Romney. It's not quite what I've been arguing, but they go together nicely.
2. Steve Kornacki's epic history of misplaced hopes of a deadlocked convention.
3. Matt Glassman talks about public policy issues and elections.
4. Excellent overview from Stan Collender of the various types of leaks about the budget, as he tries to assess why there haven't been many leaks this year. The trick for news consumers: how to figure out which type of leak you're reading.
5. And right-wing pick-up artists, reported by Benjy Sarlin.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Caucus/Primary and Other Reform Questions
National Journal's Reid Wilson says that after the vote-counting flubs in Nevada and Iowa, caucuses are and should be on their way out. Josh Putnam demolishes the "are" part of that, pointing out that it's highly unlikely that either national party would attempt to impose such a reform, especially the Republicans.
I'll take on the "should" part of this. In my view, this is Seligism at it's worst: reforming institutions in order to react to some minor glitch in the current rules or practice. In particular, the offense here -- the slow count in two caucus states -- just doesn't seem to me to be a very big deal. At all. It took two weeks for the recount in Iowa? So what! Recounts take a while. The offense here just doesn't seem like a very big deal to me.
In addition to better counting, Wilson endorses a few other reform goals:
The other part of this is to think of the nomination process as a complex coordination and competition game: hundreds, or really thousands, of party actors across the nation are trying to come to an agreement while protecting their interests within the party and without too much damage to the eventual nominee. You know what helps make that process work better? Stable rules. Without stable rules, it's a lot easier to get odd, random results; it's easier for candidates to game the system; and it's harder for the party to resist press manipulation. Obviously, there are other, competing values here. But stability in the basic rules is really a highly valuable asset for parties, and in my view at least they should be careful before embarking on major reforms without very, very good reason. Democrats in particular can remember the consequences of the major reform of the 1970s: the disaster (at least for them) that was Jimmy Carter.
All that said...the current system, if retained (as I agree it will be), will never give us complete stability either in the calendar of primaries and caucuses or in the choice of states of how to select their delegates. So we'll always have states switching from caucuses to primaries or vice versa. All that is fine. But I see no reason at all to attempt to impose one or the other.
I'll take on the "should" part of this. In my view, this is Seligism at it's worst: reforming institutions in order to react to some minor glitch in the current rules or practice. In particular, the offense here -- the slow count in two caucus states -- just doesn't seem to me to be a very big deal. At all. It took two weeks for the recount in Iowa? So what! Recounts take a while. The offense here just doesn't seem like a very big deal to me.
In addition to better counting, Wilson endorses a few other reform goals:
Give candidates a break from holiday-time campaigning; ensure that candidates with modest war chests can truly compete; and produce a nominee battle-tested in every region who isn’t too bruised and bloodied to compete in November.Everyone agrees with the first one, but alas coordination problems, as Josh explains, make it difficult. The third goal seems like wishful thinking to me; there's simply no way to assure that a candidate is both "battle-tested" from a sequential nomination process without risking a nominee "bruised and bloodied." Still, it's an overrated concern. Barack Obama certainly survived as tough a process and one could expect and did just fine, and in general there hasn't been a problem that candidates emerge from the process at a disadvantage in November (the strongest cases were all long in the past -- George McGovern in 1972, Gerald Ford in 1976, and Jimmy Carter in 1980). As for helping candidates who can't raise money compete: it's not clear that's a good thing. I'm open to complaints that the system has suddenly tilted too far in the direction of one or two major donors allowing a candidate to survive, but the truth is that any candidate with serious party support is going to be able to raise enough money to compete. Failure to have more than a "modest warchest" is a sign of a failed candidacy, not, in most cases, something that the parties should want to reward. I do think that money should not be the only resource that matters in nomination politics, but fortunately it isn't.
The other part of this is to think of the nomination process as a complex coordination and competition game: hundreds, or really thousands, of party actors across the nation are trying to come to an agreement while protecting their interests within the party and without too much damage to the eventual nominee. You know what helps make that process work better? Stable rules. Without stable rules, it's a lot easier to get odd, random results; it's easier for candidates to game the system; and it's harder for the party to resist press manipulation. Obviously, there are other, competing values here. But stability in the basic rules is really a highly valuable asset for parties, and in my view at least they should be careful before embarking on major reforms without very, very good reason. Democrats in particular can remember the consequences of the major reform of the 1970s: the disaster (at least for them) that was Jimmy Carter.
All that said...the current system, if retained (as I agree it will be), will never give us complete stability either in the calendar of primaries and caucuses or in the choice of states of how to select their delegates. So we'll always have states switching from caucuses to primaries or vice versa. All that is fine. But I see no reason at all to attempt to impose one or the other.
Crickets
So we're almost 48 hours out from Rick Santorum's shocker big day and...where are the new endorsements? Has anyone seen any?
Look -- we know how this works. Endorsements are a good indication of what party actors are thinking. And after Iowa -- and so far, after Minnesota/Colorado -- what they're thinking seems to be: no thanks.
On paper, at least to me, this seems like an easy call, and it has ever since the first Santorum surge in the week leading up to Iowa. If you believe that Mitt Romney can't be trusted to act as a conservative if elected (and that seems like a plausible view and at any rate is certainly one that a lot of very vocal conservatives have made), then you need to support someone else. Not Huntsman, surely. Not Perry, at least not after Iowa. Not Gingrich -- he's just as untrustworthy as Romney, and is surely a far worse general election candidate than any of the others. Not Paul. That leaves Santorum.
And yet, here we are. There was no rush to endorse him after Iowa...some evangelicals eventually met to do so, but it was hardly a ringing, forceful case made. Roll Call's Congressional endorsement watch has collected a grand total of 3 -- 3! -- endorsements, all Members of the House from Pennsylvania. The Washington Post endorsement tracker has two for Santorum, James Dobson and Iowa's Bob Vander Plaats.
These people must know that by sitting back and watching, they're basically sanctioning a Mitt Romney nomination. So either they really don't mind that -- or they have something against Rick Santorum. My increasing guess is that it's the former; they've chosen Romney, but are unwilling to attach their names to him. If that's true, it may mess up the data set for the Party Decides authors, but what's happening is basically what they (and I) expect: party actors collectively settled on a nominee. And it appears as though they'll be able to make it stick.
Look -- we know how this works. Endorsements are a good indication of what party actors are thinking. And after Iowa -- and so far, after Minnesota/Colorado -- what they're thinking seems to be: no thanks.
On paper, at least to me, this seems like an easy call, and it has ever since the first Santorum surge in the week leading up to Iowa. If you believe that Mitt Romney can't be trusted to act as a conservative if elected (and that seems like a plausible view and at any rate is certainly one that a lot of very vocal conservatives have made), then you need to support someone else. Not Huntsman, surely. Not Perry, at least not after Iowa. Not Gingrich -- he's just as untrustworthy as Romney, and is surely a far worse general election candidate than any of the others. Not Paul. That leaves Santorum.
And yet, here we are. There was no rush to endorse him after Iowa...some evangelicals eventually met to do so, but it was hardly a ringing, forceful case made. Roll Call's Congressional endorsement watch has collected a grand total of 3 -- 3! -- endorsements, all Members of the House from Pennsylvania. The Washington Post endorsement tracker has two for Santorum, James Dobson and Iowa's Bob Vander Plaats.
These people must know that by sitting back and watching, they're basically sanctioning a Mitt Romney nomination. So either they really don't mind that -- or they have something against Rick Santorum. My increasing guess is that it's the former; they've chosen Romney, but are unwilling to attach their names to him. If that's true, it may mess up the data set for the Party Decides authors, but what's happening is basically what they (and I) expect: party actors collectively settled on a nominee. And it appears as though they'll be able to make it stick.
Plum Line: Lift
Over at Plum Line today, I talked about the possible effects of an improved economy -- and why it's possible that conventional wisdom is too pessimistic. See Ezra Klein this morning for more on the latter point.
It's not original to me, but one of the relevant points here is one that people have made about "Obamacare" -- that it's a risky slur to use. If the president is popular with swing voters, then it's a slur that's apt to backfire! Of course, this only highlights the big problem for Republicans these days, one that will surely be on display at the big CPAC meeting in Washington that began this morning: they increasingly speak to, and in the language that sells to, a fairly small fraction of the public.
I don't want to oversell that point -- it's only something that matters around the margins to begin with, and you can be sure that Mitt Romney will attempt to escape it once he finally secures the nomination -- but I do think it's real. Most Americans just don't think of Barack Obama as someone who spends all his time playing golf and who is incapable of speaking in public without a teleprompter, and at the same time there's a big chunk of Republicans who don't want to listen to anything else (and are apparently willing to spend ungodly sums of money to subsidize anyone willing to speak that language.
It's not original to me, but one of the relevant points here is one that people have made about "Obamacare" -- that it's a risky slur to use. If the president is popular with swing voters, then it's a slur that's apt to backfire! Of course, this only highlights the big problem for Republicans these days, one that will surely be on display at the big CPAC meeting in Washington that began this morning: they increasingly speak to, and in the language that sells to, a fairly small fraction of the public.
I don't want to oversell that point -- it's only something that matters around the margins to begin with, and you can be sure that Mitt Romney will attempt to escape it once he finally secures the nomination -- but I do think it's real. Most Americans just don't think of Barack Obama as someone who spends all his time playing golf and who is incapable of speaking in public without a teleprompter, and at the same time there's a big chunk of Republicans who don't want to listen to anything else (and are apparently willing to spend ungodly sums of money to subsidize anyone willing to speak that language.
Newt, To Date
Ignoring the beauty contest in Missouri and taking the ballot vote in the caucus states (which he'll probably underperform in delegate selection, given that he's the least organized of the candidates), here's how Newt Gingrich has done so far by order of finish:
4th, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 3rd
That's just better than a fringe candidate. I mean, Ron Paul has a couple of second place and a couple of third place finishes, plus at least a plausible case that his delegate totals might be better than his caucus straw poll numbers; Newt can't even get on the ballots or file full delegate slates everywhere.
He could surge again. It doesn't matter. He's not going to be the nominee, he's highly unlikely to be a major factor, and I'm not really convinced he deserves more TV time right now than Ron Paul.
4th, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 3rd
That's just better than a fringe candidate. I mean, Ron Paul has a couple of second place and a couple of third place finishes, plus at least a plausible case that his delegate totals might be better than his caucus straw poll numbers; Newt can't even get on the ballots or file full delegate slates everywhere.
He could surge again. It doesn't matter. He's not going to be the nominee, he's highly unlikely to be a major factor, and I'm not really convinced he deserves more TV time right now than Ron Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
