Yup, it's question day here! You have questions, I'll try to answer them: presidential nomination process, Congressional procedure, representation, how to fix the playoff structure, whatever. Leave 'em in comments here, or email, or tweet them to me, and I'll get to as many as I can.
By the way, if you're wondering about the Senate procedural thing that happened yesterday, I'm going to refer you over to the the great Sarah Binder, who did an explanation last night over at the Monkey Cage.
A small bit of housekeeping...a couple of things. The comments spam filter here has been lately making Type I errors -- that is, grabbing stuff that it shouldn't. If it happens to your comment, you can always email me to let me know and I can restore it.
I might as well note that What Matters This Week won't be posted tomorrow, since I won't be posting on Yom Kippur (yeah, I know, it's not as if anyone is planning their weekend around my posting schedule). I'll probably just run it on Sunday morning, and then do Sunday Questions at more or less the normal time. For those observing the day, L'Shana Tovah, and G'mar Chatimah Tovah.
And with that: any questions?
Why are there open primaries? What possible benefit do they serve?
ReplyDeletewhat do you think are the top policy objectives the Republicans would push for if they take Congress and the White House in 2013? which of those policy changes do you think they could get done before the '14 midterms?
ReplyDeleteWhat is a party anymore? Versus a brand?
ReplyDeleteIs the invisible primary just like the existence of the Devil -- i.e. the only reason you don't believe in it is because he makes you?
To what extent does getting private calls from Administration officials corrupt JB? Ezra Klein? Ygelias? TPM?
Are you disappointed in Obama?
Do you have a list of books about politics that you would recommend? You have mentioned Tell Newt to Shut Up and Rchard Ben Cramer's What it Takes, and I was wondering what others you would recommend.
ReplyDeleteLong time reader, first time commenting. Thank you for all the time and effort you put into the blog. My question: How important are advisers and aides to politicians in the nomination process? You often argue about the expansive and amorphous nature of parties, but I am wondering if a 'candidate' is not also similarly expansive and amorphous. Given that candidates cannot be experts on all the policies they will have to comment on in the nomination process, there will be people to advise and guide candidates on policy. I assume these aides are also important in developing relationships with influential party actors. What role, then, do aides and advisers play in establishing a politician as a candidate?
ReplyDeleteDid Mario Cuomo run for president in 1992?
ReplyDeleteIs all this primary date switching business a recent phenomenon or is it just in the news more? What do you see as the eventual outcome? Will states continue to jockey for position every cycle? Or will we get some agreement to a new structure, such as a rotating schedule? Does Iowa really deserve some sort of protected status as "first in the nation"?
ReplyDeleteDo you think the US can compete in the 21st century with 18th century institutions? Are there any changes you propose to either radically or modestly reform the government?
ReplyDeleteYou and other political scientists have taught us that there is a strong correlation between real personal disposable income and incumbent party presidential vote share. I'm wondering about this as a causal theory, however. How can we expect voters to know about these sensitive changes to income and the inflation right? Is is based on some sort of intuition that becomes measurable at the macro level?
ReplyDelete"Right" in the second to last question should have been "rate." Sorry, all.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Senate procedure so complicated? Are legislatures around the world just as byzantine? Is there any plausible defense of our current Senate rules?
ReplyDeleteI don't mean the filibuster so much as the things that only the Senate parliamentarian and a handful of political scientists seem to understand.
Just finished The Party Decides, seeing as it was mentioned all over the blogosphere, and found it pretty fascinating. I was wondering what of that theory -- that party actors engage in essentially a large-scale coordination game in order to decide nominees -- it presents is applicable to lower tier nomination contests in the US -- statewide, congressional, local -- and what is idiosyncratic to the presidential process? Is there any good books/research that covers similar ground in those types of contests to that book?
ReplyDeleteAwhile back you had a question of the week regarding the worst president to appear on currency.
ReplyDeleteIt was pretty well agreed that Andrew Jackson shouldn't be on the $20.
How did Jackson earn his place on the bill in the first place? Was there ever a constituency infatuated enough with the myth of Jackson greatness to pander to by elevating this man?
In a similar vein, how were the presidents picked for Mt. Rushmore? I imagine choosing Lincoln must have angered some Southerners.
What do say about Frum's comment that Republicans are afraid of their base and Democrats hate theirs?
ReplyDeleteFor those questioning Jackson's station in our political history, be reminded that one of the few strains of our political history that has deep meaning today is called "Jacksonian".
ReplyDeleteEvery politician knows what this is, and scrambles to harness/avoid it, and any successful politician is only successful to the degree that they succeed in that harnessing/avoidance.