Friday, May 18, 2012
Question Day
It's Question Day! Haven't done this for a while now, so it's about time. You ask, I'll answer. You can use comments below, email, or twitter, so ask away, and I'll get to as many of them as I can. Senate reform? Presidential election? Budget? Something else? Whatever you have, I'll give it a try.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
A few questions:
ReplyDeleteI know you talk about how dysfunctional the GOP caucus is, but what do you think is causing it, and what can be done about it?
Why do you think polarization has been so asymmetric? Why would one party become so extreme while another becomes less extreme?
First serious presidential candidate with a chance at election who is openly gay--what year, if ever?
ReplyDeleteVoter suppression efforts by new GOP governors in key swing states are well-known. How much of an impact will they have in the Presidential election? Does Obama start a couple points in the whole in each of those states as a result compared with 2008? Similar question on gerrymandering by GOP legislatures. Have the GOP done a good job of consolidating their gains from 2010 and making it increasingly difficult for Dems to take back the House? Do demographic trends in Dem's favor make these efforts by the GOP to stack the institutional deck in their favor essentially a wash? Hard to get a non-partisan view on these issues so it would be great to get your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteTwo questions, if you don't mind...
ReplyDelete1) I saw you say on Twitter once that you thought...and I'm doing this from memory...that LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan were the most interesting post-war Presidents. What's your criteria for "interesting", and why do these guys stick out? From a psychological standpoint, I'd think Clinton should be in the Top 3, too...
2) Do you still think Boehner is doing a good job managing his caucus?
How much might the lack of Democratic embrace of the crazies on their own side just be a response to the media's (perceived) desire to portray activist liberals as hippies, with the negative connotations that go with it?
ReplyDeleteThis is more of a request than a question, but: I love the Watergate posts. Would you consider doing any other long-running series? Detailed history of a particular event or individual is good; I also think a more regular "introduction to contemporary American politics" or "intro polo sci" series; or book talk, perhaps on classics of poli sci that the rest of us might not know; or a series on a single text or related texts, like the Federalist Papers or something, ... could work.
ReplyDeleteI'll just respond to this one here...first off: Thanks! I don't get too many comments on the Watergate posts, so it's hard to tell if anyone cares...of course, lots of big drama on its way on those very soon.
DeleteHmmm...I'll think about the other idea. I really wish that I could get back to doing Monday Movie Posts regularly. I'm not sure why I've lost momentum on it...I have a bunch of stuff on the DVR to watch, but just haven't got to it. I do have a half-finished post on that awful Kelsey Grammar show that I should finish and post someday...
Well, it's hard to know what to say in response to any particular Watergate post, and perhaps especially for those of us without very detailed knowledge of it. I suppose I could write "oh man Nixon sure was tricksy" every time, but I'd feel pretty silly!
DeleteOh, I wasn't particularly looking for comments - just that it's sometimes hard to tell what people want to read, and I do tend (foolishly, I think) to use comments as a proxy for that unless I stop and think a little
DeletePrognosticate away: when Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, what will his followers do next? Will they have the energy to continue their crusade? Will the religious right embrace them? I know some of this depends on how the convention plays out, but still. Will this all be a footnote, or something to be remembered?
ReplyDeleteConsidering the Republican Party's lurch to the right over the past 20-30 years, why has the Democratic Party had so much trouble staking out the middle and consistently winning elections? Did public opinion in the country actually shift to the right along with Republicans? Is this an overton window problem, where the old center is now the left because no one is arguing for actual left-of-center policies anymore? How does the few things that the country has clearly shifted left on, such as gay marriage, factor into this calculus?
ReplyDeleteI second this question. The political science scholarship that I hear about via news/blogs seems deeply contradictory on this. On the one hand, there are major scholars showing that the GOP politicians have shifted considerably to the right. On the other hand, there are scholars arguing that the mass public has not actually polarized in its views and preferences. Nonetheless, the GOP still gets right around 45-50% of the vote. We're seeing it happen now with Romney and public opinion: there just does not seem to be a price to be paid for extreme views. Or, as Daniel D says, the GOP must just be moving right along with their supporters -- which would mean that the mass public is genuinely polarizing.
DeleteBut the Dems have actually been doing better in presidential elections lately. 1968-1988 were a disaster, GOP landslide after landslide; the only victory was Carter's razor-thin one. Since then the Democrats have always been at least competitive; Kerry was the worst performer and he only lost by 3 percent.
DeleteThat there are twice as many "conservatives" as "liberals" in this country may make a difference for ideology, even if we're 50-50 in terms of partisanship.
Why has the (British) Conservative party performed so poorly in elections over the past 10 years, despite embracing policy positions that are individually more popular than those of their opponents? Will policy popularity lead to long-run party popularity, or vice versa? Or neither?
ReplyDeleteI have a question about Dem Party strategy if the Repubs sweep in '12. Do you think they'll adopt a strategy of slowing/stopping the opposition's agenda, the way the Repubs seemed to do after '08? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI know you're very careful about polls, so would like to hear your thoughts re: the recent Pew release on the limitations of opinion polling.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP War budgeting: when did start, and which pols got the ball rolling?
ReplyDeleteIf the Supreme Court strikes down the ACA by a 5-4 partisan majority based on weak arguments about inactivity or the slippery slope to forced broccoli-eating, does that indicate there are fundamental problems with our court system? And if so, what kinds of reforms should we implement in response (term limits and/or age limits? limiting judicial review?, others?)?
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts on the gap between Ron Paul's functional loyalty to the Republican Party, and his followers' lack thereof? Not to mention Paul's own toying with the spoiler role (for instance, he declined to endorse McCain in 08, and told supporters to vote for the third party candidate of their choice)?. Is Paul just trying to help his son's career, or is he genuinely concerned to stop short of throwing the election to Obama (even though he'll lose support if he presents himself overtly as a loyal Republican)?
ReplyDeleteYou have a really negative opinion of Carter as a president and have expressed it before. I know the standard argument against Carter, a bunch of bad stuff happened (stagflation, gas lines, the Iranian Revolution etc). Do you have a criticism based in political science literature about his presidency or about his approach to the presidency at all? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteReading your answer to Dan Rice got me thinking: What do you make of the party ID metrics? There is an assumption, I think, that the default position of the electorate is a Republican one, if you have to choose, and in recent years the Democrats have generally had stronger party ID numbers, which hasn't always translated into electoral victories. Ruy and Teixeira have argued for a permanent Democratic majority, which 2010 certainly put a crimp in. I suppose my question is, is the "1/3, 1/3, 1/3" have any bend to it, or will there be any shift in that anytime soon?
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I love the Watergate posts as well, so please keep those coming.
ReplyDeleteSetup: the GOP likes to talk about potential long term solutions (cutting regulation, cutting taxes, etc.) in ways that suggest they are short term answers, but most serious economists wouldn't agree. And the GOP has consistently rejected any short-term efforts (like outright stimulus, but also pretty basic automatic stabilizer stuff like unemployment insurance).
Question: does it surprise you that in a two-party system, one party simply doesn't have a solution to the deepest recession in two generations?
In your mind, does the lack of short-term economic solutions on the GOP side stem from a political strategy (that is, we're going to oppose anything the President suggests, or anything that might improve short-term growth and thus his popularity) or is it more a feature of the ideological skewing of GOP thought-leaders? Or both?
Relatedly, David Frum suggests that Republican constituencies have the most to lose from a long-term budget fix: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/frum-mann-ornstein/index.html
DeleteKey quote: "The Republican voting base includes not only the wealthy with the most to fear from tax increases, but also the elderly and the rural, the two constituencies that benefit the most from federal spending and thus have the most to lose from spending cuts."
Do you with Frum's explanation of the current radical rejectionism of the GOP?