Haven't done one of these for a while...these are items not in the news, which itself makes them newsworthy:
1. Citizen vetting: it seemed that we were going to get lots of ordinary citizens who made important opposition research finds. Were there any so far this year? Maybe we'll get more in Congressional contests.
2. Afghanistan casualties. Through the end of June, coalition deaths are down a bit over 20% from last year. US deaths are down just a hair below 20%. The people at icasualties credit one US death from Iraq this year; that puts total US deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan so far this year at 165, down from 243 through June last year. It seems likely that 2012 will be the "best" year for US and coalition casualties since 2002. That's still a lot of deaths, of course.
3. Well, the obvious one: third party candidates. Major ones, that is. It really was possible we could have had one this time around.
4. Either way: gun control or the old favorite, Fairness.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Run, Sarah, run!
ReplyDeleteMy fantasy: a Dem win, a long-delayed recovery, a tentative GOP probe of the center, a Tea Party revolt, and a proper fringe party formed as a safety valve, against which sane Republicans can define themselves rather than defend themselves.
Does Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski count as an ordinary citizen? Because he seems to be the best oppo researcher on the planet at the moment.
ReplyDeleteNo! Reporters definitely don't count - not least because there's every possibility that the stuff they uncover could be fed to them by the other campaign.
DeleteWhat about that YouTube user who posted some kind of cringe-worthy footage of Romney campaigning in 1994?
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd8KQDMZ21w
Why isn't Gary Johnson getting any traction among Paul supporters? Or the left-libertarian crowd like Frierdersdorf?
ReplyDeletePoint of order: does Fairness and gun control count as a dog not barking?
ReplyDeleteAren't they closer to a hyperactive chihuahua barking at its own shadow? I mean, you just posted some video last week about Fast and Furious being a campaign by Obama to do both gun control AND fairness, right? (I definitely remember fairness in there, and Issa's been feeding into the gun control thing)
Is the better analogy for Fairness & gun control the boy who cried wolf?
Campaigning based on worst fears of what "the other side" might do is hardly limited to the right. It's not uncommon to hear Democrats talk about privatized social security or back alley abortions, for example.
DeleteWasn't claiming it was. Was just raising a point about the appropriateness of the metaphor.
Delete(though I would disagree with you about the rationality of those fears vs. those of the right, I also recognize that our various partisan blinders make such a disagreement both inevitable and relatively uninteresting)
2) Dog barking less?
ReplyDelete3) Gary Johnson is far from a household name, but as a former two-term governor, he’s the most distinguished third party candidate we’ve seen in quite some time.
4. Obama has a longstanding interest in reinstating the assault weapons ban. That’s probably one reason why the ar-15 “assault rifle” was the most popular long gun last year (about two million sold).
Based on surveys, don't the majority of the American public have an interest in returning to a ban on assault weapons, even if it's a relatively low priority? In this respect, Obama seems pretty indistinguishable from ordinary Democrats or many other citizens without particular or strong partisan identification.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteAccording to Gallup, opposition to the AWB exceeds support 53-43%. Support for all forms of gun control has been declining for some time now:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx
However, the AWB remains popular among Democrats and I think it’s likely that they’ll make a big push to make it permanent if they ever get the votes to do so.
Except they didn't when they held large majorities in both houses and the presidency in 2009-10.
DeleteWhen Dems have large majorities, they do so by winning seats in rural, conservative areas. Those reps belong to and fear the NRA.
Moreover, gun control is not a high priority among most Dem elected officials right now as compared to other issues. We won't see a serious push for gun control until the Dems are in control, the economy is in good shape and more pressing issues have abated thus allowing gun control to rise up the priority list, and we get to a post-Tea Party place where some Republicans would support to make up for the Dems who would defect. That is to say, not anytime soon.
Yes, but scare-mongering about Democrats "taking away our guns!!!!!!1111" is extremely useful for conservatives.
Deletecgw,
DeleteThe Democrats won't make a big push for the AWB until they have the votes for it. Are you saying that they could have passed it in 2009-10, but didn't because of other priorities?
Even if Democrats aren't prioritizing the AWB, that won't make NRA-types feel much better since they see the law as a violation of Constitutional freedom.
I don't think they could have passed it in 2009-10, despite having a large majority, because many Dems are pro-gun. My point is more that - the Dems had a huge majority then, and when in the near future do we expect them to have a bigger majority (including a majority of gun control advocates) and a political environment in which it would make sense to pass such a bill? So there really is nothing for pro-gunners to worry about. But as purusha points out, that won't stop the rhetoric.
Deletecgw,
DeleteThat's a good point. Of course, the fact that it would be difficult for Democrats to pass doesn't change the fact that their leadership, and probably most of their membership, would love to pass it. As long as that's the case, gun owners are going to be very wary (to say the least!) of politicians who openly support violating their Constitutional rights.
@Couves, You really think Dems would love to pass it, but elected Dems have reelection on their minds, and that tempers them a lot.
DeleteI'm sure some Republicans would love to undo S.S., income tax, one-man-one-vote, privacy rights, and abortion, but the payback would be brutal so they won't.
Why worry about these what-ifs that have probabilities approaching zero? It certainly makes no sense to me that you would vote based on low probability scenarios when there are so many other issues.
MP,
DeleteIt’s unlikely, but I think the likelihood is far greater than “approaching zero.” And for the record, the NDAA is the only issue that currently tempts me to become a single-issue voter..
What I disagree with here is the idea that Republicans are cynically manipulating gun voters. In fact, gun voters have been remarkably successful in achieving their own policy goals. They’ve worked hard for those gains and they’re going to work just as hard to hold onto them. I don’t know if he’s changed his position, but in 2008 Obama ran on the permanent reinstatement of the AWB. Unless and until he convincingly reverses himself, that’s enough for him to lose the gun vote. When you say that the AWB won’t pass because “Dems have reelection on their minds,” that’s what they’re worried about -- opposition from gun voters. If gun voters stop campaigning against candidates who campaign against them, then they will have effectively ended the political activities that have proven so successful for them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith gun violence up this year and localities punished by the Supreme court for having local gun laws... Public opinion may sway. And it's conservatives' own fault of the F&F furor rolls it against guns: It's their stupid laws that created a situation where agents didn't dare arrest people who had bought guns the agents were sure were paid for by someone else.
ReplyDeleteI'm still running into alot of people on the blogs who arefalse-equivalence third-party sorts, but I don't see those people iRL like I used to. Of course now I have a pre-packaged argument against their third-party President-first approach, partially backed by mathematical models.