Time for a campaign-oriented version of things that, surprisingly, haven't happened:
1. Crazy GOP rally audiences. Oh, I'm sure there have been some, but it hasn't as far as I know been a story, the way it was during fall 2008 and during the Republican debates this year.
2. Minimum wage. Wasn't that going to be a thing? I mean, as an issue for the Democrats. It sure hasn't been, certainly in the presidential race, and as far as I know in Congressional elections either.
3. I think I've mentioned this before, but I think it's worth mentioning again: where are all the citizen opposition research coups? It was a major thing in the last two or three cycles, but unless I'm just way behind in reading about Senate and House races, it's pretty much dropped out this time around. Seems to me that there are fewer citizen videos this cycle, too.
4. I give up: there really do seem now to be more liberals pushing for some Fairness-Doctrine-like policy than there are Republicans convinced that there's a secret plot to get rid of it. Not that there's any chance at all that Dems are going to try to re-instate the FD after all; not going to happen. But it's increasingly difficult to laugh at conservatives for panic about it. So this time, it's the end of FD panic among conservatives that's the dog, not barking.
Can you give us some examples of people pushing for the Fairness Doctrine?
ReplyDeleteNot politicians or others who would actually do it, as far as I know. But I googled on FD over the last month, and got liberals, not conservatives.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Reinstatement_considered
Delete"Crazy GOP rally audiences. Oh, I'm sure there have been some, but it hasn't as far as I know been a story"
ReplyDeleteOther thannthe "Put the white back in the White House" guy, I suppose that's right. Doesn't mean they ain't still crazy, but maybe they've learned not to act so openly crazy -- at least until after the election.
I bet the real crazies still aren't happy about supporting a Mormon.
DeleteEzra's wonkbloggers aren't 4 anything; they're 2 young
ReplyDeleteI think minimum wage and climate change will see a resurgence in the 2016 primary. The former wasn't an issue in 2008 because there was still an increase being phased in.
ReplyDeleteClimate change may be the Iraq War 2008 issue of the 2016 Presidential primary.
I think there will be interest in finding someone with a genuine liberal record for 2016.
DeleteAnd if Democrats are ever able to enact a concerted War On Climate Change, it WILL be their Iraq. It will be a bottomless money pit and involve huge corporate giveaways... and in spite of what the Keynesians would have us believe, launching constant wars/crusades against everything isn't going to lead us into a new economic bonanza.
Government shutdown due to the Congress failing to agree on spending bills...
ReplyDeletePre-election fight over raising the debt limit...
Gay marriage (and other gay rights issues) hasn't been an explicit point of conflict between Obama and Romney...
There's been surprisingly little direct fighting about the Affordable Care Act....
The worst Congress (House of Representatives) in history has gone basically unmentioned and the GOP somehow seems more likely than not to retain control in the House...
Citizens United/Super PACs/billionaires trying to buy elections is not something Obama is running against...
The disappearance of the "we need a third option" meme from popular discourse and public intellectuals. It's especially annoying because there is now good evidence to refute that whole theory. Namely the American electorate is in a tie between two very different agendas and there's a high likelihood of divided government coming out of the next election.
ReplyDelete"...two very different agendas..."
DeleteDepends on what interests you. If your primary interest is in protecting Constitutional freedoms, it's hard to see a big difference between the two. Same if you want to see a change to our foreign policy. When it comes to maximizing government power, they're in complete agreement.
Well yes, if you define "what interests you" as being the fact that neither of the two candidates vying to be president of a nation of over 300 million people caters to your individual wants and desires, yes their probably isn't much difference. If your biggest issues is having Daenerys Targaryen sit on the Iron Throne it's probably "hard to see a big difference between the two" as well . I would argue there are really big differences even so. I'd also point out that putting the neo-con hawks, that Romney has surrounded himself, who are demanding war with Iran in charge of national security could result be "a change in our foreign policy" as well.
Delete@long walk: You‘re right, being a Constitution Voter is sooo 2008.
DeleteThird party candidates not getting much traction at all. Despite the Ron Paul people not falling in love with Romney, or Obama's left-wing critics not really changing their tune. Read the Richard Cohen piece in the WaPo, for one, and tell me that Obama's base is as united as ever. The days of Anybody But Bush and Obamamania are gone on the left, and Tea Party sentiment on the right seems to be a repudiation of all the loyalty the GOP showed to Bush. It's hip to cast a pox on both houses again. Being a partisan supporter of one of the two major candidates makes you a boring Establishment type. Butin the end not even Gary Johnson will break 1%. What gives?
ReplyDeleteI've wondered for a while if the 3rd party whispers were an indirect way for the conservative side, mainly Rove, to split off progressive energy and votes from mainstream Democrats. Romney is pretty vulnerable in Virginia, for example, from a native Southerner who's running on the Constitution party, I think. And I'd bet a dozen donuts that Johnson breaks 1% in Colorado.
DeleteOther than the occasional spoiler candidate in small-scale primaries, that kind of tactic seems little employed by the left. 'Cause, man, this is the election to use it if they did!
We have an entrenched two-party system. Even if voters aren't thrilled with their choices, they need a compelling reason to leave the major parties. I'm not exactly an expert on Americans Elect, but I imagine that's why they went nowhere -- they didn't stand for anything. Meanwhile, the Libertarian and Green parties continue to be ignored, but will at least be on the ballot in almost every state.
Delete@Couves, I'm trying to figure out the situations that cause a third party to gain some traction. The history of the last 40 years shows that no issue has been big enough, though I welcome arguments otherwise if I'm forgetting some important history.
Delete@MP -- John Anderson and Ross Perot became viable candidates, even if they didn't exactly bring whole new parties into existence.
DeleteThird parties have a tradition of giving voice to ideas that aren’t otherwise being heard. Ironically, I think Ron Paul has done a far better job at this by working within a major party than any of the recent third parties have. His supporters haven't left the GOP, but they do comprise a particularly feral new wing of the party.
In terms of issues, Paul seemed to gain traction with his anti-war views, but he was also the most compelling opponent of other unpopular policies, such as the post-9/11 security state and corporate bailouts. In the process, Paul has swelled the ranks of people who consider themselves libertarians, and they’re not exactly the Buckley-ite libertarians of the Reagan era.
You did know this would all come back to Ron Paul, didn’t you… ;-)
Ok, Couves, I'll bite. How do you think the Paulites will change what the Republican party will do in th next 12 months? Will they alter the actions of the leadership in any way? We saw the Tea Party drive a budget discussion - will the Paulites drive a national security discussion?
DeleteAnon, I don't think we'll see that happen until Paulites show more muscle at the ballot box than they have so far. They did help drive the primary discussion to an extent, but they have a very long way to go before the Party considers them anything but radical outsiders -- which is my whole point, they're almost like a third party within a major party.
Delete@Couves--my point was that I haven't seen a successful third party movement during my lifetime. Anderson and Perot show how even the strongest third party challengers hardly make a dent, except as a spoiler like Nader in 2000. But never say never, eh?
Delete@MP - The whole thing depends on what you define as a "successful" third party. If your point is only that we haven't elected a third party President, then I guess we can stop there. But if that's all that matters to you, I think you're missing the importance of third parties in bringing important issues to the fore. Perot, for example, brought budget concerns into the public debate in a major way. His campaign still shapes the way some voters think about budget issues even today.
Delete@MP - One more thing, I've never agreed with calling Nader or anyone else a "spoiler." People freely chose to vote for him, just as others freely chose to blank the race or to not vote at all. No candidate is entitled to any citizen's vote. If they didn't get it, then they didn't earn it. Too bad for them. And if you somehow think the voter should have voted differently... well, that's not your choice to make, is it?
DeleteSo I'm one who always appreciates the ability to cast a protest vote. And remember, every vote for freedom is a moral victory! ;-)
@Couves, I agree that the individual owns his or her vote, nobody else does. Third party candidates have every right to exist, run, and receive votes. By calling them 'spoilers' I'm just using the common term, not impugning their right to be in the election.
DeleteMP: Sorry if I was a bit touchy... As you can see, I just have really strong feelings about the implications that term seems to carry. I shouldn't have suggested that you believed all that.
DeleteOn the plus side, being perceived of as a "spoiler" does give an otherwise insignificant candidate relevance he or she wouldn't have otherwise had.
Yes, it's a shame how the minimum wage and the lower class of America hasn't at all been mentioned...
ReplyDeletelttp but minimum wage has come up a little in NH-2: "Charlie Bass voted against increasing the minimum wage x number of times but voted to raise his own pay y:y>x times," Can't remember whether this was TV ads or flyers tho.
ReplyDelete