Monday, September 16, 2013
Question Day!
I haven't done one of these for ages, so let's go. Whatever you want: budget, nominations, 2016, money in politics, Boehner's position...whatever. I'll take questions here in comments, through email, or via twitter, whatever is easiest. I usually can't get to all of them, but I'll do what I can. Ask away!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I ve got a theory on immigration reform. Conventional wisdom says that difficult bills don't pass on election years because no one takes tough votes before a general election.
ReplyDeleteThis time however, the incentive structure is different.
If Boehner is to ignore his caucus on this issue, he's going to do it towards the end of the term and after the tougher votes on the debt ceiling and the budget have passed.
More crucially, for most Republicans standing in the way of reform, the issue is a primary challenge and not a general election challenge.
If for a good chunk of those congressmen, their main disincentive is a primary challenge while their true preference is for immigration reform to pass either out of personal conviction or because of their assessment of the GOP's future, then the most opportune time for a vote would be after primary season either before or after the general election.
So my question is this. What do you think of this theory and what do you think of the chances of immigration reform in general?
Great theory! I'd like to hear JB's answer as well...
DeleteCan you add direct links to Superbill! on the side of your site? I want to give your arguments another shot at convincing.
ReplyDelete(Right now, I'm thinking my ideal situation for the Senate would be remove the filibuster for executive appointees, term limit judges before removing the filibuster for those appointees, and for legislation a cloture number that falls over time spent discussing said bill.)
I'd be fine with terms for appointed judges (if they're long enough... I favor replacing one SCOTUS judge every two years automatically, about 18 year terms), but I'd rather not have term-limits. I don't see any reason why the president and congress shouldn't be allowed to re-up judge. They'd clearly be qualified and experienced, having served however many years on the bench. Presumably if there were problems with judicial temperament or conflicts of interest, they almost surely wouldn't be renominated, or would be voted down.
DeleteI've been neutral on term limits for judges...
DeleteOn Superbill:
http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/superbill.html
(And, yeah, I should add a link to it. On the list.)
What will be the 51st state? DC? Puerto Rico? A handful of conservative counties in Colorado? A wildcard?
ReplyDeleteLet's do DC & Puerto Rico as a package deal!
DeleteWhat kind of policy accomplishments can the democrats have in the next three years with current levels of opposition?
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the Giants this year? Is there hope of them turning it around next year?
ReplyDeleteYou almost have to specify which Giants. NYG have a -8 turnover ratio after only two weeks; a total of 73 rushing yards - the only teams with fewer haven't played two games yet.
DeleteDoes Hillary Clinton display any skills at 'Presidenting' that set her apart from Biden, Cuomo, Warren, and company? How much of this can we determine from past achievements?
ReplyDeleteAre there any chiefs-of-staff who stand out as exemplary at the job? What about awful? How much does quality of White House personnel affect legislative outcomes?
ReplyDeleteWhen the national parties polarize, how does this impact the fortune of state and local politicians? For example, does the reputation of the Tea Party Republicans make it harder for more moderate Republicans to win at the state and local level in blue states?
ReplyDeleteInteresting question! Don't know that I've ever read the answer to this...seems like an excellent dissertation topic!
DeleteNot much to add to what Matt said.
DeleteI do think that part of what's gone on isn't as much polarization as it is nationalization; there really weren't national political parties until very recently.
When evaluating presidents, what weight do you give to the actual policies they pass or support? Can someone be a "good" president while supporting policies that are morally awful?
ReplyDeleteSome commentators have noted that Obama has demonstrated an aversion to "new blood" on his economic team and WH staff. Much of his foreign policy team has remained the same as well, though perhaps not to the same extent. I remember when candidate Obama critiqued President Bush for being similarly insular.
ReplyDeleteIs there something about the modern presidency that leads Presidents to promote from within the presidential branch, and does that degrade the quality of presidential advice/decision-making?
I really don't know. But I do think that on personnel, recent presidents have been excessively risk-averse on appointments. Bringing in someone new does risk a scandal if something is uncovered.
DeleteI have no idea whether that's a significant part of it or not.
Why has Massachusetts produced so many presidential candidates? Is it attributable to specific characteristics of its state parties, or a historical fluke?
ReplyDeleteWhat would it take for you to consider Boehner a "failure" as Speaker?
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thought on Reince's plan to penalize candidates 30% of their delegates for participating in unsanctioned primary debates? (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2013/09/candidates-who-participate-in.html)
ReplyDeleteWho do you think are the most overrated and underrated presidents, other than Wilson and Carter who you've written about a bunch in the past. (If anyone else wants to list theirs feel free to do so).
ReplyDeleteFor my money, Cleveland should be slightly higher than he is in most surveys. He's around #20 in most surveys, and going down over time. I'd lean towards #15, myself (again...SLIGHT difference).
DeleteI also think Ike's revisionism is a bit too much. I'd lower him a few slots (he averages about #8, and I think he wouldn't break my top ten).
I also think JQA is overrated at 18.
@Matt Do you think the overrating of certain presidents (particularly John Adams, John Q Adams, and Ike) is a result of their achievements outside of the Presidency?
DeleteI've been convinced by poli-sci bloggers to by the Bartels explanation of elections results stemming mechanistically from how things have gone over the course of the most recent administration.
ReplyDeleteI am interested to know how social scientists distinguish America's example of recessions (inter alia) dictating outcomes with the experience of Australia (with no recessions and mandatory voting) or of Japan (with decades of one-party rule).
Is the view I'm attributing to Bartels limited to the US and similarly situated countries or a result of our particular voter turnout, or some third thing?
I would argue that things can go well or go poorly, but if one party is truly dominant, it has to really be terrible to get them out. The US looks that way from 1864-1964, really. The only surprising elections in that period come at a period of weaker partisanship (1880s) or when the dominant party splinters (TR) or goes up against the guy who single-handedly killed every single Nazi with his bare hands (Ike...with hyperbole, but his name really was strong enough to overcome the weakenening Dem loyalty, particularly in the urban parts of the South).
DeleteAlan Ware argues that the Dems would have won in 1912 even if the GOP didn't split.
DeleteOther than that...yeah, I think that's right. This stuff "works" in the contemporary US because since the Solid South ended, the parties have been basically close to even for presidential elections. There's a (Downsian) argument that there should always be rough parity between the two major parties in a two-party system, but that doesn't seem to hold empirically.
Members of the House and Senate make only $174 K per year, while top lobbyists make seven figure salaries. Why don't a lot more members retire to become lobbyists? According to Roll Call, only 35 of the 535 members of Congress have a net worth of over $10 million and only 48 have a net worth of over $7 million, so 91% of them are not really rich (in my view, under $7 million if net worth is not really rich). So why do most of them keep running for re-election until they are well past 60?
ReplyDeleteAmbition!
DeleteLonger answer: it's a very good question. It is likely, however, that most Members really do want to be politicians, and are willing to take less money to do so. Especially since the "career"-end reward is always out there.
What are the incentives and constraints coming down on Boehner from the center/left? Is it purely about maintaining the speakership, for which he needs the GOP to be popular enough to keep the House? Given all the incentives working to make GOP MCs behave more 'conservatively', what structural forces keep him or some hypothetical future speaker from abandoning all pretense of compromise and fully embracing the ethos of the delusional wing of the party?
ReplyDeleteMostly just the necessity of actually passing some bills, which means the necessity of cutting deals. Otherwise, very little, I would think.
DeleteA review of one of your Iron Laws...
ReplyDeleteWe all know the mayor of NYC can never aspire to be President. But why is that? And what other jobs are closed off to them?
Not just president; the Iron Law is that it's a dead-end job. Can't win statewide, either.
DeleteWhy? Because the choices involved in governing NYC are just that different from "normal" politics in the rest of the state, much less the nation.
@ JB are there any other political offices like mayor of NYC that are dead-end jobs? Or are the politics in NYC so unique that there really is no other office similar to it?
DeleteMayor of Chicago. Similar to NY, right -- huge city, seriously different from the rest of the state. I don't think most Californians think of LA as similarly foreign to the rest of the state, but still -- several have tried to move up from there, and I don't think anyone has.
DeleteEd Rendell did make it from Mayor of Philadelphia to Governor...mostly, though, it's just real tough to turn "big city mayor" into a stepping stone, especially from very big cities.
What in your opinion would have to happen for the Democrats to hold the senate and take back the house in the up coming mid term elections?
ReplyDeleteI would make the Democrats favorites, although not by much, to hold the Senate.
DeleteDems to win the House would be pretty much unprecedented, so for it to happen would take something unexpected and unusual.
How can Republicans get control (or more control) of their nomination process back, so they aren't so beholden to the Tea Party and other fringe groups? It seems to me that is the biggest structural difference between the parties and biggest driver of polarization.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans do have control of the nomination process! Tea Partiers aren't a fringe of the GOP; they are a large part of the GOP.
DeleteWell, true. But I guess I mean more Republican elites. I'm sure we can name 4-5 senate nomination contests where if the 'establishment' candidate had won, the Republicans would probably control the Senate right now. That would make everything about Obama's second term very different.
DeleteI also mean more as a comparison with the Democrats, where outside of Lieberman losing in a primary, I'm not sure of an outsider candidate taking down a Senator in a nomination contest. The Democrats nomination process seems much more orderly, and I bet Republicans wish that theirs was as simple. Could you see them changing the rules (go back to nominations by Party Committee) to avoid getting Sharon Angle's nominated again.
I have a hard time seeing how Republicans survive as a party in the medium to long term, when so much of their base is too racist to want to be in a political coalition with non-white voters. They could try for a bigger share of the white vote, but it seems like the more the parties' tend to polarize around racial lines, the more racist the white party would tend to be, and the more likely they are to turn off non-racist whites.
ReplyDeleteSo what's the most likely future of the Republican Party: an openly racist permanent minority? turning their backs on the racists like the Dems did in the 60s, followed by a generation or so of weakness until they can build a new coalition? greater racial polarization between the parties?
Most likely? They muddle through. There is a risk that they'll lose a generation or more of Latino voters and really become a minority party, but it's just as likely or more that immigration and some other issues recede, and that Latinos wind up splitting their votes between the parties and wind up moving away from ethnicity as a major political identity.
DeleteIf you could magically make the entire electorate understand one thing about politics, what would it be and why?
ReplyDeleteDamn, that's not a fair question.
DeleteFully understand Fed 10 (my interpretation, of course)? Fully understand the concept of separated institutions sharing powers? I don't know.
Baseball/Politics hypothetical question.
ReplyDeleteImagine a deranged billionaire bought the St. Louis Cardinals and then "gave" (through a trust of whatever) to the city of St. Louis. The GM would become an elected position. The team can give profits to the city if the voters demand it. The city can (but does not have to) give extra money to the team.
What impact would this have on the team? Would voters prefer to spend money to field a winning team, or would they prefer a losing team that creates money for the city?
What impact would this have on local politics? Would voters care more about sports than other local issues? Would local politicians prefer to have the GM election during the general election or local spring elections? What other distorting effects could this have on local politics?
I'll think about it and maybe write more later, but one important point: spending on players is an investment. Spending money to field a winning team does not mean losing money; if done well, it should generate more profits than spending very little money on a terrible team.
DeleteHow much of a predicter of presidential success (however you would define that) is running a very efficient campaign? I mean...didn't Nixon run ruthlessly efficient presidential campaigns, at least after 1960?
ReplyDeleteNo idea. I like to think they are correlated. I can't really prove they are.
Delete