tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post6597864525777453518..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Next!Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-4833138467891236682010-04-27T08:38:29.162-05:002010-04-27T08:38:29.162-05:00Jonathan, it could well increase Latino turnout, a...Jonathan, it could well increase Latino turnout, and move a few more percentage points away from the GOP (what were they getting in 2008?). I remember reading about prop 187 back in the early 90's, in TNR. The author claimed that this increased Latino citizenships, voter registration and turnout, since it was a clear attack on the Latino community.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-89708879312698924262010-04-27T07:02:17.278-05:002010-04-27T07:02:17.278-05:00Anon 2:39 (and others),
I'm not at all as cer...Anon 2:39 (and others),<br /><br />I'm not at all as certain as you that bringing up the immigration bill plays all that well for Dems in 2010. The other way of looking at it is that the GOP has already done the job of driving Latino voters away; I'm really not sure how much bringing up a bill (especially since it won't pass) will help drive Latino turnout, and outside of that population, I'd imagine raising the profile of that issue hurts the Dems. <br /><br />On the larger question, to Dave H. and others, it sounds as if most commenters are convinced that climate/energy is dead whether the Dems try or not. That may be, but I guess I'm not convinced, at least based on the coverage I've seen. Of course, if Reid & the Dems think its the case, then that explains things whether or not they're correct.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-51122386821633579102010-04-27T02:39:40.810-05:002010-04-27T02:39:40.810-05:00I don't understand the Dems who don't unde...I don't understand the Dems who don't understand the politics of this. <br /><br />A bunch of people have already said it well here. <br /><br />There is basically no short term upside to the climate bill. It probably can't pass and the political optics - short term - are good for the GOP and advance a narrative they want advanced. <br /><br />Immigration is just a horrible, horrsible issue for the GOP. I think it is almost existentially bad for them. Short term, it has some downsides for for the Dems, but it is just horrible for the GOP. I don't think people realize how badly things like the Sensenbrenner Law in 2005 and this Arizona thing are for Republicans. It helps, I think if you live in the west, where the Latino community is much larger, maybe.<br /><br />But Latino votes were absolutely key to Democratic success in '06 and '08.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-28685637801551632122010-04-26T23:45:30.686-05:002010-04-26T23:45:30.686-05:00I think Reid's decided the Senate's not ge...I think Reid's decided the Senate's not getting anything else done this year (except the Supreme Court pick and maybe financial regulation) and he'd rather have the unresolved legislative fight of the summer be over immigration than climate change. I think Hispanic turnout is a consideration but the big appeal of the immigration issue is that it splits the donor class from the activists on the Republican side. The hope is that one of these groups gets annoyed and demobilized prior to the election (presumably the business wing, assuming that McConnell shoots down reform).<br /><br />Dave HAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-78486023674362159382010-04-26T17:07:57.626-05:002010-04-26T17:07:57.626-05:00First, I totally agree with everything Matt said a...First, I totally agree with everything Matt said above.<br /><br />I wanted to add that another reason Dems may be looking past climate/energy is that even if you get it thru the Senate (huge If there) then you have to go back to the House. Waxman's bill had a handful of GOP votes last June but there is no way you get those votes again so you would have to got Dems who voted no the first time in order to pull this off. That is gonna be a hard vote to get this close to the mid-terms.CTHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10928983745917493342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-7072635865645189222010-04-26T16:56:00.852-05:002010-04-26T16:56:00.852-05:00However, I think they'd be even smarter to do ...However, I think they'd be even smarter to do financial reform. That IS a winner: Wall Street Fat Cats Bad is easy for people to understand, particularly if you aren't going to increase their taxes to pay for something (or do something that people THINK will mean a tax increase).<br />Right now, the GOP is realizing that they're FAR on the wrong side of this one, but there's no reason not to hold their feet to the coals for a month.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-14216550514171144782010-04-26T16:52:26.633-05:002010-04-26T16:52:26.633-05:00For all of their usual political faults, the Democ...For all of their usual political faults, the Democrats have played immigration smart in recent years. Yes, opposing 187 in California lost 1994, but it won the war: Latinos in CA have essentially abandoned the GOP (and have registered to vote in MUCH higher numbers), and CA has gone from being a vaguely competitive state to being very blue. <br />More recently, they played immigration under Bush perfectly, by letting the GOP kill their own president's bill. Dems stayed entirely silent in that debate, and that worked out really well.<br />Immigration isn't a winner for the Dems, but it can be a loser for the Reps. Dems do well to bring it up but do nothing, and let Lou Dobbs claim that a scourge of leprosy is coming.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-20672464680068397032010-04-26T13:46:55.451-05:002010-04-26T13:46:55.451-05:00Isn't it just that, outside of relatively smal...Isn't it just that, outside of relatively small progressive sectors few are urgently exercised over climate change? Or correction, the only ones who are are constituents of right wing populism with effective media megaphones? At least with immigration, while angering the anti-immigrant crowd, the dems will also excite a solid and proven base. Moreover, playing immigration reform now highlights the less savory elements of the republican base, elements the democrats may hope will be distasteful to some independents? Just seems like a more prudential move, policy merits aside.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-71442178072027146302010-04-26T13:39:35.455-05:002010-04-26T13:39:35.455-05:00I agree completely with Southern Beale - Reid and ...I agree completely with Southern Beale - Reid and the White House probably feel that raising the immigration issue now will split some Republicans and mobilize the Democratic base, giving them a better shot at keeping a couple of additional Senate seats and thus advancing their agenda in the next Congress. Forcing Republicans like Scott Brown to either break rank or look like an ideological partisan either dampens base enthusiasm or alienates moderates. Meanwhile, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and others would love a good Hispanic turnout in the upcoming elections.<br /><br />If the parties involved view this as a trade between 2-3 Senate seats vs. a relatively weak climate change bill then it's not hard to see why this decision was made.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04165636401346520761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-39110322978445593742010-04-26T13:23:11.284-05:002010-04-26T13:23:11.284-05:00I think it's all about driving a stake through...I think it's all about driving a stake through the heart of the Republican Party. Teanuts have been trying to pretend they aren't racist for months, and then we have <a href="http://sobeale.blogspot.com/2010/04/speak-american.html" rel="nofollow">William Gheen telling S.C. Tea Partiers</a> that Lindsey Graham is backing immigration reform because he's afraid of being outted. Oh, my. Meanwhile, immigrants-rights activists are getting antsy that the Administration has not put immigration on the front burner. Plus, we just had a massive march for immigration reform, so those activists are organized and antsy and eager to be heard.<br /><br />In short, it's just politics.<br /><br />Gas prices are going to be rising through the summer (as they do every year) and from a PR perspective which narrative do you want going into the fall election season: that Democrats are weak-kneed tree huggers who want high energy prices to help Al Gore's alternative energy fund, or that Republicans are racists trying to round up all the brown people and toss them out of the country? I think Dems view immigration as a winner for them, climate change less so.Litzz11@yahoo.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08843479112124843471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-8068850878467118372010-04-26T13:15:05.158-05:002010-04-26T13:15:05.158-05:00The only way I can read the decision to push ahead...The only way I can read the decision to push ahead on immigration over climate/energy is that the Reid & the White House must believe there is no way to pass the climate/energy bill this year. Obama has strongly stated that the climate/energy bill is a major focus of his administration. I don't see him throwing in the towel unless they are confident there is no hope of passage. I doubt they will be able to get all 59 Dems for the climate/energy bill and so far Graham has not been able to get any Republicans votes so you are looking at a major fight that you will lose. You are probably gonna lose on immigration as well but as least you will be able to please a key voting block.CTHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10928983745917493342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-34818192428056365532010-04-26T12:54:06.067-05:002010-04-26T12:54:06.067-05:00My optimistic take is that killing Kerry/Lieberman...My optimistic take is that killing Kerry/Lieberman/Graham helps Cantwell-Collins, and since Cantwell-Collins is a lot simpler the Hamshers ought to like it a lot better. I trust Collins more than Graham anyway. Now if only Obama would signal support for Cantwell-Collins.chrismealyhttp://chrismealy.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com