I'll kick it off with Scott Brown's decision not to run for MA-Senate. Not a huge surprise, but it certainly could have gone the other way...and his decision probably moves the seat from about a 40% chance for a GOP win to around a 10% chance, maybe less.
(And, yes, it's also a setback for the younger Senate. Don't want to forget that part of it).
Congressional confirmation hearings are overrated as far as their effects on confirmation are concerned. Hagel may or may not be confirmed, but I very much doubt that his mediocre performance will wind up mattering.
What else? What do you think mattered this week?
Showing posts with label Scott Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Brown. Show all posts
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to LeVar Burton -- hey, that's the second Star Trek one this week! Apparently, Geordi was...er, will be also born on February 16.
Ah, the good stuff.
1. Charles Franklin tells newspapers and cable nets that it's just silly to pretend that robopolls don't exist (via Harry Enten).
2. Asawin Suebsaeng over at Mother Jones has five more things you may have missed in the president's budget.
3. Could Scott Brown know what he's doing? David S. Bernstein thinks so. Even if that's true, though, it's a long way to actually winning re-election.
4. Yeah, you could have guessed that Garry Wills would not be a big fan of Rick Santorum -- or the current GOP position on contraceptives. Click and read, if only for the insults.
5. And Sarah Kliff explains why prevention efforts get the short end of the budget stick.
Ah, the good stuff.
1. Charles Franklin tells newspapers and cable nets that it's just silly to pretend that robopolls don't exist (via Harry Enten).
2. Asawin Suebsaeng over at Mother Jones has five more things you may have missed in the president's budget.
3. Could Scott Brown know what he's doing? David S. Bernstein thinks so. Even if that's true, though, it's a long way to actually winning re-election.
4. Yeah, you could have guessed that Garry Wills would not be a big fan of Rick Santorum -- or the current GOP position on contraceptives. Click and read, if only for the insults.
5. And Sarah Kliff explains why prevention efforts get the short end of the budget stick.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Stevens
Just a couple quick thoughts on the Stevens retirement...
1. Most of this is pretty predictable, no? There will be 25-35 Republicans voting against pretty much whoever Obama puts up (can anyone imagine a 90-10 or 99-0 vote? Don't think so). There are probably over 50 Dems inclined to support whoever Obama puts up. As for the White House, they are presumably well-prepared, and it's pretty obvious that the president prefers make-no-waves solid, mainstream liberal nominees. As a result, liberals will be generally happy with the selection, but there will probably be grumbling that Obama failed to take the opportunity for a truly game-changing selection (which I think is a futile goal; it's impossible to predict the intersection of a potential nominee's thoughts, as guessed at by their history, with whatever issues and internal dynamics the court will have over the next couple of decades). No doubt, the nominee will also raise questions from the left about some area of his or her jurisprudence, but not nearly enough for liberals to oppose the nomination. On the right, there will be a search for controversial statements or views, and if none really exist they will readily be manufactured, from whole cloth if necessary. In other words, expect a close copy of last year's nomination.
2. It is highly unlikely that such a nominee can be defeated. It's always possible, of course, that some scandal will emerge (by the way, I am in favor of careful vetting on these nominations -- this isn't the deputy undersecretary for widgets we're talking about), but barring that, Obama should get this one confirmed.
3. The most interesting vote? Scott Brown, who will now be forced to choose between being a right-wing celebrity and having any hope for reelection. So far, he seems to be trying to straddle that line, but I can't see conservatives forgiving a yes vote here, and while one never wants to place too much emphasis on the effects of one action on voters, a no vote would be a strong indication that he doesn't intend to attempt to remain viable for reelection. (I might as well add that if Crist does jump, I would expect LeMieux to probably vote yes; if Crist is still running in the Republican primary, then LeMieux is a certain no vote).
1. Most of this is pretty predictable, no? There will be 25-35 Republicans voting against pretty much whoever Obama puts up (can anyone imagine a 90-10 or 99-0 vote? Don't think so). There are probably over 50 Dems inclined to support whoever Obama puts up. As for the White House, they are presumably well-prepared, and it's pretty obvious that the president prefers make-no-waves solid, mainstream liberal nominees. As a result, liberals will be generally happy with the selection, but there will probably be grumbling that Obama failed to take the opportunity for a truly game-changing selection (which I think is a futile goal; it's impossible to predict the intersection of a potential nominee's thoughts, as guessed at by their history, with whatever issues and internal dynamics the court will have over the next couple of decades). No doubt, the nominee will also raise questions from the left about some area of his or her jurisprudence, but not nearly enough for liberals to oppose the nomination. On the right, there will be a search for controversial statements or views, and if none really exist they will readily be manufactured, from whole cloth if necessary. In other words, expect a close copy of last year's nomination.
2. It is highly unlikely that such a nominee can be defeated. It's always possible, of course, that some scandal will emerge (by the way, I am in favor of careful vetting on these nominations -- this isn't the deputy undersecretary for widgets we're talking about), but barring that, Obama should get this one confirmed.
3. The most interesting vote? Scott Brown, who will now be forced to choose between being a right-wing celebrity and having any hope for reelection. So far, he seems to be trying to straddle that line, but I can't see conservatives forgiving a yes vote here, and while one never wants to place too much emphasis on the effects of one action on voters, a no vote would be a strong indication that he doesn't intend to attempt to remain viable for reelection. (I might as well add that if Crist does jump, I would expect LeMieux to probably vote yes; if Crist is still running in the Republican primary, then LeMieux is a certain no vote).
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Scott Brown, Senator
Because there's so little ground in the middle in the Senate, it matters quite a bit whether Scott Brown will be joining the Mainers on the left of the Republican party, or if he'll wind up voting with the mainstream conservatives. If it's the former, then the current Senate will look a lot like the Senate from early in 2009. 59 Democrats (two of whom, the Benator and Holy Joe, present real problems with party loyalty), and then a pool of three moderates that Dems can try to pick off. If, on the other hand, Brown votes like Judd Gregg (or to the right of that), then the Democrats must keep all 59 and at least one of the Senators from Maine. In other words, two targets instead of three.
Tom Schaller lays out the possibilities here for Brown's future career. I think his categories are right: Brown could serve out his two-plus years and then lose; he could win reelection and have a longer Senate career (Schaller suggests Dorgan as a model, but I think a better comp for that would be Al D'Amato); or he could emerge as a national contender. In addition, this very useful post by Boris Shor places Brown just to the left of Olympia Snowe, based mainly on his votes in the Massachusetts legislature.
So, how will he vote?
If it's possibility #3 (try to get on a national ticket in 2012), then he needs to quickly establish a hard right voting record. In particular, as Shor points out, Brown is and has been pro-choice on abortion. If he wants to be on a national ticket, he needs to have a very quick conversion experience and immediately establish a strong pro-life record. Beyond that, it calls for a mainstream conservative voting record, far to the right of what his legislative record would predict.
If it's possibility #2 (try to have a Senate career), then Brown has the almost impossible task of keeping his voting record moderate enough to appear acceptable to the people who just voted for him yesterday, but conservative enough that his core supporters stick with him. Conservatives, eager to give Obama a black eye and get a 41st Republican in the Senate, were willing to overlook any signs of moderation, and Brown was able to oblige them by offering vague conservative rhetoric (it helped that he didn't have an opponent able to pin him down on anything). Now, he'll have a voting record. For a while, his giant-killer status will shield him from normal conservative wrath, but it's anyone' s guess if it's possible to walk that tightrope for long.
That leaves possibility #1, one-and-out. My guess is that this is where he ends up. He winds up around where Judd Gregg is: on the left edge of the mainstream conservatives. He won't be caucusing with Nelson, Lieberman, Snowe and Collins to form a five-Senator bloc to negotiate for "moderate" things; instead, he'll vote with the Republicans against 60 or 61 vote coalitions, but he'll sometimes join Democrats as the 63rd, 64th, or 65th vote. And then barring another fluke he'll go down to defeat in 2012, and if he's lucky and the Republicans win the White House, he'll get to be Secretary of One of the Many Departments Republicans Don't Care About. Or maybe he gets a show on MSNBC (he'd be too unreliable for Fox). In my reading of his campaign platform plus his voting record, that (Judd Gregg's voting record, not MSNBC) is probably where he's most comfortable.
As I said, though, it's really just a guess. What I can say for sure is that if he really wants to run for president (or VP) and actually have a chance, we'll see a flip on abortion very soon, most likely by April..
Tom Schaller lays out the possibilities here for Brown's future career. I think his categories are right: Brown could serve out his two-plus years and then lose; he could win reelection and have a longer Senate career (Schaller suggests Dorgan as a model, but I think a better comp for that would be Al D'Amato); or he could emerge as a national contender. In addition, this very useful post by Boris Shor places Brown just to the left of Olympia Snowe, based mainly on his votes in the Massachusetts legislature.
So, how will he vote?
If it's possibility #3 (try to get on a national ticket in 2012), then he needs to quickly establish a hard right voting record. In particular, as Shor points out, Brown is and has been pro-choice on abortion. If he wants to be on a national ticket, he needs to have a very quick conversion experience and immediately establish a strong pro-life record. Beyond that, it calls for a mainstream conservative voting record, far to the right of what his legislative record would predict.
If it's possibility #2 (try to have a Senate career), then Brown has the almost impossible task of keeping his voting record moderate enough to appear acceptable to the people who just voted for him yesterday, but conservative enough that his core supporters stick with him. Conservatives, eager to give Obama a black eye and get a 41st Republican in the Senate, were willing to overlook any signs of moderation, and Brown was able to oblige them by offering vague conservative rhetoric (it helped that he didn't have an opponent able to pin him down on anything). Now, he'll have a voting record. For a while, his giant-killer status will shield him from normal conservative wrath, but it's anyone' s guess if it's possible to walk that tightrope for long.
That leaves possibility #1, one-and-out. My guess is that this is where he ends up. He winds up around where Judd Gregg is: on the left edge of the mainstream conservatives. He won't be caucusing with Nelson, Lieberman, Snowe and Collins to form a five-Senator bloc to negotiate for "moderate" things; instead, he'll vote with the Republicans against 60 or 61 vote coalitions, but he'll sometimes join Democrats as the 63rd, 64th, or 65th vote. And then barring another fluke he'll go down to defeat in 2012, and if he's lucky and the Republicans win the White House, he'll get to be Secretary of One of the Many Departments Republicans Don't Care About. Or maybe he gets a show on MSNBC (he'd be too unreliable for Fox). In my reading of his campaign platform plus his voting record, that (Judd Gregg's voting record, not MSNBC) is probably where he's most comfortable.
As I said, though, it's really just a guess. What I can say for sure is that if he really wants to run for president (or VP) and actually have a chance, we'll see a flip on abortion very soon, most likely by April..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
