Taegan Goddard yesterday posted an ARG South Carolina poll that had Romney at 25%, Palin at 16%, Bachmann at 13%...wait a second. Stop!
There's just no reason to even begin to look at state polls, other than Iowa and perhaps New Hampshire, this early.
National polls? They still tell us very little, but regardless of how useful they are for prediction, they are still worth noting -- because if nothing else, we can think of good national polling numbers as a resource for candidates. Even if it's just name recognition. We can think about how valuable a resource it might be, but that's the right way to deal with it.
But individual state polling? Useless. Even in early states (other than Iowa and New Hampshire, that is). We know that results in those two states as well as everything else that will happen this year will shake things up; we don't know and can't predict how that will translate in individual states; and state-level polling is subject to all sorts of distortions, without having more to add.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Ryan and Resentment
I don't think that Paul Ryan is running for president; I really don't think he'll ever run for president. But if he does, he sure has the resentment thing down cold.
I wrote about Ryan and the budget process today over at Greg's place, from an interview that Ryan did over at NRO, and I didn't complain about the other stuff, but it really is awful:
Ryan is apparently still upset, or still pretending to be upset, that the president attacked his budget a few months ago with Ryan present, which is apparently some sort of new ultimate sin against the politeness gods. Whatever; I'm sure that had Ryan not been present, then that would have been the new ultimate sin.
Hey -- Republicans are free to use whatever spin they want, no matter how petty it may be. But why anyone should take seriously a standard in which Ryan claims it's impossible to work with Barack Obama because of "the president’s 'very personal' criticism of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor at the White House," while meanwhile it's fine to call Obama "fundamentally un-presidential."
I'd say, by the way, that calling Obama condescending in his recent press conferences and other remarks -- not just to Republicans, but to Congress in general -- would be a lot closer to the mark. The president has definitely been playing the role of the Only Adult in the Room, and calling him on that would, in my view, be entirely reasonable and fair.
Perhaps Ryan and the other Republicans don't want to do that because, after all, they actually are ceding that ground to him. Or maybe they're honestly having a tantrum because they honestly think that their policy preferences and actions should be exempt from criticism. I don't know; I don't, I suppose, really care. I'm just annoyed that I have to listen to it.
I wrote about Ryan and the budget process today over at Greg's place, from an interview that Ryan did over at NRO, and I didn't complain about the other stuff, but it really is awful:
Indeed, in almost every sense, Ryan says, Obama has been “fundamentally un-presidential” throughout the summer, “dragging his feet, failing to address the looming debt crisis — which he knows is coming — because he remains committed to his ideology.”This is whiny, crybaby, thin-skinned crap. "In-your-face class warfare"? Never happened. "Demonization of the other side's motives"? Find me a quotation, in context; it had better be at least as good as Ryan's claim that Obama is deliberately willing to inflict harm on the nation in service of "ideology." "Bitter appeals to envy, fear, and anxiety"? In Looking-Glass Land, only -- the one where inventing a "looming debt crisis" doesn't count as a scare tactic, but discussing the obvious consequences of not raising the debt ceiling does. Or, in which voting to transform Medicare into a voucher program constitutes supporting Medicare, while not doing that counts as destroying it.
“This is, unfortunately, the way he operates,” Ryan says. “This is his pattern of behavior, this is his personality. For the next 18 months, it will probably be like this. It’ll be in-your-face class warfare, with bitter appeals to envy, fear, and anxiety, plus the demonization of the other side’s motives.”
Ryan is apparently still upset, or still pretending to be upset, that the president attacked his budget a few months ago with Ryan present, which is apparently some sort of new ultimate sin against the politeness gods. Whatever; I'm sure that had Ryan not been present, then that would have been the new ultimate sin.
Hey -- Republicans are free to use whatever spin they want, no matter how petty it may be. But why anyone should take seriously a standard in which Ryan claims it's impossible to work with Barack Obama because of "the president’s 'very personal' criticism of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor at the White House," while meanwhile it's fine to call Obama "fundamentally un-presidential."
I'd say, by the way, that calling Obama condescending in his recent press conferences and other remarks -- not just to Republicans, but to Congress in general -- would be a lot closer to the mark. The president has definitely been playing the role of the Only Adult in the Room, and calling him on that would, in my view, be entirely reasonable and fair.
Perhaps Ryan and the other Republicans don't want to do that because, after all, they actually are ceding that ground to him. Or maybe they're honestly having a tantrum because they honestly think that their policy preferences and actions should be exempt from criticism. I don't know; I don't, I suppose, really care. I'm just annoyed that I have to listen to it.
On Robert Moses, James Hacker, and Sir Humphrey Appleby
I continue to totally enjoy the series that Erik Loomis has been writing about the most important US politicians by state. His New York edition is, as one would expect, lots of fun, but of particular interest to me is his question at the end:
My general answer to all of this is mainly to point out that it's yet another feature of the US system -- the lines between politicians and bureaucrats are far more blurred here than in many other systems. That's easiest to see if you have the good sense to be watching the classic sit-com Yes, Minister, in which the (British) lines between politicians and bureaucrats are very clearly drawn.
Of course, the other half that is that Yes, Minister makes it clear (and, yes, there are academic studies, but they're not nearly as funny and only somewhat more helpful) that any assumptions that a strong independent bureaucracy will necessarily make sound, unbiased technocratic solutions to policy problems is deeply mistaken. This is, perhaps, harder to see in the US, since the American system has produced so many hybrid politician/bureaucrats, just as it produces the even goofier politician/judges. At any rate, where one comes down on how things should be arranged -- at what level it's best for politicians to be involved, at what level it's best to have bureaucrats involved, and how one feels about hybrids -- the main point is that no one should confuse bureaucratic control with unbiased technocratic solutions. And that, I think, is why Robert Moses remains a terribly important figure to think about if one is interested in democracy, however one chooses to classify him.
Also–on second thought, Robert Moses probably should be on this list. Was he more of a bureaucrat or a politicians? Or does the distinction really matter with him? Anyway, an interesting person to think about.Indeed, one of the times that I taught my course on politicians we spent a good deal of time arguing about exactly that question. I always assign Robert Caro's terrific biography, with excerpts intended to focus on specific skills politicians use to Get Things Done. But how should we classify Moses, and people like him?
My general answer to all of this is mainly to point out that it's yet another feature of the US system -- the lines between politicians and bureaucrats are far more blurred here than in many other systems. That's easiest to see if you have the good sense to be watching the classic sit-com Yes, Minister, in which the (British) lines between politicians and bureaucrats are very clearly drawn.
Of course, the other half that is that Yes, Minister makes it clear (and, yes, there are academic studies, but they're not nearly as funny and only somewhat more helpful) that any assumptions that a strong independent bureaucracy will necessarily make sound, unbiased technocratic solutions to policy problems is deeply mistaken. This is, perhaps, harder to see in the US, since the American system has produced so many hybrid politician/bureaucrats, just as it produces the even goofier politician/judges. At any rate, where one comes down on how things should be arranged -- at what level it's best for politicians to be involved, at what level it's best to have bureaucrats involved, and how one feels about hybrids -- the main point is that no one should confuse bureaucratic control with unbiased technocratic solutions. And that, I think, is why Robert Moses remains a terribly important figure to think about if one is interested in democracy, however one chooses to classify him.
Nothing Can Pass/Something Has To Pass
...and that's where the debt limit negotiations remain. I just got around to reading Keith Hennessey on the McConnell plan, and the key quote from him is:
Still, if it's correct in the stronger sense that there really is nothing that could pass the House, then we have to pair that with the other part of it: sooner or later, some debt limit increase will pass the House.
Which means either that there's some possible proposal that no one has thought of...or, more likely, that something will change. And I continue to agree with those who say that the latter is the best read of the situation -- and that "something" means an external shock of some kind.
What's really not clear, to me at least (and I'd love to know what Hennessey would say about this) is how many House Republicans would respond to a sudden shock -- say, an awful day on Wall Street. What I'm mostly getting from House Republicans is that every time an external source says that the debt limit has to be raised (or even eliminated), what Tea Partiers hear is spending on programs they don't like has to be cut. What worries me is that if that's the case, then perhaps external shocks won't help, if House Republicans interpret them as just confirming their current position. I don't think that's true about the House GOP leadership, but if it's true for up to half of the GOP Members, well, that's a pretty big problem.
The proposal could not pass the House today, but then I don’t think any debt limit proposal could pass the House today.That's from someone who probably has a pretty good sense of what House Republicans are thinking. It sounds right to me, although of course it might not be true -- it may be that lots of people are just bluffing (in which case it may be technically correct that no proposal could pass the House "today", but there are proposals that would pass if we were at a deadline).
Still, if it's correct in the stronger sense that there really is nothing that could pass the House, then we have to pair that with the other part of it: sooner or later, some debt limit increase will pass the House.
Which means either that there's some possible proposal that no one has thought of...or, more likely, that something will change. And I continue to agree with those who say that the latter is the best read of the situation -- and that "something" means an external shock of some kind.
What's really not clear, to me at least (and I'd love to know what Hennessey would say about this) is how many House Republicans would respond to a sudden shock -- say, an awful day on Wall Street. What I'm mostly getting from House Republicans is that every time an external source says that the debt limit has to be raised (or even eliminated), what Tea Partiers hear is spending on programs they don't like has to be cut. What worries me is that if that's the case, then perhaps external shocks won't help, if House Republicans interpret them as just confirming their current position. I don't think that's true about the House GOP leadership, but if it's true for up to half of the GOP Members, well, that's a pretty big problem.
Parties and Political Culture
I just about entirely disagree with Matt Yglesias's belief that parliamentary systems produce progress-by-alteration, in which parties embrace moderation in order to please the voters, knowing that they cannot take extreme positions because they'll actually have to implement them if they win. Well, I should say -- I think that's just as likely to happen in the US system of separated institutions sharing powers; after all, for over two centuries, including during earlier times of polarization, complaints that there was little difference between the parties were common. I really don't think that the current pathologies of the GOP have anything to do with Madisonian structures -- nor do I read the history or theory of governance in Westminster systems as generously as Ygesias does. I mean, he says that in "bipartisan by alteration...we would have no fiscal consolidation in 2011 or 2012, since none is necessary," which to my mind sort of insanely overlooks what the Brits are doing right now.
All that said -- he's absolutely correct about one thing: it's true, and unfortunate, that the US political culture places a premium on grand bargains, and in general is dismissive of partisan solutions.
We're in a very partisan age, which I think everyone recognizes, but there's virtually nothing in the political culture that celebrates or affirms partisanship. Nor do the parties themselves even develop strong symbols and rituals of partisanship; poke an activist, and nine out of ten times she'll tell you that she's not "really" a Democrat (or Republican); she believes in the issues or the ideology, but not the party. Now, from the outside such protestations seem paper-thin; most activists behave as if they were strong partisans, and (in my view) ideology appears to follow party, not the other way around. But it doesn't feel that way to people within the system.
In that sense, the most interesting thing about the Tea Party stuff was that it succeeded -- wildly, I'd say -- in precisely those symbolic and ritual ways that Democrats and Republicans fail.
At any rate...I think it's too bad that so many Washingtonians believe that grand bargains are a good thing, that they are inherently better than partisan solutions, and that indeed partisan solutions to big problems are impossible.
All that said -- he's absolutely correct about one thing: it's true, and unfortunate, that the US political culture places a premium on grand bargains, and in general is dismissive of partisan solutions.
We're in a very partisan age, which I think everyone recognizes, but there's virtually nothing in the political culture that celebrates or affirms partisanship. Nor do the parties themselves even develop strong symbols and rituals of partisanship; poke an activist, and nine out of ten times she'll tell you that she's not "really" a Democrat (or Republican); she believes in the issues or the ideology, but not the party. Now, from the outside such protestations seem paper-thin; most activists behave as if they were strong partisans, and (in my view) ideology appears to follow party, not the other way around. But it doesn't feel that way to people within the system.
In that sense, the most interesting thing about the Tea Party stuff was that it succeeded -- wildly, I'd say -- in precisely those symbolic and ritual ways that Democrats and Republicans fail.
At any rate...I think it's too bad that so many Washingtonians believe that grand bargains are a good thing, that they are inherently better than partisan solutions, and that indeed partisan solutions to big problems are impossible.
Read Stuff, You Should
I've fallen a bit behind in my "replace" updates...it started to seem a bit redundant to me. Fortunately, Politico's Jennifer Haberkorn was on the job. One caution: I think it's totally fair to bash House Republicans for the phoniness that was the "replace" half of repeal-and-replace, but I don't think it's at all fair to bash them on the repeal side. They've more than fulfilled that half of the promise, in my view. This brings up one of the difficulties with the fact-check approach to candidate promises...it's always a bit tricky to know when an elected official deserves to be blamed for not "keeping" a promise when others are involved. On the other hand, sometimes, as with replace, it's obvious that House Republicans were never serious.
More good stuff:
1. Am I going to tell you to read a long post that can only conclude that "there are no easy answers," and that won't give you information about the debt limit or the GOP nomination contest? Sure am. It's from Andrew Gelman, and well worth your time -- because you really want to know how to tell whether some goofy claim you're reading about is worth taking seriously.
2. Alan Abramowitz on myths about independent voters.
3. Long-time readers know that I was a big fan of Dylan Matthews and his Research Desk feature on Ezra Klein's blog last summer -- and yup, I'm very happy to see that it's back. Here he is on pay and public employees.
4. What's the most important story that's mostly being ignored? Executive branch and judicial nominations. Terribly important. David Ingram reports on what's gone wrong within the White House on judicial nominations.
5. Oh, how about some WH 2012? Will Wilkinson on Newt; Amy Sullivan on Rick Perry and Christian conservatives (and see too Sarah Posner's take); Ross Douthat on the Mittster; and Conor Friedersdorf goes to see the Sarah Palin movie.
6. Economics, budget, and debt limit. Paul Krugman says unemployment is (gasp!) a consequence of recession (but alas, it needs to be said); Mike Konczal knocks down the myth of the all-powerful Fannie and Freddie; Andrew Sprung watches Obama negotiate; and Julie Ingersoll argues that some Christians see default in biblical terms.
7. Joel Meares reports on the Daily Caller; Friedersdorf listens to Rush Limbaugh in Joplin. And Adam Serwer, always must-read on torture and detention (and, this time, on Marc Thiessen).
8. Megan McArdle gives one argument for immigration.
9. This has been out for a while, but I finally got around to it recently: what Washington DC looked like in 1814. Very cool.
10. And if that's not enough...Dan Drezner reads too many pundits; Amanda Marcotte is right (and interesting) about Potter; Serwer on terrorism and Galactica (but I disagree that the show slipped as it went along); and the always-great Christina Kahrl on Dick Williams.
Enjoy!
More good stuff:
1. Am I going to tell you to read a long post that can only conclude that "there are no easy answers," and that won't give you information about the debt limit or the GOP nomination contest? Sure am. It's from Andrew Gelman, and well worth your time -- because you really want to know how to tell whether some goofy claim you're reading about is worth taking seriously.
2. Alan Abramowitz on myths about independent voters.
3. Long-time readers know that I was a big fan of Dylan Matthews and his Research Desk feature on Ezra Klein's blog last summer -- and yup, I'm very happy to see that it's back. Here he is on pay and public employees.
4. What's the most important story that's mostly being ignored? Executive branch and judicial nominations. Terribly important. David Ingram reports on what's gone wrong within the White House on judicial nominations.
5. Oh, how about some WH 2012? Will Wilkinson on Newt; Amy Sullivan on Rick Perry and Christian conservatives (and see too Sarah Posner's take); Ross Douthat on the Mittster; and Conor Friedersdorf goes to see the Sarah Palin movie.
6. Economics, budget, and debt limit. Paul Krugman says unemployment is (gasp!) a consequence of recession (but alas, it needs to be said); Mike Konczal knocks down the myth of the all-powerful Fannie and Freddie; Andrew Sprung watches Obama negotiate; and Julie Ingersoll argues that some Christians see default in biblical terms.
7. Joel Meares reports on the Daily Caller; Friedersdorf listens to Rush Limbaugh in Joplin. And Adam Serwer, always must-read on torture and detention (and, this time, on Marc Thiessen).
8. Megan McArdle gives one argument for immigration.
9. This has been out for a while, but I finally got around to it recently: what Washington DC looked like in 1814. Very cool.
10. And if that's not enough...Dan Drezner reads too many pundits; Amanda Marcotte is right (and interesting) about Potter; Serwer on terrorism and Galactica (but I disagree that the show slipped as it went along); and the always-great Christina Kahrl on Dick Williams.
Enjoy!
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Sunday Question for Liberals
The big weekend news is that Barack Obama has chosen Richard Cordray to be filibustered by Republicans over a nomination to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, rather than subject liberal hero Elizabeth Warren to that filibuster. News reports have it that Warren will likely run for the Senate from Massachusetts instead.
Here's the question: suppose that in fact the two choices available were: Warren gets a recess appointment to CFPB and Scott Brown wins re-election; or, Warren runs and defeats Brown. If those really were the only two choices, which would you prefer (and why)?
(Note: I'm not saying that they were the only two choices; I do think that Warren has a decent chance of defeating Brown, but I have no idea whether she's the best positioned to do so. You'll need an close observer of Massachusetts politics to tell you that part).
Here's the question: suppose that in fact the two choices available were: Warren gets a recess appointment to CFPB and Scott Brown wins re-election; or, Warren runs and defeats Brown. If those really were the only two choices, which would you prefer (and why)?
(Note: I'm not saying that they were the only two choices; I do think that Warren has a decent chance of defeating Brown, but I have no idea whether she's the best positioned to do so. You'll need an close observer of Massachusetts politics to tell you that part).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
