After a break, the Republicans are resuming their intense debate schedule with one on ABC tomorrow (Saturday) night and a second on Fox on the 15th. Indeed, these will be the first open-topic, all-candidate debates in a month. And they'll take place only three weeks before the Iowa Caucuses. Voters, at least in the early states, are about to get involved.
That said...I don't think I can agree with the NYT's Michael Sheer, who says that these two debates "are shaping up to be the most important...yet." Yes, primary debates can be important, but remember that right now the campaigns are intensifying in Iowa and New Hampshire, and so the debates and later debate-driven news coverage must compete with a blizzard of TV ads, candidate appearances, and grass-roots campaign organizations. So while they could be important, it's less likely.
As it turns out the single most important debate of the cycle was probably the very first one, way back in May -- a debate that Mitt Romney skipped. Why was it important? The five candidates there included Gary Johnson, who performed badly, and Herman Cain, who trotted out his act to a national audience for the first time and was rewarded with a Fox News post-debate panel who loved him. Think about it: if Johnson had "won" that debate and Cain lost, it's very possible that Cain would have been the Maury Taylor of this cycle, rarely getting invited to debates and barely being treated as a real candidate, while Johnson could have secured a solid place as a serious candidate and, perhaps, threatened Ron Paul's hold on the libertarian vote. While none of Cain, Johnson, or Paul was likely to win anyway, that debate really did shape the visible portion of the contest for the next six months.
Next? The debate in which Tim Pawlenty inexplicably walked away from his "Obamneycare" attack line, along with Pawlenty's subsequent failure to rally back, especially in the last debate before the Ames Straw Poll. The debates were not the only factor in Pawlenty's demise, but they surely played a significant role.
And then, of course, the various Rick Perry disasters, culminating in the infamous Third Agency Oops death moment. As with Pawlenty, there was more to Perry's demise than just the debates, but they surely did quite a bit to undermine him.
It's possible that one of these debates will matter as much, but again, it's much less likely now that the rest of the campaign has kicked in, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire. So while I'll be watching (and, as usual, tweeting) the debates, and you never know when something spectacular could happen -- and Sheer could well be correct that these may be nasty debates -- my bet is that we've already seen the most important moments.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Read Stuff, You Should
Sort of a Newt-centric roundup this time. Newt-tastic. Newt-errific. Newt-ational. The guy may be a snake-oil selling fraud, but he sure does inspire some nice turns of phrase and sharp analysis, from every side of the political spectrum.
There's some other good stuff, too.
1. I still haven't contributed to the nerd fight, which has quieted down again now...don't miss the contribution from Hans Noel.
2. Ezra Klein, not a participant in the GOP War on Budgeting, understands that "a larger welfare state can mean a lower deficit."
3. Useful. Matt Yglesias on ACA and prevention.
4. No, Republicans are not supporting tax hikes, or ready to sign on to a compromise with tax hikes. Kevin Drum explains.
5. Don't be fooled by how it starts...John Sides isn't just knocking down the myth of independents (again), he has a different point this time -- that "it’s not very instructive to consider how a candidate is performing among any particular group of voters."
6. Fun piece by Henry Farrell: "Annals of Interesting Peer Review Decisions."
7. I agree with Nate Silver: as much as I'd like the fall of Prince Herman to show what happens when an implausible candidate takes a temporary polling lead, and as much as I think his other weaknesses doomed him, as it turned out the various scandals overwhelmed everything, and would have for any candidate. Assuming, that is, that the various accusations were at least more-or-less true. There still was a vetting story (could Cain have survived a statewide general election campaign and several years in office without all of that leaking out?), but not as much of a party story.
8. Which gets us to Newt. Ready? Eric Loomis on Newt and history. Mark Schmidt on Newt and flip-flops. Don't miss David S. Bernstein on Newt and the conservative marketplace. Pema Levy on Newt and the libertarians. Yuval Levin on Newt, Romney, and where that leaves conservatives. And Conor Friedersdorf with a long, wonderful takedown of Newt's radicalism (and generally, Friedersdorf has been a Newt-obsessive lately and it's all worth reading.
9. Alyssa Rosenberg talks about how TV characters talk about (or don't talk about) politics.
10. I think Minnie Minoso is a deserving HOFer based on only his major league performance. Christina Kahrl has the full argument for why his American League stat line underrates his case. Maybe next time for Minoso.
Enjoy!
There's some other good stuff, too.
1. I still haven't contributed to the nerd fight, which has quieted down again now...don't miss the contribution from Hans Noel.
2. Ezra Klein, not a participant in the GOP War on Budgeting, understands that "a larger welfare state can mean a lower deficit."
3. Useful. Matt Yglesias on ACA and prevention.
4. No, Republicans are not supporting tax hikes, or ready to sign on to a compromise with tax hikes. Kevin Drum explains.
5. Don't be fooled by how it starts...John Sides isn't just knocking down the myth of independents (again), he has a different point this time -- that "it’s not very instructive to consider how a candidate is performing among any particular group of voters."
6. Fun piece by Henry Farrell: "Annals of Interesting Peer Review Decisions."
7. I agree with Nate Silver: as much as I'd like the fall of Prince Herman to show what happens when an implausible candidate takes a temporary polling lead, and as much as I think his other weaknesses doomed him, as it turned out the various scandals overwhelmed everything, and would have for any candidate. Assuming, that is, that the various accusations were at least more-or-less true. There still was a vetting story (could Cain have survived a statewide general election campaign and several years in office without all of that leaking out?), but not as much of a party story.
8. Which gets us to Newt. Ready? Eric Loomis on Newt and history. Mark Schmidt on Newt and flip-flops. Don't miss David S. Bernstein on Newt and the conservative marketplace. Pema Levy on Newt and the libertarians. Yuval Levin on Newt, Romney, and where that leaves conservatives. And Conor Friedersdorf with a long, wonderful takedown of Newt's radicalism (and generally, Friedersdorf has been a Newt-obsessive lately and it's all worth reading.
9. Alyssa Rosenberg talks about how TV characters talk about (or don't talk about) politics.
10. I think Minnie Minoso is a deserving HOFer based on only his major league performance. Christina Kahrl has the full argument for why his American League stat line underrates his case. Maybe next time for Minoso.
Enjoy!
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Why They Like Newt
Theory one of the Newt surge is that it's caused by something about Newt, which suggests that it's real, much more real than the Cain surge or the Perry surge or the Bachmann surge or the Trump surge.
Theory two is that Newt is surging because voters who aren't paying much attention yet and mostly like most of the candidates have heard nice things about him most recently, and so they'll echo that back to pollsters -- but it has little to do with what they will do when they focus on the race, receiving information from ads and other places, and make a real vote choice.
I've seen some quite interesting and creative versions of Theory One recently, but I'm still not buying it. For example: the normally very sensible Jamelle Bouie argues that the fiasco of Newt's term as Speaker "wasn’t enough to damage his standing among Republican voters. Gingrich fought the good fight, and this gives him a lifetime pass for a whole host of transgressions that would sink any other candidate," with "the good fight" being his grappling with Bill Clinton and his perceived role in the 1994 landslide.
Which makes sense...except it just isn't consistent with the polling. Newt began the campaign with reasonable favorability scores, but they tanked after his awful spring, in which he attacked the Ryan budget, lost his staff, and everyone talked about Tiffany. The "forged in battle" story would work if Newt had retained his good personal numbers but simply lost out in the horse race polling, but that's not what happened at all.
Of course, even if I'm right about this, it doesn't at all prove by itself that Newt will collapse. What it does show, however, is that he's as vulnerable to attacks or unfavorable publicity as anyone else. And given that we also know that anyone in WH 2012 can benefit from a wave of positive attention -- that's the nice thing about the Trump surge -- there's really nothing to explain here in the first place. Remember, there were plenty of Theory Ones about each of the other surge candidates.
Theory two is that Newt is surging because voters who aren't paying much attention yet and mostly like most of the candidates have heard nice things about him most recently, and so they'll echo that back to pollsters -- but it has little to do with what they will do when they focus on the race, receiving information from ads and other places, and make a real vote choice.
I've seen some quite interesting and creative versions of Theory One recently, but I'm still not buying it. For example: the normally very sensible Jamelle Bouie argues that the fiasco of Newt's term as Speaker "wasn’t enough to damage his standing among Republican voters. Gingrich fought the good fight, and this gives him a lifetime pass for a whole host of transgressions that would sink any other candidate," with "the good fight" being his grappling with Bill Clinton and his perceived role in the 1994 landslide.
Which makes sense...except it just isn't consistent with the polling. Newt began the campaign with reasonable favorability scores, but they tanked after his awful spring, in which he attacked the Ryan budget, lost his staff, and everyone talked about Tiffany. The "forged in battle" story would work if Newt had retained his good personal numbers but simply lost out in the horse race polling, but that's not what happened at all.
Of course, even if I'm right about this, it doesn't at all prove by itself that Newt will collapse. What it does show, however, is that he's as vulnerable to attacks or unfavorable publicity as anyone else. And given that we also know that anyone in WH 2012 can benefit from a wave of positive attention -- that's the nice thing about the Trump surge -- there's really nothing to explain here in the first place. Remember, there were plenty of Theory Ones about each of the other surge candidates.
The Bottom Line on Counting Filibusters
Matt Glassman has a very interesting and useful post today about the complexity of counting filibusters. He's quite right that the charts you've all seen that count cloture votes aren't quite as accurate as one might think. It's very possible that some of those cloture votes overcount filibusters (because the majority might prefer for tactical reasons to use cloture to get to a vote rather than some other procedure) and certainly undercount filibusters (because the majority may not bother to seek cloture when it knows it doesn't have the votes). If you're really interested in filibustering, you should click over there.
However, I think that there's a bottom line here that's easy to overlook: the institutionalization of the 60 vote Senate. It's not really a question, in other words, of whether any particular piece of legislation or nomination was attacked by filibuster; it's that increasingly beginning in 1993, and overwhelmingly since 2009, minority parties have insisted that the majority produces 60 votes for everything.
I wrote about this over at Plum Line earlier today: it just isn't the case that it always took a cloture-sized majority to pass things. Remember that Clarence Thomas was confirmed for the Supreme Court in a 52-48 vote. That's 1991, everyone. In 2011, no one gets confirmed on a 52-48 vote. No legislation gets approved on a 52-48 vote (barring procedural protections such as reconciliation). I used to think that perhaps, on legislation at least, we might have a problem knowing about invisible filibusters in the past that prevented the majority from even beginning to act, but Greg Koger pretty much shot that down.
No, the 60 vote Senate is the key evidence here...or, I guess I should say, how rare passage is of anything by fewer votes than needed for cloture. Of course, there are all sorts of reasons that things might pass with more than 60 votes. And it's also the case that a sub-60 vote doesn't mean that there was no filibuster along the way that was defeated by attrition or resolved by compromise. But a Senate that has no or very few sub-60 winning votes is a Senate with universal filibustering. At that point, counting individual filibusters is pointless; the entire process is immersed in filibuster. And that's where we are now -- but it wasn't always the case.
However, I think that there's a bottom line here that's easy to overlook: the institutionalization of the 60 vote Senate. It's not really a question, in other words, of whether any particular piece of legislation or nomination was attacked by filibuster; it's that increasingly beginning in 1993, and overwhelmingly since 2009, minority parties have insisted that the majority produces 60 votes for everything.
I wrote about this over at Plum Line earlier today: it just isn't the case that it always took a cloture-sized majority to pass things. Remember that Clarence Thomas was confirmed for the Supreme Court in a 52-48 vote. That's 1991, everyone. In 2011, no one gets confirmed on a 52-48 vote. No legislation gets approved on a 52-48 vote (barring procedural protections such as reconciliation). I used to think that perhaps, on legislation at least, we might have a problem knowing about invisible filibusters in the past that prevented the majority from even beginning to act, but Greg Koger pretty much shot that down.
No, the 60 vote Senate is the key evidence here...or, I guess I should say, how rare passage is of anything by fewer votes than needed for cloture. Of course, there are all sorts of reasons that things might pass with more than 60 votes. And it's also the case that a sub-60 vote doesn't mean that there was no filibuster along the way that was defeated by attrition or resolved by compromise. But a Senate that has no or very few sub-60 winning votes is a Senate with universal filibustering. At that point, counting individual filibusters is pointless; the entire process is immersed in filibuster. And that's where we are now -- but it wasn't always the case.
Catch of the Day
Ooh, this is a good one. JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was complaining about anti-Wall Street rhetoric and how much he already pays in taxes...but Matt Yglesias was listening carefully and noted that Dimon claimed to be paying "39.6 in taxes." Oops! Yglesias (my emphasis):
By the way, I'd guess that hardly any people who pay income tax actually know what percentage of their income they pay in taxes, and of course we've seen that there are tons of people who don't even realize they don't pay income tax at all (but do pay payroll taxes). I have no idea whether people in Dimon's cohort even have a good sense of how much money they actually make in a year -- their salaries, sure, they know that, but the rest? I sure wouldn't. All of which is fine, until the start trying to influence public policy based on mistaken notions of their own situation. That, I'd say, isn't apt to produce good results.
And: great catch!
The thing about this is that the actual top marginal income tax rate is 35 percent. The entire debate in congress over taxes is that President Obama wants to restore the top marginal rate to the level that Dimon thinks it already is. Meanwhile, Dimon doesn't even know what tax rate he pays. Just saying.A couple of things. One is that Dimon was talking about federal taxes, not just federal income taxes, so the payroll tax has to be figured in...but presumably at his income level, that's not going to matter much, since it's gone for most of his income (as are the lower marginal rates that most of us pay on our incomes, which cut the other way for him, for whatever that's worth). And rates on some kinds of income are lower than that top marginal rate. And as Ezra Klein points out, that's before his accountant gets involved. So even if the top rate was what Dimon thinks he's paying, he wouldn't actually be paying that much.
By the way, I'd guess that hardly any people who pay income tax actually know what percentage of their income they pay in taxes, and of course we've seen that there are tons of people who don't even realize they don't pay income tax at all (but do pay payroll taxes). I have no idea whether people in Dimon's cohort even have a good sense of how much money they actually make in a year -- their salaries, sure, they know that, but the rest? I sure wouldn't. All of which is fine, until the start trying to influence public policy based on mistaken notions of their own situation. That, I'd say, isn't apt to produce good results.
And: great catch!
Recess Review
Barack Obama, in his press briefing after the Senate defeated by filibuster the Richard Cordray nomination today, threatened a recess appointment. My work on this is apparently not done, because Dave Weigel -- who is an excellent reporter -- then tweeted: "What recess does Obama think Congress is going to have, exactly? House ain't gonna play along."
So, time for a quick review of the basics (detailed info here). The problem is that the House is refusing to go into extended recess, using pro forma sessions to prevent a recess longer than three days -- and by the Constitution, the Senate cannot recess for more than three days if the House is in session. However, there are at least three options that the president could use if he wants to move ahead anyway, all of which appear to be legal and Constitutional, although no doubt he'd provoke a controversy if he used any of them. Of course, as I'm going to say over at Greg's place later, the real controversy is the current GOP use of the filibuster...at any rate, here are his options:
1. Make a recess appointment during a short recess. The three-day minimum for a recess to "count" for purposes of recess appointments is based on an old Justice Department legal opinion; it's not clear whether that opinion would hold for House-enforced non-recess recesses, and at any rate it is not binding. Presidents shouldn't ignore Justice Department legal opinions without good reason, but in my view there is ample reason to do so here.
2. Invoke the Article II power of the president to resolve differences between the House and Senate over recesses in the Senate's favor. This appears to be an untested and unused presidential power, but the plain meaning of the text seem to support a potential presidential role, either for intrasession recesses or, as would be the case now, for end of session adjournment.
3. Wait until between the 1st and 2nd sessions of the 112th Congress, which will be no later than the first week of January. There's precedent for making recess appointments during that window, no matter how small the duration.
So if Obama really wants recess appointments, and is willing to live through whatever fuss will be made over accusations of procedural infractions, he can almost certainly get his nominees through that way.
So, time for a quick review of the basics (detailed info here). The problem is that the House is refusing to go into extended recess, using pro forma sessions to prevent a recess longer than three days -- and by the Constitution, the Senate cannot recess for more than three days if the House is in session. However, there are at least three options that the president could use if he wants to move ahead anyway, all of which appear to be legal and Constitutional, although no doubt he'd provoke a controversy if he used any of them. Of course, as I'm going to say over at Greg's place later, the real controversy is the current GOP use of the filibuster...at any rate, here are his options:
1. Make a recess appointment during a short recess. The three-day minimum for a recess to "count" for purposes of recess appointments is based on an old Justice Department legal opinion; it's not clear whether that opinion would hold for House-enforced non-recess recesses, and at any rate it is not binding. Presidents shouldn't ignore Justice Department legal opinions without good reason, but in my view there is ample reason to do so here.
2. Invoke the Article II power of the president to resolve differences between the House and Senate over recesses in the Senate's favor. This appears to be an untested and unused presidential power, but the plain meaning of the text seem to support a potential presidential role, either for intrasession recesses or, as would be the case now, for end of session adjournment.
3. Wait until between the 1st and 2nd sessions of the 112th Congress, which will be no later than the first week of January. There's precedent for making recess appointments during that window, no matter how small the duration.
So if Obama really wants recess appointments, and is willing to live through whatever fuss will be made over accusations of procedural infractions, he can almost certainly get his nominees through that way.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Dwarfs
Haven't you sat around some afternoon and re-cast the WH 2012 Republicans as...the WH 1988 Democrats? Sure you have. But if not, here's what I've got. OK, it's mainly the first two, but as long as I'm at it...
NEWT GINGRICH as Gary Hart -- revived campaign phase. Gary Hart was drummed out of the campaign in Spring 1987 after a sex scandal, but then jumped back in late in 1987 and actually led the polls...before fading out rapidly. Both are disliked and not trusted by Washingtonians, but seem more presidential to many voters than the rest of a disappointing field. Not to say that Newt will fizzle as rapidly as Hart did (but he could!).
JON HUNTSMAN as Bruce Babbitt. This is actually the one that got me started. Both are loved by the press. Both are liked and respected by a lot of party actors, but not actually supported by them. In both cases, voters have zero interest. Both tried the same Big Campaign Strategy of packing their debate prep with one-liners. Babbitt's comedy writers were better than Huntsman's, but neither revealed any sense of comic timing whatsoever. I'm waiting for Hunstman to Stand Up! for, oh, I don't know, the scientific consensus on climate change? But I guess he's abandoned it.
MITT ROMNEY as, obviously, Michael Dukakis. Technocrat Massachusetts Governor that everyone figures will get the nomination despite the disadvantage of no one actually having any strong feelings about him one way or another.
RON PAUL as Jesse Jackson. Repeat fringe candidate doing better this time. Only candidate with actual enthusiastic supporters, but support capped thanks to qualification/mainstream deviation problem. Many party actors sort of like the idea of the candidate and his platform, but not the actual candidate and his platform.
HERMAN CAIN as Joe Biden. Says crazy things. Wacky campaign gurus are part of the story. Dropped out of the race after a scandal. Will become VP twenty years later. OK, maybe not that last part.
These are getting to be more of a stretch at this point...
TIM PAWLENTY as Dick Gephardt. Perfectly respectable and successful pol; very, very, very boring as a presidential candidate.
RICK PERRY as Al Gore. Well, Perry supported him, right? Candidates who appeared better on paper than
in real life. Southern. Actually, Perry's more of a John Glenn 1984, at least so far.
MICHELE BACHMANN as Paul Simon. Improbable candidate, ideological, briefly relevant.
And...
SARAH PALIN as Mario Cuomo. The one who makes everyone else look like small, albeit in totally different ways.
Also: you may be thinking that I should have Buddy Roemer as James Traficant. Blasphemy! No one can ever take the place of Traficant. Have I mentioned that I own a genuine 1988 Traficant For President button? Don't you wish you had one?
NEWT GINGRICH as Gary Hart -- revived campaign phase. Gary Hart was drummed out of the campaign in Spring 1987 after a sex scandal, but then jumped back in late in 1987 and actually led the polls...before fading out rapidly. Both are disliked and not trusted by Washingtonians, but seem more presidential to many voters than the rest of a disappointing field. Not to say that Newt will fizzle as rapidly as Hart did (but he could!).
JON HUNTSMAN as Bruce Babbitt. This is actually the one that got me started. Both are loved by the press. Both are liked and respected by a lot of party actors, but not actually supported by them. In both cases, voters have zero interest. Both tried the same Big Campaign Strategy of packing their debate prep with one-liners. Babbitt's comedy writers were better than Huntsman's, but neither revealed any sense of comic timing whatsoever. I'm waiting for Hunstman to Stand Up! for, oh, I don't know, the scientific consensus on climate change? But I guess he's abandoned it.
MITT ROMNEY as, obviously, Michael Dukakis. Technocrat Massachusetts Governor that everyone figures will get the nomination despite the disadvantage of no one actually having any strong feelings about him one way or another.
RON PAUL as Jesse Jackson. Repeat fringe candidate doing better this time. Only candidate with actual enthusiastic supporters, but support capped thanks to qualification/mainstream deviation problem. Many party actors sort of like the idea of the candidate and his platform, but not the actual candidate and his platform.
HERMAN CAIN as Joe Biden. Says crazy things. Wacky campaign gurus are part of the story. Dropped out of the race after a scandal. Will become VP twenty years later. OK, maybe not that last part.
These are getting to be more of a stretch at this point...
TIM PAWLENTY as Dick Gephardt. Perfectly respectable and successful pol; very, very, very boring as a presidential candidate.
RICK PERRY as Al Gore. Well, Perry supported him, right? Candidates who appeared better on paper than
in real life. Southern. Actually, Perry's more of a John Glenn 1984, at least so far.
MICHELE BACHMANN as Paul Simon. Improbable candidate, ideological, briefly relevant.
And...
SARAH PALIN as Mario Cuomo. The one who makes everyone else look like small, albeit in totally different ways.
Also: you may be thinking that I should have Buddy Roemer as James Traficant. Blasphemy! No one can ever take the place of Traficant. Have I mentioned that I own a genuine 1988 Traficant For President button? Don't you wish you had one?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
