Q Day 1: Immigration Timing?

Leviathan asks:

...[F]or 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?

First, that seems like a reasonable analysis. My addition to it would be that one might argue that the off-year is particularly dangerous for an issue on which the big problem is nomination challenges, because that's when potential challengers decide whether to run or not. So there might be a brief post-election window that's safe right at the beginning of a new Congress (that is, this time around, in winter-spring 2013), but then it gets more and more difficult up to the point where filing deadlines pass. Which is a large spread, since congressional primaries are spread out from spring to September...filing deadlines are as early as December 2013, and are done or almost done by mid-June.

I'd add that we've had a pretty steady run of lame duck, post-election Congressional sessions lately; presumably, immigration might do even better in a lame duck session, with defeated or retiring Republicans perhaps willing to vote for (perceived) party benefit instead of their own electoral self-interest.

As far as the chances for comprehensive immigration reform? I don't know. Most, but not all, reporters on the Hill seem to think it's dead or almost dead. That could be true. On the other hand, I really wouldn't place all that much importance on John Boehner's promise that it won't pass on a "Hastert" violation. It makes sense that he would say that; however, if the bulk of his caucus wants the bill to pass (even if they don't want to vote for it), then he'll bring it up and have it pass with mostly Democratic votes, and he won't suffer for it.

So the question really is, and always has been, whether mainstream House Republicans want the bill to pass or not, in a situation in which almost everyone believes that (1) it would be good for the GOP as a whole for it to pass, but (2) it would be risky for most Republican Members of the House to support it. And with GOP-aligned organized interests split. But that's as far as I can go from the outside; I really don't have a guess about what eventually happens.

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!

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Jennifer Tilly, 55.

Monday morning, and plenty of good stuff:

Are all Obama conspiracy theories basically explanations for the basic "fact" that Obama hates the US? Elspeth Reeve and Philip Bump say so. Plausible!

I expect I'll be writing about the Summers sage later...meanwhile, Ezra Klein says it should be Yellen.

So does Paul Krugman, who adds some personal musings, for those who enjoy that kind of thing.

James Fearon on Syria, the UN, and post-Cold War interventions.

And Fred Kaplan on Syria.

Sunday Question for Liberals

So -- do you have a candidate for Fed Chair? Do you care?

Sunday Question for Conservatives

I don't think I've asked this one: do you think there's any realistic chance that Republicans can win significant concessions on Obamacare, either on the CR or on the debt limit?

What Mattered This Week?

Delayed for the holiday, but here it is.

And...I'll go with Syria again. Sure.

What didn't matter? I suppose I'll stick to what I've been saying: the tactics of the Tea Party types against the budget. I've written about that plenty, but basically: if they were going to be "no" votes anyway, it doesn't matter why.

Anyway, let's see what you have. What do you think mattered this week?

Friday Baseball Post

I continue to believe that the current double wild card system is better than the previous single wild card system (although still not as good as the system I'd like to see). But the confusion that people have about this is pretty obvious in what I've seen a lot of: claims that this season has been evidence in favor of the new system. It isn't!

The big advantage of the two WC system over the old single WC is that it restores meaningful division races. In the 1995-2011 system, there was no significant advantage to winning a division vs. being the WC; now, the division title is far better than one of the WCs.

But that doesn't happen to apply this year. In four divisions, the lead is six games or more; the division winner has it won, and the rest are either out of it or scrambling for a WC. The double WC does not help in those cases. In the AL West, the A's are 3 1/2 games up on the Rangers, who lead the WC chase. Without the second WC, the A's would close to locked into a playoff spot (5 1/2 up over Tampa Bay); with it, they have a pretty serious risk of dropping from division winner to WC.

To finish up the AL...there are currently six teams (not counting the A's) competing for the two WCs, with Texas up two games, the Rays in the second spot, and then the other four within 2 1/2 games. Without a second spot, would the Royals, 4 1/2 behind the Rangers, still be as interested? Sure -- indeed, since each WC slot is worth only half of what the old WC was worth, Royals fans and fans of the other three trailing teams might find the old system just as exciting as the new one right now. Rangers fans are right in the middle -- looking up is more exciting (they could win a division!), but looking down is less so (they hardly have a WC slot wrapped up, but it's far more secure than it would be in the old days).

That's the American League. Over in the Senior Circuit, none of it makes any difference to the teams in the East and West. What about the three contenders in the Central? The new system probably makes September a little less exciting for those teams. Instead of three teams playing for two spots, we have three teams playing for three spots, one of which is much better than the other two. If all three stay close, it's probably a mild net loss. If one breaks away into first, then it's a clear net loss, as the two-team competition for two WC spots will be dull. On the other hand, if the top two separate themselves, then the current system really helps.

(OK, I suppose I should mention: it's not really locked. The Nats have a very slim shot that they wouldn't under the old system; on top of that, the DBacks are done now, but they stayed mildly alive longer because of the increased shot of a WC).

I'll also add: it's hard to tell how things shake out under my system because it would involve some realignment (into four divisions) and a different schedule. If we ignore the schedule, however, what happens is that a few teams drop out of contention, but the Red Sox, Braves, and Dodgers probably have a much more exciting season -- but also are rewarded much better in the postseason for what they did in the regular season. Oh, and there's a much better chance of contenders for the same spot playing against each other in the last few weeks.

In fact, I should probably highlight this, although it's not just about the 2WC system: Despite all the teams in the running, this weekend there's only one series between contenders for the same spot, with the Rangers playing the A's. That's pathetic.

None of this proves anything. All systems have advantages and disadvantages; the fall of the cards in any particular year can turn out any which way.  It's just very strange to me that people (and, sorry, I haven't saved any cites, but I've seen multiple examples) would claim that this year is particularly good for the 2WC system.