Two weeks in a row that I've fallen behind in my reading...I suspect there's more that I've missed than usual. But I don't want to hang on to this any longer, so here goes.
The situation with the Americans in Egypt was diffused. Syria, Yemen, plenty in Afghanistan.
Olympia Snowe announced her retirement, thus giving the Democrats a strong pickup possibility and therefore making a GOP takeover of the Senate quite a bit less likely.
And Romney put himself in a position to perhaps become the generally accepted nominee if he does well on Tuesday.
What am I missing? What do you think mattered this week?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Elsewhere: Super Tuesday, Veepstakes, and a Question
Sorry for the relatively slow posting this week; for some reason every time I turned around something was keeping me away from writing. Should be back to a normal pace next week. Can't wait to be working with spring training games on in the background.
Meanwhile, over at PostPartisan today I talked Veepstakes, and at Greg's place today, I talked about the Washington caucuss and Super Tuesday. Might as well add one I never linked yesterday -- I went through the ACA numbers in the latest Kaiser poll yesterday at Plum Line.
OK, now, the question. I need to think of a name for the period of the nomination/general election period in which the nomination is decided, but one or more losing candidate is still contesting primaries. It's over...but it's not quite over. In my view, we've been there since Florida (or South Carolina) in this cycle; I think we got there after Iowa for Republican in 2000, and after, I don't know, New Hampshire for Democrats in 1992. I'm not talking about the point at which only the nominee, or the nominee and one or more fringe candidates, remain; I'm talking about the stage before that. The challenge is still serious enough that the presumed nominee has to really contest the primaries, but not serious enough that there's any real doubt about the long-term outcome (the last candidate may stay in because she miscalculates her chances, or because she figures that even a .01% chance is worth sticking around for).
We know that the pre-primary period is the "invisible primary," which works really nicely. Then we have the primaries and caucuses. And I've seen a few different names for the period after which the nomination is totally wrapped up but everyone is waiting for the convention, whether or not there are still primaries on the schedule. But what about the stage we're in now? I'm working on it, but I'm open to suggestions, and if anyone has something they've been using please pass it along.
Meanwhile, over at PostPartisan today I talked Veepstakes, and at Greg's place today, I talked about the Washington caucuss and Super Tuesday. Might as well add one I never linked yesterday -- I went through the ACA numbers in the latest Kaiser poll yesterday at Plum Line.
OK, now, the question. I need to think of a name for the period of the nomination/general election period in which the nomination is decided, but one or more losing candidate is still contesting primaries. It's over...but it's not quite over. In my view, we've been there since Florida (or South Carolina) in this cycle; I think we got there after Iowa for Republican in 2000, and after, I don't know, New Hampshire for Democrats in 1992. I'm not talking about the point at which only the nominee, or the nominee and one or more fringe candidates, remain; I'm talking about the stage before that. The challenge is still serious enough that the presumed nominee has to really contest the primaries, but not serious enough that there's any real doubt about the long-term outcome (the last candidate may stay in because she miscalculates her chances, or because she figures that even a .01% chance is worth sticking around for).
We know that the pre-primary period is the "invisible primary," which works really nicely. Then we have the primaries and caucuses. And I've seen a few different names for the period after which the nomination is totally wrapped up but everyone is waiting for the convention, whether or not there are still primaries on the schedule. But what about the stage we're in now? I'm working on it, but I'm open to suggestions, and if anyone has something they've been using please pass it along.
Polling in the GOP Primaries
Nate Silver has an excellent look back at how pre-primary polling is doing this year. The short answer is that polling a week out is way off, and only in the last three days are the polls really accurate. This sounds right to me:
I'm going to be a bit lazy here and quote from what I said when Newt was surging in November:
As usual, it's important to remember that even for primary voters, who are relatively high-information compared with everyone else, the campaign just isn't all that visible. I know I haven't seen a single TV ad (granted, I don't watch very many TV ads, but still), and I've seen a handful of Ron Paul bumper stickers, and that's about it, here in Texas were the primary isn't soon.
So put it all together, and it makes lots of sense that it would produce the pattern that Silver finds. It's not a polling problem; it's a public opinion problem of trying to measure something that does not yet exist.
If I had to use a word to describe the behavior of Republican voters so far in this race, it would be this one: indifferent. Their preferences between the various candidates have been very weak, shifting after seemingly every debate, primary and news cycle. Many Republican voters like two or more candidates equally well — or at least see two or more of them as being less bad than the others.I want to emphasize the strange position that nomination politics puts voters in. Remember, three years ago most Republicans were inclined to like Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain, and really the whole field. Not that most voters knew who Santorum and Pawlenty were, but if they showed up on Fox News, generally most Republicans would find them perfectly agreeable politicians.
I'm going to be a bit lazy here and quote from what I said when Newt was surging in November:
Moreover, most rank-and-file Republican voters just don’t care very much about the subtle differences between Romney and Cain and Perry and Gingrich and the rest. They pretty much like ’em all; after all, they’re all basically conservatives, and they’re all Republicans, aren’t they? The one that they’ll pick if they happen to get polled is therefore most likely going to be whichever one they’ve most recently heard something positive about, which in most cases probably boils down to whoever has been in heaviest rotation on Fox News recently. Two months ago that was Prince Herman. Now, it’s Newt. Current poll numbers, in other words, aren’t a good measure of firm decisions about who folks are going to support; they’re just placeholder answers for a question that the overwhelming bulk of Republicans haven’t really thought about much yet.There so much volatility this time around because there's nothing out there anchoring people's views; there's no heavyweight candidate to organize everyone's opinions, for or against, the way that many Democrats had strong feelings about Hillary Clinton in 2007. For most Republican voters, all the candidates this time (save I guess for Ron Paul) start out as Just Another Republican, and stay that way until the intense last-minute blizzard of ads and appearances show up in their state.
This doesn’t represent exceptionally irrational behavior on the part of GOP primary voters, either. After all, unless they live in Iowa or New Hampshire, voters won’t ever be choosing from this unwieldy ten candidate (or so) field, and the odds are good that for most Republicans, in most states, they’ll never have to make any choice since the nomination will be wrapped up before it gets to them. So why should they waste their time trying to figure out which one is the “real” conservative? Why go through the painful business of choosing sides? Picking a horse entails (as Democrats might recall from four years ago) finding things to dislike about a politician who you actually have nothing at all against, used to like, and will like again in the future. Not to mention potentially taking sides against your friends and neighbors, instead of agreeing with them about politics as you normally do (since most of us are surrounded much of the time by co-partisans). Much better to avoid the risk of cognitive dissonance and ignore the whole thing or treat it as entertainment until decision time comes. And with any luck, you can skip it and go straight to the part where you get to go back to disliking Barack Obama.
As usual, it's important to remember that even for primary voters, who are relatively high-information compared with everyone else, the campaign just isn't all that visible. I know I haven't seen a single TV ad (granted, I don't watch very many TV ads, but still), and I've seen a handful of Ron Paul bumper stickers, and that's about it, here in Texas were the primary isn't soon.
So put it all together, and it makes lots of sense that it would produce the pattern that Silver finds. It's not a polling problem; it's a public opinion problem of trying to measure something that does not yet exist.
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to the great Laraine Newman, 60. Overshadowed by the multiple comic geniuses around her, but still very funny.
And the good stuff:
1. Who are you going to consult to understand what happened with the delegates in Michigan? Obviously, you want Josh Putnam.
2. Spencer Ackerman, top Jew.
3. I like this one by the Economist's J.F. about what the culture war is these days.
4. Stephanie Mencimer on ACA and the Santorum family.
5. And Lael Leibovitz: "[W]hen it comes to the issue of birth control, we’re all Jews, and we pretty much have been for a very long time."
And the good stuff:
1. Who are you going to consult to understand what happened with the delegates in Michigan? Obviously, you want Josh Putnam.
2. Spencer Ackerman, top Jew.
3. I like this one by the Economist's J.F. about what the culture war is these days.
4. Stephanie Mencimer on ACA and the Santorum family.
5. And Lael Leibovitz: "[W]hen it comes to the issue of birth control, we’re all Jews, and we pretty much have been for a very long time."
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Catch of the Day
There was quite a bit of chatter about how Rick Santorum lost the Catholic vote in Michigan by knocking JFK. Well, guess what? Ed Kilgore shows that Santorum has never done particularly well with Catholics, going all the back to Iowa:
I guess the other part of this is that while the pundits and reporters who pay close attention to all of this know exactly who Rick Santorum is and what he stands for, it's important to remember that many rank-and-file Republican voters really don't. Not until the campaign comes to their state. So Santorum's choices aren't as easy as some make them out to be; soft peddle his strengths too much (in order to please the national audience, for example), and voters just tuning in may not realize why they should support him over Romney in the first place. After all, it's not as if Romney will allow any actual, current policy differences to appear. And I think a lot of Santorum's appeal, presumably, is that he's actually willing to come out and make strong claims. It's not just all dog whistles and cute references with him. Of course, if he was more skilled candidate...but of course he isn't, is he?
At any rate: good catch!
His voting base has always been conservative evangelical Protestants, who also make up a high percentage of the voters fixated on making abortion illegal, a particularly strong Santorum demographic.Yup. I didn't watch a whole lot of the TV coverage last night, but there was quite a bit (and I think I was mostly on CNN) about how Santorum had supposedly lost it by talking too much about social issues. Well, I suppose that there's always some way to get the emphasis slightly better, but look: that's his campaign. That, politically, is who he is. He's been campaigning from the start on social issues and a hawkish foreign policy; the economic stuff is really just an occasional attitude, as far as I can tell.
I guess the other part of this is that while the pundits and reporters who pay close attention to all of this know exactly who Rick Santorum is and what he stands for, it's important to remember that many rank-and-file Republican voters really don't. Not until the campaign comes to their state. So Santorum's choices aren't as easy as some make them out to be; soft peddle his strengths too much (in order to please the national audience, for example), and voters just tuning in may not realize why they should support him over Romney in the first place. After all, it's not as if Romney will allow any actual, current policy differences to appear. And I think a lot of Santorum's appeal, presumably, is that he's actually willing to come out and make strong claims. It's not just all dog whistles and cute references with him. Of course, if he was more skilled candidate...but of course he isn't, is he?
At any rate: good catch!
Preventing GOP Filibuster Reform
I wrote over at PostPartisan this morning about the question of whether Republicans would, if they get unified government in 2013, get rid of the filibuster. I don't think they would, but I do think they'd tinker around the edges quite a bit.
To add to that...you know what would probably make it less likely for Republicans to move against the filibuster? If Democrats, starting with the president, made filibuster reform a major issue this year. The truth is, three years in, Republican Senators have been forced to make shockingly few defenses of the filibuster and their use of it. They've for the most part treated the 60 vote Senate as something more or less as old as the republic, rather than something built in recent decades, with the big steps coming in January 1993 and January 2009.
Now, I do expect majority parties to move over time to an anti-filibuster position (and vice versa). But I also think that politicians tend to feel constrained by their promises, and the most specific and high-profile those promises are, the more politicians are constrained. So given that a Democratic push for filibuster reform this year would almost certainly spark a strong Republican reaction, it would at the same time slow the odds of rapid reform in 2013 if Republicans win big in November.
The flip side argument is that Republicans would, after opposing reform this year, use Democratic rhetoric as an excuse for action after the election. That doesn't sound right to me...if Republicans are ruthless enough to immediately flip as soon as the election is over, I doubt they would care much about the justification.
Of course, this puts aside the possibility that one side might decide they want a more majoritarian Senate, and would be willing to give the other side the first chance at it in order to get that procedural change enacted. Mainly because I think that's unlikely to ever really happen.
To add to that...you know what would probably make it less likely for Republicans to move against the filibuster? If Democrats, starting with the president, made filibuster reform a major issue this year. The truth is, three years in, Republican Senators have been forced to make shockingly few defenses of the filibuster and their use of it. They've for the most part treated the 60 vote Senate as something more or less as old as the republic, rather than something built in recent decades, with the big steps coming in January 1993 and January 2009.
Now, I do expect majority parties to move over time to an anti-filibuster position (and vice versa). But I also think that politicians tend to feel constrained by their promises, and the most specific and high-profile those promises are, the more politicians are constrained. So given that a Democratic push for filibuster reform this year would almost certainly spark a strong Republican reaction, it would at the same time slow the odds of rapid reform in 2013 if Republicans win big in November.
The flip side argument is that Republicans would, after opposing reform this year, use Democratic rhetoric as an excuse for action after the election. That doesn't sound right to me...if Republicans are ruthless enough to immediately flip as soon as the election is over, I doubt they would care much about the justification.
Of course, this puts aside the possibility that one side might decide they want a more majoritarian Senate, and would be willing to give the other side the first chance at it in order to get that procedural change enacted. Mainly because I think that's unlikely to ever really happen.
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to Jack Davenport, 39. I liked Coupling quite a bit.
And now, the good stuff:
1. What Krugman said. Also, what DeLong said. Look, either (for example) there are or aren't people in the Netherlands with anti-euthanasia wristbands because old people in that nation are getting bumped off against their will all the time. And it either is or isn't true that one party invests quite a bit of their rhetoric, and who knows how much of their policy preferences, in fantasies like that. If the latter is true, you really do have to call them on it to be neutral. Once again: in my view, there's nothing inherent to conservative thought or to the GOP that they'll go off the deep end, but it's pretty clear where they are right now. There really is something seriously out-of-whack with today's GOP, and the first people in line who should care and try to do something about it should be conservatives.
2. Stan Collender makes the non-Keynesian case for why the federal government should be borrowing more, now.
3. Paul Waldman has a fun prediction of future Republican mischief. Sounds plausible!
4. Good reminder from Mark Mellman of the importance of question wording.
5. Immigration thoughts from Matt Yglesias. To give my own policy preferences for a change...I'm very wary of work permits; I'd rather just let more people in to stay. As far as the maximum number the US could comfortably absorb -- I sort of suspect that an open door policy would self-regulate, in that if people were coming faster than the US could handle, the word would get out and the flow would slow. These are not, to be sure, popular views.
6. Suzy Khimm updates the housing market.
7. And Lynn Vavreck on Santorum's appeal and it's dangers.
And now, the good stuff:
1. What Krugman said. Also, what DeLong said. Look, either (for example) there are or aren't people in the Netherlands with anti-euthanasia wristbands because old people in that nation are getting bumped off against their will all the time. And it either is or isn't true that one party invests quite a bit of their rhetoric, and who knows how much of their policy preferences, in fantasies like that. If the latter is true, you really do have to call them on it to be neutral. Once again: in my view, there's nothing inherent to conservative thought or to the GOP that they'll go off the deep end, but it's pretty clear where they are right now. There really is something seriously out-of-whack with today's GOP, and the first people in line who should care and try to do something about it should be conservatives.
2. Stan Collender makes the non-Keynesian case for why the federal government should be borrowing more, now.
3. Paul Waldman has a fun prediction of future Republican mischief. Sounds plausible!
4. Good reminder from Mark Mellman of the importance of question wording.
5. Immigration thoughts from Matt Yglesias. To give my own policy preferences for a change...I'm very wary of work permits; I'd rather just let more people in to stay. As far as the maximum number the US could comfortably absorb -- I sort of suspect that an open door policy would self-regulate, in that if people were coming faster than the US could handle, the word would get out and the flow would slow. These are not, to be sure, popular views.
6. Suzy Khimm updates the housing market.
7. And Lynn Vavreck on Santorum's appeal and it's dangers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
