I mean, it is funny, in a not-nice way:
LOL: at $60k/year Occidental, students earn credits by sharing tearful tales of working for losing election campaigns http://t.co/UXiGlIjew1
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 30, 2014
I’m just going to summarize it: Senator Chuck Schumer today ever-so-casually indicated that working first on Obamacare was a mistake; that, in fact, Congress should have instead worked on pretty much anything else besides Obamacare; and that Sen. Schumer himself opposed starting first on Obamacare, but all those Obama supporters in the Obama administration were so adamant that Obamacare be put in place right away. Also: how about that absent-from-the-Obamacare-debate Hillary Clinton, huh? You know what her middle name isn’t? That’s right: Obamacare.
I’m being mean, I know*. But if Chuck Schumer is useful for any one thing it’s in determining just how toxic a politician and/or government program can be. Based on this article, Barack Obama and his signature** political accomplishment are quite toxic indeed. And it’s not even 2015 yet! If Barack Obama’s a lame duck now, imagine how useless he’s going to be a year from now***. (more…)
Looks like the NRCC was on the ball this cycle.
Republicans and outside groups used anonymous Twitter accounts to share internal polling data ahead of the midterm elections, CNN has learned, a practice that raises questions about whether they violated campaign finance laws that prohibit coordination.
Translation: they probably didn’t, which CNN will concede later. Moving on…
…The groups behind the operation had a sense of humor about what they were doing. One Twitter account was named after Bruno Gianelli, a fictional character in The West Wing who pressed his colleagues to use ethically questionable “soft money” to fund campaigns.
A typical tweet read: “CA-40/43-44/49-44/44-50/36-44/49-10/16/14-52–>49/476-10s.” The source said posts like that — which would look like gibberish to most people — represented polling data for various House races.
Chris Cillizza is not quite gobsmacked:
Nine days ago, Democrats lost (at least) eight of their seats and their majority in the Senate. On the House side, the party dipped to at their lowest level — in terms of raw number of seats held — since World War II. How did the party react to this rejection from the American public? By preparing to re-elect every single one of their top Congressional leaders, of course!
…but he can see gobsmacked from where he currently sits. Basically, the Democrats are not going to change their leadership cadre. This despite the utter disaster that befell the legislative branch of their party last week, mind you; and it’s not just that the Democrats lost the Senate and got rocked back on their heels in the House. It’s that Democrats in the state legislatures likewise got hammered. I don’t believe in permanent Republican majorities than I believed in permanent Democratic ones, but one of the major things standing in the way of a new Democratic majority is their leadership cadre. Robert Tracinski over at the Federalist noted that the Democratic party’s recruitment successes collapsed when it became clear that all those new, shiny Red State Democrats were there to rubber stamp urban liberal Democratic agendas. As long as the people who support that agenda still run the Democratic party, moving the needle again is going to be hard for the Democratic rank-and-file. (more…)
I understand Allahpundit’s concern, here:
Nominate a guy like [Ted] Cruz and he can spend the entire campaign pandering to the middle since conservatives feel 100 percent sure he’ll govern as a conservative in office. Obama benefited from the same logic on the left six years ago: He could reassure Rick Warren and evangelicals that he believed in traditional marriage with nary a peep from his progressive base because none of them thought he was serious. He was a loud and proud liberal, no matter he said in his attempt to get elected. He’d support gay marriage later even if he couldn’t support it sooner. Cruz will have that same advantage from the right. Will anyone else have it, though? Even conservative candidates like Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal, I think, might feel pressure to out-Cruz Cruz in the primaries by tacking further right than they’d prefer. I’m not sure anyone except him is above suspicion by grassroots righties.
…but he’s forgetting one important mitigating factor. There are, in fact, two ways to reassure the conservative base that Candidate X is reliable: (more…)
Oh, trust me, there are more. But these are the ones that most immediately come to mind. Also note that I’m not going to saturate this with links; this is an almost-casual observation/recap, not a would-be public policy paper.
I think that covers it, for right now.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
*The so-called ‘woman gap’ is a slightly different situation, because (in my personal opinion) it is noticeably more accurate in Presidential years than it is for midterms. This cycle it didn’t really have that much of an impact.
**Almost. Taking pictures of your genitals and showing them to people on the Internet is actually hubris, which is even worse than complacency.
Hee. Vermont’s gubernatorial election is going to the legislature:
Under the Vermont Constitution, candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer are required to win a minimum of 50 percent plus one to be elected directly. If not, the race is decided by the Legislature.
In the history of Vermont, 23 previous elections for governor have gone to the Legislature, which nearly always gives the election to the candidate who won the most votes. There have been three exceptions, the last one in 1853.
And Peter Shumlin didn’t get the votes, so there you go. This actually happened to Shumlin in 2010, too: so he’s probably assuming he’s a shoo-in. But if I was a troublemaker in Vermont, I’d be getting the GOP delegation to go to the Progressive delegation and ask if they can think of a Democrat not named Peter Shumlin that would be acceptable to them. Solely because you take your pranks where you can get them – besides, it might even work. Probably not, but either way you’d get people in the Vermont state legislature screaming at each other for a week, which is not an insignificant thing to pull off.
Exciting night, by all means. Gobsmacked about Maryland-GOV, I am. Did not see that one coming. Did see Kansas-SEN and Massachusetts-GOV, though: and, of course, Wisconsin-GOV and Kentucky-SEN. But the fun one – not from a partisan point of view, but for sheer future wackiness – may be… well, that’s another post.
Take a day to recharge, folks. And then it’s back to the races. And, oh, my, how many more people we will have racing with us for the next two years…
Put another way: “Ladies and gentlemen, please fasten your safety belts and put your tray tables back up into the full, upright position. We are beginning our final approach: our estimated touch-down time will be 72 hours.”
Seriously, folks: this is the home stretch for the elections. The polls are highly unlikely to be anything except chaotic noise at this point; the fundamentals of the various races have been locked in*; and it’s going to take the equivalent of getting caught with a dead girl/boy** at this point to REALLY move the needle for any one candidate. None of this means that you should just look at the RCP averages at this moment in time and say That’s Tuesday’s total***; just that there’s a limit to what people can do, and we’re reaching it. (more…)
There are times when I don’t really get this administration’s messaging strategy.
The White House said Wednesday it was “crazy” to attempt to divine the president’s post-election plans for an immigration executive order based on a procurement request issued by the Department of Homeland Security.
“I mean, this is crazy,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, adding he would caution reporters against “making assumptions” based on the “procurement of green paper.”
The proposal, unveiled earlier this week by Breitbart News, asks potential contractors to prepare for the possibility of producing up to 34 million green cards and work permits over the next five years.
I mean, let’s game this out. (more…)
These two sentences from Dan McLaughlin’s article on close elections are the most important, I think:
For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time.
When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races…