This actually should not surprise anybody.
— Bloomberg Politics (@bpolitics) June 3, 2015
The British general election surprisingly – and a bit unfortunately – doesn’t seem like that big a deal during this particular administration, although I suspect that will change with the next one. At least, I hope so: England’s been one of our staunchest allies for almost a century. It’d be a shame if that went away simply because one of our Presidents happened to adopt a poisonous resentment of the British because then maybe Daddy would love him then.
Oh, sorry: did I type that out? My bad. How embarrassing. (more…)
Their data is, as of this moment (6 PM Eastern), merely test data and not accurate. So don’t report on it yet. But the results for the Chicago Mayor’s runoff*, the Ferguson, MO City Council races, and various Wisconsin elections can be found here.
*I figure Rahm Emanuel will win this. The other races? …Haven’t got a clue, sorry.
Let us address the central paradox of the Hillary Clinton campaign. To do that, though, we must first refresh our memories. Specifically, this ad:
Remember it? It is, of course, an edited version of the iconic Apple 1984 ad which was altered to convert it from revolutionary agitprop praising a multinational corporation to revolutionary agitprop praising an undistinguished machine politician from Chicago. And, to be fair, it was successful agitprop. We will be arguing for decades about just how Hillary Clinton managed to lose that primary fight, but she did – and videos like this probably didn’t hurt. (more…)
Glenn Reynolds called this Master-level trolling from Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, and… yeah. Yeah, it is.
Using Elizabeth Warren’s voice to drive home that message is a lovely touch. She’ll either have to complain, thus alienating her biggest fans; or she’ll have to keep her mouth shut, thus alienating the Clinton campaign. That’s a win either way: it’s always nice to see a professional at work, particularly when the work isn’t actually aimed at you. If American Crossroads just stays out of the primaries this time, that would be spiffy, thanks. If they do that, we’ll shower attaboys on Karl Rove all day and even let him have the last brownie.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
…Of course, it’s a progressive group of American Jews and the election in question is Israel’s, but that’s probably just a minor detail: “A coalition of U.S.-funded progressive groups has planned a massive get-out-the-vote effort to influence the Israeli elections, targeting communities that are most likely to vote against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-leaning Likud Party, according to a confidential strategy memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.” The group in question is called Ameinu, and while I do not actually personally care that it’s apparently engaged in an international Zionist campaign* to influence foreign elections, I would like to note that there’s at least a bit of historical awkwardness, here. Not to mention, historical irony. Who would have thought that there might one day be an international Jewish plot to maybe destabilize Israel?
…Huh. Progressives are weird.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: One other thought: perhaps Ameinu could have found someone to do their voter analysis who was once not accused of having written a “Jewish Protocols of the Elders of Zion?” Look, I understand fully that Israeli political debates are not for the timid, but nonetheless this Seffi Rachlevsky fellow seems to be at least a little bit twitchy about Orthodox Jews. I mean, can you be really sure that some of that stuff won’t leak through and get on the analysis?
PPS: No, this article was not paid for by AIPAC. Also: hold on, is that a thing? What’s their per-word? Do I need to fill out a 1099 first?
*Not quite a conspiracy, but they probably shouldn’t have called that memo ‘confidential.’
You’re going to see a lot of these types of stories in the next year or so: “House Democrats retake the House? It’s a long shot, but they’re getting ready to try.” At least, if the 2012 and 2014 election cycles are any indication:
…the hard Left party* who promised to renegotiate Greece’s extremely unpopular bailout. Private scuttlebutt among those of my peers who follow European news more closely than I do is divided over whether the
Germans EU will sign off on that, but don’t be surprised if they at least try. The alternative is… well, the alternatives to austerity are as follows:
Well, I don’t need him to be irrelevant. But you know what I mean.
This should be fascinating to watch: “In recent weeks, Democratic operatives have begun to voice concerns that the 2014 midterms made plain the limits of an approach that failed to reach beyond minority groups or those who are reflexively liberal. And yet what should come next is not yet totally clear.” Largely because it’s essentially futile. The Democrats will not have control over their message in 2016, because in our system a sitting President has tremendous power to define for the public what his political faction does or does not care about.
[Barack] Obama feels liberated, aides say, and sees the recent flurry of aggressive executive action and deal-making as a pivot for him to spend the last two years being more of the president he always wanted to be.
I don’t often feel sympathy for my opposite numbers – and, in fact, in this case I still don’t. But if I were to feel sympathy, it’d be in the way that they’re going to have to spend the next two years going Never mind Barack Obama without actually looking like they’re going Never mind Barack Obama. Because while Barack Obama’s popularity generally is in the toilet*, it’s noticeably better among Democratic primary voters. Which means that the Democrats can’t actually tell Barack Obama to sit down and shaddap.
In case you’re wondering: yes, normally second-term Presidents don’t need to be told this. Generally speaking the sitting President gets out of the way as gracefully as possible so that the eventual nominee from their party can get on with the remarkably difficult task of winning three elections in a row. Fortunately (for my side), nobody bothered to tell Barack Obama that. Or maybe he doesn’t care. Or – and this would be the best answer – the man still hasn’t come to terms with the limits to his competence, and Obama thinks that he can (chuckle, snort!) help…
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: If Barack Obama thinks that what was going this session was ‘deal-making’ (instead of, say, ‘trying to work around an over-rated Harry Reid’), we will probably find next year to be quite amusing, in its way.
*I should note, by the way, that his reputation will recover, post-Presidency. That’s what typically happens. Don’t get bent out of shape over it, because doing so won’t affect the process and you’ll just be there in the dark chewing bitter bones, as the Elves might say.
(H/T: Instapundit) There are several amusing things about this article from the Washington Examiner on the topic of what the Left hopes to do towards state legislatures in the upcoming election cycle:
“We’re working with David Brock and Media Matters and American Bridge who have trackers that we can send out to monitor the debate on some bills that you all might be running,” Nick Rathod, executive director of SiX [a liberal group trying to get state legislatures back], said. “I think in many legislatures my understanding is that a lot of legislatures stream their floor debates but don’t necessarily transcribe it or capture it in any kind of way. And so we want to start capturing them on that. I think we know, someone’s going to say something about black people. Someone’s going to say something about women. Someone is going to say something.”
In no particular order: (more…)
As in, they can do it and still get elected.
Allahpundit is raising an excellent point, here:
Why would a center-right voter prefer Jeb Bush to Scott Walker? We all do understand, I hope, that Walker will be running basically as a centrist, yes? …I think he’s going to run as a similar sort of pragmatist as Bush — lots of talk about jobs and education, squishy on immigration, socially conservative but low key about it, and if tea partiers start getting restless with him, he’ll pull the ol’ “remember the time the unions spent millions to recall me and I kicked the sh*t out of them?” card. And then everyone will quiet down.
As you no doubt know, the Democrats got their clocks cleaned last night in two House seat runoff elections and one Senate one. The question is, could they have done better? – Actually, no, the question is, could they have done much better? …And the answer may indeed be ‘yes’ in both cases. Please note: a lot of this is going to be a discussion on how much or how little the rubble might have bounced, so keep that in mind.
Let’s start with the Senate race. All numbers here from AOSHQDD: they’re not the certified results, but they’re going to be fine for this analysis.
The total drop-off for that election was 91% for the Democrats, 88% for the GOP, and 89% overall. In other words: the Democrats managed to retain more of their Election Day voters than the Republicans did. Mary Landrieu still got destroyed in the general because the people who voted for Rob Maness clearly decided to show up for Bill Cassidy, too. This was not particularly contested by Sen. Landrieu, probably because she had limited resources and clearly decided that she needed to boost her own side’s turnout more than she needed to depress her opponent’s turnout. Considering that Sen. Landrieu’s base was mostly African-American – a demographic that’s hard to get to turn out, historically – she didn’t actually do a bad job. (more…)