Tag: 2012

HuffPo sets groundwork for impeaching Obama.

I know, I know: that wasn’t the intent. The intent was to flog the concept that a debt ceiling is itself unconstitutional as per the 14th Amendment, thus obviating forever the need for Democratic politicians to stop spending money that we don’t actually have. Here’s the text from the 14th:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

…and it’s been argued – pretty much mostly by neo-Keynesian (and former conservative) Bruce Bartlett, which is something that the HuffPo author did not mention (can’t imagine why he’d think that actual conservatives would react badly to a Bartlett scheme) – that the text means that any attempt to enforce a real cap on indebtedness is thus unconstitutional, so there, neener neener. If you’re wondering, however, how you can make it unconstitutional to enforce a cap on indebtedness while not also conceding that it’s unconstitutional to incur that debt in the first place, well, I regret to tell you this: you are immediately disqualified from writing for HuffPo. Or writing fiscal policy for the Democratic party, apparently. Continue reading HuffPo sets groundwork for impeaching Obama.

The DSCC Limited Resources Map.

Consider this map (via Politico) showing what the DSCC calls a “Limited Resource Plan” for the 2012 elections:

 

…which is, of course, being waved around by the DSCC for the purpose of convincing wary Democratic donors that donating money in 2012 to the group that lost seven* Senate seats and struck out on four prime pickups** in 2010 is a good idea.  This did not sit well with the Ben Nelson campaign in Nebraska, which (nervously) pointed out that taking this map seriously suggests that DOOM was coming not only to Nebraska, but Virginia and New Mexico as well.

Well, yes. Continue reading The DSCC Limited Resources Map.

#rsrh QotD, Dueling QotD edition.

Hard to say which is the better line in this Mona Charen article about an increasingly-nervous Obama re-election team, and their planned one-note symphony:

For the record, there has never been a time in the past 50 years that the Democrats have not claimed to detect a frightening rightward tilt in the GOP — even as the party has nominated such wild-eyed radicals as George H.W. Bush, John McCain and George W. (“compassionate conservative”) Bush.

or

The economy today is in some respects worse than it was in 1980. Barring a catastrophe, little else will matter in 2012. Any credible Republican can defeat Obama — which is why Axelrod is already smearing as “extremist” a person whose name he does not know.

This should be fun.

#rsrh The unworkable Democratic ’12 strategy.

Simple in execution, sort of…

The president has been unable to curb the nation’s nine percent unemployment rate, so he will be forced to put the best possible face on a sputtering recovery.

Democratic strategists say that means adopting an ungainly three-pronged political approach: Talking up economic gains since the darkest days of 2008 and 2009, highlighting a modest job-creation agenda blocked by Republicans and making the case that things would be far worse if the GOP were in charge.

…but completely impossible in practice, and here’s why: when the Democrats took Congress in 2007, people would get worried if you even suggested to them that the unemployment rate might hit 5.5%.  When the Democrats took over the whole government in 2009, people were grimly preparing for an extended period where the unemployment rate would not come down below 8%.  Today?  We’d sacrifice a goat to get 8%; we’d also sacrifice one to get 5.5%, but nobody would even remotely expect it to actually work.

In other words: define ‘far worse.’  Only, the Democrats have to do it with an actual straight face.

Moe Lane

#rsrh The 2012 Cook map.

You can quibble about the details*, but this is the Cook Political Report’s latest assessment at what we are looking at in terms of the Electoral votes right now:

Blue (221 EV) for the Democrats, Red (219 EV) for the Republicans, Grey (98 EV) for toss-up states; or 186D/196R/156TO if you take out leaners.

It’s a bit early to chew the data overmuch, but this much is clear: the Democratic meltdown in the Midwest is doing fun things to the 2012 election cycle.  But not as much as the 2010 Census did.

Continue reading #rsrh The 2012 Cook map.

Jeff Bingaman (D, NM) cuts and runs.

Five terms is apparently enough*.  Frankly, it’s more than enough for a lot of Senators out there, but that’s just my opinion.

Contra Chris Cizzilla, though, Obama’s 15 point victory in 2008 is not the only thing to consider about New Mexico: it’s that in 2010 the GOP took the governorship and lieutenant governorship, flipped a House seat, and came pretty close to getting another one (the state legislature was a wash).  New Mexico is a swing state, and if recent history is any predictor it’s busy swinging back the other way right now.

Mind you, this is good news for Tom Udall, who won’t be up for re-election until 2014; and by then the pendulum may have swung back yet again.  In the meantime, we’ll have to see who gets bitten by the Senatorial bug…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Continue reading Jeff Bingaman (D, NM) cuts and runs.

The [epithet] and the redistricting knives.

If you do political blogging or reporting for a while, you end up hearing this question a lot: Why should I bother to come out and vote for the [insert epithet here meaning ‘not as ideologically sound as I am’]? This would be normally responded to with a polite “That’s a good question” and a variable-length stream of blather before the question is actually answered, but let’s cut to the chase.  You bother to go out and vote for the [epithet] because:

  • Voting for the [epithet] in the House helps get you a Speaker with control over the Rules Committee, and somebody friendlier as Chair of Oversight and Government Reform.  Look them both up.
  • Voting for the [epithet] in the Senate helps get you an atmosphere where half the judiciary/executive branch appointments that you would object to strenuously quietly die stillborn.

That’s the way it works* – but you’re thinking to yourself, Well, at least I don’t have to vote for an [epithet] for governor. – but alas, no.  You do.  In some ways that’s the most critical place where you would have to if necessary, in roughly half the races out there this cycle.  Why?

Redistricting. Continue reading The [epithet] and the redistricting knives.