TW: Cook laments the decline in bi-partisanship. I attribute the "good old days" of bi-partisanship to the former presence of now defunct concepts, both relics of the Civil War. One the southern Democrat who was frequently populist and two the New England Republican (originally abolitionists and subsequently socially liberal). It has taken 150 years but those two species are now almost completely extinct. For 150 years the Dems had folks with less in common with each other than with the Republicans and vice versa, now not so much.
Cook believes eliminating the scourge of gerrymandering would help. I am skeptical that it would transform the now hardening partisan divides but it would not hurt. Gerrymandering is now a science (employed by both sides) that ghettoizes minorities of all types race, income, ideology.
From Charlie Cook at National Journal:
"...Neither party is solely to blame for the loss of this lubricating agent, which helped the legislative machinery function. Every time Democrats picked off a liberal or moderate Republican lawmaker in the Northeast or Midwest, every time Republicans picked off a conservative or moderate Democrat in the South or some rural district in the Midwest, and every time members of Congress unwilling to march in lockstep with their party finally opted just to retire, the change chipped away at bipartisanship
...When I first came to Washington in September 1972, Congress abounded with conservative and moderate Democrats, as well as liberal and moderate Republicans. These lawmakers provided the ballast that prevented their parties from going to extremes
...Talking with a conservative House Democrat from the South recently, I commented that it must be horrible to go home and get beaten about the head and shoulders by angry constituents. He added, "And then come back here and get beaten up in my own caucus." His remark reminded me of hearing a moderate Republican senator talk last year of being somewhat ostracized at a Tuesday Conference lunch after breaking ranks on a vote.
Some analysts have long embraced campaign finance reform as the cure-all for so many of our nation's political ills. But an equal or better case could be made for redistricting reform, for removing partisan politics from the drawing of congressional district lines -- as Iowa has done. That transformation wouldn't solve every problem, but a process that resulted in more lawmakers being attuned to swing voters would temper both parties in the House.
Redistricting reform might well have an indirect impact on the Senate, where much of the enmity is the result of extremely partisan House members becoming senators and bringing their hard-edged, take-no-prisoners behavior with them.
The statistics are clear: There is more straight-ticket voting now than in the past. Few voters seem to value electing a candidate with the willingness and temperament to reach across the aisle..."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20090926_1178.php
Showing posts with label Charlie Cook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlie Cook. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
This POTUS Speaking To Kids B.S.
TW: My previous post displayed an Economist blogger's lamentation. I follow with my own. Either the Dems suck at media, the Repubs are great at media or our country is pathetic. Somehow a POTUS giving an innocuous speech to schoolchildren has morphed into socialist indoctrination. He is the POTUS for goshsakes, if he wants to speak to our schoolchildren about just about anything he should be able to. POTUSes have been doing so for decades but now it is indoctrination (I will not bother with some of the Fox video and yes I know some Dems whined in 1991 about HW Bush but it was tepid lame "why is he spending $26K to make a video for kids instead of solving unemployment" a far cry from our children cannot be exposed to socialism).
This POTUS is now assumed to have nefarious motives regardless of his actions, why is that? I really do not know. This is the whacked strain of the campaign- he hangs with terrorists (Bill Ayers), he hangs with black nationalists (Rev. Wright), he is not really American (birthers)- going- becoming the baseline for the opposition.
I just read our disgrace of Chicago columnist in the Chicago Tribune, John Kass who replaced Mike Royko years ago (Mrs. Blogger thinks he is a very little man trying to compensate). He goes on a full bore rant aligning himself against the doctrinator Obama basically calling him a communist wannabe. If a parent is so damn insecure about their own kids then look in a mirror. Given the environment to which children are exposed at the homes of many of those shrieking the loudest about this stuff, I strongly doubt a few minutes from BHO will harm them to irreparably.
Charlie Cook a respected political poll is saying things are lining up for another potential wave election- bad economy, angry/motivated opposition, unpopular war etc. He may be right which is a concerning prospect since the opposition rather than going through any kind of molting stage to become less bombastic and more moderate (as I predicted might happen) has doubled down on bombast, economic populism and cultural extremism. That would be an interesting congressional coalition, one that would have gained office by unleashing a populist streak. Putting those genies back in the bottle are easier said than done.
From NBC:
"Finally, here's one more thought about the entire controversy over Obama's education speech on Tuesday: Since the White House has said the text of the speech will be available for 24 hours before he delivers it and since they altered the lesson plan language, why is this still a controversy? The ability of the conservative media machine to generate a controversy for this White House is amazing. In fact, this is an example of a story that percolates where it becomes harder and harder for some to claim there's some knee-jerk liberal media bias. (Does anyone remember these kinds of controversies in the summer of 2001?) The ability of some conservatives to create media firestorms is still much greater than liberals these days."
Update: A teachers lamentation
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/by-patrick-appel--a-reader-writes----you-say-you-are-ignoring-the-furor-over-obamas-school-talk-because-it-is-a-fake-story.html
This POTUS is now assumed to have nefarious motives regardless of his actions, why is that? I really do not know. This is the whacked strain of the campaign- he hangs with terrorists (Bill Ayers), he hangs with black nationalists (Rev. Wright), he is not really American (birthers)- going- becoming the baseline for the opposition.
I just read our disgrace of Chicago columnist in the Chicago Tribune, John Kass who replaced Mike Royko years ago (Mrs. Blogger thinks he is a very little man trying to compensate). He goes on a full bore rant aligning himself against the doctrinator Obama basically calling him a communist wannabe. If a parent is so damn insecure about their own kids then look in a mirror. Given the environment to which children are exposed at the homes of many of those shrieking the loudest about this stuff, I strongly doubt a few minutes from BHO will harm them to irreparably.
Charlie Cook a respected political poll is saying things are lining up for another potential wave election- bad economy, angry/motivated opposition, unpopular war etc. He may be right which is a concerning prospect since the opposition rather than going through any kind of molting stage to become less bombastic and more moderate (as I predicted might happen) has doubled down on bombast, economic populism and cultural extremism. That would be an interesting congressional coalition, one that would have gained office by unleashing a populist streak. Putting those genies back in the bottle are easier said than done.
From NBC:
"Finally, here's one more thought about the entire controversy over Obama's education speech on Tuesday: Since the White House has said the text of the speech will be available for 24 hours before he delivers it and since they altered the lesson plan language, why is this still a controversy? The ability of the conservative media machine to generate a controversy for this White House is amazing. In fact, this is an example of a story that percolates where it becomes harder and harder for some to claim there's some knee-jerk liberal media bias. (Does anyone remember these kinds of controversies in the summer of 2001?) The ability of some conservatives to create media firestorms is still much greater than liberals these days."
Update: A teachers lamentation
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/by-patrick-appel--a-reader-writes----you-say-you-are-ignoring-the-furor-over-obamas-school-talk-because-it-is-a-fake-story.html
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Shut Up Already
TW: Charlie Cook makes a simple but instructive point. Sometimes as a party you are on the wrong side of the majority on a particular issue with little chance of moving the majority. The Democrats perceived this relative to gun control. Rather than hypocritically changing positions which would be intellectually dishonest and therefore not credible, Dems merely stopped talking about the topic. Now that Dems are in power anti-gun control efforts should slow down or cease but just stopping the Republican efforts to arm everyone to the teeth is progress.
Cook suggests the Republicans would do well to mimic this approach relative to hot-button social issues about which the base Republicans may be passionate but the majority of Americans are not despite the base Republicans hopes and dreams. The ideologues faced with these choices choose to fall on their electoral swords, the pragmatists win and nudge the policy in their preferred directions.
From Charlie Cook:
"...It's easier to say that Republicans need to change than it is to say what they should change. But maybe Republicans should take a page from the Democratic playbook.
It would be unprincipled, intellectually bankrupt and pointless for the Republican Party to move from the right to the left on issues or overall positioning. But, on some issues, maybe they would be best off being silent.
When Democrats lost their House and Senate majorities in 1994, polling for organized labor showed that the top issue for union members voting Republican for Congress was guns, something that had nothing to do with unions.
In 2000, when Al Gore lost West Virginia, Gore's state manager later said that the top three reasons for Gore's defeat there were guns, guns and guns. Guns probably played a factor in not only Gore's loss of his home state of Tennessee but in every state that even touched Tennessee.
It was the presidential loss in 2000, on top of the congressional losses in 1994, that convinced the Democratic Party to simply shut up on guns. As much as many Democratic elected officials wanted to legislate the issue, they realized that they couldn't get re-elected if they kept offending so many union members, white males and rural and small-town voters on the gun issue.
Gun-control advocates had plenty of other reasons to support Democrats, so remaining silent on the issue didn't hurt the party that much. Rather, it enabled it to have a conversation with voters who otherwise would not listen as long as guns were on the table.
Republicans need to think about this in terms of their emphasis on certain social and cultural issues. The GOP has turned away a large number of highly educated, economically upscale voters who would be a natural fit for the party were it not for these divisive subjects.
Republicans have created problems for themselves in the libertarian-leaning Mountain West as well because of their stance on these issues. When westerners say they want government out of their lives, they mean out of the whole house, including the bedroom. Generationally, Republicans are killing themselves with voters who are now under 35, who see the party as narrow and intolerant. As Will Rogers used to say, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/offtotheraces.php
Cook suggests the Republicans would do well to mimic this approach relative to hot-button social issues about which the base Republicans may be passionate but the majority of Americans are not despite the base Republicans hopes and dreams. The ideologues faced with these choices choose to fall on their electoral swords, the pragmatists win and nudge the policy in their preferred directions.
From Charlie Cook:
"...It's easier to say that Republicans need to change than it is to say what they should change. But maybe Republicans should take a page from the Democratic playbook.
It would be unprincipled, intellectually bankrupt and pointless for the Republican Party to move from the right to the left on issues or overall positioning. But, on some issues, maybe they would be best off being silent.
When Democrats lost their House and Senate majorities in 1994, polling for organized labor showed that the top issue for union members voting Republican for Congress was guns, something that had nothing to do with unions.
In 2000, when Al Gore lost West Virginia, Gore's state manager later said that the top three reasons for Gore's defeat there were guns, guns and guns. Guns probably played a factor in not only Gore's loss of his home state of Tennessee but in every state that even touched Tennessee.
It was the presidential loss in 2000, on top of the congressional losses in 1994, that convinced the Democratic Party to simply shut up on guns. As much as many Democratic elected officials wanted to legislate the issue, they realized that they couldn't get re-elected if they kept offending so many union members, white males and rural and small-town voters on the gun issue.
Gun-control advocates had plenty of other reasons to support Democrats, so remaining silent on the issue didn't hurt the party that much. Rather, it enabled it to have a conversation with voters who otherwise would not listen as long as guns were on the table.
Republicans need to think about this in terms of their emphasis on certain social and cultural issues. The GOP has turned away a large number of highly educated, economically upscale voters who would be a natural fit for the party were it not for these divisive subjects.
Republicans have created problems for themselves in the libertarian-leaning Mountain West as well because of their stance on these issues. When westerners say they want government out of their lives, they mean out of the whole house, including the bedroom. Generationally, Republicans are killing themselves with voters who are now under 35, who see the party as narrow and intolerant. As Will Rogers used to say, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/offtotheraces.php
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Two Americas...As Usual
TW: The "two Americas" meme is not new. Charlie Cook, who we like a great deal for relatively unbiased analysis, frames the current situation in a new "two Americas" meme. I would add the last bit to which Cook refers, bi-partisanship, is the least likely bit I foresee materializing (more on that later).
From Charlie Cook at National Journal:
"...There is an America that watched with hope and excitement as Barack Obama took the oath of office to become the 44th president of the United States. And there is an America that watched with dread and skepticism.
In the first and much larger group, there are many people who have a deep appreciation for the historic nature of Obama's presidency and a sense that he is the right person for the job and will do well. A subset of this group is so worried about the nation's economic problems that they hope Obama succeeds even though they didn't vote for him.
The second group is profoundly pessimistic. Because of his race and education, Obama is very different from any of their friends, neighbors, or co-workers. The people in this group are deeply suspicious of his motives. Some are afraid that he will dismantle our nation's military and leave America vulnerable. Others fear he will tax away everything they worked hard to accumulate. It's not exactly that they want Obama to fail but more that they feel they have little reason to believe that he will succeed in a way that helps them personally. Voters in this group rarely support a Democrat for president, but their pessimism about this particular Democratic president is especially acute. I doubt that Obama will ever be able to win these people over. The bigger question is whether they will ever accept him as president.
...In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, taken before Inauguration Day, the public was deeply pessimistic: 26 percent believe that the country is headed in the right direction, and 59 percent say that it is on the wrong track. However, those results are notably more optimistic than the 12 to 16 percent "right direction" and 73 to 78 percent "wrong track" numbers in the NBC/WSJ surveys taken in September and October. The mood shift is particularly notable, given that the economy has gotten even worse during that period.
...Although Americans are clearly clamoring for more unity and bipartisanship in Washington, only 48 percent expect to see it. Almost as many people, 45 percent, think the divisiveness will continue."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20090124_4074.php
From Charlie Cook at National Journal:
"...There is an America that watched with hope and excitement as Barack Obama took the oath of office to become the 44th president of the United States. And there is an America that watched with dread and skepticism.
In the first and much larger group, there are many people who have a deep appreciation for the historic nature of Obama's presidency and a sense that he is the right person for the job and will do well. A subset of this group is so worried about the nation's economic problems that they hope Obama succeeds even though they didn't vote for him.
The second group is profoundly pessimistic. Because of his race and education, Obama is very different from any of their friends, neighbors, or co-workers. The people in this group are deeply suspicious of his motives. Some are afraid that he will dismantle our nation's military and leave America vulnerable. Others fear he will tax away everything they worked hard to accumulate. It's not exactly that they want Obama to fail but more that they feel they have little reason to believe that he will succeed in a way that helps them personally. Voters in this group rarely support a Democrat for president, but their pessimism about this particular Democratic president is especially acute. I doubt that Obama will ever be able to win these people over. The bigger question is whether they will ever accept him as president.
...In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, taken before Inauguration Day, the public was deeply pessimistic: 26 percent believe that the country is headed in the right direction, and 59 percent say that it is on the wrong track. However, those results are notably more optimistic than the 12 to 16 percent "right direction" and 73 to 78 percent "wrong track" numbers in the NBC/WSJ surveys taken in September and October. The mood shift is particularly notable, given that the economy has gotten even worse during that period.
...Although Americans are clearly clamoring for more unity and bipartisanship in Washington, only 48 percent expect to see it. Almost as many people, 45 percent, think the divisiveness will continue."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20090124_4074.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)