Category: Election 2010

It tickled me pink to see Nate Silver make a Marjorie Margolies-Mesvinsky reference last week, since the anecdote of her one-term Congressional career is one I love telling. In class, in private, to my rats, anywhere and everywhere.

In 1992 "3M" (as fellow legislators called her to avoid excessive entanglement with her awkward name) won a total fluke victory over GOP incumbent Jon Fox in PA-13. Republicans had held the seat since Woodrow Wilson was President – 1916. Marjorie won narrowly and was not expected to last long, especially given that Clinton would not be on the ballot to help in 1994. In 1993 Clinton needed one more "yes" vote for his first budget proposal, one that was met with unanimous and strenuous opposition from Republicans. Marjorie signed her own political death certificate by agreeing to vote for it after days of full court press by the White House. As she recorded her vote in the House, Republicans stood and sang "Bye Bye, Marjorie!" She was defeated in 1994 and left public life.

Obama, of course, spent most of the weekend lobbying nervous House Democrats to vote for health care reform. He might have had an easier time with it had he read up on 3M and made a simple, forceful argument: a lot of you are going to lose in 2010.
online pharmacy symbicort best drugstore for you

Irrespective of the HCR vote. 2008 was an anomalously strong year for the Democrats in Congress and let's be frank – a lot of these wins in conservative, historically Republican districts were complete flukes. It was a combination of luck, circumstances, and frustration with the ineptness of the GOP. But the Democrats, from the grassroots up to the White House, are acting as though these seats can be defended. Most of them can't.

Walt Minnick (Idaho 1) is a freshman and a firm No on HCR. He serves the most Republican district in the nation to be represented by a Democrat. He won by 0.6% of the vote in 2008 with Obama on the ballot bringing out more Democrats. I'd say Mr. Minnick has about a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2010. Everything about him screams "Here lies one whose name was writ in water." A strong president would call him into the Oval Office, make small talk for a few minutes, and say, "Look, Walt. You're probably not going to be around for much longer. Why not do one really good thing before you go? One thing you'll be proud of, a historic piece of legislation you'll be able to say you made possible?
buy nolvadex online buy nolvadex no prescription

"

The idea of voting one's conscience is very heavily discounted in political science. The evidence simply does not support it, instead pointing to constituent preferences and the party leadership as the effective constraints on Congressional voting behavior. However, this bill is big enough, and there are enough Democrats who are lucky just to be there, to justify appeals to conscience by the President.
buy flexeril online buy flexeril no prescription

It only needs to work with a few people on a close vote. And deep in their hearts I believe a lot of these vulnerable House Democrats know their time is short. They know it as surely as they know that HCR, once passed, will join Social Security and Medicare as the third rail of American politics. After all, the unpopularity of the legislation obscures the fact that everything in the bill is in fact quite popular.

Two other things related to the vote:

1. NOW et al are flipping out about the executive order "Stupak compromise" on Federally-funded abortions. I think it's symbolic and essentially irrelevant.
online pharmacy desyrel best drugstore for you

It reinforces the status quo of the Hyde Amendment and there was not one word in the bill suggesting that Federal money was going to be used to provide abortions anyway. Basically, if it made Bart Stupak and a couple other pro-life Democrats happy to have the President pass an EO saying "This bill which provides no Federal funds for abortions will not provide Federal funds for abortions" then so be it.

2. It was good to see the opposition from the left collapse – Kucinich and the like. I agree with them in that I think the bill is a massive handout to insurance companies and it pales in comparison to a single-payer system or a public insurance option. I am also old enough to realize that right now, with this President and this political landscape, this is about as good as it's going to get. When you need a new car and you realize you can't afford the Ferrari you really want, do you buy a car you can afford or say "Screw it, I'll just walk"? No, you take what you can get right now, let the policy establish a foothold, and add to it in increments over time. More on that tomorrow.

(postscript: Margolies-Mezvinsky's son Marc is now engaged to Chelsea Clinton. So whoever flips to vote with Obama on this one might end up with one of the Obama girls as a daughter-in-law)

Let's crank up some Nas and talk about NY-23.

First and foremost it is important to recognize just how egregiously special Congressional elections are blown out of proportion. Elections are a spectator sport for some Americans and ratings gold for the media, yet our election cycle leaves them grasping at straws in most odd-numbered years. When the "big races" for the year are gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, a special Congressional election (especially one not in Illinois and/or involving Jim Oberweis) is the last best hope at finding something interesting to talk about. So naturally said race becomes the grand national referendum on the President, the state of the parties, the future of mankind, and the fate of an adorable puppy that Sean Hannity promises to behead on the air if Doug Hoffman loses.

In reality, the race in NY-23 is a referendum on what people in NY-23 prefer from a slate of lousy options. It is not representative of America, it is representative of the preferences of people shoehorned between Vermont and Canada. Said people are not qualified to tell the rest of the country anything except A) who they prefer to represent them in Congress, B) stuff about hockey, and C) where to find the best maple syrup when we visit the Adirondacks.

To recap, the Republican Party nominated NY State Assembly member Dierdre Scozzafava who, aside from having the single worst name this side of Dick Assman (from Regina!), is a decidedly non-wingnut member of her party. Said wingnuts explosively shat themselves over her positions on issues like gay bashing and abortion despite the fact she is a carbon copy of the kind of Republican who was the staple of New England's Congressional delegations twenty years ago.
https://dentonchiroclinic.com/wp-content/themes/twentytwentythree/assets/fonts/php/lipitor.html

Thus "Conservative Party" candidate Doug Hoffman entered the fray, earning endorsements from essentially every unemployed right wing idol whose endorsement would prevent you from voting for someone. Democrat Bill Owens was something of an afterthought, as the district has been Republican for ages.

Despairing of her odds of winning, Scozzafava committed political seppuku on Friday. After withdrawing from the race she endorsed Owens on Sunday, presumably consumed by anger and desperate for some measure of revenge against her party. Owens had a slight lead in polling before her decision but was essentially neck-and-neck with Hoffman.
buy temovate online buy temovate no prescription

What the individuals who supported Scozzafava do will determine the outcome, as will the turnout. Nobody votes in these things, so whoever does a better job of rounding up supporters will have the upper hand.

This is an absolute coin flip and if Owens wins it won't mean a thing for the Democrats other than that a bizarre three-way race split the right in twain and produced an unlikely Democratic winner. But our friends on the right are already touting Hoffman's "victory" over Scozzafava as their Iwo Jima.
buy augmentin online buy augmentin no prescription

If he wins the general election this is going to be spun as the single most important election in the history of mankind – not to mention a harbinger of total destruction for the Democratic Party in 2010. Given the way 2006 and 2008 went I can hardly blame them for grasping at straws to declare victory over something – anything – in 2009. I'm almost pulling for Hoffman just to see how ridiculously the right will crow about it. Aside from that petty pleasure, it would provide two benefits to the rest of us.

First, it will ultimately underscore how low the right has sunk to gloat about the fact that a conservative candidate won a district that has been Republican since 1852. Really, kids? That's your big success? Good for you. Second, it will convince the right that the key to winning in 2010 is to go Maximum Wingnut and find a Malkin-approved Hoffman clone in every competitive district in the country.
https://dentonchiroclinic.com/wp-content/themes/twentytwentythree/assets/fonts/php/xenical.html

Could anything be more wonderful? I will happily grant them this victory and endorse that strategy for 2010 in much the same way as Lucy puts the football in front of Charlie Brown week after week.

This is a win-win. Either the GOP gets humiliated by dropping a safe seat to a nobody or they win and decide to read it as a ringing endorsement of the Kamikaze Teabagger strategy next year. And who among us would lift a finger to disabuse them of that idea?

So the pendulum has swung back to the Republican side, right? The Democrats had their moment of glory in 2008 and now the President and Congress are as popular as anal polyps. The American people have abandoned Obama and the only thing that remains is to sit back and wait for the Republicans to pick up 150 seats in Congress next fall.

This is what the right believes, which is the surest possible indication that it won't happen. The left, accustomed to being to American politics what the Luftwaffe is to the History Channel, is starting to believe it too. My, how rapidly all that optimism from a year ago has faded. Jeebus. Obama has a rough spell eight months into his presidency and we can hardly hear over the hysterical pant shitting.

The false equivalency of giving 50% + 1 of the airtime and column space to ratings-magnet conservative nutbars (not to mention radio, which is essentially 100% wingers) creates the deceptive impression that there is an army of teabaggers ready to conquer the nation from within – and that untold millions more fully support them from the safety of their suburban castles. As usual there is only one problem. The facts bear little resemblance to that "reality" that Beck and Hannity are working so hard to create.

Generic Democrats are still beating generic Republicans in House 2010 races. Obama's favorables exceed the negatives by a good margin. 78% of the public (78%!!!) believes that the health care system needs "fundamental reform" or a "complete rebuild." Glenn Beck's favorables are a whopping 24% Some kind of health care reform package – most likely a toothless one that will upset liberals far more than get-the-guns-the-gubmint-men-is-comin' conservatives – is virtually assured of passing at this point, denying the talking point of the President's dramatic failure. But keep talking about that Olympics thing like it represents the utter collapse and humiliation of the President and his presidency; it's really working!

Is 2010 going to be wine and roses again for the Democrats? I doubt it. It would be absolutely unprecedented to have a third consecutive election with gains similar to 2006 and 2008. It's far too early for any predictions to be useful, but history tells us that the President's party will have some House losses – 20? 25? – but the Senate landscape is such that the GOP will have trouble making headway in the best of circumstances (more to come soon!). Sure, we know that generic polling and public opinion on specific policy proposals are unstable creatures and we shouldn't be calling Vegas to bet the house on another Democratic rout. But while Glenn Beck and your drunken Uncle Jim and your asshole coworkers are kicking back and waiting for a repeat of 1994, the rest of us can kick back and wait to hear the excuses they'll hurl at us when it doesn't happen.

Another day, another moral majoritarian cheating on his wife, buying a reacharound in a public toilet, or exploring the beautiful synergy of crystal meth and gay hookers. When I heard about Senator John Ensign admitting to a lengthy affair with a staffer (who is also married) the only thing that surprised me was that after 10 years in the Senate John Ensign managed to get a headline. We've long since passed the point at which simple adultery from our elected officials is shocking. This Mark Sanford thing, though… It was bizarre. Fortean. Oddly reminiscent of the runaway bride (the person, not the horrible film). Of all the potential outcomes that came to mind when I heard that Gov. Sanford had gone AWOL, "He's in Argentina" was #1,057 on the list. But reality trumps plausability yet again.

From my point of view the real fallout of this whole bizarre episode is that Sanford's political career is over. Don't get me wrong, I think about as much of Mark Sanford as a politician as I do of Glenn Reynolds as a blogger, but he was one of the better, or at least less laughably bad, GOP contenders for 2012. Objectively he had a few things going for him. Popular Governor. Not a Washington insider. New, as opposed to recycled garbage like Gingrich and Haley Barbour. Not a bad looking guy. Good enough verbal skills to make himself sound like he's not retarded even though he is. I'll go as far as to say that he was the leading contender in a horrid GOP field, roughly akin to being the best player on the Washington Nationals.

In that light, the ramifications of this incident on the 2012 race are significant. The pool of Republicans who would make good candidates is empty and they're starting to run out of candidates who are even plausible. I know everyone hates it when I talk about elections too far in advance, but what in the hell is that party going to do in 2012? They might have a hard time scraping up enough candidates to make a competitive field let alone any good ones.

My position on the re-election of the current President hasn't changed and will not. If there is any measurable indication of economic recovery between January 20, 2009 and the onset of the 2012 Election (roughly 1/1/2012) then the race is going to be a 1984-style coronation. The Republicans could run Abraham Lincoln and it wouldn't matter. Obama took office and things sucked. If things do not suck (or suck less) when the next election rolls around the election could be a blowout like we haven't seen in 20+ years. If things get worse or stagnate, a good Republican could take him down.

Now. Find me a good Republican.

Palin is going to be the candidate if scenario #1 happens – with a rosy economy and no chance of beating Obama, the GOP will be more than happy to let some idiot waste her time and money running in a race she will lose by 200 Electoral Votes. She will be the nominee because no one else will be lining up to donate his or her body for that kind of beating. In the second scenario the Party will try a little harder to find a credible nominee. Jindal? Uh, first impressions went poorly. Also, his background has plenty of gossip fodder in it, what with the exorcisms and such. Tim Pawlenty is the only name making the rounds who seems reasonable on paper (Governor, "independent" cred, etc.) but he looks and sounds like a used car salesman. Obama would really have to be on the ropes to lose to a piece of white bread like Pawlenty. Charlie Crist? There's some potential there, but there's also that vicious "arranged marriage/in-closet" rumor. Mitch Daniels? Decent, but really dull. No one will get excited about that guy.

Other than that, we have the reruns like Gingrich, Huckabee (whose Fox show isn't helping, as he comes off like an infomercial host while interviewing "American Idol" contestants and the cast of "The Biggest Loser"), and Romney. Mittens might get the nod over Palin in a sacrificial lamb scenario, as he has more money to blow, but before picking any of these guys the GOP would be better off forfeiting the election and retaining some dignity.

It has been a long time – perhaps the 1996 GOP nomination or the 1988 Democratic field which settled on Michael "The Hindenburg" Dukakis by default – since I've seen a field this bad, bearing in mind that the 2008 GOP field was really bad. I guess that is the logical end result of a party that has been shrinking continuously for 25 years, a regional party which can't feasibly hope to win statewide offices outside of the former Confederacy or the southwestern Sun Belt. A shrinking party produces a shrinking pool of good candidates and, as we see in Sanford's case, the pool of candidates is shrinking itself as well.

(OK, should we just start the Jeb Bush betting pool now?)

It's odd that conservatives are so eager to see the American auto industry go belly-up. These same right-wingers are employing one of the strategies most directly responsible for Detroit's demise in their own (endless) search for a new savior.

To make a long story very short, "badge engineering" is a term used to describe auto manufacturers' strategy of selling the same vehicle under several different brands with only minor cosmetic changes like different hubcaps, upholstery, paint colors, or clip-on plastic bumpers. Rocket scientists like Roger Smith decided that a great way for manufacturers operating multiple brand names (i.e., the Big Three) to save money would be to design just a few vehicles and then sell five versions of each. For example, the recent Chevy TrailBlazer has been or is sold as the Saab 9-7x, Isuzu Ascender, GMC Envoy, Buick Rainier, and Oldsmobile Bravada. Despite many promises from Detroit to quit this ridiculous practice it continues unabated (see the "new" Pontiac G3 and note the odd similarity to the Chevy Aveo, which is itself a badge-engineered copy of the Daewoo Kalos).

Two problems with this strategy stand out. First, it demonstrates naked contempt for customers' intelligence. Americans may not be terribly bright, but only the most knuckleheaded failed to realize that the Buick, Chevy, Olds, and Pontiac dealers (or Ford/Lincoln/Mercury, Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge) were selling the same damn thing. Second, it only works with good products. When the Ford Taurus was the best-selling car in America it certainly didn't hurt Mercury dealers to offer an identical car, the Mercury Sable. But badge engineering can turn a bad product into a disastrous one. When GM released the ghastly Chevy Uplander minivan it didn't have one flop on its hands; it had four, including the identical Buick Terrazza, Saturn Relay, and Pontiac Montana. This concept escapes the Big Three, who think there are consumers who look at a bad Chevy and say "Gee, I'd buy that steaming pile of shit…if only it had a Pontiac badge on the hood!"

This is where the GOP should pay attention.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is term-limited and stepping down in 2010 to devote his full energy to a kamikaze run at the White House in 2012. His likely replacement, State Rep Nikki Haley, has an excellent chance to win both the primary and an uncompetitive general election in 2010. You heard it here first: if she wins in 2010 it is only a matter of time until conservatives beat the drum for Haley to run for President herself in 2012 or 2016. She'll be their next next big thing. Why? Is Haley a brilliant politician? Of course not. The reason is that prior to marriage and politics Nikki Haley was Nimrata Randhawa, the daughter of Sikh immigrants. Yes, this run-of-the-mill winger is young, female, AND a minority – with a nice, anglicized name that won't frighten away old white people! Sweet jumping Jesus, it's like the heavens parted and God sent Republicans Their Own Obama! Sure, they said the same thing about Palin and Jindal, but Haley is really going to be it!

The 2012 Republican (optional equipment shown; MSRP $21,499)

The GOP has been selling America the same product for 30 years, an all-purpose generic conservative I'll call the UniCon (not to be confused with Unicron or the unicorn). UniCon worships Reagan, regurgitates supply-side economic theories (name-dropping Hayek and Friedman at regular intervals) and relentlessly campaigns for "lower taxes" and "cutting spending." UniCon loves the military, doesn't negotiate with Our Enemies like the fruity liberals do, and generally believes in re-living the Cold War. UniCon has the predictable hard-right positions on "social issues," solemnly talks of "values" and "life," and mentions "God" like he or she has Tourette's. UniCon rails against the stock culture war Enemies List: unions, the media, academia, activist judges, the ACLU, "inner cities," Hollywood, secularism, socialism, tinpot dictators, Big Government, instant replay, the Yeti, and fluoridated water.

Newt Gingrich is an example of the UniCon. People don't like Newt Gingrich. His career on the national stage was brief and now he's wringing an income out of the right-wing media/foundation circuit while deluding himself into thinking that he's getting back into politics. The GOP sees that he lacks broad appeal – and they conclude that the packaging is the problem. See, they know that you like everything he stands for, so rather than questioning the message they simply search for a new way to deliver it. They're quite convinced that you're saying "Gee, I'd definitely vote for that…if only it had tits." Hence every person the party offers up as a savior is, in any meaningful way, indistinguishable from Newt Gingrich.

At a complete loss for new ideas, the GOP badge engineers the same candidate repeatedly. You want one with a cowboy hat? Here's George W. Bush. Want one sans penis? Sarah Palin! Do you prefer black? Take this Steele fellow for a test drive. If black isn't your color, how about a less threatening minority, perhaps Indian? You'll love Bobby Jindal. Are a traditionalist looking for the no-frills model in classic white? Have a gander at Mitch Daniels or Tim Pawlenty. Would you prefer your white guy with a drawl? Mark Sanford or Haley Barbour should do! We've got a different (looking) candidate for every conceivable taste! Mormons. Catholics. Jews. Senators. Governors. Businessmen. Hollywood celebrities. Retired athletes. Young. Old. Fat. Slim. Bald. Hirsute. We can even offer exotic custom jobs like "young Indian-American female Governor." How's that for customer service?

Once you get past the different exteriors, of course, these candidates are carbon copies of one another. They are UniCon. Like their counterparts in the corporate offices of the Big Three, the GOP is convinced that the underlying product is great and the public is simply waiting to find a body style that it likes. Stupidity is stubbon; even bankruptcy hasn't convinced the auto manufacturers of their errant ways. So I'm bullish on the number of electoral drubbings the GOP can endure before the light finally goes on.