POLISING

Obama's Brilliant Head Fake

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:36:00 +0000

Dueling national addresses are always about contrasts, and Barack Obama got his tonight facing Republican House Speaker John Boehner on the topic of default and the national debt. And he did it through a head fake that the GOP completely fell for.

Earlier this afternoon, the White House signaled its support for a debt reduction plan floated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- a plan that would raise the debt ceiling, lop trillions off the deficit, and all without raising taxes.

Thinking that this was the plan the President was going to embrace in his address tonight, Speaker Boehner's political advisors cooked up a heated speech for their patron, one that they thought would create the right contrast between the GOP plan and the one backed by Leader Reid. Between two plans that would ostensibly cut the same amount from the deficit (roughly two to three trillion dollars in the coming years), the side that could sell better would win.

Except President Obama didn't try to sell the Reid plan tonight. Instead, he spoke of a larger plan -- the plan he has been pushing for over the course of the last several weeks. The President, in measured tones, firmly placed himself to the right of Republicans on the deficit, calling for more than one trillion dollars more in deficit reduction than the GOP. And he did so in a manner that came off as reasonable and bipartisan.

So while John Boehner thought he had the contrast he wanted tonight, delivering an impassioned (if excessively echoed) address backing the GOP's debt plan, it was Barack Obama who again outmaneuvered his Republican adversaries, outflanking them on deficit reduction and appearing like the most reasonable man in the room. That's not only good for the President in the next week of debt dealing -- it's good for him in his bid for another four years at the helm of the nation.

NBC News: America Has Osama Bin-Laden's Body

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Mon, 02 May 2011 02:51:00 +0000

Remarkable... President Obama to address the nation momentarily.

[UPDATE]: This comes eight years -- to the day -- after George W. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." (h/t Brian Stelter)

[UPDATE II]: The President will reportedly speak in ten minutes, at 11:15 PM Eastern/8:15 PM Pacific.

[UPDATE III]: Geraldo Rivera is apparently anchoring on Fox News. Okay.

[UPDATE IV]: Obama echoes the Bible in his address, speaking of the pursuit of justice (Deuteronomy 16:20). צֶדֶק צֶדֶק, תִּרְדֹּף.

A Sad Day for America

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:28:00 +0000

It's hard to believe that it came to this. As unbelievable as life is, and unpredictable our politics, I am still having difficulty fathoming what happened today.

I'm sure there are any number of political angles from which to view the White House's release of the President's certificate of live birth. But I am finding it difficult to see this outside of the lens of sadness for this country.

To say that I am shocked is an understatement -- not that the White House did this, but rather that it was forced to. This truly is a sad day for America.

New Jerseyans Tiring of Christie's Schtick?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:18:00 +0000

The latest polling seems to suggest as much:

New Jerseyans’ opinion of Gov. Chris Christie has dropped 10 points since December, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton poll made public Monday.

[...]

Following his Feb. 22 budget speech, opinions of Christie are nearly evenly split with 46 percent holding a favorable impression and 44 percent holding an unfavorable view. The 46 percent is down from 56 percent in December.

“While some polls showed Governor Christie’s support increasing before the budget speech, reaction to the budget itself is mixed, which appears to be reflected in a decline in his post-speech favorability and job performance ratings,” Prof. David Redlawsk, the poll’s director, said.

The theory among some circles in Washington is that Chris Christie is extremely popular, and that Scott Walker's unpopularity in Wisconsin only makes Christie look even better by comparison. But both of these theories are wrong. Christie has never been overwhelmingly popular, with middling ratings that belie the type of positive coverage he receives from the establishment media. What is more, although Walker is clearly turning off voters both inside and outside of Wisconsin, he isn't providing a shift in the Overton window so much as he is providing voters with a warning of what is possible out of the highly ideological brand of Republicanism that has swept the nation in the Obama era. While many may be uncomfortable with some of the changes the President has ushered in, they are even more repulsed by what the GOP is offering as an alternative. As such, voters may actually be waking up -- thus the dipping numbers for the poster-boy of the movement, Chris Christie.

My Op-Ed in The Oregonian

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:09:00 +0000

I write this week in The Oregonian:

Yet despite the bipartisan and trans-ideological support, some on the far right have decided to wage a political fight over Liu's nomination. These conservative activists are seeking to turn Liu's scholarly heft into an albatross, as if the fact that he is a leading legal academic should be a disqualification from service on the federal bench instead of a qualification. They are, it seems, channeling the late Roman Hruska, a conservative Republican senator from Nebraska who famously defended mediocrity on the courts by saying that "there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers ... [who] are entitled to a little representation" in the judiciary.

Indeed, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported that it was "obvious why conservatives don't want Liu on the bench." One conservative lawyer confessed to Ambinder that he was "scared" of Liu because he is "more brilliant than [Antonin] Scalia without being nasty."

The Senate must take a firm stance against this fervent anti-intellectualism.

Read on here...

CBS/NYT: 60 Percent Oppose Restricting Collective Bargaining Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:54:00 +0000

Just in from The New York Times and CBS News:

As you may know, collective bargaining refers to negotiations between an employer and a labor union's members to determine the conditions of employment. Some states are trying to take away some of the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions. Do you favor or oppose taking away some of the collective bargaining rights of these unions?

Strongly favor: 18 percent
Somewhat favor: 15 percent
Somewhat oppose: 22 percent
Strongly oppose: 38 percent

This isn't the only finding in the survey that bolsters the notion that the Republicans' anti-labor stance is popular. When asked to choose from among a range of potential ways to reduce states' budget deficits, nearly twice as many (40 percent) selected tax increases as backed decreasing benefits for public employees (22 percent), with others favoring cutting spending on roads (20 percent) and education (3 percent).

So while you wouldn't know it from watching or reading the products of the establishment media, it turns out that Americans are siding with workers over GOP ideologues -- and not by a slim margin.

Obama Approval Greater Than Disapproval in 25 States (Plus DC)

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:11:00 +0000

Gallup has another batch of data out compiling the President's approval rating on a state-by-state basis over the course of 2010. Despite his party taking a shellacking, Barack Obama's numbers (which has seemingly improved this year), weren't half bad in 2010.

In 25 states, plus the District of Columbia, the President's approval rating was greater than his disapproval rating. Thus the President starts with a base of 282 electoral votes from states in which more approved of the job he was doing in 2010 -- remember, a very bad year politically for the President and his party -- than disapproved. In Florida, which will grow to 29 electoral votes by the next election, the President's approval rating (45.8 percent) nearly matched his disapproval rating (46.0).

Does this mean that Barack Obama is assured of a second term? Of course not. But given that even in a horrible political climate the President was above water in states representing more than half of the electoral college, he's not at all in a bad position for reelection, either.

Yet Another Judge Upholds Healthcare Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:33:00 +0000

Add this to the list of stories that would get more play in the establishment media if they turned out the other way.

A third federal judge upheld the constitutionality of the Obama health care law on Tuesday, reinforcing the divide in the lower courts as the case moves toward its first hearings on the appellate level.

Judge Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia became the third appointee of President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, to reject a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Two other federal district judges, both appointed by Republican presidents, have struck down the law’s keystone provision, which requires most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.

This, of course, is likely going to be decided in the Supreme Court -- and assuredly not at the district court level. As such, this decision isn't likely to have a significant overall impact. That said, inasmuch as the media obsessed over the last district court ruling on healthcare reform -- the one by a Republican-appointed judge striking down the law -- this story really should have legs. But I'm not holding my breath for the establishment press to discuss this ruling to death...

Americans Side with Workers, Not GOP Ideologues

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:18:00 +0000

Go figure. WHen I first saw these numbers (.pdf) commissioned by the AFL-CIO, I was intrigued -- but not necessarily convinced given that the poll had been paid for by a group with an interest in the fight.

If state workers agree to pay more for healthcare and retirement as the Governor has asked, do you think they should also have their collective bargaining rights eliminated?

Yes: 21 percent
No: 74 percent

But it's not just AFL-CIO polling picking up the strong sentiment of Americans against the GOP's ideological fight against workers. Yesterday, Gallup released a huge poll that indicated which side Americans are on.

Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

Somehow these numbers seem not to have dominated the cable nets -- certainly not in the way they would have had they been flipped. That said, they already seem to be having an effect, with conservative GOP governors from Indiana to Florida backing down from fights against workers. It turns out that bashing government employees might not actually be the most politically efficacious action.

On the Trump Candidacy

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:29:00 +0000

Jonathan Chait wonders if Donald Trump is putting us on with regards to his flirtations with a White House bid. It's certainly a question worth asking.

I'll put it this way: I am taking a Trump candidacy about as seriously as I am taking a Sarah Palin candidacy. Both are about personal aggrandizement and feeding an ego the size of Alaska. Both are going to be rumored for months to come. Neither will come to fruition -- at least not in a general election win.

Trump is a fairly unpopular figure in this country, with a 47 percent unfavorable rating according to Gallup polling from 2007. Around the same time, Marist polling found that a stunning 86 percent of the country said they did not want Trump running for President. But this unpopularity hasn't stopped him from flirting with a White House bid before (even if he was the most loathed potential candidate among the voters he was seeking to court).

Then again, for as unpopular as Trump is, he's still less unpopular than Palin, whose numbers are about as bad as any in American politics today.

Yet both Trump and Palin are certainly engaging to the television camera, and both certainly know how to push buttons. So I fully expect both of them to continue playing the game. Nonetheless, neither of them is going to become President -- it's just not going to happen next year -- so I'm trying as much as possible not to pay attention.

Why All the Deficit Talk?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:12:00 +0000

Deficits don't matter. The talking heads on the cable nets certainly like to talk about them -- now, at least, if not when a Republican is in the White House (funny how that works, no?). Americans say they care about deficits. But when it comes to actually doing something about it, voters show very little interest in making cuts.

Does the deficit hurt the President? Again, if you listen to the establishment media, you would think that the deficit is the biggest barrier to Barack Obama's reelection. Except it isn't. The President's numbers are surging. Even the latest Fox News poll (.pdf) shows President Obama averaging a 52.4 percent to 37.2 percent over his potential GOP adversaries, with his advantage ranging from 7 to 21 points. And what was the most recent action the President took with regards to the deficit? He increased it through a second stimulus passed during the lame duck session.

It's certainly true that the editorial boards and the elite thought leaders believe that the deficit is a major problem. And it's also true that voters say they care about the deficit. But do they really? I'm not convinced.

Indies Swing Away from GOP

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:45:00 +0000

This happened a lot more quickly than expected:

Beyond Boehner's numbers the most amazing thing on our poll this week is that not only are Democrats back ahead on the generic Congressional ballot by a 45-41 margin, but they're ahead by a 38-31 margin with independents! That's a quite change from what we saw over the course of 2009 and 2010. The four point lead for Democrats on the generic ballot represents an 11 point shift from the November elections and there were more than 40 districts that Democrats lost by that margin or less so if we went to the polls today under the current district configuration it's entirely possible Democrats would get their House majority right back. Of course redistricting will give Republicans some opportunities to shore things up for themselves but at any rate the honeymoon, such as it ever was, looks to be over.

Part of this shift is no shift at all -- it is the return to the electorate of 2008 voters who had disengaged during the 2010 midterms. But part of it, too, is a reflection of that for however bad this past November was for the Democrats, the political environment today simply is not what it was last year. Voters are looking to Republicans to get things done, and so far they haven't done much. And so long as the GOP is intent on pushing its far right ideological agenda instead of actually trying to make the lives of Americans better, these numbers are going to continue.

GOP Senate Candidate Calls for Placing Federal Judge On Endangered Species List

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:18:00 +0000

It has only been one month since the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords took the life of a federal judge, as well as the lives of others, and already the rhetoric is again heating up.

U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg R-Mont., speaking to the Legislature on Monday, attacked the policies of the Obama administration, defended states' rights and said a federal judge in Montana belongs on the Endangered Species Act for his ruling on wolves.

Rehberg spoke to the Montana House and Senate two days after announcing that he will be a candidate in 2012 for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Democratic Sen. Jon Tester.

[...]

“When I first heard [a federal court decision keeping wolves on the Endangered Species list], like many of you I wanted to take action immediately,” Rehberg said. “I asked: how can we put some of these judicial activists on the Endangered Species list?”

It is difficult to fathom why it would be necessary to use such over-the-top rhetoric within the political square. There are plenty of other metaphors that do not involve rhetorically threatening judges that can be significantly more effective in conveying contempt towards the judiciary. And while it may be too early to judge the Republicans, at the least it is clear that not all of them have received the message that this kind of language should have no part in our politics.

How Does Jon Huntsman Not Own JonHuntsman.com?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:05:00 +0000

This is something.

One step Jon Huntsman hasn't taken toward running for president: locking down a domain name.

A reader e-mailed Shardule Shah, who owns huntsmanforpresident.com,who responded that he hadn't heard from anyone connected to Huntsman.

Michael Link, who owns JonHuntsman.com, told me Huntsman's nascent campaign hasn't been in touch. And one Mark Riggenbach of Illinois, who owns huntsman2012.com, didn't respond to an e-mail.

This is simply political malpractice by Jon Huntsman's advisors and consultants. As best I can tell, JonHuntsman.com was supporting Huntsman back in 2004. VoteHuntsman.com, which appears to have been his official campaign site, is now a website Google informs me is in Japanese.

I'm sure the creative minds at team Huntsman will try to figure out a way out of this situation. But it's pretty embarrassing nonetheless.

Arizona Speculation: Jon Kyl May Retire

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:54:00 +0000

Can't say I saw this coming: The Arizona Republic ruminating on whether or not Jon Kyl will retire.

"The old cliche is that it's really hard to give up that kind of power once you have it," said Bruce Merrill, a veteran political scientist and professor emeritus at Arizona State University. "But if there's somebody who I think could walk away from power because he would feel that it was the right time to do so, it would be Jon Kyl."

So far, Kyl has kept mum about his future plans, fueling speculation in Washington and at home. But some local political observers say he has taken steps consistent with a nascent re-election bid, including making a commitment to headline a Feb. 12 Republican Lincoln Day dinner in Kingman and participate in other grass-roots Lincoln Day activities around the state.

[...]

While Kyl is keeping pundits and political handicappers in the dark, several local GOP insiders told The Arizona Republic that they are inclined to believe he is running, particularly after he injected himself into last month's Arizona Republican Party's chairman race, presumably in hopes of installing an ally at the head of the party. The Kyl-backed candidate, Ron Carmichael, lost the job to Tom Morrissey. It was an awkward situation that Kyl could just as easily have avoided if he were not seriously considering running again, observers say.

It's not terribly likely that Kyl will opt to retire, and there's not a whole lot in the article outside of speculation to indicate that he actually will -- or, frankly, that he's even seriously considering it. That said, his race for a fourth term has the potential to be competitive, especially considering that he is one of the few Republican Senate incumbents to represent a state that is even possibly on the map for the Democrats. And it wouldn't be entirely unprecedented for a Senate leader to decide to retire rather than remain in the Senate. So add this to the "to watch" pile.

A Republican Enthusiasm Gap

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:07:00 +0000

What do you get when Barack Obama gets three major priorities -- a second stimulus, START and repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- through the lame duck session following the "shellacking" of his party, which is in turn followed by an approval rating on the rise for the President? An enthusiasm gap. But one hurting the Republicans, not the Democrats.

Are you very excited, somewhat excited, or not at all excited about voting in the 2012 election for President?

Dems
Very excited: 65 (57)
Somewhat excited: 23 (28)
Not excited: 12 (16)

Republicans
Very excited: 56 (62)
Somewhat excited: 27 (20)
Not excited: 17 (18)

That's right: the GOP is facing a 9-point enthusiasm gap at present. While I would be surprised to see these numbers stay exactly as they are -- presumably Republicans are going to start getting excited at some point (at least when they have a nominee next summer) -- for now the same type of force that held back the Democrats last year now appears to be holding back the Republicans.

Huntsman to Reportedly Resign Obama Administration

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:19:00 +0000

Last week I asked if Barack Obama's ambassador to China Jon Hunstman was really considering a bid for the Presidency. Apparently he is:

The White House expects Jon Huntsman, the U.S. Ambassador to China, to resign his post this spring to explore a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, top Democrats said.

GOP allies of Huntsman have already begun laying plans for a quick-start campaign should the former Utah governor decide to enter the ill-defined Republican field.

While Huntsman has no direct involvement in it, a group of operatives that could eventually comprise his strategy team has set up an entity called “Horizon PAC” to serve as a placeholder for his political apparatus.

The PAC will be run by Susie Wiles, a Florida-based Republican strategist who recently managed the campaign of newly-inaugurated Gov. Rick Scott.

It is no less difficult today to see a path to the GOP nomination for Huntsman than it was last week, when I and many others expressed real skepticism about the possibility of a candidate going from a Democratic administration to winner of Republican primaries -- particularly a candidate who supports civil unions. But if Huntsman thinks he has a shot at it, and seriously wants to run next year and not just in 2016, then it is his duty, and he is doing the right thing, to leave the administration.

Huntsman 2012?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:17:00 +0000

Sounds like it's happening:

U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman (R) appears to be leaning toward a run for president in 2012 and a team of political operatives and fundraisers have begun informal talks and outreach to ensure he could rapidly ramp up if he decides to run.

A couple years ago I wrote about how Jon Huntsman is the one Republican that I worried about in 2012 -- a thinker, even if a conservative one, who actually speaks to the problems facing the country today rather than simply plying on the rhetoric. And I still think that holds today. Huntsman is exactly the type of candidate who could give Barack Obama a run for his money. In a general election, he could appeal to conservatives with his conservatism while making a serious play for moderates and Independents with his ability to actually speak to real issues.

That said, I don't know how Huntsman gets out of a Republican primary, particularly as a member of the Obama administration. Heck, I don't know he could have gotten out of a primary even had he not taken on the role of President Obama's ambassador to China given that his tone, while well suited for a general election, isn't really on pitch with GOP primary voters. Perhaps in four years, if Barack Obama were in his second term and Republicans turn introspective about their electability after losing the popular vote in the fifth out of six Presidential elections, Huntsman could be the one. But in 2012? I am far from convinced. But it should be interesting.

Winning By Contrast

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:09:00 +0000

Barack Obama's State of the Union address last night wasn't the best speech he has ever given -- it wasn't even close. It didn't have the soaring atmospherics of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the emotion of the 2008 race speech, or the sheer optimism through hard times of this month's speech in Tucson.

That said, the speech did it's job. And then some.

The next two years for the President are going to be about playing up the contrasts between himself and Congressional Republicans. I wrote about this last week, when we already began seeing signs that President Obama was successfully defining the terms of the debate between him and his GOP opponents.

Last night, the President continued this trend. If I was struck by anything, it was that Barack Obama set the stage to come off as unreasonable as his political adversaries look unreasonable. From healthcare to spending to education, the President appeared willing to deal with Republicans unwilling to deal. This not only makes it easier for the President to win reelection -- generally, the reasonable candidate is going to win over the unreasonable one -- it will also make it easier for him to win the political battles that are almost assured to arise over the next two years out of the Congress, starting with a government shutdown that many expect to occur.

So while the speech may not have been one to remember, it did exactly what it needed to do.

Bush Administration "Routinely" Violated Hatch Act

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:46:00 +0000

Shocking:

The Bush White House, particularly before the 2006 midterm elections, routinely violated a federal law that prohibits use of federal tax dollars to pay for political activities by creating a “political boiler room” that coordinated Republican campaign activities nationwide, a report issued Monday by an independent federal agency concludes.

The report by the Office of Special Counsel finds that the Bush administration’s Office of Political Affairs — overseen by Karl Rove — served almost as an extension of the Republican National Committee, developing a “target list” of Congressional races, organizing dozens of briefings for political appointees to press them to work for party candidates, and sending cabinet officials out to help these campaigns.

[...]

The report found that during the Bush administration, senior staff members at the Office of Political Affairs violated the Hatch Act by organizing 75 political briefings from 2001 to 2007 for Republican appointees at top federal agencies in an effort to enlist them to help Republicans get elected to Congress.

These stories have been percolating for years, and it is not clear the extent to which Americans are paying attention to, or particularly want to pay attention to, the past. That said, this report is pretty remarkable, and one could easily envision a situation in which the shoe was on the other foot -- where two years into a new Republican administration following eight years of a Democratic one -- that the story would not only have legs, it would lead to calls for further investigation.

Clarence Thomas Omitted Years of Wife's Income from Reports

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:41:00 +0000

This has been percolating for a few days, and is now making the rounds today:

Under pressure from liberal critics, Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law.

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

To rectify that situation, Justice Thomas filed seven pages of amended disclosures listing Mrs. Thomas’s employment in that time with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group, and Hillsdale College in Michigan, for which she ran a constitutional law center in Washington.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the omitted income totalled nearly $700,000 for the years 2003 to 2007. Per The New York Times, this is the second time in just five days that Justice Clarence Thomas has had to issue a formal statement about his personal dealings.

Smart Move for Christie

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:15:00 +0000

The President gives a speech. It is a speech he only gives once a year. It is laden with history. It is given in one of the most hallowed places in our democracy, the floor of the House of Representatives. It is given with the Speaker of the House to one side and the Vice President to the other side. It is given with all of the members of Congress seated in front of him.

And then some politician from the other party starts talking to a camera. You can imagine how that one turns out. The timing is bad. The theatrics are off. It simply doesn't measure up. It can't. It never does.

It's for this reason this move by Chris Christie is a wise one:

William Palatucci, Gov. Chris Christie’s close personal and political confidante, told The Auditor that Republican leadership had inquired with the governor about rebutting President Obama’s big speech on Tuesday.

“They tried to see if there was some interest, and there wasn’t any,” Palatucci said.

He said Christie wants to stick to New Jersey.

“The governor is in the midst of his legislative agenda,” Palatucci said. “There’s no reason to try to get involved in federal issues.”

Christie is smart to stay out of a competition he cannot possibly win. Saying no to one's party isn't easy, particularly when presented with such a strong spotlight (even if one that comes with potential pitfalls). But I have to admit that I am impressed by Christie's ability to step away from this one.

Sac Bee: Goodwin Liu Nomination a "Fight Worth Having"

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:50:00 +0000

A column from The Sacramento Bee:

Some fights are worth having, like the one to confirm Goodwin Liu.

[...]

His biggest supporters are his colleagues and students. Spend a few hours talking to them, and it's clear they view Liu as extraordinarily bright, diligent, decent – and moderate. They're taken aback by the attacks.

"I don't recognize the person they're talking about," said professor Herma Kay Hill, who has taught law at Berkeley for 50 years.

Read on...

Obama Already Winning the War to Define Congressional GOPers

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:58:00 +0000

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (.pdf) is out, and it largely has positive numbers for Barack Obama and the Democrats. But one particular set of data from the poll stood out to me.

Asked how they expected President Obama to deal with the new Republican majority in the House, just 26 percent of respondents said they expected the President to be too inflexible while 55 percent said he would strike the right balance. Another 15 percent said he would be too quick to give in.

On the other hand, the numbers on Congressional Republicans were almost a mirror image: 55 percent said Republicans would be too inflexible, while just 32 percent said they would strike the right balance and a paltry 8 percent expected them to be too accommodating.

These numbers are largely similar to those of Bill Clinton at a similar point in his presidency, and point to one of the reasons why he was able to win a second term: he looked reasonable while his opponents didn't.

We are still a long way off from election day, and if a week is like a year in politics then we are about a century away from the next election. Nonetheless, if President Obama, like President Clinton before him, can keep himself above the fray while letting the Republicans make themselves look unreasonable, his chances at winning a second term may be pretty good.

Are Democrats Really Set to Lose the Senate?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Singer) — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:59:00 +0000

Listening to the common wisdom from the establishment media, especially in light of yesterday's news that North Dakota's Democratic Senator Kent Conrad would not be running for reelection, one gets the impression that the Democrats are set to lose the House. No mention, of course, of the changing political winds in the country -- the finding in Quinnipiac polling that many more Americans believe Barack Obama's policies are helping (46 percent) rather than hurting (28 percent) the economy, or that the President's overall approval rating is clearly on the rise (both factors that presumably might have at least some impact on next year's Senate elections). No, it seems that the settled opinion is that the Democrats are going to lose the Senate.

One thing that makes this elite belief so interesting is how ahistorical it is, at least in the event that Barack Obama wins reelection. When was the last time a President's party has lost control of the Senate while that President won another term in office? The answer is that has actually never happened, at least not in the era of direct election of Senators. In fact, there has never been an election in which a President winning another term has seen his party lose even four Senate seats -- the number of seats the Democrats would have to lose in order to give up the chamber if President Obama won another term. The most seats a winning President's party has lost was 3, and that came in the abnormal election of 1940 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was seeking an unprecedented third consecutive term in office. Aside from that, Bill Clinton's Democrats in 1996 and Richard Nixon's Republicans in 1972 both lost a net two Senate seats -- a figure that if replicated in 2012 would not lead to a change in control of the Senate. Otherwise, Presidents winning bids to stay in the White House often see their parties gain seats in the Senate.

History isn't predictive, but this trend does make intuitive sense: Senate elections are generally (but not always) about the national trend rather than the local one, and when a President wins another term in office, it tends to mean that the general trend favors the President's party. So I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to predict that if Barack Obama wins in 2012, the Democrats are going to hold the Senate.