Observacations / 1-17-11

Been out of the office for a while. But now, break time's over, ladies and laddies.

So, did anything happen since we last spoke?

Oh. Uh-huh. Mm. 'K.

Well then, I'll touch on three topics, but not at once, because my attention span isn't what it used...

Yeah. Three rounds of politics today. A sports trifecta tomorrow. Spirituality season starts Wednesday. Then we'll be all caught up, you and me.

HOLY BEDFELLOWS, BATMAN

Well, in smack-myself-across-the-forehead news, I found myself, this holiday season, agreeing with -- wait for it -- Pat -- wait for it some more, juuust a little tiny bit more -- Robertson. Not once, but twice.

The first time was no shocker: When P-Rob declared that 2011 would not mark the end of the world, I co-nodded graciously. (No matter how many times a public figure says God likes to kill people for other people's behavior [here's your link, you're welcome], there comes a time when something resembling reason is bound to exit his speaking organs.) And after all, the man has probably read his Mayan Calendar 2012 (365 apocalyptic thoughts for every situation, $399.95 on Amazon.con), so best check back in with him for all your Armageddon needs in a year.

But the second time he and I linked minds... that was stupefying. Said Robertson: "I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot and that kind of thing, I mean, it's just costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people." Even after his spokesman managed to float a near-lie to backtrack, claiming Pat "unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs," I find myself aghast at my tattered and shredded view of the religio-conservative icon. He even went on to suggest that treatment, not incarceration, could be a better reaction to weed possession.

For twenty years, I've denounced the man. (Get it? 420 years?) And now he does this? Jerk.

That one took me a while to recover from.

RAINBOW WARRIORS

Speaking of things that failed to cause the end of civilization, discrimination against gay soldiers is officially on its way out. And none too soon. Turns out that the judicial, legislative and executive branches all have struck it down; thus, the DoD is phasing it out over the next few months. Let's be real: polling shows that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Discriminate" (not the policy's actual name) had fallen seriously out of favor with a vast majority of the population. As such, the policy's demise was inevitable, but nonetheless, I'd like to advance a theory that casts Democrats in a favorable light here.

I submit:

House Democrats, late in the lame-duck session, cleverly fooled congressional Republicans into believing they would block the extension of the Baby Bush tax cuts for another two years. This after the Senate had declined to consider lifting DADT. AND after President Obama had come out supporting a tax cut extension, however tepidly. But what did the outgoing House D's have to lose? They were already about to lose their majority -- at least they could go down swinging while satisfying the far left. (Me!) While pissing off incoming Weeper of the House John "Boo-Hoo" Boehner (R-Ocryo).

Well, when negotiators discussed how to break the impasse, Democrats said that another vote in the Senate on DADT would probably pacify. Republicans, knowing popular opinion would only continue to cut against them, and wishing to fry other fish in the upcoming session, acquiesced, and framed the issue to cast moderate Republicans (in blue states) as the driving force.

And DADT dies.

It's a pretty theory. One that allows my wing to look good, and astute, too, while much, much, much more importantly, concluding another contemptible chapter in Amalgamated American Institutional Discrimination Against Gays, Inc.

CIVILITEA PARTY

In the wake of yet another mass shooting (yes, I'm gingerly approaching the Tucson mess), the usual voices have made / will make themselves heard.

"We need more gun control!" (True, but get real.)

"We need more guns!" (Seriously?)

"Give him the death penalty!" (Iron. E.)

"It's her fault!" (Not the time or place, idjits.)

"It's not my fault!" (Shut up.)

"He's a right-wing terrorist!" (5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)

"He's a left-wing terrorist!" (Toldja.)

"What we need is more civility." (Pshaw--wait, what?)

We'll get more civility in our political discourse, actually. Just like we did after 9/11. Then with the distance of time, we'll revert to our hyper-partisan ways, present company included, and it'll be as if Tucson never happened. Then, fatalistically, the process will restart with another tragedy. You can hope that it doesn't take place in your neighborhood. Good luck with that.

Happy New Year.

Surprise! 11-01-10

Something in tomorrow night's election results will shock the world.

Actually, the way things are going in elections nowadays, the lack of a high-profile shocking result somewhere would probably be... shocking. (Gotta find me a thesaurus.)

But the real point here is that according to these historical poll numbers, the 2010 midterm congressional election is quite unlike its most recent sibling, the 2006 overthrow of the Republican House and Senate.

(Click on the link if you want to be confronted with 136 trillion numbers in pretty little tables, or if you're a nerdgeek like me. Keep reading if you trust me to share some interesting highlights.)

In 06, anti-Bush sentiment swept D's into control of Congress.

This year, almost as many voters say they're motivated to vote to support Obama as those who say they're excited to vote against him.

In 06, Democrats were winning the "Likely Voter" battle by 10-12 points.

This year, Republicans seem to hold a 4-6 point edge.

In 06, Iraq and the economy were the biggest issues, by far, on voters' minds. Terrorism came in a distant third.

This year, it's the economy, health care, and "D.C. is broken," in that order.

In 06, about 5 out of 7 voters wanted to see Congress change hands. About 60 percent of voters disapproved of the job Congress was doing

This year, it's 4 out of 7. And yet 75 percent disapprove of Congress.

There's more coming, but I want to pause for analysis.

A) There are more D's than R's in the electorate, but R's are more likely to turn out. So they say. And history bears this out, at least as far as midterms, whose voters tend to be older, more white, and -- shocking! -- more conservative than the population at large. And yet... President Obama enjoys much more midterm support than Bush did in '06, when Democrats won 30 seats. If R's win "only" 30 seats, they won't take the House. 40 are necessary.

B) Democrats turned out like crazy in 2006, and won 30 seats. Republicans will turn out like crazy this year.

C) People are pissed at Congress. Not just at the D's in Congress. At the R's too. Just look at how many moderate conservatives got primaried this year by far-right folks like O'Donnell and Angle and Rubio. To say that only Democratic seats are at risk is, well, a risky statement. Nobody is safe this time around.

Everyone has a So-and-So as their congressman. The Democrats have more So-and-So's. (Obviously.) And the electorate is very, very angry with all the So-and-So's. Therefore, many more Democrats will fall tomorrow night. But look for some incumbent Republicans to go down, too.

D) Polling is interesting now. You have to REALLY want to answer a poll to participate, what with cell phones and do-not-call lists and various call screening techniques. Roughly a quarter of American adults rely exclusively on their mobile phones for, uh, phone calls. (Some of the new phones still offer number-to-number dialing. You can use them for that purpose, according to their manuals. Who knew?) The chart ten paragraphs down in this story is useful information. All this to say, even the polls that claim to include cell phone respondents... can you take their results at face value? This seems like a very, very big thorn in pollsters' sides, and it's only going to get worse. For them.

E) That being said, anger is a powerful motivator, and if making conclusions based on only the information above, I'd have to say the R's will win on the order of 35-40 seats. We might not know until 2011 who controls the House.

Back to poll facts. So I can change my conclusion. (I waffle! I flip-flop! I'm ready for office!)

More than half this year's projected voters see a candidate's affiliation with the Tea Party as important to them. Yet more than half of those voters specifically cite Tea Party affiliation as a reason to vote AGAINST that candidate. Jab at the right wing!

64 percent of Obama voters claim they're "certain" to vote this year. 79 percent of McCain voters make the same claim. That's a blow to the head for Democrats. Factor in that the independents believe the country is on the wrong track. Another uppercut.

Then ask yourself which voters are most likely to have changed their minds since '08. The folks who voted for the R during an economic meltdown, or the folks who chose the new guy for a change of political scenery?

Independents favor Republicans handily. And the number of independents keeps growing. The good news for Democrats? Independents tend to change their minds. The bad news for Democrats? Independents have done their mind-changing for the cycle, and not in a leftward direction.

So let me amend my earlier conclusion. Republicans will take the House. 48 seats in all, a handful more than they need. But the 70-seat tsunami some conservative pundits are crowing about -- the numbers don't bear that out.

(P.S.: Bonus analysis, founded in feeling, not fact: Democrats will keep the Senate, probably 53-47. Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer aren't losing this year, and one of them has to be terminated for the Senate to flip. But again, I'm just some dude sitting at his computer, in the most beautiful state in the union, in the best-educated city in the nation, surrounded by a bunch of liberal hippies. So what do I know?)

A Bloodbath of Epic Proportions / 7-23-10

There's a regular poster on my favorite political blog, fivethirtyeight.com, and this conservative dude likes to make predictions. That's fine. I like to make predictions. I made some last fall, and I need to revisit them, amend them, and own up to the completely inane ones. Unlike people on TV ever do. Will anyone except for Jon Stewart ever hold pundits accountable?

So this guy on 538 (and yeah, he's clearly a guy, I trust my Guydar) regularly informs us that the left is about to experience, electorally, a "bloodbath of epic proportions." It's his stock phrase. He's been using it since, oh, mid-2008. It's kind of like a tradition now.

That fall turned out OK for the Democrats, most observers agree. Still, Bloodbath Man kept coming back for more, week after week, reminding us that McCain was going to wipe the floor with Obama, that conservatives were going to sweep 2009 elections and take back Congress in 2010.

And several things went well for the GOP in '09, although plenty went wrong for them too. Not a bloodbath for any one side, by any stretch of the imagination.

Then 2010 came around, Teddy Kennedy's old seat went to a Republican, the stock market's tremendous rally fizzled a little, unemployment stubbornly stayed in the high nines, the public had to watch health insurance reform finish winding its ugly way through Congress, poll numbers started to suggest this could be the year of the GOP comeback, especially since midterm elections are historically unkind to the party in power... and everyone wondered if batsh!t crazy ultraconservative poster man was, gulp, re-gulp, right this time.

I mean, the White House press secretary acknowledged the Republicans might even take back the House. He probably didn't use the terms "BLOODBATH OF EPIC PROPORTIONS," but he acknowledged that the outlook is far less than desirable for Democrats.

So with my head planted firmly as ever in the sand, I say, Pffthhththbdt.

(John 1, Spell-check 0.)

This fall isn't going to be that bad for us lefties. We're going to lose some seats in the House, and some in the Senate. But it'll be the typical amount. 16 is the average. There are 70 more D's than R's in the House. It'll be manageable.

Why? Because the Republicans have been the Party of No for too long, and their No-shouting has surfaced in too many places now.

They opposed health care reform, which will only gain in popularity as its features are made known.

They opposed new financial regulation, which is popular across all swaths of America. I love America. Very swathy population.

They opposed, in a very public manner, the extension of unemployment benefits at a time of high unemployment.

They trashed both of Obama's Supreme Court nominees - qualified, intelligent women on a Court that was embarrassingly short on female representation.

They opposed new regulations for credit card companies - new rules that are consumer-friendly, mind you. You can see the new laws on your statements and in the letters from your card issuers, letters that say things like "We are no longer able to raise rates as much as we want, whenever we want" or "Here is exactly how much interest you will pay if you make only the minimum payment each month" or even "We will stop setting your minimum payment so low that your debt grows faster than you can repay it." Good things. Thank the Democrats. The Republicans fought all of that tooth-and-nail and filibuster and all.

They fought the gradual repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the policy that keeps gays from serving openly in the military, and whose repeal is highly popular, according to many polls.

They have no legislative victories since 2008, which is to be expected, as they control no branch of government, but still, they have only their opposition of the above and of President Obama in general to run on.

It's flimsy. The people who don't like the president already voted against him in '08. The people who like him and most the policies enacted in the past 18 months are unlikely to rebuke him for doing stuff they like.

Yes, the right has enthusiasm on its side. But I'm not sold on the electoral power of the Tea Party, especially when its favored candidates actually appear on the ballot... hey look, that's like a series of 12 posts for this fall. Cool.