Weak Tea

I only have 4 things to say about the results of yesterday’s elections:

1. Buh-bye, Arlen. You won’t be missed. (But this should be a fascinating general election campaign.)
2. It’s great that Bill Halter has forced a run-off in Arkansas, but D.C. Morrison’s votes should break for Blanche Lincoln, since he ran to her right. But really, who cares? Whoever wins the nod is going to get trounced by John Boozman.
3. Rand Paul’s win may be a great victory for the Team Party over the Republican establishment, but it could well turn out to have been a Pyrrhic one, as Paul seems too extreme and angry to win a general election in even deep-red Kentucky. Notice also that both Democratic candidates received more votes than Paul, and nearly 50% more Democrats voted than Republicans, in a year in which conservatives should naturally be the far more energized wing.
4. Mark Critz’s 10-point margin of victory in the PA-12 special election is astonishing, but it’s important to remember that this is one special election in a single Congressional district. Don’t let’s make too much of it. That said, I think Daniel Larison has by far the best analysis.

Okay, one last thing: the most heartening piece I’ve read all day is Larry Kudlow’s characteristically cocky take on the midterm elections, because that asshole is always wrong.

Tuesday Bloody Tuesday

It’s yet another primary day!

I know you’re just as excited as I am. Here’s a brief rundown of the four marquee races:

• Pennsylvania Senate: Nowhere can the right-left divide be seen more vividly than in the Keystone State. On the right, former Congressman and Club for Growth president Pat Toomey has the Republican nomination locked up. “Club for Growth” is, naturally, the euphemistic name for a group of anti-tax zealots. What’s more, Toomey managed to achieve a remarkable 97% rating from the American Conservative Union during his congressional career. He is very conservative. On the left, however, liberal Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak has a slight edge over five-term Senator Arlen Specter, the political chameleon who only switched to the Democratic Party last year when it became apparent Toomey would likely defeat him in a Republican primary matchup. Talk about lose-lose. In general election polling, Toomey has a 6-point lead over Sestak and 9 points over Specter. It’s not an insurmountable lead, but Republicans are viewing this as a prime pick-up opportunity.
• Arkansas Senate: Again, the GOP nomination is almost certainly decided, with Congressman John Boozman holding a commanding lead over all others. Both Arkansas Senate primaries force a runoff if no candidate wins a majority of the votes, but Boozman’s 46% in the polls seems soft in such a large field. On the Democratic side, the drama of a runoff could well unfold. Popular liberal Lt. Governor Bill Halter entered the race during the health care debate, as Senator Blanche Lincoln’s support cratered, and while she’s maintained a nearly 10-point lead, it remains to be seen if she can top 50%. It’s all a bit of theater, however, as structural and demographic conditions strongly suggest conservative Arkansas will elect (can you believe this?) only its second GOP Senator since Reconstruction come November.
• Kentucky Senate: The power of the Tea Party will be on full display in the race for retiring Senator Jim Bunning’s seat. Rand Paul, son of Dr. Congressman Ron, will likely breeze to victory over establishment Republican pick Trey Grayson, the Secretary of State. Paul will probably then go on to defeat whichever Democrat wins the dead-heat primary race, Attorney General Jack Conway or Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo, although general election polling shows either race closer than he’d probably like. This should be an interesting contest, as it turns out Kentucky voters are actually insane.
• PA-12 Special Election: The race to replace the late Congressman Jack Murtha is going down to the wire, with former Murtha aide Mark Critz and Republican Tim Burns in a statistical tie. Structural factors are against any Democrat, and President Obama’s favorables are under 50% in the district, so Burns has a good chance to win. But Murtha was outrageously popular in the district, so it’s possible Critz could win by virtue of their long-time association.

All in all, today should be a good day for Republicans, and especially for the Tea Party, as Rand Paul would be its first actual member to win a high-profile race. (Scott Brown had the support of the Tea Party, although he has never been a member.) Of course, a terrible economy, several divisive policy debates and a general anti-incumbent political atmosphere ought to give the GOP a natural advantage against Democrats in power this year. But it doesn’t help progressive hopes when laughably amateurish mistakes turn what ought to be a cakewalk (Linda McMahon!) into a real race.

Stay tuned. This should be interesting.

Blogs and Pieces

Enough about the “Snowmaggedon” already:

• At the Atlantic, Michael Kinsley makes a great point about the difference between condescension and simply, you know, believing you’re right. Marc Aminder, meanwhile, breaks down Sarah Palin’s paradigm, which is basically appearing as a victim of condescendsion. Imagine that.
• At ThinkProgress, Matt Yglesias throws some cold water on the popularity of the Tea Party movement and tears to pieces Marc Thiessen’s gross dissembling on torture. Thiessen’s angry response is laughable.
• Nate Silver, writing at FiveThirtyEight, proves a point that can’t be made often enough: Obama’s policies have, on the whole, been more popular that not. “[T]he votes taken by the Republican Congress have far more often been out of step with those of the median voter.”
• In New York politics, uncertainty abounds. Governor David Paterson will resign very soon, or he won’t. Hiram Monserrate, who probably slashed his girlfriend’s face with broken glass, may finally be expelled from the State Senate, or not.
• Hipster puppies!

Is HCR Dead Without Coakley?

Not necessarily. And now for some backtracking.

In my last post, I bemoaned the likely election of Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special Senate election today as the death knell to passage of health care reform, since the obstructionism of Senate Republicans has made it impossible, pretty much since Obama’s inauguration, to pass anything without a supermajority.

That was probably a little hasty, and a little misleading. Here’s why:

1. Even if Brown wins tonight, that doesn’t mean health care is immediately dead. It would take at least 10 days, probably 15, to certify the election, possibly giving the Democrats time to push a bill through with interim Senator Paul Kirk’s vote. Of course, nobody prefers that HCR pass on a technicality or the outcome of a lawsuit over MA special elections law, but for those of us who think HCR is more important than politics, this outcome would be better than nothing.
2. It might not even matter what happens in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi is going around telling reporters that “we will have health care—one way or another” and Steny Hoyer was quoted saying the Senate bill “clearly is better than nothing.” These remarks seem to indicate that House Democratic leaders are willing to push the Senate version through, despite the abortion language that has Bart Stupak (ugh) and friends saying they’ll vote it down. Whether Pelosi has the votes remains to be seen.
3. Martha Coakley could still win. Nate Silver gives her a 25% chance of winning, and emphasizes an important fact about this:

People are acting, however, as though 25 percent is the same as zero percent. And—as disappointing as it might be to be in this position—obviously it is not. This is not some basketball game where the score suddenly became Brown 75, Coakley 25; a 25 percent chance of winning means, quite literally, 25 percent.

So let’s lay it out there: Brown is heavily favored to win, although it’s far from certain; the outcomes of special elections are notoriously difficult to predict. If Brown does win, passage of health care reform becomes significantly more difficult, although not impossible. No matter what happens, Lost returns with new episodes on February 2nd.

And one more thing: the outcome of one special election in Massachusetts is not a “referendum” on the President and his “liberal agenda.” That’s idiotic, and if you think it’s true you watch far too much Fox News and know far too little about MA politics. The tenor of this election reflects dissatisfaction with the corruption and hackishness of the good-old-boy Democratic party in Massachusetts—concealed for so many decades behind the enormous historical stature of Ted Kennedy—coupled with a populist Tea Party-style uprising over the economy and channeled into a contest between a charismatic unknown and a career pol who can’t campaign to save her life.

But you should still vote for Coakley.

Walking Straight Into the Echo Chamber, or Why Sarah Palin Gets Away With It

It’s too easy to anger the mind.

I was catching up on my growing pile of New Yorkers this weekend when I came across a book review by Elizabeth Kolbert that got me to thinking about Sarah Palin and her whole phony “death panels” meme, which she reiterated on Saturday on her Facebook page. (Screw the MSM!)

First thought: I can’t believe I just went to Sarah Palin’s Facebook page.

Second thought: Anger. People believe this?

The occasion for Palin’s screed, of course, was the House vote on the health care reform bill. “What’s in this bill?” she “wrote.” “The ‘death panel’ provision is in it.”

Needless to say, this is still not what end-of-life counseling means. It has never meant what Palin claims it means. “Death panels” is a nefarious phrase—willfully misleading, politically expedient, morally repugnant. It’s a retreat to the cowardice of empty polemic. In other words: vintage Palin.

But why do so many people believe her? Why does she continue to get away with it?

(more…)