The most interesting political trend from 2009 is the way that Nancy Pelosi has separated herself from Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner in net approval since the August tea party period. All four leaders saw their numbers tumble consistently from January to August. And three have seen a rise since the beginning of November (Reid’s rise coming in December). But Pelosi’s approval rating has skyrocketed relative to the three others.
It’s important to remember that all four leaders are unpopular. Pelosi, with a 42%-49% approval rating, only looks good by comparison. Her counterpart, Mr. Boehner, remains roughly as popular as a case of chlamydia (18%-62%). McConnell (18%-64%) is even worse off. And less than a third of respondents (32%) approve of the job Harry Reid is doing.
Yet, the trend lines tell a story. The Republicans have seen only two upticks all year, and they were during the August recess teabagging insanity and during the debate over the Senate Health Care bill (the House passed their version on Nov. 7th) when the Republicans were using every obstructive trick in the book. Clearly, the Republicans have found their only rewards when they’ve been maximally oppositional.
On the Democratic side, I’m guessing that Pelosi has benefitted from her ability to pass legislation while the country watched Harry Reid struggle to get anything done in the Senate. Yet, when Reid finally cobbled together the 60 votes he needed to pass the Senate’s version of health care reform, his numbers started to trend back up.
What can we learn from this? I think we can learn that (for the Democrats) the public rewards results and punishes failure, and that the Republicans get special treats only when their base is riled up into a frothing frenzy. This combination means that the GOP will not moderate in 2010. They aren’t doing all that badly on the Generic Ballot question and the Right Track/Wrong Track numbers are bad enough that the GOP can hope to win a good number of seats simply be maintaining the status quo. The Republicans remain so unpopular and powerless that their only chance is to prevent Congress from appearing functional and to hope their base will be fired up in November.
The Blue Dog Democrats who are most likely to lose in the first wave in the midterms should take a long look at these numbers and realize that the public is not responding to specific policies so much as overall perceptions of effectiveness. It makes little sense to run away from Pelosi. She’s the most popular leader in Congress.
There was actually a fleeting republican spike in June that led immediately after to an even lower bottom. I’ve looked at that time period (remember Mark Sanford?) and I think this spike was actually a bounce of the basement floor that didn’t last. The GOP went into total freefall after the inauguration and had to bottom out somewhere. June wasn’t the bottom.
Dead Cat Bounce
To let the Blue Dogs lose seats in November is criminal. They need to be primaried out in August, to maintain a really good majority.
I’d concentrate more on primarying senators who filibuster with the GOP than on House Blue Dogs. We can afford to give Congress members some slack on final votes because they never have to pass a supermajority threshhold. There is no excuse for Dem senators to ever filibuster with the GOP on major Democratic legislation. So I’d modify your suggestion slightly to automatically primary every member of the Dem Caucus in the Senate who does so anyway. And work to kick them out of the caucus altogether.
Excuse me but don’t remember ANY Dem Senator voting with the GOP on a filibuster. Because of this nothing will happen to any Dem cacus member including Lieberman. All 60 Senators voted for ‘reform’. All they did was say they would filibuster to get their way without ever going on record with a roll call vote. I wanted Reid to find a way to call their bluff. No price will ever be paid for leaving the insurance companies with their death grip on our economy, except for maybe a demoralized Dem base for the next election.
Yeah, that’s the problem. I wanted Reid to put it to a cloture vote early on and see if the whiners really had the guts to nuke healthcare when it came right down to it. If they did, that would have been the time to announce the new rules and make them stick, then have another cloture vote. It’s understandable that the Dems buy into the “politics is addition” meme, but that doesn’t apply to cloture votes — those who join the GOP barrier should henceforth be treated as Republicans in every way because they’ve proved themselves worthless as Democrats.
Given the difficulties of getting rid of the god-damned filibuster, or at least modifying it to let a little democracy in, it seems to me getting reliably hardass about cloture votes is the only hope the Dems have for passing major Democratic legislation for the rest of the Congress. It will be the final exam on whether they’re more interested in their pompous “collegiality” or in getting stuff done. If they flunk it they’ll pay a terrible price this November.
this AM brought a really depressing thought. There is nobody in national politics today that I really respect. Those beautiful buildings in Washington are filled with assholes and their staffs.
There’s very little hope for the future when we have no leaders to take us there.
Thus it has ever been so. For every Webster a Calhoun, for every Roosevelt a Bilbo, for every Wellstone, a Helms.
If a lifetime studying the classics has taught me anything, it’s that the world has always been going to Hell.
From which we may conclude either A.) we arrived there a long time ago, and this is Hell, or B.) or we’re still not there yet, after thousands of years, and thus Hell is a lot further away than originally calculated.
Happy New Year.
of study and let me know who our Websters and Roosevelts and Wellstones are?
I wait for your answer like Plato for Socrates.
Feingold
Franken. Boxer. Kucinich. Barbara Lee. Pete Stark. John Lewis. Jan Schakowsky. Durban. Barney Frank. Markey. Sanders. Donna Edwards. John Kerry. Sherrod Brown.
To just skim the surface. All of them, of course, as imperfect and infuriating at times as Webster, Wellstone, and the rest (to say nothing of Plato and Socrates et al). Ed reminds me that I have not yet decided whether money or purity is the root of all evil. I’m leaning a little toward the latter just now.
that’s supposed to be the root of all evil.
As to purity, I have never sought nor advocated it. The three named in the comment I responded to certainly did not display it.
Done for me, I see. The Official List, however, consists of Kucinich, Kucinich, and Kucinich.
The level egotism required to believe that somehow one lives in uniquely crappy times, or that one has been singled out for the punishment of being born after the Golden Age, is something I can’t muster.
Where did I say that these times are “unique”?
Or that I had been “singled out” for anything?
And how do you know WHEN I was born?
I know US democratic traditions are different, but often in Europe it is a case of Governments being expected to Govern and oppositions to oppose. It makes as much sense to expect the opposition to be supportive of Government as it does to expect your defence lawyer to side with the prosecution.
Thus bellyaching about an unreasonable opposition gets Governments nowhere: they are expected to get on with it. Oppositions aren’t expected to make the sometimes painful compromises that reality based Government entails. They are expected to articulate the case against.
However it is also regarded as something of a political truism that good oppositions don’t win elections: bad Governments lose them. Thus the real problems for Obama/Dems is not mindless GOP opposition, but failing to solve the real world problems they face of ending unpopular wars, reviving the economy, and addressing the reality and perception of increased inequality/unfairness in the economy and society generally.
So the European perspective would be: – stop whingeing about the Republicans – get on with the job you were elected to do. Of course the 60 vote Senate hurdle is a high one, but most of the Dem problems are self inflicted. If you reward obstructive centrist Democrats, why on earth won’t they keep doing it?
Lieberman needs to be told: Obstructionism cuts both ways. Israel can expect no military/economic assistance until he starts being more supportive. Ditto the other mavericks in terms of their favourite issues. Threaten them with primaries and losing their chairs. Whatever it takes. But for God’s sake stop whingeing about people who are only doing what they are being paid to do – or being rewarded for doing…
It’s kind of laughable to think that our policy towards Israel can be linked to Joe Lieberman’s relative degree of procedural cooperation. That would be irresponsible even if it were possible. Israel has incredibly deep and broad support throughout the Democratic caucus, particularly on the relevant committees.
Well if Democrats generally support policies of apartheid against Palestinians, then Lieberman is the least of your problems. And why is it irresponsible to oppose racism, ethnic cleansing and apartheid?
“Well if Democrats generally support policies of apartheid against Palestinians, then Lieberman is the least of your problems.”
No offense, but you don’t live here, do you? Lieberman is one of our many, many problems. It is absolutely impossible for me to imagine a political scenario wherein Lieberman was “whipped” into line by blackmailing him on the Israel issue.
I generally agree with your comments about results, but our legislative body is too different from the European models to compare “apples to apples.” If we had more powerful third, fourth, fifth, etc parties, I believe you would see greater party discipline.
Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ Learning from Pelosi’s Relative Popularity
The European experience tends to suggest that proportional vote systems lead to multi-party systems, and single seat, first past the post systems lead to a dominant two party duopoly system with little scope for other parties.
However greater party discipline doesn’t necessarily correlate with a multi-party system. If anything, the UK experience would tend to suggest that party discipline is more closely correlated with less parties, not more.
(Interestingly, the UK has adopted a proportional vote system for European elections which has resulted in no less that 8 UK parties gaining seats in the European Parliament.)
It’s not irresponsible to oppose Israeli policies; it’s irresponsible to set state-to-state policies based on what one senator does or doesn’t do on health care cloture votes.
It seems to me that foreign policy has never been exempt from the bartering over policies/favours that much political give and take is based on. In particular, Israel’s very favoured position in US political discourse seems largely to be a consequence of its very effective lobbying organisation (AIPAC) where financial support for candidates is very much dependent on their pro-Israeli proclivities. All I am saying is that it be suggested to Lieberman that this can cut both ways…
I sympathize with your intentions, but I feel strongly that you don’t grasp the dynamics of US-Israel policy. I doubt there is anyone in our government, in any party, who would propose what you are suggesting.
I strongly support the curbing of Israeli (especially AIPAC) influence on US foreign and domestic policy. A relatively new player on the US-Israel policy scene, J Street, is working to gradually introduce considerations such as “morality,” “transparency,” and “accountability” to the debate over the US’s policy towards Israel.
But, please hear me loud and clear, the government of the United States unconditionally and fully supports the government of Israel, for better and for worse. Obama is the first President in a very long time to even acknowledge that there are problems with Israeli policies towards their neighbors and the Palestinians.
You should see what starts floating around in the US/Israeli/American Jewish community and media worlds when Obama makes a statement that could be even marginally construed as critical of the Israeli government. “Shitstorm” is the best word.
We’ve got a long way to go, but I support your vision of an America less cowed by our Israeli friends.
Don’t worry, I am well aware that my support for Palestinian refugee repatriation could well be twisted into support for Islamic terrorism if I ever visited the US – something I have not done for 15 years for that very reason.
I have never allow the fact that I may be in a small minority in some polities to cow me into not saying what I believe to be factually and objectively true. I am old enough to remember when my support for the ANC in South Africa pre-Apartheid was enough to make travel impossible there – and also move me outside all “civilised discourse” in mainstream US politics.
I find it ironic that the reasons why I couldn’t travel to SA pre-1990 are so similar to what makes travel to the US impossible now.
.
“Israel has incredibly deep and broad support throughout the Democratic caucus…”
U.S. Congress held
hostageaccountable by a lobby with plenty of $$$ to influence the outcome of the next congressional election. Abolish duo-nationality, a person cannot split his loyalty between nations. Identical to the choice between the Muslim faith and a secular state, religion and terrorism or a Jewish state instead of a nation without racism. The second exodus, Israeli Jews have succumbed to the golden calf once again. Moses will not return for their salvation. The 21th century has been a great disappointment for the world community, especially viewed from the West."But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."The difference with Europe and here is that they have parliament, and the party in power more or less has the ability to enact their agenda unhindered. It’s a nuance that can’t be missed.
That’s because the party in power – even if it has only a one seat majority – can enforce party/policy discipline through the party whip system. Party dissidents who vote against the Government lose the party whip, and know they WILL be primaried, and most know that they couldn’t survive as an independent or if they switched party. Thus a Government majority is generally transformed into Government legislation and executive action. If a Government loses that majority in generally has to resign – and then the people get to decide.
The system isn’t perfect, but at least Governments can get on with the business of Government and everyone knows who is accountable.
Of course those countries with proportional representation systems also have coalition governments implementing negotiated policy programmes. So a lot of compromise may be required. But at least the parties around the table doing the negotiation represent a significant proportion of the electorate and thus have a wide democratic mandate. Rarely does an individual parliamentarian hold the balance of power and thus can wield a veto in return for “pork barrel” favours for his/her constituency.
But my basic point holds. Without some kind of party discipline it is difficult to see how the Government process can work effectively and efficiently.
And it’s difficult to see how there can be real party discipline in a system handcuffed by a creaky Constitution and decades of rules designed to obstruct change. The universal equanimity about our dysfunctional system is the most obvious proof that we have no real Left in this country.
… is obvious.
Seriously, though, I’m not confident the BDs will ever get it. If they didn’t learn anything from Deeds’ defeat, they’re just plain idiots.
Nancy supports the public option. I bet this has a lot to do with her approval rating at the moment.
I would really love to think that, and I was hoping to see someone bring it up in the comments. Do we have any reliable data on that, in specific?
If the GOP is rewarded by riling up its base, it should have no chance of ever winning the WH or majorities in Congress — its base is too small for that. So the theory needs to explain how catering to the crazies wins elections. Best bet: they start looking better than nothing, which is what the Dems start appearing to offer at some point every cycle.
That and the lower the turnout, the more important a riled up base and well funded party becomes. The greatest threat to the Dems in 2010 is not the GOP, is a low turnout caused by a disenchantment amongst previous Obama/Dem voters.
This is how Reagan was elected. Carter was seen as ineffectual, paralyzed by a third world nation that held our people hostage while thumbing their nose at us. The economy was still in the toilet and all he offered the voters was that it was their fault. There was no groundswell for Reagan’s policies, but rather a feeling of “it sounds crazy, but maybe it will work, give him a chance, we have nothing to lose.”
Nixon won one of the largest majorities in American history only 8 years earlier. Reagan’s first term was Nixon’s third, with Reagan running on the same stew of resentments and prejudices that Nixon trademarked.
The Carter interregnum was a fluke. Carter won narrowly, in the last election the South went Blue.
What you say is true, but I maintain that voters did not vote for Reagan as against Carter. The landslide was not so much a victory for Reagan as a massive defeat for Carter.
I base my conclusions on many conversations overheard in “The Workingman’s Palace”, a blue collar bar on Grand Avenue in the Chicago Suburb of Elmwood Park. The most vocal were men of my father’s age, i.e. the WWII generation. They saw or were part of the defeat of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. They were bewildered by the outcome of Vietnam and absolutely incensed by the hostage situation. They felt that Carter was “chicken” and should invade Iran. Inflation was eating their standard of living and Iran was hitting them right in their macho self-image. They blamed it all on the President. The term “Reagan Democrats” is apt. They were Democrats not Republicans. They weren’t impressed by supply-side economics or ideologically opposed to big government. Indeed, they believed in big government and its power. Therefore, if things weren’t right, it was the government (leaders) fault, not a systemic failure. They weren’t anti-union. Probably 30-40% of them were union members. I have to admit that over 50% of them were racist and that’s being generous, but that was sadly typical of blue collar ethnics.
I watched some news/talk show at morning break. The “opposing sides” on Homeland Security were Pete Hoekstra and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, of course, joined in the Napolitano bashing. I would LOVE to stop seeing Lieberman cast as representing Democrats.