From Vox: The single most important fact about American politics

I can't recommend this highly enough. It'll be a part of my look at political participation and political parties for some time. It tries to get to the root of party polarization in the US. These are observations based on a recent study by the Pew Research Center - click here for the study.

- Click here for the article.

Perhaps the single most important fact about American politics is this: the people who participate are more ideological and more partisan, as well as angrier and more fearful, than those who don't.

Here is one of the factors the author sees as especially problematic. It's not just that the parties are divided ideologically, they hate and fear each other:

The Base v The Moderates

The Hill has two stories that illustrate the ongoing tension both major parties have within their ranks between the base - or the more extreme elements - and the moderates who might be willing to make compromises.

Tea Party supporters have targeted three Republican Senators for challenges.

Liberals are unhappy with recent Obama actions.

Obama v Perry

Debates rage on how well the various Republican candidates would do against Obama. Many argue that Perry's extreme stances on many issues - which are fine in a conservative state like Texas - may be too far on the fringe for the general American public.

Here's an argument that he could run a strong race against the president.

How competitive woulf Governor Perry be in the general election for president?

Leading Republican consultants aren't sure.

Bu this strong appeal to Republican primary voters makes him a likely nominee.

From the Plum Line: Will the GOP base really demand a crazy GOP 2012 nominee?

Primary elections do not necessarily produce electable candidates, here is speculation abotu whether that is likely to occur in 2012:

The conventional wisdom right now on the left is that due to an irrational hatred of Obama and all things liberal, the only way a Republican can win the nomination is by embracing the most extreme positions possible. Yet Mitt Romney, widely perceived as a weak frontrunner, is still polling well in primary states like South Carolina and New Hampshire (though he seems to have given up on Iowa). That’s despite his record on health reform and his refusal to embrace the absurd conservative idea that global warming is a hoax.

The Republican base has shown itself to be more practical than expected in the past. Despite Senator John McCain’s apostasies — his support for immigration reform, opposition to the Bush tax cuts, and his championing of campaign finance reform — he nevertheless ended up being the Republican standard-bearer in 2008. He wasn’t Rush Limbaugh’s preferred candidate, but when it finally came time to cast a ballot Rush had the same single vote as everyone else.

The Drift to the Right

In our discussions of elections and parties I keep drawing the bell curve which shows the mid-point of the aggregate policy preferences in the general public, but probably haven't done enough to illustrate how the mid-point can move over time. Sometimes it drifts to the left (as it did in the New Deal Era) and sometimes to the right (as it did following election of Reagan -- actually Carter).

Here's an example. This story describes the rightward drift of environmental policy. Democrats have been proposing cap and trade policies to reduce greenhouse gas emission while Republican find them extreme, but 20 years ago Republicans were pushing cap and trade over strict regulations because it was the market solution to the problem. What was one a right wing proposal is not mainstream, and unacceptable to the right.

The cap and trade bill that died in the U.S. Congress in 2010 was based on market-oriented principles that were the centerpiece of George Bush Sr.’s cap and trade policy for sulfur dioxide, enacted in 1990. It permitted maximum flexibility in achieving its goals of greenhouse gas reductions over a long time horizon, giving businesses plenty of time to adjust and adapt. The bill’s intellectual foundations were so strongly rooted in conservative economics that then-presidential candidate John McCain was a huge supporter of the measure and included it in his presidential platform.

And yet today, the Republican-led House of Representatives has voted to deny the science of climate change and strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, which was granted to the agency by a 5-4 decision in the very conservative-leaning Supreme Court. The GOP-led House has proposed gutting the EPA’s budget as well. And it gets worse.

Palin's Base Shrinks But Intensifies - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Palin's Base Shrinks But Intensifies - The Daily Dish By Andrew Sullivan

Sullivan highlights poll results that show that Palin's overall support within the Republican Party is diminshing, but those who support her do so strongly (Huckabee's supporters are similarly enthusiastic). He suggests, appropriately, that this makes her very strong in the primaries, though low overall numbers may make her uncompettive in a general election. Obama runs very strongly against her head to head.

For 2301s this is an important point. Primary elections - which are conducted by each party - are different affairs than general elections. Turnout is lower and tends to be composed mostly of hard core party identifiers who are often extreme in their ideological beliefs. Palin has been shown to be very popular among this crowd, but no so among the moderates who sit out primaries but do so in the general election. This tells us something about the power struggle within parties. Party leaders may attempt to influence which candidates are likely to get the party nomination, but the decision is ultimately up to the party base. It is not unusual for the passionate base to select a candidate unapealing to the calmer middle.

- Palin's Favorability Declines; Negatives Exceed her Rivals'
- Poll: Palin's numbers slide among Republicans

What Olbermann's Departure Means

The Daily Beast thinks it means the American public is growing tired of wingnuts. Moderates are turning away from them.

Why Obama Might Win in 2012

A couple Republican consultants spell out 12 reasons (they'll provide some later arguing why he might not) but one sticks out for us, especially in 2301.

Forty percent of Americans now see the president as a moderate. That’s up 10 percentage points from a year ago. More importantly, 44 percent of independents now call Obama a moderate, up from 28 percent a year ago. If congressional Republicans are viewed as strident and over-reaching, Obama will be well positioned as a moderating force—with or without any Clintonian triangulation.
This fits with a general point we will make when we discuss elections. The candidate or party that captures the center - the moderates - tends to win.

Abolitionists: The Lunatics of the 1850s

Maybe we shouldn't sell nutbags short. And maybe compromise is overrated.

Conventional Wisdom - The Week of 9/18/10

The general consensus this week among commentators is that Christine O'Donnell's win in the Delaware Republican primary contest for the U.S. Senate completes the Tea Party's takeover of the Republican Party for this electoral cycle, and perhaps for 2012. By winning a decent handful of primary contests, they have defined the positions the party will take to the voters in the general election in less than two months. This aplies to a number of items we will cover in 2301, especially our discussion of the decentralized nature of political parties and the interplay among the various factors that influence what positions they take on issue in a given election.

Some random related readings:

Here, Mike Castle articulates his policy positions, the positions refuted by Delaware Republican Primary voters. They include support for cap-and-trade and stem cell research, he is also pro-choice on abortion. His loss helps explain how the two parties arrive at the positions they take on legislation. It's more bottom-up than top-down. 

Nate Silver argues that O'Donnell's ideological positions make her less likely to win the general election in Delaware than would her more moderate opponent. He downgrades the chance that a Republican will win the Delaware Senate seat, as well as the chance that the Republican Party will take over the Senate.

TNR wonders whether a more conservative House will elect existing minority leader John Boehner Speaker.

Andrew Sullivan surveys the field opining about whether this makes Sarah Palin the front runner for the Republican 2012 nomination.

Are Both Party Establishments in Trouble?

Rhodes Cook says yes, and gives evidence.

Liberals Unhappy With Obama

Democrats are also dealing with disaffected ideologues within their ranks. Obama has been too centrist for their taste. (These two links require subscriptions -- check in the ACC library for them.)

Tea Party Candidates Beat Republican Establishment in Primaries

Democrats think this makes their candidates more competitive in November. They hope to paint these candidates as extreme. No telling if this strategy works until the elections happen.

California's Top Two Primary

Proposition 14 passed in California and could radically change party competition in the state.

- Overview.
- Comments.

The Tea Party Movement Set to Takeover the Republican Party

For 2301 mostly:

Here's a terrific story about how members of the tea party movement are working from the ground up to takeover the Republican Party, which they see as too "establishment" and "liberal" and ensure that it only promotes candidates they find acceptable.

It begins with taking over precinct chairs an works its way up from there. The only potential strategic problem is that they may, as has been observed before, pull the party so far to the right that it becomes less competitive in general elections. But perhaps the general population is more conservative than thought. It'll be interesting to watch.

Commentators often equate the tea partiers with populist movements, fueled by anger at elites (any elite). American history is peppered with such movements. A key question is going to be how long the movement can survive. All movements have life cycles. The establishment can be very patient.

Reports on Extremism

The Department of Homeland Security has released separate reports this year regarding first left wing and now right wing terrorism. Secretary Napolitano has drawn heat from some on the right for her concern that disaffected veterans might be prone to lash out at the government. She responds by mentioning her involvement with the prosecution of the last disaffected veteran to do so.

It's worth noting that the left wing report was the product of the DHS under the Bush Administration and the right wing report under the Obama Administration. One one hand we could argue that each side is trying to tar the other as unruly extremists, but on the other hand, is it not unreasonable to believe that left wing groups are more likely to strike against a conservative administration and vice versa?