Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Ron Paul Profile
From the Atlantic, a profile on our own Rep. Ron Paul. The comments are probably more interesting than the article.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Cheese
They both promote and oppose it:
Domino’s Pizza was hurting early last year. Domestic sales had fallen, and a survey of big pizza chain customers left the company tied for the worst tasting pies.
From marketing campaigns, to restaurant menus to your own dinner plate, what evidence are you seeing of more cheese in the American diet? Share your experiences.
Then help arrived from an organization called Dairy Management. It teamed up with Domino’s to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese, and proceeded to devise and pay for a $12 million marketing campaign.
Consumers devoured the cheesier pizza, and sales soared by double digits. “This partnership is clearly working,” Brandon Solano, the Domino’s vice president for brand innovation, said in a statement to The New York Times.
But as healthy as this pizza has been for Domino’s, one slice contains as much as two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended amount of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease and is high in calories.
And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting ....
There are three separate links to entities that call themselves Dairy Management Inc
- www.dairyinfo.com/
- www.innovatewithdairy.com/
- www.dairycheckoff.com/
Domino’s Pizza was hurting early last year. Domestic sales had fallen, and a survey of big pizza chain customers left the company tied for the worst tasting pies.
From marketing campaigns, to restaurant menus to your own dinner plate, what evidence are you seeing of more cheese in the American diet? Share your experiences.
Then help arrived from an organization called Dairy Management. It teamed up with Domino’s to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese, and proceeded to devise and pay for a $12 million marketing campaign.
Consumers devoured the cheesier pizza, and sales soared by double digits. “This partnership is clearly working,” Brandon Solano, the Domino’s vice president for brand innovation, said in a statement to The New York Times.
But as healthy as this pizza has been for Domino’s, one slice contains as much as two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended amount of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease and is high in calories.
And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting ....
There are three separate links to entities that call themselves Dairy Management Inc
- www.dairyinfo.com/
- www.innovatewithdairy.com/
- www.dairycheckoff.com/
Earmarks
Given Republican opposition to earmarks, its worth considering their actual impact on the communities that receive them. Here's a bit of background from TNR, and a map showing the distribution of earmarks from a 2005 bill:
The TSA's Pat Down Policy
Slate outlines the process by which the pat down policy was developed, announced and implemented, as well as the campaign its now waging to defend it. It creates and interesting dilemma for both the TSA and the Obama Administration. Which woudl you rather have to explain? Why travelers were groped, or why you let an explosive on a plane, especially if it goes off?
While we're at it, here's something to relax about: cavity bombs. Current technonoly cannot detect them.
While we're at it, here's something to relax about: cavity bombs. Current technonoly cannot detect them.
The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Fitting subject matter, considering our recent class discussions. Ackerman wonders if the republic can survive the growing powers of the presidency. He isn't the first to worry about this. A review.
Scorpions
Another extra credit option. A book detailing the personalities FDR placed on the court. A review from Slate.
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Scanner Lobby
The makers of the body scanners have lobbied Congress heavily to promote their products.
The companies with multimillion-dollar contracts to supply American airports with body-scanning machines more than doubled their spending on lobbying in the last five years and hired several high-profile former government officials to advance their causes in Washington, records show.
L-3 Communications, which has sold $39.7 million worth of the machines to the federal government, spent $4.3 million to influence Congress and federal agencies during the first nine months of this year, up from $2.1 million in 2005, lobbying data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show. Last year, the company spent $5.5 million on lobbying.
Its lobbyists include Linda Daschle, a prominent Democratic figure in Washington, who is a former Federal Aviation Administration official.
Rapiscan Systems, meanwhile, has spent $271,500 on lobbying so far this year, compared with $80,000 five years earlier. It has faced criticism for hiring Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary, who has been a prominent proponent of using scanners to foil terrorism. Officials with Chertoff's firm and Rapiscan say Chertoff was not paid to promote scanner technology. It spent $440,000 on lobbying in 2009.
For those unaware, Linda Daschle is the wife of ex-Senate majority leader Tom Daschle.
A visit to Rapiscan.
The companies with multimillion-dollar contracts to supply American airports with body-scanning machines more than doubled their spending on lobbying in the last five years and hired several high-profile former government officials to advance their causes in Washington, records show.
L-3 Communications, which has sold $39.7 million worth of the machines to the federal government, spent $4.3 million to influence Congress and federal agencies during the first nine months of this year, up from $2.1 million in 2005, lobbying data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show. Last year, the company spent $5.5 million on lobbying.
Its lobbyists include Linda Daschle, a prominent Democratic figure in Washington, who is a former Federal Aviation Administration official.
Rapiscan Systems, meanwhile, has spent $271,500 on lobbying so far this year, compared with $80,000 five years earlier. It has faced criticism for hiring Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary, who has been a prominent proponent of using scanners to foil terrorism. Officials with Chertoff's firm and Rapiscan say Chertoff was not paid to promote scanner technology. It spent $440,000 on lobbying in 2009.
For those unaware, Linda Daschle is the wife of ex-Senate majority leader Tom Daschle.
A visit to Rapiscan.
Despite All the Fuss ....
... nearly two thirds of Americans support full body scanners at airports.
Judicial Independence Under Attack?
From USA Today:
Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit are three of the incumbents tossed out of office Tuesday by angry voters. They aren't corrupt or incompetent. They aren't even politicians. They're state Supreme Court justices, and the circumstances of their eviction should be deeply troubling to anyone who believes in the rule of law.
The judges' sin was that they did their jobs. They read the state constitution and interpreted its meaning without regard to politics, public opinion or the passions of the moment. That reading led them to invalidate an Iowa law limiting marriage to a man and woman. ...
Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit are three of the incumbents tossed out of office Tuesday by angry voters. They aren't corrupt or incompetent. They aren't even politicians. They're state Supreme Court justices, and the circumstances of their eviction should be deeply troubling to anyone who believes in the rule of law.
The judges' sin was that they did their jobs. They read the state constitution and interpreted its meaning without regard to politics, public opinion or the passions of the moment. That reading led them to invalidate an Iowa law limiting marriage to a man and woman. ...
Quantitative Easing
Before too much time passes, for 2302, some background on the concept of "quantitative easing" which is a technique used by the Federal Reserve Board to inject cash into the U.S. economy. The technique is being considered in part because while some argue additional stimulus is needed to continue priming the economy, Congress has no intention to do so, so the Fed has the means to do it independently. Normally the Fed would simply lower interest rates, but they are set close to zero, so that's not an option.
- Wikipedia: Quantitative Easing.
- Support from US News.
- 9 Reasons why it is bad for the economy.
- Kicking the Fed.
- Wikipedia: Quantitative Easing.
- Support from US News.
- 9 Reasons why it is bad for the economy.
- Kicking the Fed.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Is Philly’s ‘Stop and Frisk’ Racial Profiling?
From Findlaw:
Stop and frisk sounds more like a trendy dance move or a board game than a form of racial profiling. But that is exactly what some critics are claiming the real purpose behind Philly’s stop and frisk approach to law enforcement is. The Philadelphia stop and frisk policy has now become the center of a civil rights lawsuit, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
The suit claims that in 2009, 72% of pedestrians that were stopped under the policy were African American. “Implicitly, the message is to make as many stops as you can and hopefully you will find something,” said one attorney working on the case. The purpose behind the Philly stop and frisk policy was to decrease the rising crime rate on the streets. Although officers were trained, the suit alleges that the behavior of the force seems to ignore the training.
- Stop and Frisk: Legal Definition.
- Wikipedia: Frisking.
- Wikipedia: Racial Profiling.
Stop and frisk sounds more like a trendy dance move or a board game than a form of racial profiling. But that is exactly what some critics are claiming the real purpose behind Philly’s stop and frisk approach to law enforcement is. The Philadelphia stop and frisk policy has now become the center of a civil rights lawsuit, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
The suit claims that in 2009, 72% of pedestrians that were stopped under the policy were African American. “Implicitly, the message is to make as many stops as you can and hopefully you will find something,” said one attorney working on the case. The purpose behind the Philly stop and frisk policy was to decrease the rising crime rate on the streets. Although officers were trained, the suit alleges that the behavior of the force seems to ignore the training.
- Stop and Frisk: Legal Definition.
- Wikipedia: Frisking.
- Wikipedia: Racial Profiling.
The Ghailani Trial
The recent acquital on all but one count of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani raises at least two constitutional issues for us. First, and this applies to many in the court system, given the amount of time it took for him to reach trial, was he denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial? Slate touches on this question and reminds readers something we covered in 2302, that the right dates at least back to Magna Carta: "to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice."
. . . at no time in the last 800 years has anyone been able to quantify exactly how speedy is speedy. The American Bar Association insists that six months should be the upward limit unless there's a really good reason for extending the deadline. But no one has managed to bring a judge or state legislature around to that point of view. The Supreme Court, for its part, has offered a vague balancing test of harm against justification: That is, if a lengthy pretrial prison stay harms the defendant unjustifiably, the judge may consider dropping the indictment. In the absence of any firm rules, judges usually find a way to explain away delays, since they hate the idea of releasing dangerous criminals just because of dawdling prosecutors. The most common justification is so-called "lack of prejudice"—that is, the accused fails to show that the holdup could undermine his defense.
More seriously is the blowback against the decision to hold a trial in a civilian court -- this was argued to be a crime after all -- rather than a military tribunal. Critics of the decision to hold a trial at all seem upset that a civilian trial even allowed the possibility that a jury might determine a lack of evidence existed to convict the defendant. Legislative critics of the administration want future trials to be handled in military tribunals. Daily Kos wonders if these critics really want summary judgement and execution. Are these critics really challenging the concept of judicial independence? Perhaps they are upset that they cannot control the courts and choose to send the suspects to courts they think likely to render guilty verdicts.
This also raises an issue related to our discussion of abstract and concrete opinions. We probably all agree on the need for fair trials, but do we want them for terrorist suspects? Or is the very fact that they are accused of being terrorists enough to convince us that they are guilty.
- Guilty Until Proven Guilty?
. . . at no time in the last 800 years has anyone been able to quantify exactly how speedy is speedy. The American Bar Association insists that six months should be the upward limit unless there's a really good reason for extending the deadline. But no one has managed to bring a judge or state legislature around to that point of view. The Supreme Court, for its part, has offered a vague balancing test of harm against justification: That is, if a lengthy pretrial prison stay harms the defendant unjustifiably, the judge may consider dropping the indictment. In the absence of any firm rules, judges usually find a way to explain away delays, since they hate the idea of releasing dangerous criminals just because of dawdling prosecutors. The most common justification is so-called "lack of prejudice"—that is, the accused fails to show that the holdup could undermine his defense.
More seriously is the blowback against the decision to hold a trial in a civilian court -- this was argued to be a crime after all -- rather than a military tribunal. Critics of the decision to hold a trial at all seem upset that a civilian trial even allowed the possibility that a jury might determine a lack of evidence existed to convict the defendant. Legislative critics of the administration want future trials to be handled in military tribunals. Daily Kos wonders if these critics really want summary judgement and execution. Are these critics really challenging the concept of judicial independence? Perhaps they are upset that they cannot control the courts and choose to send the suspects to courts they think likely to render guilty verdicts.
This also raises an issue related to our discussion of abstract and concrete opinions. We probably all agree on the need for fair trials, but do we want them for terrorist suspects? Or is the very fact that they are accused of being terrorists enough to convince us that they are guilty.
- Guilty Until Proven Guilty?
New Felonies
Texas has 2,383 felonies on record -- things the legislature has decided you can be imprisoned for. Grits for Breakfast tells us the last legislative session created 59 and wonders how many more will be created this tim around.
86% of Incumbents Were Relected This Year
So much for throwing the bums out. Although the figure is generally higher -- in the upper 90s -- a high percentage of members of the House of Representatives were keep in office by their constituents. It could be, of course, that the mood was there and more should have been defeated, but incumbents were protected by representing gerrymandered districts that are so heavily skewed toward either party that incumbents can hardly ever be defeated. We discussed this in class -- see the post below -- when we noted that none of our area House members were defeated.
Do Tax Cuts Stimulate Economic Growth?
The evidence is not conclusive. The last decade had the slowest growth rate since the 1960s, and this was after the Bush tax cuts.
Potential Victims of Redistricting
The National Journal points out ten members of the House who could suffer from redistricting.
Legislative Leadership Battles 2010 - pt1
I'll begin linking to a variety of stories covering the current leadership battles in the U.S. Congress and Texas Legislature.
- Hoyer and Clyburn battle to be Minority Whip: House Dems #2.
- Senate Democrats fill leadership spots.
- Pelosi becomes minority leader, but may be weakened.
- Kucinich fights for ranking position on the House Oversight Committee.
- Hoyer and Clyburn battle to be Minority Whip: House Dems #2.
- Senate Democrats fill leadership spots.
- Pelosi becomes minority leader, but may be weakened.
- Kucinich fights for ranking position on the House Oversight Committee.
The Power of the President
In light of the midterm elections, some notable Democrats have written recommendations to Obama outlining how he can advance his agenda without Congress. Depending on one's ideology, this can be a good or bad thing, but it does highlight how the powers -- and tools -- of the office have expanded over American history.
The report mentioned the following mechanisms:
- executive orders
- rulemaking
- agency management
- convening and creating public-private relationships
- commanding the armed forces
- diplomacy
Their recommendations amount to a blueprint for action over the heads of Congress.
The report mentioned the following mechanisms:
- executive orders
- rulemaking
- agency management
- convening and creating public-private relationships
- commanding the armed forces
- diplomacy
Their recommendations amount to a blueprint for action over the heads of Congress.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Perils of Broadening Your Base
The GOP sees opportunity reaching out to the gay and lesbian community, but only at the risk of losing evangelicals.
The Death of Real News
Ted Koppel cares for neither Keith Olbermann nor Bill O'Reilly and sees them as symptoms of the death of "real" news. He blames the profit motive which has led to more sensational news which panders to segment of the population rather provide neutral objective information useful to everyone:
To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.
On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.
Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.
Divisive, pandering news sells. Objectivity doesn't.
To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.
On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.
Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.
Divisive, pandering news sells. Objectivity doesn't.
Although Crime Rates are Down, Most People Think it is Going Up
For 2301, and our coverage of public opinion.
From the Gallup Poll:
Two-thirds of Americans say there is more crime in the United States than there was a year ago, reflecting Americans' general tendency to perceive crime as increasing. Still, the percentage perceiving an increase in crime is below what Gallup measured in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but is higher than the levels from the late 1990s and early 2000s.
These trends, based on Gallup's annual Crime survey, come at a time when both the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics recently reported drops in property and violent crime from 2008 to 2009 in separate studies, as well as documenting longer-term declines in both types of crime. Though the latest Gallup estimates, from an Oct. 7-10, 2010, survey, would reflect a more up-to-date assessment of the crime situation than those reports do, Americans were also likely to perceive crime as increasing both locally and nationally in the 2009 Gallup Crime survey.
From the Gallup Poll:
Two-thirds of Americans say there is more crime in the United States than there was a year ago, reflecting Americans' general tendency to perceive crime as increasing. Still, the percentage perceiving an increase in crime is below what Gallup measured in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but is higher than the levels from the late 1990s and early 2000s.
These trends, based on Gallup's annual Crime survey, come at a time when both the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics recently reported drops in property and violent crime from 2008 to 2009 in separate studies, as well as documenting longer-term declines in both types of crime. Though the latest Gallup estimates, from an Oct. 7-10, 2010, survey, would reflect a more up-to-date assessment of the crime situation than those reports do, Americans were also likely to perceive crime as increasing both locally and nationally in the 2009 Gallup Crime survey.
2301: The Last Written Question: Flores-Villar v United States
I'm putting together the final written question for 2301, and I'd like to share it -- or the topic -- prior to posting it.
We're covering civil rights and the equal protection clause. Quite often the nature of civil rights policy comes down to whatever the Supreme Court (or more precisely its members at a given moment in time) interprets the phrase "equal protection of the laws" to mean. In what context can equal protection be mandated, and what criteria can government (the executive branch generally though not exclusively) use to treat people differently.
In that context, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case which highlighted the different ways that Congress has mandated how citizen mothers as opposed to citizen fathers can transfer citizenship to any child of theirs born out of wedlock and out of the country. The bar is lower for citizen mothers than citizen fathers. The case involves a citizen father who, due to the language of the law, could never have transferred citizenship to his child. The question presented to the court was whether this violated his right to the equal protection of the laws.
I want my 2301s to read through the links below and address how the Supreme Court treats cases involving claims of unequal protection due to gender (sex/gender discrimination). What issues are raised in this case and what is the likely outcome (a decision is unlikely to be reached until next year).
- ScotusBlog: Flores-Villar v. United States.
- Immigration Prof Blog.
- NYT Story.
- Oral Argument Audio.
- Oral Argument Transcript.
We're covering civil rights and the equal protection clause. Quite often the nature of civil rights policy comes down to whatever the Supreme Court (or more precisely its members at a given moment in time) interprets the phrase "equal protection of the laws" to mean. In what context can equal protection be mandated, and what criteria can government (the executive branch generally though not exclusively) use to treat people differently.
In that context, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case which highlighted the different ways that Congress has mandated how citizen mothers as opposed to citizen fathers can transfer citizenship to any child of theirs born out of wedlock and out of the country. The bar is lower for citizen mothers than citizen fathers. The case involves a citizen father who, due to the language of the law, could never have transferred citizenship to his child. The question presented to the court was whether this violated his right to the equal protection of the laws.
I want my 2301s to read through the links below and address how the Supreme Court treats cases involving claims of unequal protection due to gender (sex/gender discrimination). What issues are raised in this case and what is the likely outcome (a decision is unlikely to be reached until next year).
- ScotusBlog: Flores-Villar v. United States.
- Immigration Prof Blog.
- NYT Story.
- Oral Argument Audio.
- Oral Argument Transcript.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Charles Rangel and the House Ethics Committee
From the NYT:
The House ethics committee ruled on Monday that there was evidence to support 13 counts of misconduct by Representative Charles B. Rangel, and began considering whether to formally convict and recommend punishment against him.
With Mr. Rangel absent, the panel listened to its chief counsel as he methodically presented the evidence against Mr. Rangel, which was based on 549 exhibits, dozens of witness interviews and thousands of pages of financial documents. Members then met in executive session and later announced they had found the facts in the charges against Mr. Rangel to be “uncontested.”
Those charges included accusations that Mr. Rangel had accepted rent-stabilized apartments from a Manhattan developer, failed to pay income taxes on rent from a Dominican villa and solicited charitable donations from individuals with business before Congress.
- House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
- Wikpedia: House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
- Source Watch: House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
- Time Topics: Ethics.
The House ethics committee ruled on Monday that there was evidence to support 13 counts of misconduct by Representative Charles B. Rangel, and began considering whether to formally convict and recommend punishment against him.
With Mr. Rangel absent, the panel listened to its chief counsel as he methodically presented the evidence against Mr. Rangel, which was based on 549 exhibits, dozens of witness interviews and thousands of pages of financial documents. Members then met in executive session and later announced they had found the facts in the charges against Mr. Rangel to be “uncontested.”
Those charges included accusations that Mr. Rangel had accepted rent-stabilized apartments from a Manhattan developer, failed to pay income taxes on rent from a Dominican villa and solicited charitable donations from individuals with business before Congress.
- House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
- Wikpedia: House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
- Source Watch: House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
- Time Topics: Ethics.
Bad Jurors
From Texas Watchdog:
A list of bad jurors kept by prosecutors is not a public record, according to the state attorney general's office, a ruling that “flies in the face of open government,” according to Fort Worth Defense lawyer William Ray in the Star-Telegram.
Ray sought a list the Tarrant County District Attorney’s office keeps of jurors who have previously served and notes on why they would be unfit to serve again. Presumably, these jurors did not deliver a verdict favorable to the state.
Is this an encroachment by the executive on the independence of the judiciary?
For further reading: Juror Intimidation in Russia.
A list of bad jurors kept by prosecutors is not a public record, according to the state attorney general's office, a ruling that “flies in the face of open government,” according to Fort Worth Defense lawyer William Ray in the Star-Telegram.
Ray sought a list the Tarrant County District Attorney’s office keeps of jurors who have previously served and notes on why they would be unfit to serve again. Presumably, these jurors did not deliver a verdict favorable to the state.
Is this an encroachment by the executive on the independence of the judiciary?
For further reading: Juror Intimidation in Russia.
DeMint 1 McConnell 0
The fight to control the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate is getting testier.
From Wonkbook:
Mitch McConnell announces he will reluctantly support a Republican moratorium on earmarks: "Make no mistake. I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don’t apologize for them. But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government."
"With Republican leaders in Congress united, the attention now turns to the President. We have said we are willing to give up discretion; now we’ll see how he handles spending decisions. And if the president ends up with total discretion over spending, we will see even more clearly where his priorities lie. We already saw the administration’s priorities in a Stimulus bill that’s become synonymous with wasteful spending, that borrowed nearly $1 trillion for administration earmarks like turtle tunnels, a sidewalk that lead to a ditch, and research on voter perceptions of the bill."
- WaPo story.
- Wikipedia: Earmarks.
- SourceWatch: Earmarks.
From Wonkbook:
Mitch McConnell announces he will reluctantly support a Republican moratorium on earmarks: "Make no mistake. I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don’t apologize for them. But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government."
"With Republican leaders in Congress united, the attention now turns to the President. We have said we are willing to give up discretion; now we’ll see how he handles spending decisions. And if the president ends up with total discretion over spending, we will see even more clearly where his priorities lie. We already saw the administration’s priorities in a Stimulus bill that’s become synonymous with wasteful spending, that borrowed nearly $1 trillion for administration earmarks like turtle tunnels, a sidewalk that lead to a ditch, and research on voter perceptions of the bill."
- WaPo story.
- Wikipedia: Earmarks.
- SourceWatch: Earmarks.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Filibuster Reform
From WonkBook:
Junior Democrats in the Senate are pushing ahead with filibuster reform, reports J. Taylor Rushing: "Sen. Tom Udall said he will force a motion on the first day of the next Congress to have Vice President Joe Biden adopt new rules for the two-year session. Then, Udall said, he will seek consensus among senators from both parties to lower the 60-vote threshold for procedural motions. Only a simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary for such a move, and Udall said he expects support from some Republicans...Tom Udall is correct there will be some GOP support for the effort. Sen.-elect Dan Coats (Indiana), who knows the Senate well from his 10-year tenure from 1989 to 1999, said in a Fox News interview this month that he endorses filibuster reform."
Junior Democrats in the Senate are pushing ahead with filibuster reform, reports J. Taylor Rushing: "Sen. Tom Udall said he will force a motion on the first day of the next Congress to have Vice President Joe Biden adopt new rules for the two-year session. Then, Udall said, he will seek consensus among senators from both parties to lower the 60-vote threshold for procedural motions. Only a simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary for such a move, and Udall said he expects support from some Republicans...Tom Udall is correct there will be some GOP support for the effort. Sen.-elect Dan Coats (Indiana), who knows the Senate well from his 10-year tenure from 1989 to 1999, said in a Fox News interview this month that he endorses filibuster reform."
The CRA and the Housing Bubble
For our discussion of civil rights: Conservatives argue that Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (and other simlar laws), which outlawed practices that discriminated against middle class and poor people who wanted to purchase homes are partially, if not wholly, responsible for the housing bubble and the resulting financial crisis. Others argue that it did not. We will discuss.
Jobs? Yes / Health Care? Yes / The Deficit? No
Only 4% of respondents to a CBS Poll want Congress to focus first on the deficit.
111th Congress' Civil Rights Scorecard
For this week's discussion on civil rights, the Leadership Conference on Civil Right's scorecard for the 111th Congress.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Gerrymandered Texas Senate and the Threats to the Senate's 2/3rds Rule
Rick Casey comments on what he calls the most stable job in Texas politics: Texas State Senator.
There is one Texas elected body that is so stable that it offered a safe harbor for Democrats even in the political monsoon that blew on Tuesday.
Is this good news for the Democrats? Not hardly, as we shall see. The body is the state Senate.
Consider this: While Democrats lost 21 seats in the 150-member Texas House of Representatives and most likely three veteran congressmen, the 31-member Texas Senate had 12 Democrats and 19 Republicans before the election and will have exactly the same margin after the new Legislature is sworn in next January. And only two are newcomers, one Democrat and one Republican having stepped down voluntarily.
But while Democrats are safe in body, its districts have been designed so that they underrepresent Democrats in the state -- as is the case with most other offices in the state. Republicans, who control the districting process, accomplish this feat by packing Democrats into fewer seats than they might otherwise occupy, but Democratic incumbents are hardly likely to complain because this makes their seats more secure.
Even with this small number of seats, Democrats -- and the minority party in general -- has been able to leverage this small number of seats into a type of veto power since as long as they are at least one-third of the Senate, they can block legislation from going through the floor. From the Legislative Refrence Library:
For almost half a century, blocker bills have routinely been placed at the top of the Senate's Daily Calendar, which in effect forces a suspension of the regular order of business on every bill. Blocker bills are bills that are introduced and passed out of committee as early as possible in a legislative session in order that they may occupy the first positions on the calendar. They are not intended to be worthy of serious consideration or passage. The sole purpose of a blocker bill is to ensure that at least two-thirds of the membership have an interest in debating a measure before it can come to the floor. Bills that do not enjoy substantial support cannot make it past the blocker bill.
Though it has been set aside on rare occasions, this practice -- known as the "two-thirds rule" -- has been an honored tradition in the Senate. Among other things, it is generally acknowledged that the Senate's two-thirds rule fosters civility, a willingness to compromise, and a spirit of bipartisanship.
Republican Senators have argued that this rule undermines democracy -- and certainly their agenda -- and have made efforts to remove it in the past. Similar efforts are underway currently.
- In Defense of the Two Thirds Rule.
- Bill Hobby comments on the rule.
There is one Texas elected body that is so stable that it offered a safe harbor for Democrats even in the political monsoon that blew on Tuesday.
Is this good news for the Democrats? Not hardly, as we shall see. The body is the state Senate.
Consider this: While Democrats lost 21 seats in the 150-member Texas House of Representatives and most likely three veteran congressmen, the 31-member Texas Senate had 12 Democrats and 19 Republicans before the election and will have exactly the same margin after the new Legislature is sworn in next January. And only two are newcomers, one Democrat and one Republican having stepped down voluntarily.
But while Democrats are safe in body, its districts have been designed so that they underrepresent Democrats in the state -- as is the case with most other offices in the state. Republicans, who control the districting process, accomplish this feat by packing Democrats into fewer seats than they might otherwise occupy, but Democratic incumbents are hardly likely to complain because this makes their seats more secure.
Even with this small number of seats, Democrats -- and the minority party in general -- has been able to leverage this small number of seats into a type of veto power since as long as they are at least one-third of the Senate, they can block legislation from going through the floor. From the Legislative Refrence Library:
For almost half a century, blocker bills have routinely been placed at the top of the Senate's Daily Calendar, which in effect forces a suspension of the regular order of business on every bill. Blocker bills are bills that are introduced and passed out of committee as early as possible in a legislative session in order that they may occupy the first positions on the calendar. They are not intended to be worthy of serious consideration or passage. The sole purpose of a blocker bill is to ensure that at least two-thirds of the membership have an interest in debating a measure before it can come to the floor. Bills that do not enjoy substantial support cannot make it past the blocker bill.
Though it has been set aside on rare occasions, this practice -- known as the "two-thirds rule" -- has been an honored tradition in the Senate. Among other things, it is generally acknowledged that the Senate's two-thirds rule fosters civility, a willingness to compromise, and a spirit of bipartisanship.
Republican Senators have argued that this rule undermines democracy -- and certainly their agenda -- and have made efforts to remove it in the past. Similar efforts are underway currently.
- In Defense of the Two Thirds Rule.
- Bill Hobby comments on the rule.
One and Done by Design?
Again from Slatest, this time a story from the Washington Post, should Obama declare that he will not run for reelection and instead focus on the economy:
For the good of the country, Barack Obama should declare himself a one-term president , argue Carter- and Clinton-era presidential advisers Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen in the Washington Post. That act of political suppuku would disarm Republicans, the pair assert, allowing them to support Obama without worrying about bolstering his re-election bid. "Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible," the pair write. "If he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party." The proposals met with a skeptical response from both sides of the aisle, with liberal bloggers dismissing the pair as "pretend Democrats" and conservatives questioning the proposal's practicality. "The symbolism of Obama's withdrawal from the race to focus on fiscal solvency would, admittedly, be huge in communicating the gravity of the challenge," writes one conservative blogger . "But that doesn't mean Congress would act on it."
- The Opinion Piece itself.
- Pretend Democrats ...
- Hot Air.
For the good of the country, Barack Obama should declare himself a one-term president , argue Carter- and Clinton-era presidential advisers Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen in the Washington Post. That act of political suppuku would disarm Republicans, the pair assert, allowing them to support Obama without worrying about bolstering his re-election bid. "Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible," the pair write. "If he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party." The proposals met with a skeptical response from both sides of the aisle, with liberal bloggers dismissing the pair as "pretend Democrats" and conservatives questioning the proposal's practicality. "The symbolism of Obama's withdrawal from the race to focus on fiscal solvency would, admittedly, be huge in communicating the gravity of the challenge," writes one conservative blogger . "But that doesn't mean Congress would act on it."
- The Opinion Piece itself.
- Pretend Democrats ...
- Hot Air.
Party Cohesion
From Politico, via Slatest, an example of a key point we cover separately in 2301 and 2302. Our two large decentralized parties have to becoem cohesive in order to have any chance to pursue an agenda -- or stop the agenda of the opposition:
South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn will serve as "assistant leader," the No. 3 spot among the Democratic Party's minority leadership in the next Congress. Outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi created the position to avoid internal party conflict that would have resulted from the pending contest between Clyburn and current House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., for the minority whip position. In a letter to her colleagues on Saturday, Pelosi announced her plans to create the position and appoint Clyburn to it if elected House Democratic leader. Politico sees the Democrats as keeping peace among their ranks by maintaining the status quo in a leadership lineup that mirrors the current majority leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Majority Whip Clyburn.
Meanwhile, Tea Partiers are trying to resolve dueling internal orientation agendas for the Republican Party's incoming freshman Congress members, who will be learning their way around Washington this week. After the Tea Party Patriots and conservative California think tank the Claremont Institute scheduled dueling orientation events for new members of Congress, Tea Partiers began bombarding their new representatives with phone calls to express their disapproval. In an e-mail on Thursday, the Tea Party Patriots warned against the think tank's actions: "They are apparently trying to make sure that instead of sitting with grass-roots tea party leaders from around the country, the lobbyists and consultants can sink their claws into the freshmen, and begin to 'teach them' the ways of D.C." The deluge of phone calls that resulted prompted a second e-mail the next day, asking members to lay off the new Congress members for the moment. The Claremont Institute said it was merely hosting an event the freshman members had planned for themselves.
For further reading:
- The Democrat's New Change.
- Right Wing Groups Scuffle Over Freshmen.
- Freshmen Arrive in Washington With Many Questions.
South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn will serve as "assistant leader," the No. 3 spot among the Democratic Party's minority leadership in the next Congress. Outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi created the position to avoid internal party conflict that would have resulted from the pending contest between Clyburn and current House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., for the minority whip position. In a letter to her colleagues on Saturday, Pelosi announced her plans to create the position and appoint Clyburn to it if elected House Democratic leader. Politico sees the Democrats as keeping peace among their ranks by maintaining the status quo in a leadership lineup that mirrors the current majority leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Majority Whip Clyburn.
Meanwhile, Tea Partiers are trying to resolve dueling internal orientation agendas for the Republican Party's incoming freshman Congress members, who will be learning their way around Washington this week. After the Tea Party Patriots and conservative California think tank the Claremont Institute scheduled dueling orientation events for new members of Congress, Tea Partiers began bombarding their new representatives with phone calls to express their disapproval. In an e-mail on Thursday, the Tea Party Patriots warned against the think tank's actions: "They are apparently trying to make sure that instead of sitting with grass-roots tea party leaders from around the country, the lobbyists and consultants can sink their claws into the freshmen, and begin to 'teach them' the ways of D.C." The deluge of phone calls that resulted prompted a second e-mail the next day, asking members to lay off the new Congress members for the moment. The Claremont Institute said it was merely hosting an event the freshman members had planned for themselves.
For further reading:
- The Democrat's New Change.
- Right Wing Groups Scuffle Over Freshmen.
- Freshmen Arrive in Washington With Many Questions.
Governor Perry will Head the Republican Governor's Association
From Politico:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry will be tapped as the new chairman of the Republican Governors Association when the organization meets next week in San Diego, GOP sources tell POLITICO.
Perry recently released a book taking aim at the federal government and both the subject of the tome, “Fed Up!,” and his promotion of it have fueled speculation that he is eyeing a presidential bid.
But his appointment to helm the RGA heading into 2011 — when three states will hold governors’ races — amounts to the first concrete evidence that the Texan is serious when he says he has no interest in pursuing the White House. It would be nearly impossible to raise money for the committee and help direct the gubernatorial contests in Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky while running for president.
- Wikipedia: Republican Governors' Association.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry will be tapped as the new chairman of the Republican Governors Association when the organization meets next week in San Diego, GOP sources tell POLITICO.
Perry recently released a book taking aim at the federal government and both the subject of the tome, “Fed Up!,” and his promotion of it have fueled speculation that he is eyeing a presidential bid.
But his appointment to helm the RGA heading into 2011 — when three states will hold governors’ races — amounts to the first concrete evidence that the Texan is serious when he says he has no interest in pursuing the White House. It would be nearly impossible to raise money for the committee and help direct the gubernatorial contests in Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky while running for president.
- Wikipedia: Republican Governors' Association.
Debt Commission Spending Cut Recommendations
Click here for the actual recommendations made by the Debt Commission. These are only the expenditures. They propose $100 billion each in defense and non-defense spending.
Also worth reading:
- Disappointment in the reactions to the plan.
- Warts and all, it may be the best we can do.
A nice line, and a word of warning, from one of the links above: There is no magic pot of money out there that does not come attached to some angry interest group.
Also worth reading:
- Disappointment in the reactions to the plan.
- Warts and all, it may be the best we can do.
A nice line, and a word of warning, from one of the links above: There is no magic pot of money out there that does not come attached to some angry interest group.
Presidential Commissions
The "Debt Commission" report issued this week, points out a deficiency in my notes. I have little about presidential commissions, which are created from time to time to focus on certain issues not otherwise dealt with by Congress or other existing institutions. From Wikipedia:
In the United States, a Presidential Commission is a special task force ordained by the President to complete some special research or investigation. They are often used politically in one of two ways: either to draw attention to a problem (the publication of a report by a commission can generally be counted on to draw attention from the media, depending on how its release is handled); or, on the other hand, to delay action on an issue (if the President wants to avoid taking action but still look concerned about an issue, he can convene a commission and then let it slip into obscurity). However, there have been cases (the Tower, Rogers and Warren Commissions) where the commission has created reports that have been used as evidence in later criminal proceedings.
Here's a list of -- according to The Week -- the seven most controversial U.S. presidential commissions.
In the United States, a Presidential Commission is a special task force ordained by the President to complete some special research or investigation. They are often used politically in one of two ways: either to draw attention to a problem (the publication of a report by a commission can generally be counted on to draw attention from the media, depending on how its release is handled); or, on the other hand, to delay action on an issue (if the President wants to avoid taking action but still look concerned about an issue, he can convene a commission and then let it slip into obscurity). However, there have been cases (the Tower, Rogers and Warren Commissions) where the commission has created reports that have been used as evidence in later criminal proceedings.
Here's a list of -- according to The Week -- the seven most controversial U.S. presidential commissions.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Bogus Trends and the Newsweek/Daily Beast Merger
As we begin, in 2301, to look at the media, it might be fun to look over Jack Shafer's ongoing coverage of "bogus-trend stories." These are stories that pop up suddenly in the media and highlight some sudden crazy thing some nutty crazy people are doing. Often these prove to be little more than hooks to get people to read the paper.
In a related media story, Slate comments on the recent merger between Newsweek and the website the Daily Beast and especially the new outfits' flamboyant editor Tina Brown.
In a related media story, Slate comments on the recent merger between Newsweek and the website the Daily Beast and especially the new outfits' flamboyant editor Tina Brown.
Illegal Immigration In Texas
A large number of the bills introduced into the legislature during early filing address illegal immigration in the state. Texas Tribune has a run down.
City and County Lobbying in Texas
As we begin to discuss the right to petition in 2301, here's information about the amount of money Texas cities and counties spent on lobbying over the past five years.
Republican Shows / Democratic Shows
The range of entertainment options made available to the general public has seemingly led to another factor which maker party identifiers different: the shows each watches:
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Report From The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
This week, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform unveiled a preliminary version of their proposal to reduce the deficit over the next few years. It has yet to be approved by the entire commission, and once approved (if it is approved) it has no effect unless approved by Congress. The commission was created by an executive order by Obama.
- Ezra Klein's analysis.
- Proposed spending cuts can be found here.
- NYT Story.
- Times Topics: National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
- Ezra Klein's analysis.
- Proposed spending cuts can be found here.
- NYT Story.
- Times Topics: National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
Will Texas Opt Out of Medicaid
From the NYT:
A week after newly emboldened Republicans in the Texas Legislature floated a radical cost-saving proposal — opting out of the federal Medicaid program — health care experts, economists and think tanks are trying to determine just how serious they are, and if it would even be possible.
Update: More detail from the Texas Tribune. Republicans are arguing that cutting Medicaid is saves the state money, but others argue that it doesn't since the feds pick up most of the tab for Medicaid and if the policy is limited costs may be sent down to counties where property taxes and insurance premiums will pick up the tab.
A week after newly emboldened Republicans in the Texas Legislature floated a radical cost-saving proposal — opting out of the federal Medicaid program — health care experts, economists and think tanks are trying to determine just how serious they are, and if it would even be possible.
Update: More detail from the Texas Tribune. Republicans are arguing that cutting Medicaid is saves the state money, but others argue that it doesn't since the feds pick up most of the tab for Medicaid and if the policy is limited costs may be sent down to counties where property taxes and insurance premiums will pick up the tab.
Texas Bill Filing Begins
This Monday -- Nov 8th -- was the first day members of the upcoming Texas Legislature -- the 82nd -- could file bills. The Texas Tribune notes that there have been a large number of bill introduced, many from the newly energized Republican House majority -- they won 22 new seats in last week's election.
We can follow the daily introduction of bills in the Reports page of the Texas Legislature Online. Go to the bottom where it says "bill filing by date" and click on the date you wish. Here are a few pages:
November 8.
November 9.
November 10.
We can follow the daily introduction of bills in the Reports page of the Texas Legislature Online. Go to the bottom where it says "bill filing by date" and click on the date you wish. Here are a few pages:
November 8.
November 9.
November 10.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wall Street Lobbyists Eye Financial Regulations
Over 700 firms hired almost 3000 lobbyists to address financial regulations passed last year.
2010 Election Spending
Here's a link to the Center for Responsive Politics page detailing total spending on the 2010 midterm elections.
Their history page puts this year's spending in perspective.
In case you are wondering what that money is spent on, read this: Call it the midterm stimulus program. The record-breaking campaign showered billions of dollars on a broad array of companies, including broadcast conglomerates, polling firms and small-town restaurants, according to a Washington Post analysis of expenditure reports. Candidates spent at least $50 million on catering and liquor, $3.2 million at country clubs and golf courses, and $500,000 on pizza, coffee and doughnuts, the records show.
Their history page puts this year's spending in perspective.
In case you are wondering what that money is spent on, read this: Call it the midterm stimulus program. The record-breaking campaign showered billions of dollars on a broad array of companies, including broadcast conglomerates, polling firms and small-town restaurants, according to a Washington Post analysis of expenditure reports. Candidates spent at least $50 million on catering and liquor, $3.2 million at country clubs and golf courses, and $500,000 on pizza, coffee and doughnuts, the records show.
2010 Election Results
Here are a few links with last week's election results.
It's worth noting that despite the fact that Republicans did so well in U.S. House races, all area representatives were comfortably reelected. The 2003 gerrymandering seems to have been well done. Republicans did make significant gains in the Texas House though.
From the Houston Chronicle:
- Houston area representatives and state senators.
- Statewide races.
- Harris County results.
- Brazoria County results.
- Galveston County results.
Results from the Texas Secretary of State's office.
From The Hill
- New Members Guide.
It's worth noting that despite the fact that Republicans did so well in U.S. House races, all area representatives were comfortably reelected. The 2003 gerrymandering seems to have been well done. Republicans did make significant gains in the Texas House though.
From the Houston Chronicle:
- Houston area representatives and state senators.
- Statewide races.
- Harris County results.
- Brazoria County results.
- Galveston County results.
Results from the Texas Secretary of State's office.
From The Hill
- New Members Guide.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Did Roll Call Votes Matter?
More analysis of the 2010 vote from the Monkey Cage:
Did votes on the controversial bills (stimulus, cap and trade, TRAP and heath care) the past two years make a real difference in the elections? Overall, the answer is no, but for those Democrats who were defeated (many of whome were in districts that did not vote for Obama in 2008), the answer seems to be yes. There's the outside (very outside) chance that had these Democrats all voed against these bills that Democrats woudl stil be in the majority.
What does this model tell us about roll call votes on these four bills? Simple answer: they mattered. A lot. A Democratic incumbent in the average district represented by Democratic incumbents actually lost about 2/3 of a percentage point for every yes vote. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that's for incumbents in districts that voted 63% for Obama.
For Democrats in the least Democratic districts (Chet Edwards of TX or Gene Taylor of MS), the model suggests a loss of about 4% for every yes vote. Does that mean poor Chet lost 16 points on roll call votes alone? No, because he wasn't a big supporter of Obama's agenda. But he did vote for both TARP and the stimulus. In fact, virtually every Democratic incumbent on the ballot yesterday supported at least one of these four bills. That support was costly.
Again, this suggests that what really matters more than votes, is the way that districts are drawn. Had each district been more balanced, not gerrymandered one way or the other, the election would have turned out differently. What does this tell us about democracy?
Did votes on the controversial bills (stimulus, cap and trade, TRAP and heath care) the past two years make a real difference in the elections? Overall, the answer is no, but for those Democrats who were defeated (many of whome were in districts that did not vote for Obama in 2008), the answer seems to be yes. There's the outside (very outside) chance that had these Democrats all voed against these bills that Democrats woudl stil be in the majority.
What does this model tell us about roll call votes on these four bills? Simple answer: they mattered. A lot. A Democratic incumbent in the average district represented by Democratic incumbents actually lost about 2/3 of a percentage point for every yes vote. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that's for incumbents in districts that voted 63% for Obama.
For Democrats in the least Democratic districts (Chet Edwards of TX or Gene Taylor of MS), the model suggests a loss of about 4% for every yes vote. Does that mean poor Chet lost 16 points on roll call votes alone? No, because he wasn't a big supporter of Obama's agenda. But he did vote for both TARP and the stimulus. In fact, virtually every Democratic incumbent on the ballot yesterday supported at least one of these four bills. That support was costly.
Again, this suggests that what really matters more than votes, is the way that districts are drawn. Had each district been more balanced, not gerrymandered one way or the other, the election would have turned out differently. What does this tell us about democracy?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
2010 Exit Polls
For my 2301s as they continue their readings about political party identification at this moment in time.
A Simple Explanation of the 2010 Vote
According to the Monkey Cage, its the 2008 vote:
If you had one thing, and one thing only, to predict which Democratic House incumbents would lose their seats in 2010, what would you take? The amount of money they raised? Their TARP vote? Their health care vote? Whether they had a Tea Party opponent? A Nazi reenactor opponent?
The best predictor by far is none of those. It is simply how Democratic their district is. ... In all 402 contested House elections, the 2008 presidential vote in that district would explain 83% of the variation in the Democratic House candidate's vote share. Nothing else in our dataset comes close.
Focusing on the Democratic incumbents who lost shows how crucial the partisanship of their district was
Campaigns seem to matter much less than how districts are drawn. A comment on this story pointed out how many districts had more than 75% Democrats, and how few had more that 75% Republicans. This seems to indicate successful gerrymandering on the part of Republicans.
If you had one thing, and one thing only, to predict which Democratic House incumbents would lose their seats in 2010, what would you take? The amount of money they raised? Their TARP vote? Their health care vote? Whether they had a Tea Party opponent? A Nazi reenactor opponent?
The best predictor by far is none of those. It is simply how Democratic their district is. ... In all 402 contested House elections, the 2008 presidential vote in that district would explain 83% of the variation in the Democratic House candidate's vote share. Nothing else in our dataset comes close.
Focusing on the Democratic incumbents who lost shows how crucial the partisanship of their district was
Campaigns seem to matter much less than how districts are drawn. A comment on this story pointed out how many districts had more than 75% Democrats, and how few had more that 75% Republicans. This seems to indicate successful gerrymandering on the part of Republicans.
An Early Sign of Tension
Tea Party House members are making demands on the Republican leadership, but are apparently concerned about what they see is some backsliding by the leadership already. Is this an early indication of future dissension within the Republican Conference?
In his Tuesday press conference, Boehner dropped only one line that could worry the Tea Party. Asked whether Republicans would support raising the debt ceiling, Boehner would only say that it was being discussed. A real Tea Partier would have said no, possibly with an expletive prefacing it.
"How can they raise it?" asked Robin Stublen, a Tea Party leader in Florida, where the GOP did very well Tuesday. "The debt is the first thing we talk about. Raising the debt limit is like increasing the limit on a credit card that's already been maxed out."
But it's what parties in power sometimes have to do. Obama spent some of his first State of the Union pointing out that he "hated" the bailout that he voted for and implemented. He, and other Democrats, spent much of 2010 apologizing or explaining why they'd failed to deliver on what the party wanted—cap-and-trade legislation, an end to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, immigration reform. Some elements of their base were more forgiving (Hispanic voters, who carried Harry Reid to victory in Nevada) and some less (gay voters, who voted less Democratic than usual).
So Republicans need to do a combination of education and sleight-of-hand to convince Tea Partiers that, no, seriously, they are doing everything they can to dismantle the state.
In his Tuesday press conference, Boehner dropped only one line that could worry the Tea Party. Asked whether Republicans would support raising the debt ceiling, Boehner would only say that it was being discussed. A real Tea Partier would have said no, possibly with an expletive prefacing it.
"How can they raise it?" asked Robin Stublen, a Tea Party leader in Florida, where the GOP did very well Tuesday. "The debt is the first thing we talk about. Raising the debt limit is like increasing the limit on a credit card that's already been maxed out."
But it's what parties in power sometimes have to do. Obama spent some of his first State of the Union pointing out that he "hated" the bailout that he voted for and implemented. He, and other Democrats, spent much of 2010 apologizing or explaining why they'd failed to deliver on what the party wanted—cap-and-trade legislation, an end to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, immigration reform. Some elements of their base were more forgiving (Hispanic voters, who carried Harry Reid to victory in Nevada) and some less (gay voters, who voted less Democratic than usual).
So Republicans need to do a combination of education and sleight-of-hand to convince Tea Partiers that, no, seriously, they are doing everything they can to dismantle the state.
Don't Join Committees
Senate Tea Party leader Jim DeMint is advising newly incoming Tea Party Senators to not join committees:
"I never heard the avoid-committee advice before," the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann, who's forgotten more about the U.S. Congress than I'll ever know, informed me by e-mail. "Committees are less important in the Senate than in the House," Mann agreed, "but still essential for getting into the guts of legislation and learning something about the substance of programs and their implementation."
"Perhaps," Mann mused, DeMint "is afraid that his new minions will go native on committees and dilute their role in the revolutionary vanguard." Action equals corruption. Mere knowledge equals corruption. Ignorance is strength.
So perhaps the advise is meant to ensure that DeMint can control these new senators. We will soon know if they follow his advise.
"I never heard the avoid-committee advice before," the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann, who's forgotten more about the U.S. Congress than I'll ever know, informed me by e-mail. "Committees are less important in the Senate than in the House," Mann agreed, "but still essential for getting into the guts of legislation and learning something about the substance of programs and their implementation."
"Perhaps," Mann mused, DeMint "is afraid that his new minions will go native on committees and dilute their role in the revolutionary vanguard." Action equals corruption. Mere knowledge equals corruption. Ignorance is strength.
So perhaps the advise is meant to ensure that DeMint can control these new senators. We will soon know if they follow his advise.
How They Did It
Here are two stories outlining how Republicans organized after the 2008 elections to win the House in 2010.
The Young, the Old, and the Election of 2010
This chart may say all you need to know about what happened between 2008 and 2010:
This is what exit polls tell us was the age breakdown among those who voted in the past two elections. Obama supporters didn't show up -- the young returned to form. They tend not to vote in midterm elections, and didn't once again. The get out the vote drives did not work.
It might also tell us why, despite what people are saying about reducing the size of government, Medicare, Social Security and defense spending (the big three) are all off the table. The old support them all. Also, assuming the young show up to vote in 2012 in comparable numbers to 2008, how stable is the Republican majority?
This is what exit polls tell us was the age breakdown among those who voted in the past two elections. Obama supporters didn't show up -- the young returned to form. They tend not to vote in midterm elections, and didn't once again. The get out the vote drives did not work.
It might also tell us why, despite what people are saying about reducing the size of government, Medicare, Social Security and defense spending (the big three) are all off the table. The old support them all. Also, assuming the young show up to vote in 2012 in comparable numbers to 2008, how stable is the Republican majority?
Did Sharron Angle Rally the Latino Vote?
There's evidence that her harsh tome towards Latinos drove them to the polls, and to vote against her.
The Return of the Liberal Republican?
Caught up in Tuesday's wave may have been moderates and liberals running as Republicans. What does this mean for (1) the ability of the party to retain its cohesiveness within the House and (2) the chance that Democrats may be able to field competitive challengers to them in 2012?
On to Redistricting
As we've discussed in class, the biggest factor in this election was control of state houses following the census and reapportionment. Republicans peaked at the right time. They are in a position to draw district that will expand their influence far beyond their actual numbers in the electorate.
Will Republicans Repeal Health Care Legislation?
In short, they can't since they will not control the Senate, and cannot override a presidential veto. Here's an argument that they lack any incentive to do it either.
This is a great (and perhaps cynical) statement on the difference between campaigning an governing:
There’s a big difference between campaigning and legislating. In the campaign, Republican candidates appealed to their base, which was worked up about health reform without much understanding of what it does and how it works (this lack of understanding is broadly held, it’s not just a Republican base thing). The Republican base hates health reform because it’s a symbol of Obama. They think it’s a product of the far left, when in fact it’s chock full of Republican ideas.
But that thinking is of principal relevance to the campaign, not to governing. When the new Republican House majority starts legislating on health care, they will be more concerned with what the relevant interest groups want. The insurance industry, hospitals, and drug companies want looser regulation and lower taxes. That is, the big players want what they always want–more control over implementation and establishment of favorable regulations–even if it’s at the expense of a more efficient health system for the rest of us. But they also want the mandate, which can’t work without the subsidies and insurance reforms.
It's the Tea Party vs. the insurance companies. The safe bet is the latter wins.
This is a great (and perhaps cynical) statement on the difference between campaigning an governing:
There’s a big difference between campaigning and legislating. In the campaign, Republican candidates appealed to their base, which was worked up about health reform without much understanding of what it does and how it works (this lack of understanding is broadly held, it’s not just a Republican base thing). The Republican base hates health reform because it’s a symbol of Obama. They think it’s a product of the far left, when in fact it’s chock full of Republican ideas.
But that thinking is of principal relevance to the campaign, not to governing. When the new Republican House majority starts legislating on health care, they will be more concerned with what the relevant interest groups want. The insurance industry, hospitals, and drug companies want looser regulation and lower taxes. That is, the big players want what they always want–more control over implementation and establishment of favorable regulations–even if it’s at the expense of a more efficient health system for the rest of us. But they also want the mandate, which can’t work without the subsidies and insurance reforms.
It's the Tea Party vs. the insurance companies. The safe bet is the latter wins.
2010 California Propositions
Here's a list of what passed and what didn't in Tuesday's election.
Aside from the defeat of Prop 19 -- which would have legalized and taxes marijuana -- the most interesting result might be Prop 20, which establishes a committee (the California Citizens Redistricting Commission) that will design congressional districts rather than the state legislature.
Should Texas do something similar?
Aside from the defeat of Prop 19 -- which would have legalized and taxes marijuana -- the most interesting result might be Prop 20, which establishes a committee (the California Citizens Redistricting Commission) that will design congressional districts rather than the state legislature.
Should Texas do something similar?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
60
Republicans picked up 60 seats in yesterday's election, but now have to turn to governing the House, and here things might get tricky. For the past two years they have enjoyed a lean and cohesive coalition, while the Democrats have had people in their caucus representing districts that lean Republican. This created internal divisions. Those are the people that were defeated in yesterday's election meaning that the Democrats have the more cohesive caucus and Republicans have to deal with what this author calls Republicrats.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Democrats Can Blame the Young
As expected, the old are voting more than the young, and this has benefitted the Republican Party more than the Democrats.
A More Humble Republican Party?
David Brooks thinks this Republican Party will be more reserved than they were in 1994, when their arrogance led to clumsy mistakes and Clinton's re-election.
What About the Democratic Realignment?
After the 2008 election, some predicted a political realignment where Democrats would dominate politics for the next generation. Here's commentary on the state of that realignment.
2301s: Keep this in mind as we review party eras.
2301s: Keep this in mind as we review party eras.
Are Violent Video Games Protected by the First Amendment?
Here's proof that the Supreme Court could care less about elections. They are scheduled to hear oral arguments in another case involving online -- or at least digital -- speech. Did the California violate the First Amendment by restricting the ability of minors to but violent video games?
Is gaming speech protected by the First Amendment?
- Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association
Is gaming speech protected by the First Amendment?
- Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association
Do Democrats Have a Stronger Party Organization Than Republicans?
Here's an argument that they do, and that this helps explain why they aren't doing worse than they could have:
As bad a night as Democrats are going to have, it could have been much worse. Heck, it still might be much worse. We don't really know yet. For a while, I've been trying to get final data on the Democratic National Committee's persuasion and targeting efforts to see just how many seats Democrats could have lost without the help of a strong part, a party that is, in essence, an organizational reformation of an historic presidential campaign. Republicans do NOT have a strong party structure. The bulk of targeting efforts in several states is being conducted by outside groups.
The DNC's Organizing For America arm was never able to mobilize enough voters to match the relentless pulse of Republican enthusiasm, but it turns out that, in the past six months, they did a heck of a lot. President Obama's recent engagement with the election is one reason why Democratic enthusiasm has increased, but without the party to harness it, it would likely have dissipated. Make no mistake: if Democrats win Senate races in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Nevada, the party gets some credit.
It's a plausible argument. Republican success has been driven by the Tea Party movement and other organizations outside the party structure. The Republican National Committee has had its work done for it by other groups.
As bad a night as Democrats are going to have, it could have been much worse. Heck, it still might be much worse. We don't really know yet. For a while, I've been trying to get final data on the Democratic National Committee's persuasion and targeting efforts to see just how many seats Democrats could have lost without the help of a strong part, a party that is, in essence, an organizational reformation of an historic presidential campaign. Republicans do NOT have a strong party structure. The bulk of targeting efforts in several states is being conducted by outside groups.
The DNC's Organizing For America arm was never able to mobilize enough voters to match the relentless pulse of Republican enthusiasm, but it turns out that, in the past six months, they did a heck of a lot. President Obama's recent engagement with the election is one reason why Democratic enthusiasm has increased, but without the party to harness it, it would likely have dissipated. Make no mistake: if Democrats win Senate races in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Nevada, the party gets some credit.
It's a plausible argument. Republican success has been driven by the Tea Party movement and other organizations outside the party structure. The Republican National Committee has had its work done for it by other groups.
62 + .62*256 -1.4*7.4 + 0.1*9.7 = 211.33 Democratic seats
That's the formula one polisci guy uses to predict the number of seats Democrats are likely to have in the House after the election is over. The argument is that much of the results of midterm elections are structural, that is, based on circumstances apart from any attitude one has about the president. The model predicts that given the nature of the last election and the current economic condition, Democrats should expect to lose 45 seats. Any less means they did well, any more means they did poorly.
Math is fun.
Math is fun.
Some History
The President's party, with exceptions in 1998 and 2002, tends to lose seats -- both in the U.S. and State Houses, in midterm elections. Here's proof. The rationale is that the party out of power is more mobilized than the one in power.
Might the Polls Get it Wrong?
The consensus is that Republicans are poised for big gains today -- and that still seems likely -- but Nate Silver toys with the possibility that the polls might get it wrong. Whether he's right or wrong, his analysis does a good job of detailing problems the current state of polling has to deal with -- including the difficulty of polling cell phone user. Democratic voters (such as the young) are more likely to use cell phones, and some polls don't attempt to dial them up.
We will see if this matter at all soon enough.
We will see if this matter at all soon enough.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Do Americans Really Want Smaller Government?
Andrew Sullivan thinks not:
What to make of the findings of the latest NYT poll? I have to say it makes me scratch my head. It portends a big Republican wave election, buoyed by a new conviction that people want smaller government that does less rather (55 percent) than a bigger one with more services (36 percent). At the same time, 71 percent oppose reducing social security benefits for future retirees; 54 percent oppose raising the retirement age (42 percent support it); 57 percent oppose not giving social security recipients a raise in benefits this year; and a small majority 45 - 41 do not want the health insurance reform bill repealed.
So Americans - surprise! - want smaller government in theory, but when forced to make any hard choices on spending, balk. Taxes? Surprise! They don't want them raised either - except for those earning over $250,000 a year, but even then only by 48 - 43 margin. They also prefer the Democratic party to the Republicans - the GOP's unfavorability gap was 11, the Dems was 2 - but are going to give us the most hardline conservative House in living memory. So go figure. A bunch of adolescent whiners? More grist for the Kinsley meme that they are just "big babies"? Or just completely confused and disgruntled and lashing out?
What to make of the findings of the latest NYT poll? I have to say it makes me scratch my head. It portends a big Republican wave election, buoyed by a new conviction that people want smaller government that does less rather (55 percent) than a bigger one with more services (36 percent). At the same time, 71 percent oppose reducing social security benefits for future retirees; 54 percent oppose raising the retirement age (42 percent support it); 57 percent oppose not giving social security recipients a raise in benefits this year; and a small majority 45 - 41 do not want the health insurance reform bill repealed.
So Americans - surprise! - want smaller government in theory, but when forced to make any hard choices on spending, balk. Taxes? Surprise! They don't want them raised either - except for those earning over $250,000 a year, but even then only by 48 - 43 margin. They also prefer the Democratic party to the Republicans - the GOP's unfavorability gap was 11, the Dems was 2 - but are going to give us the most hardline conservative House in living memory. So go figure. A bunch of adolescent whiners? More grist for the Kinsley meme that they are just "big babies"? Or just completely confused and disgruntled and lashing out?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Truman's Pardon of the Duke of Duvall County
Another post from Grits for Breakfast. Archie Parr was a party boss in South Texas and key to Lyndon Johnson's electoral success.
And a great blog I'm adding to the Executive Links: Pardon Power.
And a great blog I'm adding to the Executive Links: Pardon Power.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Should we Elected District Attorneys?
Here's an argument that we shouldn't:
There are some things we shouldn't put to a vote. The majority can't vote to enslave a minority, or to confer fewer rights on some groups than others. The power to imprison is one of the more awesome powers we grant the government, and democracy is too crude an instrument to protect our rights in the face of that power.
But even here, the alternative isn't optimal. Voters are too easily manipulated by crime fearmongering and tend to reward, not punish, overly aggressive prosecutors, as well as punish judges who show the slightest hint of balance, mercy, or a better-than-narrow view of due process. But I've also written in the past about how rarely prosecutors are punished by courts, the state bar, or the state attorney general for even egregious violations, even in cases that result in wrongful conviction. Given what we already know about accountability in civil service jobs—that is, that there's very little of it—I don't know that there's any reason to think it would be much different for prosecutors. Still, making DAs civil servants would least insulate them from the need to justify their job to voters by racking up convictions, which in turn might eventually attract more people to the position whose concept of justice is a bit more nuanced than filling up the prisons with bad guys.
Another perfect example of the conflict between democracy and individual liberty. What about this idea? Should due process be subject to majoritarian control?
There are some things we shouldn't put to a vote. The majority can't vote to enslave a minority, or to confer fewer rights on some groups than others. The power to imprison is one of the more awesome powers we grant the government, and democracy is too crude an instrument to protect our rights in the face of that power.
But even here, the alternative isn't optimal. Voters are too easily manipulated by crime fearmongering and tend to reward, not punish, overly aggressive prosecutors, as well as punish judges who show the slightest hint of balance, mercy, or a better-than-narrow view of due process. But I've also written in the past about how rarely prosecutors are punished by courts, the state bar, or the state attorney general for even egregious violations, even in cases that result in wrongful conviction. Given what we already know about accountability in civil service jobs—that is, that there's very little of it—I don't know that there's any reason to think it would be much different for prosecutors. Still, making DAs civil servants would least insulate them from the need to justify their job to voters by racking up convictions, which in turn might eventually attract more people to the position whose concept of justice is a bit more nuanced than filling up the prisons with bad guys.
Another perfect example of the conflict between democracy and individual liberty. What about this idea? Should due process be subject to majoritarian control?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Texas Sunset Advisory Commission 2011
Every several years, the Texas Legislature reviews the performance of state agencies to determine if they should be maintained. Here's a link to the legislative agency in charge, and agencies under review this year.
*Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Coastal Coordination Council
*Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
Electronic Government Program Management Office of the Department of Information Resources
Emergency Communications, Commission on State
Environmental Quality, Texas Commission on
*Equine Research Account Advisory Committee
Forest Service, Texas
Hearing Instruments, State Committee of Examiners in the Fitting and Dispensing of
Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of
*Housing Corporation, Texas State Affordable
Information Resources, Department of
Injured Employee Counsel, Office of
*Insurance Counsel, Office of Public
*Insurance, Texas Department of
*Juvenile Probation Commission, Texas
On-site Wastewater Treatment Research Council
Public Finance Authority, Texas
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Public Utility Counsel, Office of
*Racing Commission, Texas
Railroad Commission of Texas
Soil and Water Conservation Board, State
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, State Board of Examiners for
*Transportation, Texas Department of
Water Development Board, Texas
Workers' Compensation, Texas Department of Insurance Division of
*Youth Commission, Texas
*Subject to a focused, limited scope, or special purpose review
- Wikipedia: Sunset Advisory Commission.
*Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Coastal Coordination Council
*Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
Electronic Government Program Management Office of the Department of Information Resources
Emergency Communications, Commission on State
Environmental Quality, Texas Commission on
*Equine Research Account Advisory Committee
Forest Service, Texas
Hearing Instruments, State Committee of Examiners in the Fitting and Dispensing of
Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of
*Housing Corporation, Texas State Affordable
Information Resources, Department of
Injured Employee Counsel, Office of
*Insurance Counsel, Office of Public
*Insurance, Texas Department of
*Juvenile Probation Commission, Texas
On-site Wastewater Treatment Research Council
Public Finance Authority, Texas
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Public Utility Counsel, Office of
*Racing Commission, Texas
Railroad Commission of Texas
Soil and Water Conservation Board, State
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, State Board of Examiners for
*Transportation, Texas Department of
Water Development Board, Texas
Workers' Compensation, Texas Department of Insurance Division of
*Youth Commission, Texas
*Subject to a focused, limited scope, or special purpose review
- Wikipedia: Sunset Advisory Commission.
How Party Identifiers See the World
Apparently its not government party identifiers fear, but who controls it.
From the Gallup Poll: (via The Monkey Cage)
So party identifiers see government as an "immediate threat to citizens," what ever that means, when the other party is in power. Is this rational? Again, since I've posted on this several times, this might underscore Washington's warnings about political parties being an unnecessary source of contention in society.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
From the Gallup Poll: (via The Monkey Cage)
So party identifiers see government as an "immediate threat to citizens," what ever that means, when the other party is in power. Is this rational? Again, since I've posted on this several times, this might underscore Washington's warnings about political parties being an unnecessary source of contention in society.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Revising our Attitudes about Habeas Corpus
Grits for Breakfast points out a provocative book that might revise the way we understand the evolution of the writ of habeas corpus and what it means constitutionally.
Here's a scholarly review.
From Grits: Halliday argues provocatively that “what constituted liberties was the result rather than the starting point of judicial decision-making,” and that the British Parliament's role was mainly to limit habeas authority rather than establish it.
Ironically, despite Justice Stevens' claim that the status of the "Great Writ" in 1789 provides the floor for its authority, Vladek says "perhaps the most radical way in which American practice has diverged from England’s has been the evisceration ... of the common law as a basis for habeas jurisdiction." Justice John Marshall in 1807 was the first to withdraw habeas authority from its more robust and wide-ranging common law roots to insist that “the power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States, must be given by written law.” Writes Vladek, "In other words, the Article III federal courts—including the Supreme Court—were powerless to issue common-law writs of habeas corpus, and could only act pursuant to express statutory jurisdiction." The reviewer concludes that "Whether he misunderstood English history or misrepresented it, Marshall thereby perpetuated critically incorrect assumptions about the scope of common-law habeas corpus at the Founding."
I'll be honest, I can't completely follow what's going on here, but it seems that John Marshall may have misunderstood the proper basis of habeas corpus and our subsequent interpretation of habeas corpus has in turn been wrong.
Here's a scholarly review.
From Grits: Halliday argues provocatively that “what constituted liberties was the result rather than the starting point of judicial decision-making,” and that the British Parliament's role was mainly to limit habeas authority rather than establish it.
Ironically, despite Justice Stevens' claim that the status of the "Great Writ" in 1789 provides the floor for its authority, Vladek says "perhaps the most radical way in which American practice has diverged from England’s has been the evisceration ... of the common law as a basis for habeas jurisdiction." Justice John Marshall in 1807 was the first to withdraw habeas authority from its more robust and wide-ranging common law roots to insist that “the power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States, must be given by written law.” Writes Vladek, "In other words, the Article III federal courts—including the Supreme Court—were powerless to issue common-law writs of habeas corpus, and could only act pursuant to express statutory jurisdiction." The reviewer concludes that "Whether he misunderstood English history or misrepresented it, Marshall thereby perpetuated critically incorrect assumptions about the scope of common-law habeas corpus at the Founding."
I'll be honest, I can't completely follow what's going on here, but it seems that John Marshall may have misunderstood the proper basis of habeas corpus and our subsequent interpretation of habeas corpus has in turn been wrong.
Coverture
I just ran across a story with the following link to a definition of "coverture."
. . .in most nations. The state or condition of a married woman. During coverture, the being of the wife is civilly merged, for many purposes, into that of her husband; she can, therefore, in general, make no contracts without his consent, express or implied. To this rule there are some exceptions: she may contract when it is for her benefit, such as to save her from starvation. In some cases, when coercion has been used by the husband to induce her to commit crime, she is exempted from punishment.
In 2301 we will cover civil rights in a month or so. This fits with our overview of gender discrimination.
On that note, I heard an interesting related story regarding the founding of Houston. The conventional story is that the Allen Brothers founded the city. The revised version is that is was actually done by their mother, she came up with the idea of a port city on the gulf and had the money to do it, but law did not allow her to sign contracts. Only her sons could. That's why they did it.
- Wikipedia: Coverture.
. . .in most nations. The state or condition of a married woman. During coverture, the being of the wife is civilly merged, for many purposes, into that of her husband; she can, therefore, in general, make no contracts without his consent, express or implied. To this rule there are some exceptions: she may contract when it is for her benefit, such as to save her from starvation. In some cases, when coercion has been used by the husband to induce her to commit crime, she is exempted from punishment.
In 2301 we will cover civil rights in a month or so. This fits with our overview of gender discrimination.
On that note, I heard an interesting related story regarding the founding of Houston. The conventional story is that the Allen Brothers founded the city. The revised version is that is was actually done by their mother, she came up with the idea of a port city on the gulf and had the money to do it, but law did not allow her to sign contracts. Only her sons could. That's why they did it.
- Wikipedia: Coverture.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Campaigns v. Facts: How Do People Learn About Politics and Government?
A student sent me the following commentary touching on inaccuracies in the current campaign regarding the bank bailout (it was signed by President Bush, not President Obama) and other topical items. It has a political slant, but it may hold the answer to a question we will cover in 2301: Why are so many people ignorant about basic facts about government and politics?
Could it be that most people learn what they know about politics through political advertising? Makes my job tougher. Campaigns are oriented towards winning elections, not enhancing general knowledge. And they are very good at what they do.
Could it be that most people learn what they know about politics through political advertising? Makes my job tougher. Campaigns are oriented towards winning elections, not enhancing general knowledge. And they are very good at what they do.
The President Has no Constitutional Role to Play in the Amendment Process
I'm almost finished grading the 2302 written assignment on Wilson and I noticed many talked about his support for the 17th Amendment, but while this may have been a personal position, he could not use his office to promote the amendment.
- Here's background from the National Archives.
- Here's background from the National Archives.
Shay's Rebellion and the Foreclosure Crisis
There really is little new under the sun, or in American politics.
One of the commentators in the previous post mentioned that Shay's Rebellion was driven by a large measure by farmers concerned that their lands would be foreclosed upon due to an ongoing economic crisis.
Sounds familiar.
- Wikipedia: Shay's Rebellion.
- US History: Shay's Rebellion.
- Commentary by Roy Oppenheim.
- The Hill.
- Washington Post.
The rebellion is held to have demonstrated the need for a strong central government to effectively address such crises in order to ensure chaos does not engulf the republic. Since a central government was in fact established, it's worth considering whether the effort was successful.
One of the commentators in the previous post mentioned that Shay's Rebellion was driven by a large measure by farmers concerned that their lands would be foreclosed upon due to an ongoing economic crisis.
Sounds familiar.
- Wikipedia: Shay's Rebellion.
- US History: Shay's Rebellion.
- Commentary by Roy Oppenheim.
- The Hill.
- Washington Post.
The rebellion is held to have demonstrated the need for a strong central government to effectively address such crises in order to ensure chaos does not engulf the republic. Since a central government was in fact established, it's worth considering whether the effort was successful.
A Discussion About Outsider Politics
From the NYT.
Some smart folks discuss whether the current crop of outsider candidate is unusual historically. Most suggest no, but add that the internet allows greater opportunity for outsider groups to form. Whether they have staying power is a different matter.
Some smart folks discuss whether the current crop of outsider candidate is unusual historically. Most suggest no, but add that the internet allows greater opportunity for outsider groups to form. Whether they have staying power is a different matter.
Monday, October 25, 2010
$25 Billion
That's the possible budget shortfall in Texas this year. Proportionately worse than California's apparently.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
This Week's Written Assignments
Here the written questions I'm about to post for next week:
For the 16 week classes
2301 - Elections: Next week is election day, and since we are covering elections this week, it makes sense to ask a question related to it, but I want to add a twist. As you are probably aware, many pollsters have provided up to the minute updates on the possible results. I want you to try to determine how they are doing this and whether their results might prove accurate on election day. Here are some links: Pollster, Gallup, and 538. What I want you to determine isn't what they are predicting, but what proof they are using to make those predictions.
2302 - The Executive - Institutional Evolution: As with most -- actually every -- president, a handful of new executive agencies have been established, or redesigned, during the first two years of the Obama Administration. I want you to research what these agencies are and describe one. What factors led to its formation? What controversies surrounded its formation?
For the 8 week classes:
2301 - The U.S. and Texas Constitutions: By now you should be familiar with the Tea Party Movement and its goals and positions. One of the arguments they make is that they are "conservative constitutionalists" and that they support the true meaning of the U.S. Constitution. I want you to do two things. First, figure out what they mean by "constitutional conservative," and second evaluate whether their claims are true. Do they in fact support the proper way the the Constitution should be interpreted?
2302 - The Legislature, History and Constitutional Design: One of the key functions of a legislature is for its members to represent the interests of their constituents, but there is a dilemma embedded in the Constitution regarding how constituents ought to be represented. House members are said to be delegates while Senators are trustees. After finding out what these terms mean, I want you to find out who your U.S. Representative is and who your U.S. Senators are and determine whether they in fact behave according to this model. Give plenty of examples.
For the 16 week classes
2301 - Elections: Next week is election day, and since we are covering elections this week, it makes sense to ask a question related to it, but I want to add a twist. As you are probably aware, many pollsters have provided up to the minute updates on the possible results. I want you to try to determine how they are doing this and whether their results might prove accurate on election day. Here are some links: Pollster, Gallup, and 538. What I want you to determine isn't what they are predicting, but what proof they are using to make those predictions.
2302 - The Executive - Institutional Evolution: As with most -- actually every -- president, a handful of new executive agencies have been established, or redesigned, during the first two years of the Obama Administration. I want you to research what these agencies are and describe one. What factors led to its formation? What controversies surrounded its formation?
For the 8 week classes:
2301 - The U.S. and Texas Constitutions: By now you should be familiar with the Tea Party Movement and its goals and positions. One of the arguments they make is that they are "conservative constitutionalists" and that they support the true meaning of the U.S. Constitution. I want you to do two things. First, figure out what they mean by "constitutional conservative," and second evaluate whether their claims are true. Do they in fact support the proper way the the Constitution should be interpreted?
2302 - The Legislature, History and Constitutional Design: One of the key functions of a legislature is for its members to represent the interests of their constituents, but there is a dilemma embedded in the Constitution regarding how constituents ought to be represented. House members are said to be delegates while Senators are trustees. After finding out what these terms mean, I want you to find out who your U.S. Representative is and who your U.S. Senators are and determine whether they in fact behave according to this model. Give plenty of examples.
The Latest From Wikileaks and the Frontier of the New Media
Wikileaks, which already released confidential files relating to ther Iraq War, released more.
- Commentary from the NYT.
- Commentary from the NYT.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Creationism v Evolution
More constitutional fallout from the Delaware debate: Can states compel school districts to teach creationism alongside evolution? Recent Supreme Court decisions have found this to violate the establishment clause.
Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut
Thanks to the Delaware Senate debate we've had another in our periodic dust ups about the meaning of the phrase "separation of church and state." I though it appropriate to bring it up, since religion is the first subject of the First Amendment, which we've just covered in 2301 and the interpretation of "establishment" and "free exercise" is up to the Supreme Court, which we will soon enough cover in 2302.
Rather than speak about the issue, it might be better to let the participants in the original discussion speak for themselves. Here is the text of the letter sent by the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut to the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, expressing their concern that they, as a religious minority, might suffer at the hands of a religious majority capable of controlling government (that concern should sounds familiar):
Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our Constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God as raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, Stephen S. Nelson
And here is Jefferson's reply:
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Let's discuss.
Rather than speak about the issue, it might be better to let the participants in the original discussion speak for themselves. Here is the text of the letter sent by the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut to the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, expressing their concern that they, as a religious minority, might suffer at the hands of a religious majority capable of controlling government (that concern should sounds familiar):
Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our Constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God as raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, Stephen S. Nelson
And here is Jefferson's reply:
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Let's discuss.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wall Street Bailout Earns 8.2% Return
From Bloomberg ....
and Policito.
If it made money, what are candidates successfully running against the TARP. What aren't members of Congress who voted for it being rewarded?
and Policito.
If it made money, what are candidates successfully running against the TARP. What aren't members of Congress who voted for it being rewarded?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Old People Behind the Wheel
My favorite example of justifiable discrimination. Would legislation demanding that old folks retake drivers exams survive an equal protection challenge?
Is the Declaration of Independence a Legal Document?
We wrestled with this question in class today, and here are some links that go further. Apparently there is debate on the issue, but the majority opinion seems to be that it isn't.
From Legal Lad:
The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.
However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Beyond these examples, and a handful of others, courts are generally hesitant to apply the Declaration as substantive law. This is true of both those justices considered conservative and liberal, such as current Justices Scalia and Breyer.
However, the general principles have been utilized by several political movements to support their positions.
The basic point is that the Declaration establishes no independent law, so it can;t be a legal document, but it can aid in the interpretation of the law.
Other links:
- Answers.com.
- The Declaration of Independence: A Constitutional Document.
- Legal Dictionary.
- The Declaration of Independence is not Law.
- The Legal Significance of the Declaration of Independence.
From Legal Lad:
The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.
However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Beyond these examples, and a handful of others, courts are generally hesitant to apply the Declaration as substantive law. This is true of both those justices considered conservative and liberal, such as current Justices Scalia and Breyer.
However, the general principles have been utilized by several political movements to support their positions.
The basic point is that the Declaration establishes no independent law, so it can;t be a legal document, but it can aid in the interpretation of the law.
Other links:
- Answers.com.
- The Declaration of Independence: A Constitutional Document.
- Legal Dictionary.
- The Declaration of Independence is not Law.
- The Legal Significance of the Declaration of Independence.
Law Enforcement Seeks Expanded Surveillance Powers
From the NYT:
Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, citing lapses in compliance with surveillance orders, are pushing to overhaul a federal law that requires phone and broadband carriers to ensure that their networks can be wiretapped, federal officials say.
The officials say tougher legislation is needed because some telecommunications companies in recent years have begun new services and made system upgrades that caused technical problems for surveillance. They want to increase legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps.
An Obama administration task force that includes officials from the Justice and Commerce Departments, the F.B.I. and other agencies recently began working on draft legislation to strengthen and expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law that says telephone and broadband companies must design their services so that they can begin conducting surveillance of a target immediately after being presented with a court order.
- Wikipedia: Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act.
Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, citing lapses in compliance with surveillance orders, are pushing to overhaul a federal law that requires phone and broadband carriers to ensure that their networks can be wiretapped, federal officials say.
The officials say tougher legislation is needed because some telecommunications companies in recent years have begun new services and made system upgrades that caused technical problems for surveillance. They want to increase legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps.
An Obama administration task force that includes officials from the Justice and Commerce Departments, the F.B.I. and other agencies recently began working on draft legislation to strengthen and expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law that says telephone and broadband companies must design their services so that they can begin conducting surveillance of a target immediately after being presented with a court order.
- Wikipedia: Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act.
Can the Police Force You to Identify Yourself?
My apologies to one of my classes for not being able to directly answer this question yesterday, but the Supreme Court has made some peculiar decisions on this point and I didn't want to get it wrong. The case I was thinking of was Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, which: held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to identify himself.
The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.
So it seems that yes police can, at least in Nevada and the U.S. Supreme Court said they can. But part of the answer is: It depends on what state you are in since you are more likely to be pulled over and searched by a state official than a federal official. In Texas, Grits for Breakfast has this to say: "Currently, Texans don't have to identify themselves unless they're actually arrested, and it's not a crime if you don't do so. In practice, of course, police can't write a ticket without the identifying information, so this would give them cause to arrest you and cart you off to jail (under authority affirmed by the US Supreme Court in Atwater v. Lago Vista, a Texas case)."
So the answer seems to be, in Texas you don't have to identify yourself unless you are being arrested, but the Supreme Court is willing to allow the state to mandate identification if it deems it necessary to conduct an investigation. Such changes might be underway. In the last legislative session a bill passed a Senate Committee that would have made failure to identify a crime. Shoudl we expect it to be reintroduced in January?
Some additional reading:
- When You Must Identify Yourself to the Police.
- ACLU: What to do if you are stopped by the police.
- Identify Yourself or Go to Jail. (scroll down)
- SB 1175: Relating to the prosecution of the offense of failure to identify.
The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.
So it seems that yes police can, at least in Nevada and the U.S. Supreme Court said they can. But part of the answer is: It depends on what state you are in since you are more likely to be pulled over and searched by a state official than a federal official. In Texas, Grits for Breakfast has this to say: "Currently, Texans don't have to identify themselves unless they're actually arrested, and it's not a crime if you don't do so. In practice, of course, police can't write a ticket without the identifying information, so this would give them cause to arrest you and cart you off to jail (under authority affirmed by the US Supreme Court in Atwater v. Lago Vista, a Texas case)."
So the answer seems to be, in Texas you don't have to identify yourself unless you are being arrested, but the Supreme Court is willing to allow the state to mandate identification if it deems it necessary to conduct an investigation. Such changes might be underway. In the last legislative session a bill passed a Senate Committee that would have made failure to identify a crime. Shoudl we expect it to be reintroduced in January?
Some additional reading:
- When You Must Identify Yourself to the Police.
- ACLU: What to do if you are stopped by the police.
- Identify Yourself or Go to Jail. (scroll down)
- SB 1175: Relating to the prosecution of the offense of failure to identify.
What Tax Cut?
One of the more curious aspects of the stimulus bill was the fact that while it contained tax cuts, no one seems to know that it did. Most people assume that taxes went up, possibly because we are all primed to expect tax increases when Democrats are in office. Something to consider when we begin to discuss public opinion and how it is formed.
A Democratic Rebound in 2012?
I've hit this topic below, and it does seem to be becoming conventional wisdom that just as the 2010 election was a reaction to the 2008 election, so will the 2012 election react against 2010:
The one sobering thought that veteran Republican consultants are already contemplating is that the larger the wave this year, the more difficult it will be to hold onto some of these seats in 2012 and 2014 in the House and 2016 in the Senate.
The bigger the wave, the weaker the class and the harder it will be to hold onto those seats. Democrats only have to look at their 2006 and 2008 classes for plenty of examples.
What this means is that we will likely have our third wave election in a row this year, and the bigger this one is, the more likely that there will be a countervailing wave in either 2012 or 2014.
The one sobering thought that veteran Republican consultants are already contemplating is that the larger the wave this year, the more difficult it will be to hold onto some of these seats in 2012 and 2014 in the House and 2016 in the Senate.
The bigger the wave, the weaker the class and the harder it will be to hold onto those seats. Democrats only have to look at their 2006 and 2008 classes for plenty of examples.
What this means is that we will likely have our third wave election in a row this year, and the bigger this one is, the more likely that there will be a countervailing wave in either 2012 or 2014.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)