Category: Elections

Giving Up the Ghost So Soon, Harold?

It looks like Harold Ford Jr. has already decided to drop the lie about him being a life-long liberal. He has an op-ed in the New York Times in which he calls for Democrats to stop pushing for comprehensive health care reform and in its stead push for marginal insurance policy reforms and limitations on medical liability lawsuits. He also calls for minuscule immigration reform, huge tax cuts for businesses, and bipartisan commissions to address the budget deficit (though he doesn’t acknowledge that tax cuts for the wealthy and for business will only increase the deficit). Of course this is the sort of politician always has been – one elephant tail short of being an actual Republican.

There are a lot of bad ideas in American politics. But I’m hard pressed to find one worse than Harold Ford Jr. running as a Democrat for Senate in the state of New York.

Citizens United

Well, democracy, such as it is in the US, was nice while it lasted.

The Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court says money is speech and corporations are entitled to free speech under the Constitution. I must have missed that part of the Bill of Rights.

The only real question is why the Court is addressing this particular previously-denied right for corporations. If corporations are people entitled to constitutional rights, how long before corporations are finally granted suffrage rights?

Politics was already corrupted by corporate money before today. The corruption will now be more direct, less opaque, and more omnipresent. Heaven help any elected official who tries to pass legislation that ticks off Exxon, Philip Morris or Blue Cross.

Meaningless Vote Scores

Adam Bink is right.

What all of this says to me is that all of these aggregate vote ratings are a lesser standard of judging a candidate’s record than individual examples of merit. It’s not just Ford who doesn’t get that, it’s lots of politicians, but Ford is trying to pull a fast one over on progressives and New York Democrats by throwing a bunch of numbers- many distorted- at us. No one should be fooled.

When it comes to assessing candidates like Harold Ford, or for that matter, Kirsten Gillibrand, aggregated vote scores are meaningless. Candidates who rely on them to sell themselves to voters should be questioned on what, specifically, they have done to merit such a score.

Deep Thought

Life is easier when WordPress doesn’t eat 1,000 word posts.

Shorter Me: If New York has had a carpetbagger for a senator and a rep who moved far to the left after being appointed senator, why would a carpetbagger who claims to be moving to the left be so bad? Answer: Harold Ford Junior is the Chair of the DLC and shouldn’t be trusted, while Gillibrand is backing up her words with votes in the US Senate.

MA Senate & Health Care Legislation

Chris Bowers is right – the process with moving the health care bill can be fouled by the results of the Massachusetts Senate special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. Bowers predicts another 14-18 days before a bill is signed at best and since the MA election is on January 19th, it is hard to imagine the winner not be seated prior to the completion of a health care bill in the Senate.

There are three possible ways that this can play out.

If Democrats are not confident that both a bill can be completed prior to the seating of the winner of the Massachusetts election and that Martha Coakley will defeat Republican Scott Brown, the process could be sped up by the House taking up the Senate bill, as passed, and vote on it. That bill would then go to the President’s desk and would become law about as quickly as the House could pass it. The Senate would not have to take up the legislation again, but it would mean the House has to swallow a vastly inferior bill in the process.

The process can continue as it is — with the leaders of both chambers in negotiations with the White House — and maintain the same pace. This won’t really affect much if Coakley’s win is likely, something that has generally been confirmed by polling but is certainly a little close for comfort. If the pace is maintained, the MA special election will not influence the content of the bill, but will be determinative of whether or not a new piece of legislation passes the Senate.

Finally, if Coakley goes on to lose to Brown and the House does not pass the Senate bill as written, then it is highly unlikely that anything will again pass the Senate, at least without being written primarily by Collins or Snowe. This is the feared outcome of the Massachusetts special election really determining the outcome of this legislative fight.

It’s scary stuff and even more troubling that there’s the slightest chance that the election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat could result in dramatically altering health care legislation and even stop it from passing.

Progressives Less At Risk Than Conserva-Dems

I tend to agree with Chris Bowers and Jonathan Singer that while broadly Democrats may lose seats in 2010, it’s unlikely that progressives will be at risk as much as conservative Democrats. As Bowers notes, losses expected of non-progressive Democrats will only increase the relative strength of progressives in Congress. This in turn will mean there is an easier path to achieve progressive policies under a Democratic majority. There will be fewer conserva-Dems to try to hold the rest of the caucus hostage. And Singer is right that there is no real reason to take Charlie Cook’s assertion that being progressive is a political liability in this climate. We have no indication as of yet that supporting the progressive agenda under a Democratic president is something that voters will punish members of Congress for.

In fact, Nate Silver had a post a little over a week ago where he highlighted that the squeaky wheel Democrats in the Senate – people like Blanche Lincoln and Max Baucus – were suffering in the polls while making loud noises about how they may or may not vote on health care reform. Hemming and hawing in public doesn’t help their ratings, nor does making themselves swing votes in the debate. By comparison, their colleagues within the state who have been quietly taking a position and not making much noise afterward are doing just fine.

Broadly speaking, it is conservative Democrats who have made the most noise about where they do or do not stand on health care reform, while injecting themselves into the debate as negotiators seeking to extract specific concessions. Progressives, on the other hand, have largely been silently supporting reform while working quietly behind closed doors to hold the line against their vocal conservative colleagues. This makes me think that Bowers and Singer are right to be indifferent to coming conserva-Dem losses while projecting few progressive losses.

One thing that is certain, though. If there are a large string of conservative Democrat losses in the House and Senate in 2010, while there are comparatively few progressive losses, the media narrative will be that Democrats must be less progressive and stake more centrist positions. There will be no electoral evidence to support this position. It will simply be Conventional Wisdom via preconception and ignorance. It’s the way of the world and hopefully one of these days Democrats in DC will try to educate the press about why they are so fundamentally wrong.

A Retiring Blue Dog

Blue Dog Democrat Dennis Moore (KS-03) is retiring. Naturally, Chuck Todd thinks this is apocalyptic for Democrats:

The Moore retirement is one that should have some House Dem leaders nervous (as well as the WH), the party can’t afford more like Moore.
Twitter

One reason why 2010 doesn’t look like 1994 is that Dems haven’t had many retirements. GOPers might not have won ’94 w/o open seats.
Twitter

I’d actually be very curious to see a coherent argument for how having fewer seats in the House, but a smaller number of Blue Dogs, is bad news for leadership and the White House. Blue Dogs have opposed the leadership and the WH about as much as Republicans have. Or, more precisely, Blue Dogs have been more effective than Republicans have been in their opposition. Republican opposition hasn’t caused legislation to change one bit, while Blue Dog obstructionism has forced Democratic legislation to the right. What, exactly, do the Blue Dogs add when the size of their caucus is only used as a lever to push Congress to the right?

Conventional Wisdom Sucks

Manu Raju and Jonathan Allen of Politico have a piece that reflects quite perfectly how wrong Conventional Wisdom is. Going into Tuesday’s election, the CW was that (1) the election was a referendum on Obama and (2) New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races had federal implications for 2010, while actual federal races in NY-23 and CA-10 didn’t (well, unless the teabagger candidate in NY-23, Doug Hoffman, won). The CW manifests itself off the bat in the Politico piece today:

Election Day losses in Virginia and New Jersey have congressional Democrats focused like never before on jobs — their own.

This sentence could just have easily been recast:

Election Day losses in traditionally conservative districts in New York and California have congressional Republicans focused like never before on jobs — their own.

Or:

Election Day victories in traditionally conservative districts in New York and California have congressional Democrats focused like never before on accomplishing President Obama’s agenda.

But both of those castings cut against Conventional Wisdom, and so they are simply impossible to think. Democratic victories being good things for Democrats is simply a lacuna for the Beltway Conventional Wisdom set.

I’ll say that I think New Jersey is an outlier – Corzine’s loss was connected to a horrible economy that voters didn’t see him doing enough to fix. It was indicative of an anti-incumbent backlash around local issues.

Virginia, on the other hand, was lost because Creigh Deeds refused to campaign on the issues and attitudes that delivered the state to Barack Obama in 2008. He ran away from Democratic positions on health care reform, most notably the public option. He ran to the right on jobs and labor law reform. In essence, he was like so many other losing Democratic candidates in recent memory who bizarrely think being Republican Lite is helpful.

Contrast Deeds’ chickenshittery with the position of Bill Owens in NY-23, a district that Democrats hadn’t won since the mid-nineteenth century. Owens embraced President Obama’s agenda and came out in favor of a public option for health care reform. And he won. Likewise, John Garamandi won in California’s 10th congressional district. This seat had been held by the very conservative Democrat Ellen Tauscher and Conventional Wisdom held that you had to be, at minimum, a conservative Democrat to win there. But Garamandi came out not only in favor of the Obama agenda, but even staked out positions to Obama’s left on health care reform. And he won, too.

Looking forward to 2010, the lesson of 2009 should be clear. Democrats need to be strong in their commitment to a reform agenda, led by President Obama. They need to run as proud Democrats, which in some cases will mean running to Obama’s left. For Democrats in Republican leaning districts, it’s critical that they not try to be Republican Lite candidates. They need to show voters that they have ideas, that their ideas are good, and that they will bring change by staying in office and working alongside the Obama administration.

Now is not the time for Democrats to run to the right. Doing so is a proven recipe for failure. Just ask Creigh Deeds.

Why Last Night Means Nothing for Health Care Reform

Prior to people going to vote yesterday, the national media narrative was focused on the New Jersey and Virginia governors races, as well as the race in New York’s 23rd Congressional district as loci for an assessment of the public’s support of President Obama. This was always absurd, as gubernatorial races are about local issues (traffic congestion dominated in VA and local taxes in NJ). Additionally, the NY-23 is one of the most long-standing Republican held districts in the Northeast; no Democrat had ever won there before last night. In any event, the popular push in the press was, not surprisingly, that only Democratic losses were possible and meaningful. Indeed, this morning pundits are already telling us that only the Democratic losses in Virginia and New Jersey mean anything.

Reading tea leaves for national meaning on an election day that saw the Republicans take two governor’s mansions, Democrats take two House seats,  one win (Washington) and one loss (Maine) for marriage equality, and two defeats of TABOR ballot initiatives (Maine and Washington). Instead, I’m interested in how these results will impact legislative debate in Congress, primarily on health care reform.

Going into yesterday, there was already discussion by Blue Dog Jason Altmire that Democratic electoral losses would strengthen conservative Democrats and slow the pace of reform, something that he bizarrely thinks is a good thing. Similarly, the Glenn Beck Teabagger set, including leading voices like Erick Erickson of RedState.com, predicted that conservative candidate Doug Hoffman’s expected win in NY-23 would lead to an emboldened Republican base and greater opposition to change.

On the other side of the aisle, there were a good number of savvy progressives who pointed out that since the gubernatorial races didn’t have anything to do with the Obama administration, they shouldn’t be seen as informative of the course for reform. Additionally, the results of a district Democrats have no tradition of being competitive in wouldn’t be informative, either.

But here’s the thing – last night’s election was really very similar to the August congressional recess. During the recess there were rabid, disruptive protests by teabaggers that received widespread attention. There were also even larger numbers of town halls filled by supporters of health care reform, calling on Congress to get the job done. As a result, elected officials returned to Washington after the August recess…but no one had changed their minds. Those who opposed reform looked at the angry teabaggers and cited their actions as evidence that they are right to oppose reform. And those who support health care reform listened to the pleas from their constituents and felt greater resolve in their drive for change.

Expect the same thing from Tuesday’s election results. Erickson is trumpeting even the NY-23rd loss as a win for conservatives and for opposing health care reform.  But Democrats gained two House seats, both votes for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and likely both votes for whatever health care reform legislation Pelosi puts forward. Additionally Doug Hoffman, the most rapid advocate of “No” on a ballot yesterday, was defeated. Expect liberal members of Congress to see the federal results as support for the work they are doing.

All of that adds up, in my view, to the election having no meaningful impact on the course of health care reform legislation. Positions will be hardened on both sides, but don’t expect anyone to move an inch. As far as the prognosticators go, expect most of them to miss this point in an effort to create a story around a non-existent rebuke of Obama. Plus ça change…

Better and Better Democrats

Judd Legum used to write for ThinkProgress. He’s currently running for state legislature in Maryland and is a prime example of how this young generation of political activists are moving away from advocacy, writing, and organizing and towards seeing public service as an outlet for their commitment to change. Judd really is the first A-List blogger to run for office that I know of, but I hope he’s not the last.

I recently donated to his campaign on ActBlue; I encourage you to do the same.