From TDS managing editor Ed Kilgore’s Washington Monthly post, “False Idols of the Senate“:

As predicted, prophecies of “buyer’s remorse” over Senate Democrats’ invocation of the “nuclear option” are flying around promiscuously, as though it did not occur to Harry Reid and company that the filibuster won’t be available to future Democratic minorities (it wouldn’t have been in any event). After that meme wears itself out, we’ll start hearing the Old Wise Heads of Washington lament the passing of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body, where Ds and Rs used to get drunk and play golf together, etc., etc.
…As a former Senate employee, I may have less patience than most towards that chamber’s hoary self-congratulatory lore. But the argument that the proper functioning of the Senate depends on the power to obstruct has it all backwards. Compromise is not a virtue in itself; it can produce bad as well as good legislation, and has the potential of generating confused and self-contradictory and even corrupt legislation. There is nothing in the Senate rules that keeps Lamar Alexander or Susan Collins from influencing the majority or forming coalitions with moderate Democrats, and absolutely nothing in the Constitution that keeps House and Senate members from cooperating with each other, within or across party lines…

In an earlier post, “No Buyer’s Remorse Here on the Filibuster,” Kilgore added,

…it was a foregone conclusion that Republicans would “go nuclear”–certainly over judges, and maybe over everything–if and when they were back in power. I mean, seriously, does anyone think that after forty years of promises to the Christian Right the GOP is going to be able to deny its “base” the fifth sure Supreme Court vote (perhaps) necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade? Over a Senate rule? No way. The judicial filibuster power was doomed anyway, and all it served to do at present was as a temporary instrument for GOP power that would be exercised by any means available.
Beyond that, I have to say I prefer bad government to dysfunctional government. Perhaps without the fallback measure of the filibuster, the shape of the Supreme Court and of constitutional protections can become an open instead of a submerged issue in Senate and presidential elections. And if the nuclear option is eventually extended to legislative filibusters, perhaps we’ll obtain more coherent policies, and more accountable government, regardless of who wins elections…The recent frequency of filibusters was making a mockery of democracy. It had to end

After The Village pundits are done with the hand-wringing, the senate will continue much as before, only with a little more grumbling from obstructionist Republicans, which is the sound of our democracy functioning a bit better. As Kilgore concludes, “So dry your tears, ye nostalgic mourners for the days when the Titans of the Senate walked tall. In many respects, you are worshiping false idols of a past, well-buried.”

The assassination of President Kennedy had a transformational effect on the nation and world, even more so for those of us who lived in Washington, D.C. at the time. In 1963 the nation’s capitol was always abuzz about all things Kennedy. JFK brought charm, sparkle and unbridled optimism to what was otherwise a sleepy southern city, more accustomed to the yawner days of the Eisenhower Administration, along with some dark, lingering vestiges of McCarthyism.
On top of all that, my Dad, who was born the same year as President Kennedy, was a fierce JFK defender from the get-go. Anyone who uttered the slightest criticism of our president (or FDR) was quickly lambasted as an idiot. He, along with most of our neighbors seemed shattered by the assassination, and even as a 16-year old, I could feel the city’s palpable anxiety about what would happen now. What was going to happen to that youthful spirit, the call to service and the sense of great possibilities that JFK embodied? No one seemed to know.
You didn’t sense any fear that the country was going to collapse – LBJ’s take-charge persona seemed to preclude any immanent disaster. But there was a feeling that the hopeful and optimistic spirit we had come to take for granted was suddenly gone, and it completely evaporated rather quickly. For my generation, the downer was somewhat softened by mid-sixties cultural excitement the Beatles generated, but the political atmosphere was nonetheless darkened.

Read more…

The following article by TDS Founding Editor Ruy Teixeira, is cross-posted from ThinkProgress:
Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock the last few weeks, you’ve undoubtedly endured a fair amount of breathless media coverage about Chris Christie’s landslide win in New Jersey and how his “moderate” approach could save the GOP. I am skeptical.
The first big problem with this claim is that Christie is not a solution to the GOP’s ongoing demographic dilemma. The contours of this dilemma are well-known, particularly the rise of minorities and the Millennial generation and the decline in conservative white working class voters. Just the ongoing decline of the white working class and the rise of minorities should, all else equal, increase Democrats’ margin in 2016 by almost 2 percentage points over 2012. Put another way, if they reran the 2012 election with the probable 2016 electorate, Obama would win by 6 points, not 4.
Christie can’t do anything directly about this change in the mix of voters, but the theory seems to be that he will be able to get a significantly larger share of the minority vote due to his personal appeal to minority voters. If he did, that could negate the benefit Democrats would normally enjoy from ongoing demographic change.
But how plausible is this? It is true that, in the afterglow of his landslide re-election in New Jersey he has polled relatively well among Hispanics in the two national polls that have tested Christie-Hillary Clinton matchups, losing this group by an average of around 10 points, very good for a Republican in recent years. And it is also true that in his reelection victory in New Jersey, he actually carried the Latino vote by 51-45, according to the New Jersey exit poll. It is the latter data point in particular that has inspired most of the heavy breathing about Christie’s minority appeal.
However, on close scrutiny, Christie’s ability to carry this group in a very easy re-election victory is not particularly impressive, and certainly not indicative of future success with Latino voters. A deeper look at the same exit poll that showed Christie carrying New Jersey Hispanics by 6 points should make this plain.
Another question on the poll asked New Jersey voters whom they would support for President in 2016 if the choices were Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton. New Jersey voters favored Clinton by 4 points, but New Jersey Latinos favored her by 24 points — a 30 point swing against Christie when compared to their vote for governor. It seems that the Latino voters who know Christie best are not so enthusiastic about him as a potential president.
What about Hispanics in the rest of the country? Would increased exposure to Christie and what he stands for make these voters fonder of him? The reverse is far more likely. Given his record in New Jersey, he is likely to run for President, if he does, on a “severely” conservative program of cutting taxes and government and taking on organized labor. That puts him on a collision course with America’s Hispanics who are probably the most pro-government constituency in the country.
But hasn’t Christie said some nice-ish things on immigration? Won’t that endear him to Hispanics? Leaving aside the fact that immigration is hardly the only issue Latinos vote on, it is true that several years ago he supported both a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrant and in-state tuition rates for undocumented students. However, post-election, when asked by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week whether these were in fact his positions on immigration, he declined to defend them and tried as fast as he could to change the subject. We’ve probably seen the last of Christie’s relatively moderate position on immigration.
This brings us to Christie’s second big problem. No matter how moderate his positions may be on certain issues — and there are only a few; as Isaac Chotiner recently noted, he is fundamentally quite conservative — he is unlikely to retain these positions through the Republican primary process. If he wants to win, that is.
This can be seen from someterrific data assembled by Alan Abramowitz in a recent post on Sabato’s Crystal Ball. For starters, he shows data from the 2012 National Election Study demonstrating just how different Tea Party Republicans are from not just the overall electorate but even from other Republicans. Note especially the huge gaps on social and economic issues.

But here’s the killer chart. This looks at Tea Party supporters (and strong supporters) as a share of Republicans, again using NES data. As the charts shows, Tea Party supporters are 52 percent of all Republicans, 57 percent of general election voters, 64 percent of primary voters (Christie strategists take note!), 76 percent of rally attendees and a remarkable 80 percent of donors. Wow:

That’s the gauntlet Christie has to run to get the nomination. Not much will be left of Christie the moderate if and when he gets to the other side. And not much will be left of Christie, the savior of the GOP, either.

You’ve heard it before. But David Welna’s npr.org post “With Nominees Stalled, Democrats Reprise Filibuster Threat” notes signs that Dems maybe ready to rumble: “Democrats say that this time, they’re ready to pull the trigger on what’s known as “the nuclear option.” Doing so would amount to altering the rules not with the traditional two-thirds majority but a simple majority of 51…Several other senior Democrats have also come around to embracing such a rules change, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California….”I think we need to change the rules,” Feinstein said. “Now, Republicans say, ‘What goes around comes around. Wait ’til we’re in charge.’ I can’t wait until they’re in charge. I mean, the moment is now. We’re here for now.”
At Think Progress John Halpin reveals “Here’s Why The ‘White Vote’ Is A Myth.” Reviewing a recent study by the Center for American Progress and Policylink, Halpin notes, “A huge divide between whites is one of the most important: while 58 percent of white liberals believe that we must work together on common challenges, 59 percent of white conservatives said that people are basically on their own (overall, 36 percent of white respondents self-identified as ‘liberal’ and 50 percent of whites as ‘conservative’)…By contrast, majorities of African-Americans and Latinos — regardless of ideological self-identification — hold a more collective understanding of the economy. 73 percent of African-American liberals and 60 percent of African-American conservatives believe that we must work together on common economic challenges (46 percent of African-Americas self-identify as ‘liberal’ and 38 percent as ‘conservative’). Fifty-six percent of Latino liberals and 53 percent of Latino conservatives believe similarly (45 percent of Latinos self-identify as ‘liberal’ and 43 percent as ‘conservative’). Asian responses on this particular question more closely resemble those of whites than other people of color.”
Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson explains why “Voter suppression the new GOP strategy“: “Voter suppression has become the linchpin of Republican strategy. After Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, the GOP was briefly abuzz with talk of expanding the party’s appeal to young and Latino voters. Instead, the party doubled down on its opposition to immigration reform and its support for cultural conservatism — positions tantamount to electoral suicide unless the youth and minority vote can be suppressed. Meyerson shares what is known about the huge amounts of money Republicans are investing in buying elections, although most of their contributions are shrouded in secrecy. He conclude, “If you want to vote in the Republicans’ America, remember to bring your birth certificate. But if you want to buy an election and stay under wraps, your secret is safe with them.”
Robert Higgs reports at ohio.com that “In a party-line vote, the Ohio Senate on Wednesday approved a bill to shorten early voting to eliminate the so-called “Golden Week” that allowed people to both register to vote and cast early in-person absentee ballots at the same time…The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 20-13. The 20 yes votes all came from Republicans. The no votes all came from Democrats. The bill now moves to the House.”
At Maddowblog Steve Benen explains “ACA slows growth in health costs.” Says Benen “How good are the number figures? According to a new report published by Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, over the last three years – the period since “Obamacare” became the law of the land – per capita health care spending has grown at a rate of 1.3%. “This is the lowest rate on record for any three-year period and less than one-third the long-term historical average stretching back to 1965,” Furman noted.”
Joan McCarter’s “Obamacare enrollments surging, HealthCare.gov working better” at Daily Kos provides a share-worthy antidote to the GOP’s ACA spin. As McCarter points out, “enrollements across the country are surging, coming in ahead of projections in states across the country.” Further, adds McCarter, quoting from a Noam H. Levey’s L.A. Times article on the topic, “What we are seeing is incredible momentum,” said Peter Lee, director of Covered California, the nation’s largest state insurance marketplace, which accounted for a third of all enrollments nationally in October. California–which enrolled about 31,000 people in health plans last month–nearly doubled that in the first two weeks of this month…Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates, even as states that depend on the federal website lag far behind. In Minnesota, enrollment in the second half of October ran at triple the rate of the first half, officials said. Washington state is also on track to easily exceed its October enrollment figure, officials said.”
In a similar vein, read Paul Waldman’s American Prospect post, “Obamacare Panic to Enter Even Stupider New Phase,” which notes “January 1 is the end of any talk of repeal, and Republicans know it–as many of them have been saying all along, once you start giving people benefits, it’s all but impossible to take them away. That doesn’t mean there isn’t still work to do, and it doesn’t mean there aren’t things that could go wrong. Nor does it mean there might not be piecemeal fixes to one or another provision debated in the future; there almost certainly will be. But unless you think that in the next six weeks Republicans are going to manage to put together a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress to repeal the ACA–something you’d have to be nuts to believe–it’s never going to happen.”
Ditto, says Krugman.
Enjoy, mateys, the headline above this video: “NBC News Pollsters ‘Shocked’ By Horrible Numbers For GOP“:

The Fixx’s Chris Cillizza makes a pretty strong case that President Obama won re-election in 2012 with a superior ground game based on human contact. Here’s Cillizza mulling over data from a study by Ohio State’s Paul Beck and Erik Heidemann:

In the battlegrounds, the Romney campaign actually had more total contacts with voters than did the Obama campaign — holding clear edges on direct mail and phone contacts. “These data challenge the claim of an Obama advantage in the ground game, especially one substantial enough to be credited with a victory built upon a virtual sweep of the battleground states,” write Beck and Heidemann. “Instead, and especially in the battlegrounds, the Romney campaign and Republican party seemed to duel the Obama campaign and Democratic party to a draw.”…There is an important caveat to all of the above. While Romney out-contacted Obama overall, the president’s campaign held a lead in one critical place: In-person contacts.
Write Beck/Heidemann: “While the edge was based on contacts with only a small slice of the electorate, it probably was the most consequential of all the contacts….we project that the Obama campaign personally contacted about 7 million more voters than the Romney campaign in all states and about 3.6 million more in the battleground states, which Obama won by a total of 1.6 million votes.”

No doubt Cillizza, Beck and Heidemann have a point — that person to person contact in electioneering is better than all other kinds. But none of this proves that the respective character, views and image of Obama and Romney were not decisive factors.

The meme-mongers of the Republican’s mighty message machine are not going to like Ronald Brownstein’s National Journal article “Poll: Most Americans Oppose Obamacare Repeal Despite Rollout Troubles,” which reviews the findings of a new United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. As Brownstein explains:

Despite sharp divisions over the long-term impact of President Obama’s health-reform law, fewer than two in five Americans say it should be repealed, virtually unchanged since last summer, the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll has found.
Amid all the tumult over the law’s troubled implementation, the survey found that public opinion about it largely follows familiar political tracks and has changed remarkably little since the summer on the critical question of what Congress should do next. On that measure, support for repeal has not significantly increased among any major group except Republicans and working-class whites since the Congressional Connection Poll last tested opinion on the question in July.

Brownstein goes on to note that major Democratic constituencies remain supportive of the legislation, and “Congressional Democrats inclined to distance themselves from the law in the hope of placating skeptical independent or Republican-leaning voters face the risk of alienating some of their core supporters.” He adds that “A slim 52 percent majority agreed with the negative assessment: “The law is fundamentally flawed and will do more to hurt the nation’s health care system than improve it,” while “…46 percent endorsed the more positive sentiment: “The law is experiencing temporary problems and will ultimately produce a better health care system for the country.”
In terms of demographic breakdown, Brownstein explains:

Since last July’s poll, support for repeal has oscillated only slightly (or not at all) for self-identified Democrats (9 percent now, unchanged since July) and independents (40 percent now compared with 41 percent then); whites (48 percent versus 44 percent) and nonwhites (unchanged at 16 percent); young adults under 30 (unchanged at 26 percent) and seniors (42 percent now versus 40 percent then). The survey recorded a somewhat bigger shift toward repeal among whites without a college degree (up to 53 percent from 46 percent last summer) and self-identified Republicans (74 percent now, from 65 percent last summer). But whites with at least a four-year college degree remained essentially unchanged, with 36 percent now backing repeal, compared with 39 percent in July.
Indeed, like the question over the law’s eventual impact, this measure found clear signs of doubt among the key elements of the modern Democratic coalition, but no indication that they are rushing to abandon health reform: Repeal drew support from just one-sixth of minorities, one-fourth of millennials, and one-third of college-educated white women, the groups on which Democrats now rely most.

You wouldn’t know it from the major TV networks’ uncritical parroting of the GOP’s message du jour, but not much has changed since the rollout in terms of the constituency for repealing the ACA. Most American voters opposed Obamacare repeal during the summer, and they still feel that way today — which is interesting, considering that the Republicans have thrown everything they have at this law, including the rollout glitches.

In his MSNBC.com report “Wisconsin GOP aims to scrap weekend voting,” Zachary Roth explains “The measure, which passed the state assembly Thursday, would give municipalities two choices for early voting, known in the state as in-person absentee voting: they could offer it either from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays in the two weeks before an election; or at any time on a weekday, but not to exceed 30 hours per week, again in the two weeks before an election…That would mean a reduction in early voting hours for the state’s two biggest cities, Milwaukee and Madison–which are also its most important Democratic strongholds…Scrapping weekend voting will hit African-Americans particularly hard, Rev. Willie Brisco, who leads an alliance of Milwaukee churches, told msnbc…”A lot of people in our community are working two or three jobs, odd hours, having difficulty with childcare,” said Brisco. “So the weekend and the early voting reaches a lot of those people.”
Further evidence that the Republicans are getting increasingly brazen about voter suppression from Richard L. Hasen’s New York Times op-ed “Voter Suppression’s New Pretext“: “Says Texas: “It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.”
At The American Prospect Paul Waldman’s article title and subtitle puts the Obamacare nailbiting in a more sober perspoective: “Memo to Democratic Chicken Littles: The Sky Is Not Falling: Yes, this is a politically difficult moment for President Obama. But everyone needs to chill out.”
Former Bushie David Frum continues to risk excommunication from his party by suggesing, gasp, reasonable compromise, as in his latest post, “Why It’s Time To Start Talking About Reforming, Not Repealing, Obamacare” at The Daily Beast.
The Upton bill that has passed the House with substantial support from Blue Dog/moderate Democrats is a step backward in terms of policy. But, despite the Obama-bashing rhetoric accompanying it, the billl may be the first indication that the “Repeal Obamacare” lunacy of the Republican Party is slowly dissolving and being replaced by a more realistic movement for “reforms.” Meanwhile former speaker Pelosi provides a good soundbite, which Obamacare defenders can use: “I wish that my Republican colleagues could see how successful the Affordable Care Act is in California,” Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said. “I wish you could hear the stories of family after family after family being liberated and freed from the constraint of being job-locked because a family has a pre-existing condition.”
This new Zogby poll has Obama’s approval numbers down 3 points. But interestingly, he is holding steady with younger voters,” despite all of the GOP Obamacare fear-mongering directed at this demographic.
at HuffPollster, Jon Ward explores “What Does Obama’s Approval Rating Mean For 2014?,” quoting Sean Trende: “[P]residential job approval is still the most important variable for how his party fares in midterm elections, explaining about half of the variance. The relationship is highly statistically significant: For every point in job approval the president loses, his party loses 0.6 percent of its caucus….As I’ve said before, this election isn’t going to be about sixth-year itches or any such electoral mumbo-jumbo. It’s going to be about presidential job approval, supplemented by the state of the economy (which also affects job approval to a degree) and how overexposed or underexposed the president’s party is. Right now, the second factor provides a drag beyond the president’s job approval, while the third factor will work heavily to Democrats’ advantage on Election Day….It is still far too early to speculate about how many seats Democrats will lose (or perhaps gain) in the 2014 elections. But if Obama’s job approval is 40 percent on Election Day, gains would be unlikely, and Democratic losses in the low double digits — perhaps even as many as the 20 or so seats that would accompany losing 11 percent of their caucus, a la 1950 — would be plausible.”
If even half of the reports about the dangers posed by Fukushima pollution are true, Dems might be wise to prepare for nuclear power being a much more significant issue in the 2014 elections.
In his WaPo column, “Hillary Clinton faces a different Democratic Party,” Harold Meyerson has a thoughtful warning for Democratic 2016 front-runner Hillary Clinton: “And therein lies the challenge for Hillary Clinton: How to present herself on economic issues? The surest way she can alienate significant segments of her party — perhaps to the point of enabling a progressive populist such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to enter the race — is to surround herself with the same economic crew that led her husband to untether Wall Street and that persuaded Obama, at least in his first term, to go easy on the banks. The economy isn’t likely to be significantly better in 2016 than it is today, and Democratic voters will be looking for a more activist, less Wall Street-influenced nominee.”

Experiencing a bit of vertigo over assessments that Obama and Democrats were riding high and ready to crush the GOP in 2014 just a few weeks ago, but are now doomed to oblivion today, I took a look at some numbers at the Washington Monthly, and regained a bit of perspective. First, I quoted Jonathan Bernstein:

Obama’s popularity is probably at the low point of his presidency (again, depending on the adjustments, he’s either a bit below or a bit above his previous low. But it’s not any kind of unusually low low point (he’s nowhere near Truman, Carter, Nixon, W.), there’s no particular reason to expect the slump to continue, and myths aside no reason to believe he won’t recover if the news turns better. Granted, it’s hard to know what to expect from healthcare.gov, but it’s not as if it’s getting worse over time. I’m not saying his numbers will go up. Just that it’s more or less equally likely as further drops….

As for electoral effects? I wrote an item dismissing direct electoral effects of the shutdown against Republicans back last month; that post pretty much works now, in reverse for effects against Democrats. I should say: it’s far easier for sentiment against the president to translate into midterm electoral losses than it is for feelings against the out-party. So if Obama is unpopular in November 2014, it will hurt Democrats. But today’s frenzy about the ACA is going to be mostly forgotten by then, one way or another, just as the shutdown seems forgotten today. That’s probably even true, believe it or not, if the program totally collapses, although I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Then I gave a gander of my own to Gallup’s approval rating numbers:

After reading Jonathan Bernstein’s essay on the massive over-reaction to the president’s sag in approval ratings–some of it based, no doubt, on media cherry-picking of whichever polls had the lowest numbers–I went back and looked at Gallup’s weekly approval rating averages over the last few weeks.

The CW is that Obama and the Democrats were riding high–on the brink, perhaps, of a history-defying 2014 sweep of Congress–when the government shutdown ended. That week Gallup had Obama’s approval ratio at a 43/51 average. Now the CW is that Obama is sinking into second-term Bush-like oblivion, with Democrats abandoning him and Republicans roaring towards a conquest of the Senate. The latest Gallup weekly average of Obama’s approval ratio is at 41/52, a booming one-and-a-half point deterioration since the shutdown ended.

Looking at the two junctures in terms of internals, Obama’s approval rating among liberal Democrats has gone from 84% to 85% among Liberal Democrats, from 75% to 74% among Moderate Democrats, and from 69% to 62% among Conservative Democrats. His ratings are the same as before among Pure Independents, and actually up four points among Moderate/Liberal Republicans.

What does it all mean? Probably that most people aren’t breathlessly following events in Washington other than to register their heat and noise.

Democrats didn’t win the 2014 elections in October and they aren’t losing them in November. It’s time to chill a bit.