One of those political topics that definitely need more careful analysis is the idea that tough primaries full of negative attacks can “soften up” winners for the general election. There’s actually a counter-notion that primary competition “tempers” campaigns for November, and it’s obvious that primaries can boost name ID. But by and large, surviving a good, vicious primary battle is not considered the best prescription for success in highly competitive general elections. Time spent “healing” one’s own party is time that’s not available for reaching out to swing voters, and sometimes wounds just won’t heal at all.
This subject is relevant today because of the unusually large number of competitive Republican primaries this year, a number of which have gotten pretty nasty, and/or branded winners either as right-wing kooks or as unreliable RINOs little better than Democrats. As we get closer to November, polls will give some evidence of the net impact of primary divisions. But for now, the one thing that can be said with some certainty is that primary lines of attack on candidates can carry over into general elections and help opponents reinforce negative perceptions, even if the party holding the nasty primary “reunites.”
Let’s say Rick Scott wins the Florida GOP gubernatorial primary next week (not a great bet at the moment, but you never know). In his desperate effort to overcome Scott’s vast personal resources, primary opponent Bill McCollum has gone to great lengths to publicize the Medicare fraud scandal that afflicted the Columbia-HCA hospital chain under Scott’s direction. Should Scott win, Democrat Alex Sink will have to spend a lot less time and money raising this issue than would have been the case had McCollum left it alone. This will help Sink with independents and “soft-partisan” Democratic and Republican voters even if Republican politicians close ranks after the primary and McCollum starts praising Scott as a combinaton of Solomon, Ronald Reagan, and St. Francis of Assisi.
For a less hypothetical scenario, consider the situation in Georgia immediately after Nathan Deal’s extremely narrow gubernatorial runoff win over Karen Handel. At Southern Political Report this week, the distinguished University of Georgia political scientist (and runoff expert nonpareil) Charles Bullock suggests that Handel went overboard in tarring not only Deal but all her GOP enemies, including much of the Republican membership of the state legislature, as corrupt yahoos. This creates an immediate “unity” problem for Georgia Republicans, one that Handel herself tried to address by quickly conceding defeat in the runoff and endorsing Deal. But she can’t take back the many months she spent pounding away at the “corrupt yahoo” message, and there is no question Democrat Roy Barnes will pick up exactly where she left off, since nothing is more valuable to him than the idea that Georgia’s unaffiliated voters should be angry at Republicans in Atlanta as much as Democrats in Washington.
You can’t always count on primary candidates in the other party to do you these kinds of favors. In the California Republican gubernatorial primary campaign that concluded in June, Steve Poizner appeared to have gotten considerable traction with attacks on Meg Whitman’s questionable ties to the Goldman Sachs investment firm. But Poizner soon switched to a focus on immigration policy, and got crushed. I am sure that Jerry Brown and his allies were deeply disappointed by Poizner’s strategic decision, which meant they’d have to spend that much more time and money raising the Goldman Sachs issue all over again.
So it’s worth examining contests with difficult primaries from the limited point of view of discerning whether general election opponents quickly pick up on weaknesses exposed in the primaries. To deliberately mix metaphors here, there’s much to be said for striking while the underbelly is soft.

If you are a billionaire candidate for office running in a primary that’s going to be held in six days, you might well have mixed feelings about looking at Politico today and seeing an image of your BFF Mike Tyson above the headline: “I Never Did Drugs on the Boat.”
Yes, it’s probably helpful to Jeff Greene that Tyson is backing up his claim that he had a “zero tolerance for drugs” policy on the yacht that the ex-champ lived on during an extended tour of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. But beyond that, reminders of Greene’s rather sketchy background as a rich playboy are not exactly what the political doctor ordered right now. The voluble Tyson didn’t help much when he went beyond his immediate talking points and offered some details from his cruise itinerary:

Tyson also voluntarily described an incident in Sardinia, where the yacht docked at what point that August, in which he was charged – and later cleared – of a sex assault in which the woman making the accusation claimed he’d wanted her to do drugs.
“I got into a problem with a young lady that came on the boat,” he said. “Jeff and everyone was sleeping…She said I had beat her or something. The cops came over she said we had drugs on the boat, we had guns on the boat.”
He said, “Cops came and searched the boat and they found nothing.”

Nothing to see here, folks.
On another front, Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com has published a column addressing the contradiction between several polls showing Kendrick Meek moving ahead of Greene in the Florida Democratic Senate primary, and an Ipsos survey showing Greene still ahead despite his recent troubles. Ipsos, says Blumenthal, is testing the opinions of a lot of Democrats who probably aren’t going to turn out for an August primary:

Their survey was focused mostly on the general election and they appear to have included the primary voter question almost as an afterthought. Nevertheless, the looser likely voter screen they used helps explain why their Democratic primary subgroup is so much friendlier to Greene than the samples drawn by the other pollsters. It probably includes many voters who rarely vote in Democratic primaries and have less knowledge of or affinity for Meek, whose campaign has been touting endorsements from mainline Democrats like Bill Clinton.

It’s looking more and more like Jeff Greene will be able to return to luxurious obscurity after next Tuesday, and stop worrying about what anyone other than law enforcement personnel think about acceptable leisure-time activities on his yacht.

As it happens, I was in the eastern time zone yesterday, and thus following the primary returns from Wyoming and Washington involved some serious sleep deprivation. Newcomers to the West Coast like me complain a lot about having to get up early in the morning to deal with East Coast people and news, but it sure is nice to have those three extra hours when sluggish machines and poll workers are slowly churning out election returns.
The Wyoming GOP gubernatorial primary created the only cliffhanger of the night, with former U.S. Attorney Matt Mead leading State Auditor Rita by just over 700 votes. Right-wing crusader Ron Micheli finished a strong third, and political scion Colin Simpson a relatively poor fourth. Mead self-funded to the tune of $900,000, and had to overcome RINO accusations, particularly from Micheli. Myer’s loss denies Wyoming the certainty of a female governor, since state party chair Leslie Peterson won the Democratic nomination by a 48-39 margin over Pete Gosar.
In Washington, which uses the “Top 2 Blanket Primary” system that voters in California are soon to encounter, the primary was mostly a positioning test for the general election. The one outcome thought to be in doubt going into yesterday was in the 3d congressional district, where national Republican party favorite Jaime Herrera burnished the GOP’s diversity image by winning a general election spot alongside Democrat Denny Heck for the seat held by retiring Democrat Brian Baird. Would-be conservative spoiler David Castillo finished far back.
In the U.S. Senate race, two-time gubernatorial nominee Dino Rossi did himself some good by winning 34%, while Tea Partyish former NFL player Clint Didier came in at a disappointing 12%. Incumbent Patty Murry has 46%, though that percentage is likely to rise a bit when late mail ballots from the Democratic bastion of King County trickle in.
Over at RealClearPolitics, Sean Trende has collected data from previous “blanket primary” results in Washington that show a very close relationship between primary and general election performance for major-party candidates. He suggests yesterday’s results show Murray to be very vulnerable; Herrera a virtual lead-pipe cinch to win; and a couple of Democratic incumbent congressman in some peril. I do wonder if Sean is paying attention to when Washington primaries have been held in the past; some were in September, when you’d guess turnout would be higher than in August, and public opinion a bit closer to where it would wind up in November. But he’s got the datasets, so his conclusions are worth considering.
Finally, there was one other notable contest out west last night: a special “general election” in California to choose a successor in the state senate to Abel Maldonado, who was appointed Lt. Gov. earlier this year. Republican Sam Blakeslee defeated Democrat John Laird (confirming the order of finish in the special primary held in June), mainly based on strong performance by Blakeslee in his House district. But what’s interesting about this result is that about 158,000 votes were cast in this obscure state legislative election. The total two-party vote in Wyoming’s primary was just over 127,000. Wyoming has two seats in the United States Senate. Think about that next time you wonder if the ability of 41 Senators to control the national agenda via the filibuster might be a tad undemocratic.

Democracy Corps has an important report on voter attitudes, “The Big Decisions Ahead on Economic Renewal and Reduced Debt,” which should be of considerable interest Democratic candidates and their campaigns.
The DCORPS analysis is based in part on a new poll, co-sponsored by Democracy Corps and Campaign for America’s Future, with support from MoveOn.org, AFSCME and SEIU. The analysis provides compelling data indicating that candidates who advocate cuts in Social Security benefits and show little interest in creating jobs “face major voter backlash.”
The poll, which was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research from 7/26-29, provides revealing opinion data and analysis on social security, job-creation and deficit-reduction. From the Democracy Corps analysis of the data:

Voters are united on this key point: Social Security and Medicare are off-limits as a way to reduce the deficit…As Social Security celebrates its 75th anniversary this week in the midst of this troubled economy, voters across the political divide want these programs defended….Voters say spending cuts for Social Security and Medicare should not be part of any deficit reduction plan by a wide 68 to 28 percent margin.

DCORPS founder Stan Greenberg and Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) co-director Robert Borosage held a ‘press call’ on August 12th discussing the implications of the poll for the debate over jobs and deficits. On the same call, progressive leaders from MoveOn.org Political Action and CAF announced major campaign to get candidates on record opposing any cuts in benefits, including raising the retirement age.
In his recent HuffPo article, on the tea party and Republicans Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, who lead the effort to stop Bush’s privatization schemes, explains:

Major Progressive organizations have launched a new coalition to press Members of Congress to defend Social Security and Medicare, and the issue has vaulted to the top of the issue agenda for Democratic candidates across the country. Democratic House Members conducted more than 100 events to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of Social Security over the last weekend — and to pledge their opposition to privatizing Social Security or cutting its benefits. That includes commitments not to raise the retirement age — an idea that is just terrific for guys who fly around in corporate jets, but doesn’t go over so well if you happen to haul bricks on construction sites or flip mattresses in hotel rooms for a living……Americans United for Change — which was first organized to run the successful campaign to defeat Bush’s 2005 attempt to privatize Social Security — has launched a major new initiative to stop the “Republican sneak attack on Social Security and Medicare.”
…The public soundly rejected President Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security in 2005. You’d think that the experience of the stock market meltdown where millions of people saw their life’s savings go up in smoke would be enough to convince even the most orthodox right-winger that it’s a terrible idea to tie Social Security to the ups and downs of the stock market. But economic reality doesn’t seem to break through the Republican’s ideological and self-interest blinders.

The polling data suggests that House GOP leader John Boehner’s call for Social Security benefit reductions to pay for tax cuts for rich could sink Republican candidates. Adds Creamer:

Congressman Paul Ryan, who would be Chairman of the House Budget Committee if the Republicans were to take back control of the House, has published a detailed “Roadmap” on how he would privatize Social Security and abolish Medicare and replace it with vouchers for private insurance. Much of that “roadmap” was actually included in the Republican budget alternative that Ryan convinced the Republicans to support last year. Now that vote has begun to come back to haunt some of the members who would just as soon keep their economic views safely in the closet before the voters cast their ballots.

It appears Democrats have much to gain by focusing media attention on GOP “reforms” that weaken Social Security, whether reduction in benefits or raising the retirement age. Seniors over age 60, who comprised 29 percent of the electorate in the 2006 midterms, will likely be a pivotal force on November 2nd. As Creamer notes of Republicans,

…Many of those swing districts that they would so dearly like to win this fall have lots of senior voters. They had been counting on scaring those voters into supporting Republican candidates with visions of “death panels” and lies about health reform-induced cuts in Medicare.

But it looks like Republicans made a serious mistake, says Creamer:

Many of those seniors don’t like “government spending” — but by that they are definitely not referring to their Social Security or Medicare. They view both as social insurance — as programs they have paid into throughout their working lives in expectation that they would be entitled to the advertised benefits — the same way they would under any insurance plan. In focus groups the moment you tell these voters that Republicans support privatizing Social Security or replacing Medicare with vouchers for private insurance, Republican support plummets.
…The Republicans have a lot to worry about when it comes to these issues. Polls show that if the voters are talking about Social Security and Medicare on Nov. 2, Republican fortunes will drop like a rock. In fact, these two issues are like kryptonite to Republican chances. That’s why you’ll see mainstream Republicans scramble like mad to downplay their true intentions — and change the subject over the weeks ahead. Republican Leader John Boehner — who completely supports Ryan’s “Road Map” — made the mistake several weeks ago of blurting out that he supported raising the Social Security retirement age to 70. Since then he has ducked and weaved when it comes to Social Security.

Despite the gloomy projections of Democratic defeat in the upcoming midterms, the DCORPS analysis indicates that Dems have a formidable card to play regarding the Republicans’ unpopular positions on Medicare and Social Security. And if Dems can find a way to show that GOP candidates are equally-clueless about the public’s desire for a stronger federal investment in creating jobs, predictions of a Republican takeover of congress may prove to be a misguided fantasy.

Sometimes media coverage of the midterm elections comes across as a sort of undifferentiated Visigothic raid on Democrats by Republicans everywhere. But it’s a little more subtle than that, as indicated by Politico‘s Alex Isenstadt in a survey of the two parties’ strategies for controlling the House in November.
Interestingly, the DCCC has a two-to-one financial advantage over the NRCC, at $34 million to $17 million. That’s reflected in the targeted TV ad time the two committees are reserving for the stretch run, with the DCCC planning $49 million in total ad expenditures, and the NRCC $22 million.
The DCCC’s money, unsurprisingly, will be overwhelmingly focused on defending vulnerable incumbents, with 54 of its 60 targeted races in seats held by Democrats. The NRCC is currently reserving ad time in a more limited 40 districts, all now held by Democrats, with a mix of targets:

The bulk of the Democrats in the crosshairs are vulnerable first-term legislators sitting in Republican-oriented seats. Many are clustered in the South, including Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.), Rep. Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) and Rep. Glenn Nye (D-Va.).
Republicans are also looking toward a handful of Republican-leaning seats that have been left vacant by Democratic retirements. Among them: Arkansas’s 1st District, Indiana’s 8th District, Kansas’s 3rd District, and Tennessee’s 8th District.
A number of seasoned Capitol Hill veterans are being singled out for rough treatment. Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.), Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas), Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Edwards, and Spratt – all of whom face their most difficult reelection campaigns in years – are on the GOP fall hit list.
In a nod to the perilous election environment, Republicans are also probing for fresh pickup opportunities in Republican-friendly districts that until recently looked to be locked down by savvy Democrats. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), and Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.)- all of whom hold wide cash on hand advantages over their opponents and won by comfortable margins in 2008-will have ads run against them.

At present Republicans aren’t planning to spend anything defending their own vulnerable incumbents in Hawaii and Louisiana.
But in general, their strategy indicates that some of the wilder estimates of Republican House gains this year really do depend on a “wave” that operates independently of individual campaigs in individual districts. Republican money is focused on a much narrower range of possibilities. In all the discussions about high GOP expectations this year, we should take a moment to hear money talk.

The most buzzworthy progressive commentary out there right now is without a doubt John Judis’ New Republic piece on the “Unnecessary Fall” of Barack Obama.
It’s essentially a summary of what Judis has been writing since the Obama inauguration, with growing urgency, and also the most impressive presentation of the “populist critique” of Obama as a politician who has missed crucial opportunities to mobilize middle-class support for policies aimed at curbing corporate power, instead becoming the symbol of corporate “bailouts” that have fed right-wing populism.
But while much of what Judis writes–particularly his examination of the political consequences of steps Obama took on TARP before even taking office–is very compelling, he goes too far, in my opinion, by comparing Obama’s “fall” to that of Jimmy Carter, another would-be “outsider reformer” who lost the allegiance of middle-class voters.
I suspect in using the Carter analogy Judis is encouraging Democrats to avoid the optimism associated with the most commonly cited Obama doppelganger, Bill Clinton, who, after all, was comfortably re-elected after the electoral disaster of 1994.
But the differences between Carter and Obama just can’t be ignored:
(1) Carter’s initial mistep, by most accounts, was ignoring the views and needs of congressional Democrats. Obama, by most accounts, has gone (if anything) overboard in consulting with and deferring to congressional Democrats.
(2) Carter was elected by a coalition that began to disappear the very day after the 1976 elections, thanks to his dependence on very conservative southern Democrats who supported him as a regional gesture but who truly belonged to, and soon migrated towards, the GOP. The main problem with Obama’s 2008 coalition is that it was disproportionately composed of demographic groups who rarely participate that much in midterm elections. But they aren’t going away in future presidential elections, and show no present signs of moving back towards the GOP.
(3) Despite his occasional efforts to place himself “above politics,” Jimmy Carter actually ran a 1980 general election campaign for a second term that was highly partisan and populist. Indeed, it was so abrasive that it helped Ronald Reagan, the veteran of nearly twenty years of right-wing politics, come across as a unifying figure. It’s not clear yet how Obama is going to present himself in 2012, but he certainly still has every approach available, including those that folks like Judis have been urging on him all along.
You should read Judis’ full account carefully, and make your own judgment as to whether Obama’s approach to Wall Street was dictated by the realities of a capitalist economy in which propitiation of financial markets by the White House is the only way to avoid complete economic catastrophe, or instead the by-product of a non-confrontational politician advised by people too close to the problem.
But I personally think Judis is judging the political trajectory of the Obama presidency far too hastily, and projecting a Carter-like “fall” that could look very different not far down the road, when right-wing populists are exposed for their anti-middle-class agenda, and Democrats regain their authentic voice.

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galston is cross-posted from The New Republic.
Beneath the headlines of the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal survey are some key findings about the voter attitudes that will define the terrain of this year’s midterm election. For this Democrat, at least, they are deeply disquieting.
Three sets of findings jumped out at me. The first addresses the kind of election this will be.
· When asked if their representative’s positions on national issues or performance on local issues would be more important in influencing their vote for congress, 46 percent or respondents said national and 41 said percent local. In 2006, voters split 40 to 36; in 1994, 35 to 51.
· When asked a follow-up question about the relative importance of domestic issues such as the economy, health care, and immigration versus international issues such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and terrorism, 73 percent said domestic and 12 percent said international, while 15 percent rated them of equal importance. In 2006, the corresponding breakdown was 43/28/28.
In short, the survey supports what most observers have long believed: to a greater extent than usual, national issues will shape this year’s midterm, and of those issues, domestic issues are unusually dominant. (We know from numerous other polls that among domestic issues, concerns about the economy swamp everything else.)
In this context, we proceed to a second set of findings, which concern President Obama and the economy.
· Compared to when Barack Obama became president, only 31 percent of respondents think the country is better off, while 40 percent think it’s worse off and 28 percent believe it’s about the same.
· Only 37 percent are very or quite confident that Obama has the right set of goals and policies to improve the economy, versus 63 percent who are only somewhat or not at all confident. The represents a significant deterioration from June 2009, when “very” or “quite confident” totaled 46 percent and “only somewhat” or “not at all” stood at 53 percent.
· The public’s evaluation of Obama’s handling of the economy has deteriorated in recent months, from 48 approve, 46 disapprove in May to 46/50 in June and 44/52 today. This is consistent with the increasing pessimism the survey reports. In January of this year, 53 percent thought that that recession had not yet hit bottom and still had a way to go. Today, that figure stands at 64 percent.
· Perceptions of the president’s stance toward the business community don’t seem to be working in his favor. 29 percent see him as too anti-business, versus only 14 percent who view him as too pro-business.
This brings me to the third set of findings–public attitudes about the congress and political parties.
· Today, only 6 percent of respondents rate this congress as above average or one of the best, while fully 60 percent view it as below average or one of the worst. (By contrast, the breakdown before the 2006 midterms was 5 to 56; before the 1994 midterms, 7 to 44.)
· For the first time since 2004, Republicans enjoy an edge over Democrats on dealing with the economy.
· After a five year period in which Democrats held the advantage on reducing the federal budget deficit, Republicans have moved into an eight point lead.
· As recently as 2007, Democrats were favored over Republicans to control federal spending by a margin of 36 to 20. Now that has reversed, with Republicans favored 37 to 23.
In sum, this midterm election will be dominated by national issues, especially the economy; the public is losing confidence in President Obama’s economic program; public evaluations of the performance of the Democratic-led congress could hardly be worse; and Republicans have regained the advantage on key economic issues.
Not all the news in this survey is bad for Democrats. The generic vote is roughly tied–not great, but it could be worse. And by 43 to 39 percent, respondents were more worried by the absence of Republican alternatives to current policies than they were by the prospect that Democrats won’t change those policies.
Still, I came away from this survey with an even deeper sense of foreboding about the fall. To avert disaster, Democrats will have to exploit every local and candidate advantage they have, and their GOTV effort will have to overcome truly daunting obstacles.

Politico‘s Ben Smith presents a memo by Administration poll analyst Joel Benenson arguing that “Republican unpopularity could be the Democratic Party’s best defense against its own unpopularity.” According to Benenson’s bullet points:

• Today’s NBC/Wall St. Journal poll underscores the fact that with fewer than 90 days until the mid-term elections, the Republican Party’s standing is at one of its lowest points ever and its competitive position vs. the Democrats looks much as it did in the summers of 1998 and 2002, neither of which were “wave” elections.
• The NBC/WSJ poll shows that not only is the Republican Party’s image at its lowest point ever in their polling, their ratings are still lower than Democrats’ and their party image has worsened much more than the Democrats when compared with the last midterm elections in 2006.

See also Ed Kilgore’s post on the survey here. Further, Benenson adds,

• Only 24 percent of Americans gave the Republicans a positive rating while 46 percent were negative for a net of -22 (28 percent were neutral). This positive rating is not only a historic low, it is down 9 points since May — just three months ago. In addition, in July of 2006, a year in which Republicans lost 30 seats, their rating stood at 32 percent positive, 39 percent negative for only a -7 net rating or a change in the net rating of -15. During the same period the Democratic rating slipped only slightly by a net of -4 points from 32/39 in July 2006 to 33/44 today.
• This overall outlook is also consistent with an ABC/Washington Post poll from a month ago (7/13/10) that showed Americans’ confidence in Republicans in Congress to make “the right decisions for the country’s future” lagging behind Democrats:
– 73 percent say they are not confident in Republicans in Congress while 26 percent say they are, for a net negative confidence rating of -47 points.
– Democrats in Congress are at 32 percent confident (6 points higher than the GOP) and 67 percent who say they are not confident (6 points lower than the GOP), for a net confidence rating of -35, which is 12 points better than the congressional Republicans.
• When asked in the NBC/WSJ poll whether they prefer Democratic or Republican control of Congress after the November elections, 43 percent said Democrats and 42 percent said Republicans. While Democrats had a 10-point margin in 2006 when they gained 31 seats, the previous two midterms also showed a deadlocked preference in the summers of 1998 and 2002 in the NBC/WSJ polls. In both of those elections, the gains were only in single digits: 5 seats for the Democrats in 1998 and 8 seats for the Republicans in 2002.
• In addition, a Pew poll from early July showed that Republicans have a significant image deficit among Americans on the question of which party is “more concerned about people like me.” In that survey of 1800 Americans, 50 percent said Democrats were more concerned about people like them while only 34 percent said Republicans were.

Cherry-picked as Benenson’s data may be, all three polls appear to be methodologically-solid. If Benenson is right, Dems are in a better position, image-wise than Republicans. There’s plenty of room for improvement for Dems, but the GOP is in a deeper mess in terms of the way they are viewed by the public.

Read more…

In the tough but essential fight against outright lying in American politics, Ezra Klein has struck an important goal in a <em>Newsweek column today. As he points out, there are elements of the new health reform law that reduce the federal budget deficit (according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) either directly by raising revenues (e.g., the tax on high-cost insurance policies) or indirectly by controlling health care costs. There are also provisions that in isolation would increase the federal budget deficit, either directly through more spending (e.g., subsidies for the purchase of private health insurance) or indirectly by boosting health care costs (requirements that people with pre-existing conditions be sold affordable policies).
Now Republicans are free to make the argument that the expensive stuff in the bill outweighs the stuff that reduces expenses, though simply asserting that against the independent expertise of CBO isn’t terribly persuasive. But as Klein points out, that’s really not where they seem to be going. Republicans are most focused on repealing cost controls, which generally aren’t popular, and are least interested, to the point of actual opposition in some cases, in repealing the very popular new benefits:

[O]ne of the unnoticed dynamics of health-care reform was that Democrats were so desperate to pass a bill that they were willing to accept cost controls that they would’ve laughed at in normal circumstances. They ran over unions to begin taxing employer benefits and created a process making it harder to protect Medicare from future cost-cutting reforms. Republicans could’ve used the opportunity to strengthen the sort of cost controls they’ve long said they wanted, while focusing their repeal efforts on the bill’s spending.
But they’re doing the opposite, and there’s a real risk to their strategy: if the bill’s hard choices are political losers, the policies that cost money aren’t. Subsidies for poor people are popular. Rules preventing insurers from discriminating based on preexisting conditions are popular. Tax credits for small businesses and closing the doughnut hole in the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit are popular. Cost controls aren’t. And Republicans, who’ve frequently argued that the bill is too costly, are taking direct aim at them.
If they repeal the parts but not the whole, we could end up with the bill’s cost control wrecked but its spending intact. “You can’t argue that you’re for fiscal responsibility then argue for taking out all the fiscally responsible parts,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

It’s all the more reason that Republicans should be constantly pushed to offer their own vision for the health care system, not just attack the enacted reforms because some of them are unpopular.

At a time when it’s fashionable to draw analogies between 1994 and 2010, you hear some deficit hawks argue that Barack Obama needs to emulate Bill Clinton’s early emphasis on reducing the federal budget deficit instead of investing in job-producing activities on grounds that bond markets were sending a clear signal via higher interest rates that deficit reduction was imperative.
But as budget expert Stan Collender points out, bond markets today are sending exactly the opposite signal:

The economic situation today is the opposite of what existed at the start of the Clinton administration. In 1993, the bond market was worried about excess demand and soaring inflation, which would have eroded the value of bonds. Having the federal government spend less and tax more — that is, do things that would reduce the deficit — meant that the economy would cool rather than overheat, and therefore that the demand for goods, services, and workers would be reduced. This would keep inflation in check and allow federal bonds to maintain their value.
The big concern today is about deflation and slow growth rather than inflation and overheating. With unemployment high and capacity utilization low, the bond market not only isn’t worried about the excessive economic growth, it actually would welcome the additional activity that would be generated by higher spending and lower taxes.

Thus, concludes Collender, the pressure for deficit reduction right now is political, not economic, in nature. Markets aren’t reaching the conclusion that Herbert Hoover, not FDR, was right about how to deal with high unemploment and low consumer demand; politicians are, with self-fulfilling negative results as the federal government withdraws from efforts to stimulate the economy.