In the wake of the narrow passage of the anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8 in California, there was a lot of unhappy talk about African-American Obama voters making the difference. But a recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California looks at the results from various optics, and concludes that educational and income levels, and age, were the most important variables in determining the vote.
Indeed, there’s an extraordinarily strong correlation on these factors. Those with a high school education or less favored Prop 8 by a 69-31 margin; those with a college degree opposed it 57-43; and those with some college but no degree supported it 57-43. It’s the same story on income: those earning under $40,000 supported Prop 8 by a 63-37 margin; those earning over $80,000 opposed it 55-45; and those in the middle supported it by the same 52-48 margin as the electorate as a whole. Least surprisingly, voters under the age of 35 opposed Prop 8 by a 57-43 margin; those 55 and older backed it 56-44; and those in-between split evenly.
For some reason, the PPIC report doesn’t provide a breakout for African-Americans (though a variety of experts have disputed the 70% “yes” findings of the exit polls), but it does show Latinos supporting Prop 8 by a 61-39 margin. Evangelical Christians backed the initiative by an astounding 85-15 margin, while Catholics supported it by a less-overwhelming 60-40 margin. The ideological polarization was typical: 17% of self-described liberals voted for Prop 8, while 17% of self-described conservatives voted against it, and moderates split evenly.
One way of interpreting these results is to suggest that “low-information voters” swung the results in response to superior (and also factually misleading) pro-8 ads, or perhaps superior GOTV operations. But in any event, making it all about race, or about the betrayal of one element of the progressive coalition by another, would not appear to be warranted by the facts.

Even as Americans have focused on the transition to the Obama administration, our friends Up North in Canada have been undergoing a political drama with more twists and turns than a fictional potboiler.
When we last looked in on the Canadians in this space ten days ago, a grouping that included the centrist Liberals, the social-democratic New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Quebecois was poised to topple the minority Conservative government of Stephen Harper and form a virtually unprecedented coalition government. But Harper played the one card he had, and convinced Governor General Michaelle Jean to grant an adjournment of Parliament until January 26, forestalling a no-confidence vote that would have brought down his government. There’s a wonderfully detailed blow-by-blow account of events up to that point now available at Macleans.
As polls showed a backlash against the coalition maneuver, Liberals decided to accelerate their election (originally scheduled for May) to replace Stephane Dion as party parliamentary leader and putative Prime Minister of the coalition government. Former Harvard professor Michael Ignatieff–reportedly not a huge fan of the coalition–won with relative ease.
It remains anyone’s guess what will happen next month. If the coalition hangs together and forces a no-confidence vote, Jean could let them set up a government, or could order new elections (given the passage of a few more weeks since the last election in October), in which the Conservatives might have a significant advantage. Alternatively, the Liberals, with arguably the most to lose in new elections, could blow up the coalition and bide their time. It will be very interesting in Ottawa on January 26.
The one sure thing is that events have forced the Conservatives to backtrack on many elements of the neo-Hooverist and blatantly partisan economic package that precipitated the whole crisis. They’ve abandoned plans to end public financing of the political parties, and to temporarily ban public sector strikes. And they’re now talking about stimulating the Canadian economy, and maybe even helping the auto industry, instead of digging in their heels and welcoming a deep recession as a healthy opportunity to discipline the private and public sectors.
Perhaps the Tories’ counterparts in the U.S. should pay heed to this rethinking of neo-Hooverism, which may ultimately prove to have saved the day for Harper and his party.

As you probably know, Senate Republicans blocked action on legislation providing a “bridge loan”–or a bailout, if you prefer that term–to the Big Three automakers. Some GOPers claimed to favor an alternative approach; some seemed to welcome the idea of a collapse of the U.S. auto industry; and still others simply cited public opposition to any further bailouts. In reaction, stock markets registered losses worldwide.
It’s unclear at this juncture whether the Bush administration will find a way–perhaps using the earlier bailout funds–to keep the Big Three automakers alive until the next Congress is sworn in. Either way, it’s beginning to become obvious that all the let’s-tough-it-out, anti-bailout, anti-stimulus talk in conservative circles since Election Day could have real consequences, for the GOP and for the country. According to Politico, Vice President Dick Cheney told Senate Republicans at a luncheon meeting yesterday that if the auto plan were rejected, it would be “Herbert Hoover time” in America. We’ll soon know if Republicans are willing to live with the responsibility for making that happen.
For an angry assessment of the Senate GOP’s actions, see John Judis’ piece from The New Republic yesterday.

Nate Silver has an eyebrow-raiser, which makes for an interesting follow-up to J.P.Green’s post yesterday on appointing Republicans to the cabinet so their seats can be filled by Democrats. As Silver explains in his fivethirtyeight.com post, “Appointed Senators Rarely Win Re-Election“:

Over the past 25 Congresses, there have been, by my count, 49 senators who selected by gubernatorial appointment in midterm (this excludes cases where a senator-elect acceded to office a few days early to gain seniority on his colleagues, a once-common courtesy that is becoming less so.) Of those 49 senators, only 19 — fewer than 40 percent — won their subsequent special election. Meanwhile:
* 13 of the 49 (27%) ran for office, but were defeated in the general election;
* 7 of the 49 (14%) ran for office, but were defeated in the primary;
* 10 of the 49 (20%) chose not to seek a permanent term (including one who was prohibited by state law from doing so).
These numbers are far below the usual benchmarks for incumbent senators. Since 1990, about 81% of incumbent senators have sought re-election, and among those have sought it, 88% have won it. By contrast, among the 80% of gubernatorial appointees since 1956 who chose to seek re-election, only 49% survived both the primary and the general election.

Silver provides a well-researched chart covering the 49 appointees, their backgrounds and fate. He also provides some interesting analysis, noting the poor track record of appointments that could be characterized as based more on nepotism and cronyism, than merit and,

By contrast, appointees who had significant recent experience as legislators performed fairly well. In 7 of the 49 cases, the appointee was a sitting member of the House of Representatives; 6 of the 7 won re-election. Seven others were sitting members of their State Legislatures at the time of their appointment; 5 of those 7 won re-election.

He discusses possible reforms, such as a constitutional amendment and some state-enacted reforms you probably didn’t know about, unless you live there:

Alternatively, states can move to solve the problem themselves by passing a “fast” special elections law, as states like Oregon, Wisconsin and Massachusetts now have (and Illinois soon will). Other states have evolved other checks and balances; Utah and Wyoming require that the candidate be selected from among a list prepared by the state party apparatus, while Alaska, Hawaii and Arizona require appointees to be from the same party as the departing senator. Arkansas provides for gubernatorial appointments, but does not allow the appointee to run for re-election.

As Silver concludes, “…More states ought to consider reforms like these. A Senate seat is a [bleeping] valuable thing — too valuable to allow a governor to bypass the voters.”

In the midst of Blagogate, it seems a smidge unseemly to be encouraging deal-making in political appointments. But Democrats are clearly not getting a filibuster-proof majority through the ’08 elections, so perhaps it’s time to turn our attention to other measures to get to 60 Senators. Toward that end, Jonathan Singer’s MyDD post “Make Olympia Snowe Cabinet-Level SBA Chief,” and the comments following his post explore ensuing ramifications, should Snowe accept a cabinet post, and Maine’s Democratic Governor John Baldacci appoint Snowe’s Democratic replacement.
Singer riffs on a post in Politico‘s The Crypt, noting Snowe’s advocacy of making the Small Business Administration a cabinet-level post, as it was during the Clinton Administration. The idea is to do so, and make her the Secretary. It’s unclear whether she would be interested, but it’s certainly worth a try
It seems like a fairly plausible scenario. Snowe has been a Senator since 1994. She always shows up atop the list of liberal Republicans. She is hugely popular in her state and influential in the Senate as a swing vote on progressive legislative reforms. She is consistently rated one of the better U.S. Senators.
There has been talk over the years of Snowe switching parties, but it just hasn’t happened. Perhaps it has been an unappealing prospect, with the Democrats’ tendency to form circular firing squads during many of her 14 years in the Senate. True, she will have additional leverage in the new Senate. Now, however, she has to look at her career ahead in light of a strong possibility that she may never be in a Republican majority again, which means no committee chairmanships. She can continue as a swing voter, deciding the fate of bills here and there, but with dimmer prospects for sponsoring and enacting major legislation, especially given her party’s knee-jerk obstruction of meaningful reforms. You couldn’t blame her for thinking it’s time for a change. Possible solutions might include switching parties or accepting an appointment in the Obama Administration.
Other “liberal” Senate Republicans in states with Democratic governors, like Collins (ME) and Voinovich (OH) could also be approached. Specter (PA) is occasionally mentioned as a switch-or-cabinet worthy Rino. If they can’t be enticed by the remaining cabinet-level positions, perhaps committee chairmanships as Democrats, where possible, would have some appeal. If we could get one or two Republicans to cross over, it could make a great difference for the better in enacting a progressive agenda, although even if they don’t switch and just vote with Dems, it will help a great deal. No doubt Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have thought about it, and perhaps under-the-radar overtures have been made.
Most of the high-level Party-switching in recent decades has been in the wrong direction, from the Democratic point of view. (Wikipedia has a fascinating chronology on the topic). But the pendulum has swung to the left now, and it is time for Democrats to take more vigorous advantage, recruiting Republicans who are tiring of their party’s shrinking tent. Granted, the list of acceptable Republicans for Obama’s cabinet-level posts is a short one, as is the list of remaining positions that have appeal for political horse-trading. They include the Departments of Labor, Interior, Education and Transportation, CIA Director, Director of National Intelligence. Call it a long shot, but maybe it would be good if a Senate Republican who fills the bill is approached before all the positions are gone.

I’m not as frequent a disparager of MSM political coverage as a lot of progressive bloggers, but I’ve gotta say, the efforts we’ve seen in the chattering classes to make the Blagojevich scandal somehow reflect poorly on Barack Obama doth smelleth to high heaven.
I mean, everything that’s come out on L’Affaire Blago has fully exculpated Team Obama from any complicity. And indeed, what we’ve learned shows the president-elect in a very good light as someone who never came close to wheeling-and-dealing with the guy, and more generally, had an unusually distant non-relationship with Blago considering that he was, after all, the elected and reelected governor of Obama’s home state, representing Obama’s party. On top of everything else, Obama made a rare intervention in state politics in the middle of his presidential campaign by pushing for enactment of an ethics law that appears to have convinced Blago that the window was closing on his pay-for-play games, leading to his latest and fatal bout of reckless knavery. Other than horse-whipping the governor publicly, it’s hard to say what more Obama could have done.
But as BarbinMD shows at DailyKos today, none of this has kept political reporters from darkly suggesting that the Blago scandal is casting some sort of giant shadow on the Obama presidency. As she explains, the basic media dynamic is that reporters find some Republican to say it’s a problem for Obama, and thus they have a “story” manufactured out of thin air and partisan malice.
Maybe all this represents sheer journalistic laziness, or the cynical calculation of reporters who know they can get serious ink by linking two big stories–the juicy Blago scandal, and the Obama transition. Or maybe it’s a sign that some folk in the MSM, still smarting from endless claims that they are “in the tank” for Obama, want to prove otherwise by coming up with an “Obamagate” before the man has even taken office.
But at some point, it really needs to stop, or get derisively hooted off the front page and the evening news.

The historian Theodore White once referred to the chairmanship of national party political committees as “fool’s gold” in terms of real power. And there’s no question that the DNC and RNC largely let elected officials and presidential campaigns–not to mention actual presidents–call most of the key shots.
But still, the national parties matter, particularly in periods of rapid political change, and especially at times when the party in question does not control the White House and/or Congress. That’s why Howard Dean’s election as DNC chair right after the 2004 elections mattered, and now why the campaign for the RNC chairmanship is drawing a large field and a lot of attention on the Right.
Over the last week or so, the major public buzz about the chairmanship race has involved two African-American candidates. Entering the field was former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who offers conservatives the psychologically tempting proposition of displaying racial “diversity” while actually intensifying the ideological rigidity of the party. As Sarah Posner explains this week at the FundamentaList, Blackwell has intimate ties to the fringier elements of the Christian Right. And as administrator for elections in Ohio in 2004, Blackwell seemed to go out of his way to legitimize conspiracy theories that he helped Bush steal the state. His disastrous run for the Ohio governorship in 2006, and reports that George W. Bush himself thought of Blackwell as “a nut,” are probably not helpful, but also not disqualifying, to his bid to run the RNC.
But the bigger buzz involved efforts by opponents of former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele to make him unacceptable as chairman because of his ties to a “moderate” group called the Republican Leadership Council.

Read more…

With the holiday season full upon us, it’s time for finishing up gift shopping, negotiating family schedules, stealing some time from work (unless evaluations for layoffs are under way!), and maybe even, from our different traditions, remembering the “reason for the season.”
And oh yeah, it’s time to watch with horror the annual spectacle of Bill O’Reilly and other conservatives whining about the so-called “War on Christmas,” that conspiracy by atheist liberal retailers to persecute Christians by exposing them to non-sectarian seasonal mottoes like the deeply disturbing “Happy Holidays.”
If you’re interested, over at Beliefnet, I’ve done an angry post calling on Christians to wage war on all the “War on Christmas” nonsense, which is an insult to people who have really been persecuted for their faith, and exhibits an appalling ignorance of religious history.
And if you’re really in the mood to think about the intersection of the secular and religious in today’s society, mosey over to the Brookings Institution site and check out the useful study by columnist EJ Dionne and academic Melissa Rogers on how to structure a “faith-based organizations” initiative that doesn’t trample on church-state-separation principles.

Even as Republicans whip themselves up into a balanced budget frenzy, one of their most important constitutencies, the business community, isn’t fishing in. In fact, as Kevin Bogardus of The Hill reports, business lobbyists, who perhaps see a collapsing economy as a bigger concern than Fidelity to Conservative Principles, are cheerleading for a big economic stimulus effort:

Big business is lining up to support President-elect Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy with the biggest spending spree on roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects since the Eisenhower administration.
Business groups believe injecting funds into rebuilding America’s roads and highways could put thousands back to work at a time of rising unemployment. As a result, lobbyists from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) are asking lawmakers and Obama’s transition team to funnel federal funds to “shovel-ready” projects as the best way to stimulate the flagging economy.
“Our view is we need significant investments in the nation’s infrastructure to meet the needs of the 21st century,” said Aric Newhouse, NAM’s senior vice president of policy and government relations.
“Most important to us is that President-elect Obama is focused on putting money into real projects that are ready to go,” said Janet Kavinoky, director of transportation infrastructure at the Chamber.
Support from business groups that generally are aligned with Republicans could help move Obama’s stimulus legislation forward. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) last week voiced opposition to public spending projects, arguing that “now is not the time to make matters even worse by asking taxpayers to pay for a slate of new government spending in the name of ‘economic stimulus.’ ” He argued for tax cuts to stimulate the economy.

In assessing Barack Obama’s pledges to govern in a bipartisan or post-partisan way, I’ve always assumed that he intended to appeal to rank-and-file Republicans rather than their supposed representatives in the GOP Caucuses of Congress. But it never occurred to me that business lobbyists would join the subversive effort to neutralize congressional Republicans and the conservative movement. Looks like that could be happening if the GOP continues its bizarre drift into aggressive Hooverism.

Via Mori Dinauer at TAPPED, we learn that MN Governor Tim Pawlenty, supposedly a voice of moderation in the national Republican ranks, has joined House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence in calling support for a constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment critical to the revival of the GOP.
This is just bizarre.
Sure, I understand the powerful psychological necessity for the belief among conservatives that “excessive spending” was responsible for the entire disaster of the Bush Era of Republicanism. And yes, the BBA, now as in the past, is an “idea” with a tiresome and deeply dishonest utility as a way to trumpet one’s lust for fiscal discipline without the difficult and politically perilous task of identifying particular spending cuts.
But still, given the dire fiscal condition of the federal government even before the financial crisis and the onset of a deep recession, this is perhaps the worst time in national history to embrace a constitutional BBA. And that’s why virtually all economists, and such famously fiscal-disciplinary political forces as the Blue Dogs, are urging some serious deficit spending right now to avoid complete economic catastrophe. Yet Pence and Pawlenty seem well on their way to making support for a BBA yet another conservative litmus test for Republican politicians.
Pawlenty’s take on this subject is really deep: a BBA is like “cutting up the credit cards” as a way-station to eliminating debt. Emplanted in this metaphor is the belief that the federal government in seeking to avoid or mitigate the worst recession since the Great Depression, is like a consumer who just can’t stop splurging at Best Buy.
On the positive side, perhaps this sudden outbreak of GOP balanced-budget fever means that conservatives have finally abandoned their previous Big Thought on federal spending: the “Starve the Beast” theory that perpetual tax cuts would, by creating unsustainable deficits, automatically force future spending reductions, thus relieving conservatives of the necessity of identifying them. This is what I’ve called the political equivalent of a bottomless crack pipe.
But given the zero odds that a BBA would ever be enacted, along with the undiminished ardor of Republicans for new tax cuts as the eternal solution to every economic problem, maybe this is a distinction without a difference. Whether they are “starving the beast” or “cutting up the credit cards,” some of today’s “reviving” Republicans seem to be living in a world where basic arithmetic and logic have been forgotten.