Month: November 2010

A Judicious Study Of Discernible Reality

by digby

I’m hearing how the Republicans are making trouble for themselves by keeping the Bush tax cuts on the front burner for two more years because they are unpopular. It’s true that they are unpopular, but in this age of PoMo politics, I’m not sure that matters. I think this dynamic may be the deciding factor (on a host of issues) for a while:

During the 2008 campaign Barack Obama skillfully crafted a popular position on renewing the big Bush-era tax cuts. Obama pledged to keep the lower tax rates for families earning less than $250,000 per year—the vast majority of American taxpayers—while letting the top tax rate revert to its 2000 level.

With the tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year President Obama has stuck to that position, despite a concerted effort by conservatives to insist that none of the tax cuts should be allowed to expire in the midst of a recession. What is more, he has managed to keep at least a slim majority of Americans on his side. A YouGov/Polimetrix survey fielded last week found that 42% of the public support the president’s position—a 4-point increase from 2008. Another 11% go even further, wanting to let all the tax cuts expire. Only 28%—slightly fewer than in 2008—favor retaining all the tax cuts, including those for the richest taxpayers.

Despite this sustained public support for the president’s position, Democratic leaders in Congress were unwilling to bring the issue to a vote before adjourning last month. Several moderate members of the Democratic caucus had already come out against letting the tax cuts for top-earners expire, and many more were said to be reluctant to cast votes on the issue in the run-up to the election. In light of the popular support for the president’s position, was that a political miscalculation?

Probably not….the sizable minority of people who want the tax cuts for affluent taxpayers renewed seem to attach much more weight to this issue than the slim majority who want them to expire. In a statistical analysis taking separate account of prospective voters’ broader partisan attachments, those who support President Obama’s position on the tax cuts are only 6% more likely than those who are unsure about the issue to say they will vote for a Democratic House candidate. Even those who want to let all the tax cuts expire are only 9% more likely to vote Democratic. By comparison, those who want to keep the tax cuts for affluent taxpayers in place are 22% more likely to say they will vote for a Republican House candidate.

An even more lopsided difference appears in the impact of tax cut preferences on presidential approval. People who support President Obama’s position on this issue are only slightly more approving of his overall performance than those who are unsure, while those who want to renew all the tax cuts are moved about five times as far toward disapproving. Among political independents, a whopping 76% of those who want continued tax cuts for the rich say they strongly disapprove of the president’s performance; only 27% of those who support his proposal for selective extension of the tax cuts are equally disenchanted.

I don’t know if the exit polls are capable of drilling down this way, but the basic numbers came out like this:

Bush-Era Tax Cuts should be extended for…
All Americans: 39%
Familes Under $250,000: 37%
No one: 15%
Undecided: 9%

If the pre-election intensity numbers are the same, and I would guess they are, it suggests that the people who want the tax cuts extended really want the tax cuts extended while others feel less strongly.

Now that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to expire. It’s the right thing to do politically and it’s the right thing to do in terms of policy. But as this paper concludes:

[T]he president and his allies in Congress could still push to implement the proposal in a lame duck session. If they do, it will be a principled choice rather than a politically expedient one. For expedient politicians, an energized minority trumps a tepid majority every time.

I think that’s probably true, especially in this media age where a minority can make themselves seem like a monolith (with the help of billionaires and a partisan media machine.) It’s one of the biggest challenges those who favor sound policy face. The deafening squeaky wheel changes reality simply by drowning everything else out.

I’m pretty sure that’s what that anonymous Republican source meant when he said this:

The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.”

I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off.

”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ” We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’

.

The Second “Compromise?”

By digby

After the foolish “compromise” on the Bush tax cuts, my guess is that trade will be the next demonstration of bipartisan comity. Howie wrote about this yesterday:

Now, remember, all those corporate Blue Dogs who were thrown out of office have been replaced by Republicans, not by better Democrats, and the progressives lost ground as well. So, the same way Clinton stepped up to the plate for Big Business as soon as he took over the White House and had Rahm Emanuel force enough Democrats to do what George H.W. Bush was unable to deliver– NAFTA– Obama and Boehner will be delighted to work together on more job-killing trade deals that Pelosi would never have allowed.

Trade is one of the few areas where the White House hopes, with some reason, to find agreement with resurgent Republicans. Obama is headed to South Korea for a G-20 meeting on Nov. 10-11, where he hopes to finalize the pact that was negotiated by the George W. Bush administration.

…The GOP has been pressing for the South Korea deal to move forward. Obama, who wants to burnish his business credentials ahead of his expected 2012 reelection bid, also has a strong interest in seeing the $70 billion trade deal approved.

If passed by Congress, the South Korea pact would be the largest U.S. trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement of the early 1990s with Canada and Mexico.

Of course, that’s if the new Tea Party overlords let it happen. Here’s Dave Johnson:

Tea Party members absolutely despise “free trade” agreements that have forced companies to close factories and ship jobs out of the country. They want to see “Made In America” in stores again. But the D.C. insiders, backed by big money from the big, monopolist, multinational corporations, insist on even more of these agreements. Which way will the Tea Party officeholders go?

More importantly, how much influence will their Big Money backers have over them now that they’ve been elected?

Obviously, if they try to push this through the lame duck the dynamics are slightly different, but if they do it in the next congress it’s going to be a very interesting experiment. You’ll see the emboldened Tea Party wing under DeMint flexing its muscles but you’ll also see a much more progressive Democratic caucus in the House. This is one of the rare cases in which you could theoretically see progressives and Tea Partiers join together (like the first TARP vote, before Obama and Boehner twisted arms to pass it.)

My personal instinct is to say that the tea partiers will fold under pressure, but I’m not entirely sure of that. They are looking for ways to distinguish themselves from the establishment and this may be their best shot. (And frankly, I think they’re mostly just wingnuts who are simply motivated by tribal hatred, so I don’t know how much this issue will matter to the them ultimately.)

We should keep our eye on this one though. It could be a harbinger of how things are going to work under the Teabag GOP.

.

Positioning For The Battle To Come

by digby

I usually agree with Greg Sargent’s analysis, but I think he’s wrong here:

Sam Stein reports that the White House is reiterating a willingness to discuss a temporary extension as part of some sort of deal with Republicans:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated on Thursday that the president will be open to extending the upper-end Bush tax cuts for one or two years as part of a broader compromise with Republicans. “He would be open to having that discussion and open to listening to what the debate is on both sides of that,” said Gibbs, during an off-camera gaggle with reporters. “Obviously… making those tax cuts for the upper end permanent is something the president does not believe is a good idea.”

There is a way a one-year or two-year temporary extension could represent a compromise of sorts: If Republicans signal a willingness to at least entertain the idea of letting the high end cuts expire after that temporary extension. But many of them aren’t doing that. Their position is that the high-end cuts need to be made permanent. Full stop. And that’s fine: That’s their position. It’s understandable that they would stick to it.

I think this may be the one “compromise” the Republicans agree to. They will get credit for extending the cuts from the public, credit for bipartisan cooperation from the Village — and most importantly, they will still get to run on the issue again going into the presidential election. This “compromise” a big winner for them all around.

This is one of those things the Democratic majority should have done long ago. They could have passed the tax cut extension for the middle class in the first year of the administration and argued about tax cuts for the wealthy as a separate issue. Instead, for reasons unknown, they waited until close to the election at which point a bunch of Blue Dogs went to the leadership and said they couldn’t possibly win if they held the vote. (And then they lost natch.)

The Republicans are happy to have the “tax hike” boogeyman out there for 2012. And they are ecstatic that the administration has allowed themselves to be backed into the deficit corner — the right’s perfect terrain to wage this presidential campaign battle. Too bad for the rest of us.

Update: Gregg emailed me to let me know that I misunderstood him and I did. I thought he was saying that the Republicans were going to hold out for a permanent tax cut, but he just meant that it wasn’t a “compromise” if they intend to extend them permanently in the long run.
We agree on that.

They see this as a great fight to have for the next two years and so they are happy to agree to this “compromise.” Sadly, the Democrats allowed the middle class extension to be held hostage to this plan and now they have no choice. You’d almost think they really want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy too …

.

Capital Strike?

by digby

… or just on an around the world tour?

HONG KONG—Officials in Asia warned of possible moves to brace their economies against an expected flood of money into the region stemming from the Federal Reserve’s latest plan to rekindle growth in the U.S.

Fast growing economies in Asia have been inundated with cash in recent months as investors bet they can make more money in countries that have higher growth rates. The Fed’s $600 billion asset purchase plan, known as quantitative easing, is expected to increase that flow, as it depresses interest rates in the U.S. and increases the amount of cash available to investors to deploy in other …

It’s hard to see how this helps move the housing market, which was one of Bernanke’s stated goals, but it makes sense that it would boost stocks, his other stated goal. Overseas stocks anyway. I guess the hookers and coke are better overseas. it remains to be seen if the rest of the world is thrilled to have the convention come to town.

Here’s Felix Salmon on the Bernanke gambit.

Update: I’m shocked!:

Rep Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama) Plots to Weaken Financial Regulation, Strengthen Banks: I think relatively few people understand that one of the principal substantive complaints the new Republican House majority has about Barack Obama is that he’s been unkind to the incumbent firms in the financial services sector. But here’s Spencer Bachus, the likely new chair of the relevant committee, firing warning shots on behalf of Wall Street:

Spencer Bachus, a potential Republican chairman of the House financial services committee, has fired the first salvo in a battle with regulators – warning them against harming US banks by curbing their trading activity. […] Underlining the change in Congress, Mr Bachus, who as ranking Republican on the committee could replace Barney Frank as chairman of the panel, expressed concern that shareholders of Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase will be hurt because the banks will be less profitable. […] “The derivatives provisions in Dodd-Frank alone… as they stand now they’re going to take a trillion dollars out of our economy. Think how many jobs that’s going to kill,” he said.

Rising stars in the conservative media firmament have painted an appealing picture over the past two years of a populist right outraged by allegedly undue entanglement between government and big business and eager to help out the little guy. But this is the reality. The article is via Tyler Cowen who remarks “It is difficult to fathom how that last paragraph can make any sense, other than as fabrication.

No kidding.

h/t tp RP

The Shiny New Republican Leader

by digby

So I guess not only are there at least four Senate Democrats planning to jump to the Republicans, but the GOP caucus has decided to move Mitch McConnell out of the majority Leader spot. How else to explain this conversation between John King and Jim DeMint, who sounds as if he’s running the show in both Houses?

King: A question first on what comes ahead. Many have said that now that the Republicans have the house and more conservatives in the Senate, when will we know if you’re serious about keeping your promises about spending and the debt. If there is a vote in the congress on raising the debt ceiling, so that the government can continue to print money and spend money should the Republicans say no?

DeMint: I think Republicans will say no. Unless the raising of the debt ceiling is accompanies by some dramatic spending cuts, something that will direct us to a balanced budget in the future, Republicans will not support an increase in the debt limit.

What I hope we see from Republicans right out of the box when we get back is a moratorium on earmarks. Americans have connected the dots and we’re all up there trying to bring home the bacon and Republicans in the House and the Senate must both take a pledge to not have earmarks and have a moratorium I think it will show Americans int he beginning that we’re serious.

There are a number of other things we need to do to demonstrate that we’re serious and one of those is to defund Obamacare and as soon as we can hopefully have a vote on balancing the budget.

King: With a Democratic majority in the Senate do you have a prayer of defunding Obamacare?You have a big majority in the House now but you have democrats still controlling the Senate narrowly and the president still has a veto pen, how can you defund it?

DeMint: Well we don’t have to defund it. We just don’t have to pass the funding for it. The majority in the House can control appropriation bills and we can just not include in those appropriation bills the funding for Obamacare. The president may fight us on that and it could be a very intense showdown, but Republicans are in a position now to make sure no funding goes forward for Obamacare.

I guess if he gets his way, they’ll leave in the provisions for pre-existing conditions and just allow the insurance companies to charge whatever they want. That should be interesting. And the medicaid expansions just don’t happen.

Nobody knows if this will happen of course, but whenever anyone brought up the idea that Republicans were going to lean hard on the funding before any of the benefits took effect, they were smugly told by Very Serious People that it would be impossible because there is no way the American people would ever let Obamacare be repealed once it was passed. It looks like we’re going to see who was right.

King: Do you think that will happen? There are trust issues both ways with your own Republican party. I want to read something that you wrote int the Wall Street Journal today.

“Tea party Republicans were elected to go to Washington to save the country, not to be co-opted by the club. So put on your boxing gloves the fight begins today.”

Senator DeMint, it sounds like you don’t trust your own leadership to keep its campaign promises.

DeMint: Well there’s a Washington establishment that’s much bigger than any of us in the congress. It includes the media, the lobby community. It’s a system that pushes us to spend more. Every time we say no we have people complaining. That’s why after several years in the congress most people start voting for more spending more borrowing and more debt. We’ve got to change those ways. I think every one who campaign and won as Republicans this time understands that we have got to do what we promised. And that means less spending, less borrowing, less debt. So I think you’re going to see a new Republican Party that will re-earn the trust of the American people.

I’m guessing that if DeMint has sufficiently scared the Republicans and has the backing of the hate radio and Fox gasbags, he can shut down the government. And I would imagine they’ve thought a bit about how to do that without upsetting the folks like they did last time.

King asked him about the candidates he backed that lost and challenged him on the O’Donnell, Buck and Angle and said Republicans are saying he cost them the majority.

DeMint: I haven’t heard that from any of my colleagues …

King: Trust me they’re staffs are emailing around grumbling about this.

DeMint: Well they’re all unnamed. I didn’t get involved in the primary in Nevada. The people of Nevada picked Sharron Angle to be their nominee. Just like every republican who was nominated, I worked as hard as I could to get them elected.

I’m glad some of my colleagues think I have the power to come in a few days before the primary of Christine O’Donnell and make a difference in that race but she won by six points and she was going to win whether I came in or not. I worked for Republicans all over the country. Anyone who says that Tea Party was detrimental is so completely out of touch that they represent the problem in Washington. Republicans won victories from the local level, state level the federal level, historic victories, and it was because of the activism led by Tea Parties all over the country. Of course we didn’t win the all but we won a lot more than any party has won in many decades.

King: Question for Jim DeMint, how does he go forward from this campaign? What did you learn in this campaign that you’ll apply in 2012. And I ask this specifically in the context many of your Republicans Senators are concerned that you’ll support challenges to Olympia Snow a moderate Republican from Maine. I was told by somebody today who is close to you to look for a challenge to Bob Corker Republicans Senator from Tennessee. And Orrin hatch, his colleague veteran bob Bennett of course lost to a Tea Party candidate from Utah and he already seems a bit nervous he’ll face a challenge.

Would you support Republican challengers to any of those Republican Senators in 2012?

DeMint: well I have no intentions at this point of supporting primary challengers to any of my colleagues. I think you may see primary challengers if my colleagues don’t do what we promised as Republicans and that’s to support constitutional limited government. I didn’t recruit any primary challengers this time. But the people, I believe, will help us make those decisions.

I’ve heard that rumor that I’m going to put incumbents up in primaries but folks are just trying to do that to marginalize what the Tea Party has done for the Republican party.

What we need to realize is that if the Republicans embrace the energy and ideals of the Tea Party across the country that we will have a big tent that will help us turn the country away from economic disaster. We’ve got 40% of the people who call themselves Tea Party members who are Democrats and Independents. They are saying they want less spending and less debt. That’s what Republicans are all about. So there’s no reason for there to be any disunity in the Republican party. I think you’re going to see a Republican Party that’s bold and more unified than we’ve seen in years. I look forward to working with our leadership team, I have no plan to challenge any of our incumbents.

But the Senate conservatives fund will continue to help identify conservative challengers out across the country and give Americans a chance to help those challengers in the future.

This guy is a piece of work. The entire interview was a series of subtle and not-so-subtle threats that make Newtie’s crude braggadocio look amateurish by comparison. I confess he freaks me out a little bit — the way Michael Corleone freaks me out.He’s very, very cool and collected.

He’s definitely making a strong play for power and it sounds like he’s not confining himself to the Senate. He’s pulling strings in the House too. And I don’t know if the Big Money Boyz just think they control him or if they actually do.

.

The End Of The Girl Era

by digby

Limbaugh classy as always celebrated the political demise of the woman who made his manly parts shrivel into raisins:

The manly orange men are back in charge. The lost decade that “began in 2007 when “Nancy Pelosi and the girls took over the House” has been prematurely terminated. He’s happy now.

.

Using The Party As A Fire Hydrant

by digby

Howie compiled some interesting stats about the Blue Dogs who ran against the Democratic party and specifically Nancy Pelosi:

Let’s revisit the post from yesterday about the Blue Dogs and other conservatives who threw Pelosi– and the Democratic brand– under the bus to try to save their own asses. The question was, “did it help any of them?” Well, every single challenger who came out with idiotic statements like, “I’ll support Allen Boyd for Speaker” (grotesquely corrupt Alabama lobbyist Steve Raby), was defeated. The three most aggressively anti-Pelosi Blue Dogs, Bobby Bright (AL), Jim Marshall (GA) and Gene Taylor (MS), were defeated. Blue Dogs Mike McIntyre (NC) and Jason Altmire (PA) managed to survive the slaughter. More than half the Blue Dogs were defeated or retired. Only 47% of them, a number which will go down when Jim Costa’s (CA-20) likely loss is announced later today) were reelected. Contrast that to the 95% of the Congressional Progressive Caucus members who were reelected.

And among the Democratic incumbents who wanted it both ways and said they might vote against Pelosi, losers included Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID), Bill Foster (IL), Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN), Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Ike Skelton (MO), Mike McMahon (NY), Scott Murphy (NY), Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD), and Chet Edwards (TX). Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mark Critz (PA), Pete DeFazio (OR), Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC), Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN), John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA) and Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR) managed to hang on, barely. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me to see some of this lot, plus Dan Boren, jump the fence and become Republicans soon. Can’t happen soon enough.

In 1994, there were a slew of conservative Democrats who jumped the fence, even some like Ben Nighthorse Campbell who had just been elected for the first time as Democrats. It will be interesting to see if any of them do it this time.

What Howie says about Pelosi is pertinent. I think when you run against your own party in this age of polarization you are begging the electorate to vote for your opponent. We aren’t in an age of ticket splitting and the parties are breaking pretty clearly along ideological lines (even if the Democrats haven’t figured that out yet.) They do have the money chase in common, but the next few years are going to see a split there as well, with one party coming up with a convincing rationale for why they are a party of whores and the other one being forced by the structural nature of parliamentary politics to take the other side. (I’m not entirely convinced at this moment that it will break the way we might assume.) In any case, if you don’t clearly identify with the party to which you ostensibly belong, people will figure there must be something shifty about you. When you see the two national parties in pitched battle all the time, you are right to wonder why in the world you should continue to support someone who can’t — even if they wanted to — adequately represent your interests.

This new era is going to require more partisan cohesion to get anything done and to stop the things the Party doesn’t want done. This seems like a good thing to me. Fewer Blue Dogs means fewer saboteurs within the party creating the illusion that there is a progressive governing majority. And that means that if the Republicans want to pass their destructive agenda, they will have to take sole responsibility for it instead of passing it under the rubric of bipartisanship — or worse as Democratic policies — and then blaming the Democrats when their policies don’t work. Responsibility/accountability are much clearer when the parties are philosophically distinct.

.

Teabag Communion

by digby

In case you were wondering how the Religious Right feels about the election, here’s the Family Research Council:

Election Results — Pro-life, pro-family, liberty-loving Americans have much for which to be thankful from yesterday’s elections. FRCAction President Tony Perkins hosted a webcast analysis from Washington, D.C., Wednesday morning (see Webcast Replay). Of 182 governor, lieutenant governor, U.S. Senate and House candidates endorsed by FRCAction PAC (each vetted for commitment to our issues), 155 won, 20 lost (7 races not yet declared). Among recipients of FRCAction‘s “True Blue Award” (scored 100% on our Congressional Scorecard), all but one who ran for re-election won. Of 20 Congressmen and women targeted for defeat by FRCAction PAC (mostly self-identified “pro-lifers” who voted for pro-abortion ObamaCare under pressure from the President and their liberal leaders); 19 were defeated by pro-life challengers (one race not yet fully reported).
Webcast panelists include Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Pastor Jim Garlow, Pollster Kellyanne Conway, FRC Action PAC President Connie Mackey and FRC Action Senior V.P. Tom McClusky (see Webcast Replay, Targeted, Endorsed, True Blue & Casualties, Cloakroom Blog).

• May God oversee our new Congress, advance righteousness, and mercifully shape our nation’s history as we pray. May our members be held accountable to the Constitution and their pledges! May legislation now be passed to dismantle anti-family laws that threaten Americans, including the unborn! (Ex 18:2; Dt 21:8; 2 Sam 23:3; Jn 10:10; Rom 14:11-12; 1 Tim 2:1-8).

(Note the presence of Jim Demint, the putative leader of the Tea party.)

Here’s the rest of their prayer for the day:

May God move the lame duck Congress to prevent the overturn of DADT, extend all Bush-era tax policies, and prevent any law offensive to faith, family or freedom! (Josh 22:20; 1 Sam 8:4 ff; 2 Sam 23:3; Pr 14:34; Is 10:1; Jude 1:6-7).

Tea for everybody!

.

Redistricting Matters

by digby

Interesting analysis from Ed Kilgore. He makes the point that the vote last night was more of a “correction” from the waves of 2006, 2008 back to the status quo put in place in the redistricting (and re-redistricting) of 2000:

It appears Republican gains in the House will wind up at around 64 or 65 seats. Looking quickly at the casualties, it appears the vast majority were either veterans in heavily Republican territory or Class of 2006-2008 “Democratic wave” members. Six wins were in southern open districts that were all but conceded months ago. There were virtually no out-of-the-blue upsets; as Nate Silver put it early this morning, it was a very “orderly wave.”

But Republicans did seem to enjoy some luck at the margins. They won the national House popular vote by between 6% and 7% (which means the final Gallup generic poll, predicting a 15-point margin, was indeed an outlier, along with Rasmussen, which predicted a 12-point margin). This margin would in theory normally produce a gain of about 55 seats. The excess peformance will be attributed to superior Republican vote “efficiency,” which is another way of saying that the advantage they obtained during the last round of redistricting endured to the end.

Here’s the bad news:

Speaking of redistricting, the worst news of the night for Democrats was in state legislative races. Republicans appear to have gained control of 15 state legislative chambers. In conjunction with gubernatorial wins, they obtained control of the redistricting process in several big states which will lose House seats (alway an opportunity for gerrymandering mischief), including Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania…

Down ballot races matter too.

But all is not lost:

Finally, something must be said about the electorate that produced these results. According to national exit polls, 2010 voters broke almost evenly in terms of their 2008 presidential votes; indeed, given the normal tendency of voters to “misremember” past ballots as being in favor of the winner, this may have been an electorate that would have made John McCain president by a significant margin. Voters under 30 dropped from 18% of the electorate to 11%; African-Americans from 13% to 10%, and Hispanics from 9% to 8%. Meanwhile, voters over 65, the one age category carried by John McCain, increased from 16% of the electorate to 23%.

These are all normal midterm numbers. But because of the unusual alignment of voters by age and race in 2008, they produced a very different outcome, independently of any changes in public opinion. Indeed, sorting out the “structural” from the “discretionary” factors in 2008-2010 trends will be one of the most important tasks of post-election analysis, since the 2012 electorate will be much closer to that of 2008. That’s also true of the factor we will hear most about in post-election talk: the “swing” of independents from favoring Obama decisively in 2008 to favoring Republicans decisively this year. Are these the same people (short answer: not as much as you’d think), or a significantly different group of voters who happened to self-identify as independents and turned out to vote?

They’re Republicans who don’t want to admit it who turned out to vote. I’d bet on it. Most “independents” vote party line.

Much more food for thought at the link.

.

Processed Sleaze

by digby

I’m just going to crib Krugman on this:

Urk. I just gave up on the presidential press conference. When Obama declared that Americans rejected Democrats in part because “We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done,” I checked out.

Nobody cares about this stuff — they care about results. Nobody really cares about earmarks; they’re just code for spending less (less on somebody else, of course, not me). Nobody cares about civility and bipartisanship, which in practice are code for Democrats giving in to Republican demands. Nobody cares about parliamentary maneuvers: we can argue about the role of health reform in the election, but I bet not one voter in 50 knows or cares that it was passed using reconciliation (as were the sacred Bush tax cuts we must, must retain).

If Obama had used fancy footwork and 2 AM sessions to pass a big public works program, and this program had brought unemployment down, Republicans would be screaming about the process — and Democrats would have comfortably held control of Congress. Remember the voter backlash against the way Medicare drug benefits were passed? Neither do I.

Oh, by the way — nobody cares about the deficit, either.

People’s obsession with bipartisanship, “changing the tone” “reaching across the aisle” amounts to two things: they are sick of listening to gasbags on TV and they want their preferred policies enacted (which they always believe is the bipartisan position.) If by “changing the way Washington works” he means ending the fighting, then he’s being idiotic.

If, however, Obama means they want to get the money out of the system and stop the lobbyist driven transactional politics, then I think he might be on to something. That’s a process that does alarm people, even though the media (which skims a huge amount off the top) pooh-poohs it. I’m guessing that if the political class doesn’t make some move to counteract this, they are going to find themselves with some third party bids, possibly from both sides. The Democrats would be idiots not to work that angle hard before that happens. (Sadly, they are making sounds like they are going to try much harder for a piece of the pie instead.)

.