Crack Brain Zealot For Democracy

Great Quotes

I was hoping to write a fairly significant response to the State of the Union (SOTU), but I'm down in DC for my grandmother's funeral, and won't likely get the time for a few days. But there are loads of good things being said today, and I've got a ton of posts saved up from the past week or so for comment. And since I've got a few hours and need to distract myself, let's do some quotes.

First, a post from Political Scientist John Sides on the role of "independents" in our political system. Know this. Understand this. And repeat it constantly whenever you are discussing politics with your friends:

I want to yell.

INDEPENDENTS ARE NOT A “VAST MIDDLE GROUND.”

INDEPENDENTS DO NOT COMPRISE MORE THAN “A THIRD OF AMERICANS.”

How many DAMN TIMES must this be said before this MOST BASIC OF FINDINGS — first explicated at length almost 20 YEARS AGO! — sinks into the heads of pundits.

I will keep linking to this post as long as it takes. To repeat: true, honest-to-God independents are about 10% of the American population. Declining support for Obama among independents accounts for less than a fifth of Obama’s overall decline in support.

OK, now some SOTU reactions:

CBS News:

83 percent said they approved of the proposals the President made. Just 17 percent disapproved

CNN:

48 percent of speech watchers had a very positive reaction, with three in 10 saying they had a somewhat positive response and 21 percent with a negative response.

Mark Blumenthal on a Democracy Corps dial test:

The shifts there are very extraordinary. On the issue of whether he puts Wall Street ahead of the middle class, it was a 50 point shift on people saying that [doesn't describe him] well. There was a 40-point shift...on fighting special interests. On banking reform, on support, it was a 38 point shift in favor of that. And that's clearly, far and away the place where he showed the greatest strength and clarity.

Andrew Samwick:

I give President Obama high praise for the parts of his speech this evening where he chastised his own party in the Congress for its ineffectiveness and for telling the Senate Republicans that if they are going to insist on supermajorities to get any policy passed, then they are going to have to share in the responsibility for governing. Good for him. Nobody's perfect, but I cannot help but think that the conduct of the Congress in recent years, and the Senate in particular, would be enough to make a Founding Father vomit.

Kevin Drum:

Obama was dead serious most of the time, but he also seemed loose and engaging, at times even sparring good-naturedly with the Republican side of the aisle. My guess is that this is a combination that works pretty well. At the very least, he didn't seem freighted down with the burdens of office, and that's an accomplishment all on its own given the events of the past couple of weeks.

James Fallows:

One moment when I couldn't believe what I was seeing: the Roberts-led stare whatsis? Supreme Court sitting directly in front of the President and being equally-directly dressed down by him, while the politicians right next to them in the chamber leapt up and cheered. Don't recall any moment quite like that before.

Steve Benen:

Given the public's palpable frustrations and the struggles the nation endured in 2009, there was a sense that the president would have to be vaguely apologetic during the address. He'd have to explain himself, acknowledge mistakes, and lay a new course for the year ahead. The pundits' use of words like "reboot" and "scaled back" were ubiquitous going into the speech.

The president, though, decided not to follow the conventional script. When he was supposed to be meek, he showed confidence. When expected to be contrite, Obama seemed proud. When Republicans sought deference, the president responded with strength. Indeed, while the GOP believes electoral winds are at their backs, Obama didn't mind teasing, confronting, challenging, and even mocking them in a good-natured way.

The fear that the president might shrink from the moment was backwards -- Obama stepped up and seemed larger than ever.

Matt Yglesias:

Obama seized the mantle of responsibility, pragmatism, and seriousness while challenging the GOP to show some good faith and willingness to be a constructive partner in government. But what he’s never been able to do is to generate the kind of specific, concrete political pressure on incumbent Republican senators that inspires them to vote “yes” on his bills or confirm his nominees.

Jonathan Chait:

I haven't seen a convincing explanation as to why it's so awful for Republicans to disagree with a presidential speech. The answer is "decorum," but to me, decorum suggests giving latitude to the opposition. The State of the Union, remember, was originally delivered elsewhere in order to avoid the appearance of a president dictating to Congress. Forcing Congress and the Supreme Court to defer to the president as a ceremonial head of state, rather than the head of a co-equal branch of government, runs counter to the deepest spirit of our form of government.

Moreover, it represents the Washington establishment's prudish aversion to debate. I can see why a loud outburst might be objectionable -- though I'd prefer a feisty back-and-forth, like in Great Britain -- but to scold Alito merely for moving his lips in such a way as to show disapproval seems to be taking the prudishness to a new extreme. Yes, he's a Supreme Court Justice and we're supposed to believe he has no political beliefs or agenda, but in the post Bush v. Gore world it's a little late for that.

Andrew Sullivan responds to Clive Crook, who asks "What does it matter who caused the problem?":

Let me try to explain: it matters who caused the problem and why because if we do not understand the causes we cannot fix the problem and it matters because any adult judgment of a politician's first year that does not take into account the inheritance he was bequeathed is impossible.

It matters because the most important fact in American politics is the worst presidency in modern times that preceded Obama.

Two failed, unwinnable wars that continue to destroy lives and cripple our finances, a massive splurge in entitlement and discretionary spending, a huge increase in defense spending and massive tax cuts: this we now have to forget? This context should be removed from the picture?

It matters too because the very people who gave us this mess are now adamantly refusing to do anything to get us out of it, and pledge to return to exactly the same policies that got us there in the first place: more tax cuts, more war, more entitlement spending, more debt, no health insurance reform, no action on climate change. Clive acts as if there were some viable alternative out there. There isn't.

I'm not saying that Obama should not be held responsible for actions he has taken; I am saying he should not be held responsible for actions he did not take and an appalling inheritance he was forced to grapple with. Removing that context, as the GOP has largely done, and Crook now endorses, is to rig the entire debate so that Obama cannot win. It is a function of the kind of punditry that is, in fact, far more of a problem for the country than anything Obama has done - because it bases political judgment on unreality, and distorts the body politic's capacity for reasoned argument. It treats all of this as a game.

And some non-SOTU related thoughts:

Matt Yglesias on taxes:

As long-time readers know, I’m a big believer in taxes. The American people are big believers in government services, but they like them to be paid for by magic. The political system thus often winds up directing policy in a weird direction—doing policy through tax subsidies and “credits” and regulatory mandates rather than simply taxing and spending. This is bad, in my view, but the people don’t seem to agree.

There are, however, two recent little glimmers of hope. One is that in Oregon a ballot measure to enact sharply progressive increases in income taxes on high earners passed. The other is that in last night’s State of the Union address the idea of a new tax on large banks was a big applause line. The President put it front and center, and many members of congress stood and cheered for it. Neither of those things fundamentally gets us to where I want us to be, but they’re both steps in the right direction.

Steve Benen on the role of Republicans in the vote against the budget commission they proposed:

Six GOP senators co-sponsored the legislation to create the commission, and then voted against their own idea. Asked for an explanation, the Republicans said the commission -- which was intended to push policymakers to make uncomfortable decisions -- might have told them what they didn't want to hear, and should therefore not exist...

These six Republican senators said they'd welcome a commission -- it was, after all, their idea to co-sponsor the bill -- just so long as the GOP isn't asked to make concessions or compromises at all.

We've heard plenty of rhetoric of late about how President Obama just needs to reach out more to Republicans to strike bipartisan compromises. But how can anyone take such an approach seriously when leading GOP lawmakers oppose their own ideas because they may be asked to accept bipartisan concessions?

Neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol, on his son Bill Kristol:

My poor son has got it wrong again

Kate Sheppard reports on Frank Luntz recent findings on the need to reframe the climate change conversation:

Luntz suggests less talk of dying polar bears and more emphasis on how legislation will create jobs, make the planet healthier and decrease US dependence on foreign oil. Advocates should emphasize words like "cleaner," "healthier," and "safer"; scrap "green jobs" in favor of "American jobs," and ditch terms like "sustainability" and "carbon neutral" altogether. "It doesn't matter if there is or isn't climate change," he said. "It's still in America's best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe."

Ron Brownstein on our dysfunctional political system:

We are operating in what amounts to a parliamentary system without majority rule, a formula for futility.

Lanny Davis (I cannot believe I'm quoting him on this, but he's right, so...) on the need to refram the health care debate:

The Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life. How is it that so few people have heard that message?

Matt Yglesias on voting in the United States:

Consider, for example, America’s staggering quantity of elected officials. If you live in Toronto, you vote for a member of the Toronto City Council, you vote for a member of the Ontario Parliament, and you vote for a member of the Canadian Parliament. That’s one large Anglophone city in North America.

What happens in New York City? Well, you’ve got a city council member, a borough president, a mayor, a public advocate, a comptroller, and a district attorney. You’ve also got a state assembly member, a state senator, an attorney-general, a state comptroller, and a governor. Then at the federal level, there’s a member of congress, two senators, and the president. That’s sixteen legislative and elected officials rather than Toronto’s three. New Yorkers don’t have three times as much time in their day to monitor the performance of elected officials. Instead, New Yorker elected officials simply aren’t monitored as closely. That creates more scope for corruption. What’s more since campaign money has diminishing marginal returns, the proliferation of elected makes money matter more than it otherwise would.

A big country like the United States is never going to have public officials who are as well-monitored as the ones in a place like Denmark. But we make the situation much, much worse by proliferating the quantity of elected officials to the point where most people have no idea what’s happening. How many people can name their state senator? How many people know what things their school board has authority over and what things their mayor decides? And this is all without considering the absolutely insane practice of electing judges.

And last but not least, a few must-reads that are quite difficult to quote:

Matt Yglesias on the Marginal Cost Pricing For Mass Transit

NPR on the role of the bail bond industry in our messed up criminal justice system.

Imagine if the United States redrew its political borders by population size. James Fallows explains.

Robo-Calling

A simple question: does anyone know of any empirical research showing the effect of robocalls on voters? And here I don't mean one call, but dozens upon dozens upon dozens of calls in the week before a close election.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how anyone thinks these sorts of things help their campaign. And yet everyone does them. Why?

I'm with Drezner. Count me out of this swing-state business.

This Mess? Its Your Fault.

I had originally planned on writing a reasoned and thoughtful take on why elections aren't the right method for "sending messages" to political elites, but Digby just said everything I was planning to say, so I'm just going to quote her, and once that's done, let loose with a rant.

First, Digby. Its a long excerpt, but it so perfectly captures the reasoned side of my argument that it can't be avoided:

If my comment section, email and other blogs are to be believed, there is a lot of netroots angst about the Democratic party these days. It's certainly understandable. With the free floating anxiety that's pervasive out in the country as a whole, the horrific spectacle of health care reform sausage making and the toppling of President Obama from his heavenly pedestal, we have the making of a full blown insurrection on our hands. The question is what to do about it.

Many people believe that the only thing Democrats understand is pain and so the thing that will change this dynamic will be to deliver them a loss of their majority and perhaps the presidency to show the consequences of failure to fulfill the progressive agenda. That certainly sounds right, except you can't ever know exactly what lesson will be taken from this sort of pain and if history is any guide, the likeliest one is the simplest and most obvious: they lost because people preferred what the other side had to offer. ...

So, how do liberals exert what power they have and have the results be interpreted the way we want it to be? The first would be through protest votes for a third party that resulted in Republican victory. (There is virtually no chance that any third party will ever gain real power short of a fundamental change in the way we elect our representatives, so protest is all it will be.) It's been done before. And if you can live with the idea of voting in a Republican party in the thrall of extremists that make Bush and Cheney look like Rockefeller Republicans, I suppose that might be the way to go. I won't judge you, but I am personally unwilling to put the world through any more of this failed right wing experiment at the moment.

There is a fairly compelling theory in political science that says that after political parties come into power, fulfill some pieces of their agenda, get fat and bloated and are finally removed from office, they then tend to deny the reality of their loss and blame it on everything but themselves until they lose enough elections that they finally realize that their ideology has failed. The current GOP is not there yet by a long shot. They are still in the process of doubling down on their radical agenda at a time when the economy is still in ruins, the effects of globalization are being fully felt, the planet is in peril and about to reach a tipping point, and a radical fundamentalist movement is trying to blow people up. I don't think the world can take any more of the right's prescriptions for these problems right now: Lindsay Graham is considered too liberal and neo-Hooverism is their economic program. Yes, the Democrats are corrupt and inept. But the other side is batshit insane.

However, that doesn't mean that there's nothing we can do but wring our hands about how the system is broken and fret ourselves into inertia. The other way to send messages to the Democratic party is through the unsatisfying and often thankless process of primary challenges. Nobody can have any problem understanding that message, not even Adam Nagourney.

It's hard to find challengers and it's no wonder. It's expensive, time consuming and after all your hard work you will probably lose. It takes real commitment and a desire to not only win a seat in congress but do it by way of unseating an incumbent of your own party with whom you disagree, an act which is guaranted to make you an odd man out among the party hierarchy. But if you win, it can send shockwaves through the system.

And guess what? We are in the most favorable year for primary challenges in recent memory. The insane teabaggers aren't going to allow any rational Republicans to run and the anti-uncumbent fever is going to be as high as it's been since 1994. The Democratic base has an energetic activist faction, the netroots can raise money and there is a burning desire to show the party establishment that they cannot take liberals for granted. It's a perfect environment for successful primary challenges.

And lucky for us, there are some brave progressives already out there taking on incumbents and there very well may be more. This time a few of them may win, and believe me if that happens, the Democratic party will not be able to spin those victories as being a sign that the party needs to move to the right.

Blue America has helpfully set up an Act Blue page with all the progressive challengers who have announced and we'll add to it as more come forward. We're calling it "Send The Democrats A Message They Can Understand."

If you want a Democratic scalp, these candidates are out there offering to do the work to get it done. And you won't be giving Adam Nagourney or Cokie Roberts or Glenn Beck what they want in the process. It's a win that even the villagers and the party establishment can't spin as good news for Republicans.

And now, my rant:

When are people in this country going to grow up and realize that politics isn't about "sending messages?" Politics isn't a big game of telephone. It's not about saying what's on your mind, or telling people how you feel, or expressing yourself in public forums, or anything else like that. It isn't about words. It's about actions. About deeds. About the choices we make as a nation for how we will govern ourselves.

And elections? Of all the various institutions that make up our political process, elections are the perhaps the institution least suited to self-expression. And if you think about it for a moment, it shouldn't be hard to understand why:

Elections are about sending people to Washington to represent us in our government. That is their one and only purpose. They do not "send messages," not to political elites or anyone else. The ballot lists the names of candidates and nothing more. There is no box where you get to tell the world how you feel or why you've made your particular choice. There is no soap box at your polling station on which you can stand. And most importantly - and please, if you take one thing away from reading this, let it be this - there is not way to vote against anyone or anything. You choice is only an affirmative one: Who will you choose to cast a vote on your behalf on each and every issue facing this country for the next two years.

I get it. You don't like Martha Coakley. I don't either. But voting for Scott Brown isn't going to "send a message" to the Democratic Party. That's a nice story that you can tell yourself, but it is not how the real world works. It's nonsense. A lie. And it has very real consequences, both for yourself and your fellow citizens.

You know what happens if you vote for Scott Brown? Scott Brown will likely become the next United States Senator from the State of Massachusetts. Because by voting for Brown you wont be sending a message to DC. You will be sending Scott Brown to DC.

Martha Coakley is a crappy candidate. No doubt. But don't get mad at her, because it isn't her fault. Its your fault. Its our fault. Get mad at yourself and at your fellow citizens, and not at her. Because the only reason that she, and not someone better, is the Democratic candidate for Senate is because more people voted for her on primary day than any other candidate. She wasn't picked by out of touch elites. She was picked by the people who cared enough to get involved.

You want to send a message? Send a message to yourself. Because you are the one who needs to hear it. Get up from in front of your computer and get involved. Not just on election day, but every day. Get involved before the candidates are chosen. Find one you like. Volunteer for them. Knock on doors. Talk to your neighbors. Help your candidate win. Make them win. And if you don't find anyone you like for a race that you think is important? Then nominate yourself. Start small. Start big. It doesn't matter, so long as you stop waiting for someone else to fix the problem for you and get involved.

Democracy doesn't happen on its own. It isn't something that you do once or twice a year. Its not something you watch on teevee. Elections are the end result of the democratic process, not the sum total of it. Voting on Election Day should mark the end of one phase of your involvement in the process, and not the entire thing. Candidates don't appear on the ballot by magic. They appear only because someone chose to put them there. And they win only because they convinced their fellow citizens to choose them, and not someone else.

I get why everyone wants to blame someone else for this mess. Its easier that way. And it feels good. But in a system such as ours, there is no one else to blame. Our government is us. We, the people. That's it. That's everything. Elites? Party officials? Out of touch leaders? They are the individuals who take over the system when we, the people, aren't sufficiently involved. Their existence is only possible because we choose to allow them to exist.

Trust me, I get it. I don't want to vote for Coakley. That's why I voted for someone else in the primary. That's why I did what I could during that part of the process when something could be done. But now it is too late. Now we have 2 choices: Send a Republican or send a Democrat. That's it. It's too late to make another choice.

But only for now. Because in our system, there is always another election. And in this case that election is just 2 years away. This race is only to fill the remainder of Kennedy's term. The battle for 2012? It begins the moment that we the people, decide to get involved.

You want better choices come Election Day? Good. Make it happen. You want to reform the system? Great! Reform it. You want one of the two parties to move closer to your idea of how government should work? Don't we all! But you will have to get involved. No matter how many "messages" you send, the process is never going to come to you. Because the process is us. We are the government. We are the political parties. We, not they. We.

We are the ones we have been waiting for. And if we don't show up, we have only ourselves to blame.

UPDATE: Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, from a reader over at Andrew Sullivan's place:

I was in a hospital on Friday night, on a patient floor after visiting a family member. Ran into a friend. Four lifelong Democrats, talking outside the rooms of their loved ones in a hospital, and not a one of us was voting for Coakley.

We all want health care to pass. We all want Obama to succeed. We all want Coakley to go away. That's a problem for Coakley. This vote is not about health care and Obama, it's about the Senate and Coakley. If I voted in election after election and voted the Dem ticket except for Coakley (which I left blank), you might imagine I sure as hell would not start voting for her for Senator of all things.

At least the lightweight, brain-dead Brown will only hold that seat for 2 years. Coakley will share her mediocrity with us for the next 20 years if she gets in. Want my vote? Dems should make a deal - Coakley until 2012, then they'll put up a credible candidate.

Who are these "Dems" that this reader is referring to? And why must we, the people who will get to campaign and vote in 2012, wait for "them" to make a deal with us? It is our system. They, whoever they may be, don't control it. We do.

You don't want Coakley to win in 2012? Get off your butt and make sure she doesn't. Winning now doesn't mean that she automatically wins later. By that logic, voting for Brown now means that Brown will win later. That's nonsense. Until we hold a campaign and cast our votes, nothing is certain. Incumbents have no more advantage than we the people are willing to give them. This isn't magic, for god's sake.

I'm so sick and tired of people angrily waiting for someone else to fix the system that I can barely stand it anymore. People, wake the fuck up. "They" don't exist. There is only us. We are the government. We are the party. The only people we can make a deal with is ourselves.

The Stimulus Is Working

Too important to put in the previous post. Via Ezra, a series of charts compiling data from a bunch of different private forecasts that say everything you need to know:

UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan, a nice update:

"The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do—it is contributing to ending the recession. In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent," - Mark Zandi, economics adviser to the McCain campaign.

Teh Stupid From Politico

Politico:

While Republicans scored a pair of impressive electoral victories in New Jersey and Virginia with solid support among female voters, the events of the last week offer harbingers of serious trouble ahead with the largest swing voter bloc in the country -- women.

Women are supposed to a be a single voting bloc? And one that swings, no less? This is what passes for analysis at one of our nation's top political media organizations? WTF?!?

2009 Election Recap

A few things caught my eye as I was heading out the door...

TNC:

Conservatives pride themselves on their skepticism, and generally dismiss liberals as soft-headed Utopians. But in so many ways, political conservatism is Utopianism for the powerful. It isn't broadly skeptical of human nature, so much as it's broadly skeptical of people its agents don't particularly like. Hence the sense that Americans are intrinsically "good people," that this country "is the best nation that ever existed in history," that the South is home to "the greatest people that have ever trod the earth," and that the murder of four little girls in Birmingham was the work of a "Communist" or "crazed Negro," which had "set back the cause of white people."

Hence the notion that those voting against gay marriage, are not actually, in the main, motivated by bigotry, but a belief in tradition and family. But very few people would actually ever describe themselves as bigots. We think we know so much about ourselves. This is a country--like many countries--which is deeply riven by ethnic bias, and gender discrimination. And yet we don't seem to know any of the agents of that discrimination.

John Cole:

So, to review, the wingnuts took a seat that would have been a win for the Republicans, so much so that the seat had not gone to a Democrat since Reconstruction and the Democratic candidates had been getting about 35% of the vote the last few elections, ran the Republican out of the race, brought their own special kind of crazy to town, and the voters rejected them handily.

Even I didn’t expect Owens to win. I seriously hope they pursue this strategy nationwide.

In other news, a Goldman employee has finally lost a job, with Corzine out in NJ. I know nothing about the election there, nor the one in Virginia, but I do know that Terry McAuliffe is not Governor. That is a good thing.

The only really bad thing is the repeal of the gay marriage law in Maine. Other than that, I’d be hard pressed to draw any conclusions from yesterday other than that Sarah Palin is still a loser. I’m sure that won’t stop the right-wing hacks from claiming this has been a bad result for Obama, but let’s face it- everything is good news for Republicans.

RNC Chair Michael Steele:

"You're Not Gonna Spoil My Juice Right Now. You're not gonna take this high away from me."

Brian Beutler:

Most of the commentary about last night's elections has centered around Republican pickups in the New Jersey and Virginia statehouses. But what's gone largely unnoticed is that the two congressional seats up for grabs last night both went to Democrats, and that will have immediate ramifications for health care reform.

The NY-23 seat abdicated by Republican John McHugh (who resigned to become Secretary of the Army) went to Democrat Bill Owens--the first Democrat to hold the seat in over a century. And the CA-10 seat abdicated by Democrat Ellen Tauscher (who resigned to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs) went to Democrat John Garamendi.

That creates some simple arithmetic. Yesterday, Democrats had 256 voting members in the House. By week's end, they'll have 258.

Michel Steele again:

The GOP renaissance has begun.

Steve Benen:

New York has 29 congressional districts. As of today, the state is represented by 27 Democrats. As recently as a few years ago, Dems had "only" 21 seats from New York.

What's more, New England, made up of six states, has 22 congressional districts. Currently, the region is represented by 22 Democrats.

So, north of the Pennsylvania border, there 51 congressional districts representing 34 million people. Republicans have a whopping two seats.

John Cole:

Could Chuck Todd explain to me how many votes in Congress for health care reform Chris Christie and McDonnell have? Our media is just hopeless.

Kevin Drum:

I understand that everyone wants to spin yesterday's election results in the best possible light for their side, but the sheer volume of yak is astonishing. Was there this much postgame analysis after the off-off-year elections in 2005 or 2007? I don't remember it, but maybe I'm just forgetful these days.

In any case, jeez, can we all get a grip? Democrats lost races in two states. That's a bummer for them, but hardly a referendum on the future of the party. Republicans lost one House seat after a stupid primary squawl. That's a bummer for them, but hardly a referendum on the future of conservatism. Everyone needs to turn down the dial before this election becomes the balloon boy of politics.

Steve Benen:

The Washington Post published a lengthy analysis of political independents in July 2007, based on a survey conducted by the Post in collaboration with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. The result was a pretty straightforward reminder: there's an enormous amount of political diversity among independents.

Strategists and the media variously describe independents as "swing voters," "moderates" or "centrists" who populate a sometimes-undefined middle of the political spectrum. That is true for some independents, but the survey revealed a significant range in the attitudes and the behavior of Americans who adopt the label. [...]

The survey data established five categories of independents: closet partisans on the left and right; ticket-splitters in the middle; those disillusioned with the system but still active politically; ideological straddlers whose positions on issues draw from both left and right; and a final group whose members are mostly disengaged from politics.

Appealing to "independents" is inherently tricky if "independents" don't even agree with one another.

There. Now you know what I think.

A Losing Strategy

For the past week or so, I've been unable to figure out what to write about the special election being held in NY-23. But the news that the Republican Party's candidate, Dede Scozzafava, has dropped out to make way for the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, has fixed that.

The district should be a safe seat for the GOP. The party's nominee, Scozzafava, is actually to the right of the median member of her party in the NY State Assembly. Hoffman, meanwhile, doesn't even live in the district. And his party is mostly a joke. Here, for example, is the entirety of their position on NATO, one of the 20 major issues listed in their drop-down menu:

"NATO must redefine its mission or we should deem it an institution that outlived its usefulness."

But once a weird collection of national conservative activists got involved, Scozzafava's campaign tanked and Hoffman's took off. And the result? The GOP is now rallying behind the Conservative Party candidate.

Looking back over the entirely of American history, there are plenty of examples of a strong majority party co-opting the ideas, ideals, and language of a small third party that posed a threat to its coalition. But its hard to find an example where a party that had recently badly lost a series of national elections found their way back to the majority by embracing the candidates and ideologies of a fringe third party. In fact, so far as I know, there aren't any examples of that. And my guess is, this won't be the first.

The point of a political party is to build an organization that can bring together a diverse coalition of peoples and groups to win elections, at the state, local, and national levels. You don't do that by having out of state activists overrule the decisions of leaders at the local level. You can try it if you like, but in the end you'll discover I'm right. It won't work.

UPDATE: Well, okay then. Apparently Newt Gingrich agrees with everything I just said.

UPDATE II: And then Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat Bill Owens. Here's her statement:

"You know me, and throughout my career, I have been always been an independent voice for the people I represent. I have stood for our honest principles, and a truthful discussion of the issues, even when it cost me personally and politically. Since beginning my campaign, I have told you that this election is not about me; it's about the people of this District.

"It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.

"It's not in the cards for me to be your representative, but I strongly believe Bill is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh's lasting legacy in the U.S. Congress. John and I worked together on the expansion of Fort Drum and I know how important that base is to the economy of this region. I am confident that Bill will be able to provide the leadership and continuity of support to Drum Country just as John did during his tenure in Congress.

"In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first.

"Please join me in voting for Bill Owens on Tuesday. To address the tough challenges ahead, we must rise above partisanship and politics and work together. There's too much at stake in this election to do otherwise."

This is exactly, precisely why the party purification strategy that hard core conservatives are pursuing will drive their party further into the minority. You cannot grow if you insist on purging anyone at the margin of your party that's closest to the center.

And while I'm updating... several of you wrote me to ask how this is different from the strategy the Netroots pursued from 2004-2008. One or two even suggested that I'm being hypocritical. But no, I'm not.

The Netroots pursued a "more Democrats, better Democrats" strategy, which meant that you first expand the size of the party by welcoming in people at the rightward edge of the coalition, then you improve your candidates by nominating people who better represent the party's core values. Or in terms of voters, first you convince them to vote with your party, then you convince them to vote with you on the issues.

Conservatives have inverted this, and are instead pursuing a "better conservatives, more conservatives" strategy, and that won't grow their party back into the majority.

On Campaign Finance

Since the Supremes were considering it today, I might as well briefly put down my thoughts:

Given the collapse of scarcity in our political communication networks, and given that the vast majority of all political communication now takes place off of the public airwaves, I believe that regulating who can spend what money when on various forms of communication in the days prior to any given election causes far more problems than it solves.

The solution to lies is not to attempt to restrict their telling. It is instead to speak and spread the truth.

"If [a] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.

Obama won the 2008 election with his ground game, not his TV ads. If you are still focused on TV, you are staring at past.

Political Theater of the Year

Wow.

Republicans stood poised to take control of the Tennessee General Assembly for the first time in nearly 140 years.  Even Gubernatorial candidate Zach Wamp roamed the halls.  "What I say to all my new colleages here in the state house and state senate is with this new majority, is you cant just be the opposition party now because the burden is on you to govern."

...an hour into session, they tackled the Speakers position.  Representative Jason Mumpower of Bristol received the first nomination.  Republicans hoped to end the nomination process there, but after more political wrangling, allowed Democrats to submit a candidate.

What happened next some may describe as the political play of the decade as all 49 Democrats backed Kent Williams, a Sophomore Republican from Carter County, a district just miles from Mumpower's hometown.

During the voice vote on the Speaker's position, the House clerk called every Democrat first, then every Republican, except Williams.  The 49 to 49 split was then decided by Williams.

Williams accepted the position amid cheers and boos, prompting state troopers to enter the House chambers ready to respond to an outburst.

After the vote, Representative Gerald McCormick reacted.  "I think we've elected a dishonest and dishonorable man to Speaker.  He's made a joke of the government, he should be ashamed of himself, he's a bold face lier."

Republicans promptly kicked Williams out of their next caucus meeting.  Rep. Eric Watson says "everyone is surprised right now that's whats happening we don't know the outcome yet, its not over."

Republicans still hold a 50 to 49 majority.  But what that means now, is unknown.

Strike For Change!

Change Congress has just launched an interesting new effort called Strike For Change.



The 2008 election showed the power of millions of small donors, and this effort is an attempt to extend that by calling for a donors' strike. By taking the pledge, citizens agree not to support any candidate who doesn't support Citizen Funded Elections. Take the pledge and you get to see not only how it affects your local representatives, but also how it affects all members of Congress. Get enough voters to sign up for this, and change doesn't just becomes possible, it becomes damn near inevitable.