Tags Divided government
Tag: divided government
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities are still calling the tax cuts and war expenses a "Bush Legacy" and attributing most of our current and future debt and deficit to GWB. They are simply not acknowledging the facts. The argument itself and the dubious premise are exactly the same as when first presented three years ago. What has changed are the facts about who is the author and owner of the policies they are tracking. And by ignoring these facts, the CBPP has moved from a dubious, "disingenuous" argument to outright misrepresentation and falsehood.
The early call: The Republicans will keep the majority in the House. Senate majority is leaning Republican but it’s too close to call. If the Republicans win the White House it is virtually certain they will also take the majority in the Senate and One Party Republican Rule will again hold sway. Voters who prefer to avoid a return to the “good old days” of 2000-2006 cannot rely on the Democrats holding the Senate, leaving only one certain way to avoid that outcome. The Divided Government vote for 2012 is a vote to re-elect Barack Obama.
The compromise will include some formula for revenue increases, (probably in the form eliminating deductions while reducing rates), it will include cuts to the military, and it will include deep meaningful and substantial cuts in spending in the overall budget. And the compromise will be agreed on the brink of default to no one’s satisfaction. In the meantime, we have six weeks of Kabuki theater to enjoy while the eventual compromise is hammered out. Both tribes will have ample opportunity to point at the feckless hypocrisy of the other. Enjoy the show.
Public Policy Polling has a couple of new polls out focusing on Virginia. So far, it’s all good news for the Dems.It is an open question whether there is anything meaningful to be gleaned from polls 20 months out from an election. At least these polls offer a baseline set of numbers to watch when the campaigns kick off in earnest.For me, The most interesting element of the PPP summary is the highlighted question "…could there actually be a group of independent voters that go Obama/Allen in the interest of divided government?". Regardless of how you would answer, it is significant that the question of whether independents are consciously making divided government voting decisions is even being asked. As you might expect, I offered my answer in the comments on that post
What seemed likely last fall is now a virtual certainty – the Republicans will retake the Senate majority in 2012. The only way to retain our happily divided government and avoid a rerun of One Party Republican Rule in 2013, will be to re-elect Barack Obama.
As we somberly walk with the funeral procession following the midterm election, the air is filled with cries, lamentations, rending of garments, and portents of doom from Democrats and liberals, much as we heard from Republicans and conservatives after the Republican Party was buried following the 2008 results.Under the mountain of navel gazing, finger-pointing, self-serving spin, and bitter invective found in the left-o-sphere, we can still find a few gems of sparkling analysis, insight and useful advice. For your consideration - two examples of Progressive postmortems that caught my attention. But to mine a rich vein of solid gold analysis, we must first separate and dispose of the slag. There are two very different Progressive perspectives of the election, electorate, and, most importantly, the way forward. Consider which of the two is informed by common sense, logic and data and which is informed by rhetoric, sophistry and rage. I submit they are representative of two significant and incompatible constituencies within the Democratic Party. The schism has been there all along, but was papered over in 2006 and 2008 by the unifying principle of Bush Hate. Regardless of how skilled Axelrod, Gibbs, and Plouffe may be skilled at "triangulation", the Obama administration cannot simultaneously turn left and turn toward the center. I hope Democrats choose wisely, as I really don't want to see us return to one party Republican rule in 2013. they shouldn't rely on Palin and Tea Party to hand the 2012 election to the Democrats. They just may disappoint them. Again.
“The Economist” defends divided government from attack by hysterical Nobel Prize winning emo economist
This election cycle precipitated a conversation about the virtues and vices of a divided federal government in both new and traditional media. In the last few days before the vote, the amplitude spiked. Much of the most recent attention is in the form of an attack from the left on the foundation of the divided government voting rationale. One such attack - an awe inspiring, world class hysterical hissy fit by Paul Krugman from the lofty platform afforded him by the New York Times:
I've been following an interesting multi-blog discussion trying to sort out an apparent polling discrepancy between voter attitudes and voter intentions in the midterms. We do not need to invoke “unconscious bias” to understand a straightforward preference for divided government. If you prefer the spending restraint, greater oversight, and better legislation we get as a direct consequence of a divided government state, the most rational vote is the vote most likely to create that state.
What better day and time to update our "10 in 10? election prognostications? Last we checked in - Nate Silver (our polling analyst of choice) showed that 9 of the 10 seats most likely to change parties were all held by Democrats and he was forecasting a net 6-7 seat Republican gain in the Senate. One month later, with less than a month to go - 10 of the top 10 seats most likely to change parties are all held by Democrats and Nate is forecasting an 8-9 seat gain by the GOP. So - despite the nomination of a GOP clown candidate in Delaware (virtually guaranteeing a Democratic victory in that state) the odds of a GOP Senate takeover continue to improve.
This week the ACLU released a disturbing report documenting the permanent enshrinement of the Bush/Cheney definition of the Unitary Executive by the Obama administration. With the tacit acceptance of the Democratic Congress, the balance of power between executive and other branches continues to shift heavily to the executive. While distressing, the report is unsurprising as it was clear in the first few weeks of the new administration that Obama’s campaign rhetoric of rolling back the Bush/Cheney power grab was just that – empty campaign rhetoric.
The bogeyman of “gridlock” will not dissuade voters. While often messy, political gridlock in Washington D.C. can yield very positive results. The poster child of dysfunctional gridlock is the Clinton/Gingrich budget impasse that shut down the government in 1995. Ugly – to be sure. Yet out of that same dynamic during the six years of divided and “gridlocked” government, we got a lot of good, smart governance.
Most investors believe that the stock market will benefit from Republicans taking control of either the House or Senate in the fall. With that expectation, a rising market could very well be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the GOP begins to look like it has a realistic chance of taking control of one house, the opportunities may come along sooner rather than later.
Is there a better political story than the Brown/Coakley special election in Massachusetts? This is a much more exciting contest than either of the playoff games on Sunday. The last big effort to turn back the Scott Brown tide was in evidence all weekend. It had two tracks, a high road, and a low road.