Joe Scarborough Talks Some Sense...

Recently, Joe Scarborough, a former House Republican and host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe", published an opinion piece on POLITICO discussing his view about how important or earth-shaking this years mid-terms elections will actually be. In short, he makes the point that both parties are equally guilty of having terrible records when it comes to fiscal responsibility and that the end-of-the-world like rhetoric we hear from both Democrats and Republicans is all just that...Rhetoric. Whether there will be any real change this November remains to be seen and though I am not as skeptical or cynical as Mr. Scarborough, I am not holding my breath that the Republicans will be any better than the Democrats in terms of Fiscal Responsibility should they come to power.

As an interesting sidenote, this opinion piece by Scarborough has cause a good bit of reactions from readers of POLITICO. There have been alot of comments on the piece ranging from Liberals claiming Joe is just another dumb conservative and doesn't belong on MSNBC, to Conservatives accusing him of sucking up to Liberals and not being a real conservative. Such a wide range of comments suggests to me...that Mr. Scarborough must have said something right to irritate both ends of the political spectrum so kudos to you Mr. Scarborough for being bipartisan in your ability to piss off both Liberals and Conservatives!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44134.html

19 Days til....

In just 19 days, millions of Americans will go the polls in what is sure to be a memorable mid-term election. How memorable of an election all depends on who you ask of course. Many Republicans would try to convince you (and themselves) that this year's elections will be something close "tsunami" if 1994. Some Democrats (including the Vice President) actually try to convince people that the Democrats have a real chance at maintaining their majorities in Congress. What is the truth? Well, even though we still have 19 days til the election, thanks to polling data all over the nation and the good people at the New York Times FiveThirtyEight blog we can make a pretty good educated guess.

As of their latest projections, this is the outcome FiveThirtyEight is predicting according to the latest available polling data (October 8-12):

House of Representatives

• Republicans- 226.5 seats



• Democrats-208.5 seats



• Independents-0.0 seats
  

Senate

• Republicans- 47.9 seats



• Democrats- 52.0 seats



• Independents- 0.1 seats
  
  

Now, assuming the math behind these projections is correct, the results we will see this Novemember will hardly be a "tsunami" but it will radicially change the dynamics of Washington D.C. The Republicans would have a fairly strong majority in the House of Representatives though not as great as the Democrats now and likewise the Democrats will still have a pretty strong presence compared to the current Republican minority. However, the real difference will be in how each party conducts themselves while the majority.

Democrats in their short rule of the House have passed several major pieces of legislation but have also had problems with party unity and keeping promise made before they came into the majority in 2006 (especially in the area of ethics). Republicans on the other hand don't traditionally have alot of internal problems and often more united in the political positions. Even with the election of so-called Tea Party candidates, this isnt likely going to change as long as President Obama is in office.

The Senate is another story entirely. If these projections hold true, the Democrats will retain their majority but just barely. This will present a rather interesting situation in the Senate. The threat of Filibuster by Republicans will only be more real and could result in a deadlocked Senate. Its even possible Republicans could draw in several more conservative Democrats on important votes and therefore not even need to filibuster. No matter what though, its likely the Senate will not be a very active body after the election (which is a sad statement to begin with).

In fact many Republicans, including prominent members like Senator Jim DeMint have called for a deadlock should they not get their way. The idea of a standstill in the Senate and the whole of Congress will remind many of a similar event after the 1994 mid-terms over the budget. The idea of a similar event is not likely to win any votes considering how ineffective and lazy most Americans already think Congress is..Just imagine how they will feel when one of the major parties has the equivalent of a hissy fit and causes the entire government to grind to a hault. Now whether such a standstill is going to happen we can only guess, but it's just one of many possibilities of what the Congress will look like after the mid-terms.

Sadly though, I think anyone who thinks these elections are going to be some radical change or some great improvement are going to be disappointed. I myself am a rather cynical political wonk who sees both parties are being dysfunctional and self-centered in their own ways and don't hold much hope either party is ready or willing to create any real political change in America. In my mind, should Republicans come to power in the House, it is going to just be politics as usual and they will be more focused on the elections in 2012 than getting something accomplished or showing any real national leadership. This is just politics as usual in America and I haven't seen any reason to believe any different..But of course I could be wrong and perhaps the Republicans will really take charge and focus on the deficit as they have promised and not focus too much on partisan politics but I'm not going to hold my breath...

Regardless, I really want to give kudos to the people behind the FiveThirtyEight blog at the New York Times for their impressive set of information, polling data, and great articles on this years elections. We need more sites like these out there to better educate the American voter..Many thanks!

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

The Write-In Contenders..Rebels against the Tea Partiers?

This political season has so far shown that the Tea Party movement does have some sway at least with Republican and even many independent voters with the nominations of several so-called, "political outsiders". The most recent addition to this club has been Christine O'Donnell who defeated Republican moderate Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Senate Primary. Mr. Castle had the backing of not only the party establishment but also political veterans like Karl Rove. O'Donnell's victory cause many in the establishment to publically vent their frustration with the Tea Party movement that had propelled O'Donnell to win the nomination. Mr. Rove stated it best in that with O'Donnell as the Republican Candidate it made it unlikely that she would be able to defeat her Democratic candidate largely thanks to her conservative beliefs that aren't nearly as effective in the Democratic-leaning state of Delaware. This belief has been reinforced by the latest polls that show Ms. O'Donnell far behind her Democratic opponent.

As such, some have suggested that Mr. Castle could mount a Write-In campaign as Ms. Murkowski has in Alaska after being defeated by a more conservative tea-party backed candidate. However, many venerable political analyists don't see that as very likely. Write-In campaigns are tricky to pull off in the best conditions but they are seen as the only option for non-Tea Party Republicans who believe they can still win in general elections.

This year has really shown the threat the Tea Party poses to the Republican Party as a whole. While the Tea Party movement has helped motivate many new voters towards the Republican party, it has also shown that it can derail some of their efforts to win traditional Democratic states (like Delaware). This tension between the Tea Partiers and the Republican establishment could pose an even greater danger to the GOP should they gain control of Congress because it could infighting not just this year but in the next election cycle, in which the Democrats could take advantage of the chaos. For the moment though, the Democratic voters are not nearly as motivated and for the moment have been unable to trully captialize on the tension between the GOP and the Tea Party.

This November is shaping to still be very exciting, with most experts agreeing that Democrats will lose control of the House of Representative but thanks to recent events it looks that the Senate will likely remain in Democratic hands which will make the aftermath of the Mid-Terms all that more confusing and exciting (for political wonks anyway).

Which brings me to a new link I have added to the my blog. The New York Times has this year set up a Political page/blog called the FiveThirtyEight which includes a vast array of information on races all over America including poll numbers, local statistics, voting records etc. The site also makes their own educated guesses for the likelihood of the outcomes of these races and the likelihood of who will control Congress after the Mid-terms. I highly recommend it to those who want to see the big picture this year politically.

Enjoy!
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

I know it sounds crazy...But

Much has been made in the last few years over all the President's "Czars". Many a political ignoramus claimed these Czars were proof of President Obama's socialist tendencies (totally ignoring the fact that most of the existing Czars already existing before President Obama took office). Others questioned that whether these Czars were really going to eliminate the government waste at all, which is a very good question. The problem is, we don't know for certain so perhaps the President should do something that many have said comes so naturally to him, hire another Czar. I know its sounds crazy, but hear Liz Peek of the Fiscal Times out..

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/The-Economy/2010/09/15/Obama-Needs-an-Efficiency-Czar.aspx

September 11th..We will not forget

On the 9th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, I can't find the words to properly honor those who died that terrible day..So I look to the man who, for better or worse, held Americans together that day, President George W. Bush:

“Time is passing. Yet, for the United States of America, there will be no forgetting September the 11th. We will remember every rescuer who died in honor. We will remember every family that lives in grief. We will remember the fire and ash, the last phone calls, the funerals of the children. “- President George W. Bush, November 11, 2001

2010 the new 1982? Maybe..

There has been some talk as of late about how the current political and economical situations of this year is comparable to those of 1982 during President Reagan. On the surface, the comparison is definitely interesting and seems quite convincing but is it really a good comparision? The people at PolitiFact has done so checking for themselves, and found the comparison to be "Mostly True" on their 'truth-o-meter'. I am inclined to agree based on these facts:



1. New President- Both Obama and Reagan succeeded unpopular Presidents (Bush and Carter), and we quite popular in the first year or so of their presidencies because of this. However, Reagan like Obama, saw their popularity among the American people drop half-way through their first terms.

2. Economy- Both Presidents came in at the beginning of recessions and experience high umemployment rates going into the fall midterms, which had reprecussions on their popularity and their party's success in the fall.

3. Midterms- Both Presidents experienced losses of their party's standing in Congress, though in Reagan's case the Republicans were in the minority and still lost seats in the fall whereas Obama's Democratic Party is in control of both houses of Congress and is likely to lose control of at least one house.



That is where the comparison ends, because while not set in stone, its likely the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives this fall and possibly even the Senate (though that is far from certain). Reagan came into office with Democrats controlling the House so he was already an "opposition" President, whereas Obama should have been in a more controlling position. While President Obama has had some legislative success, Republicans (especially in the Senate) have been fairly effective is causing Democrats problems.



Another part of the comparison is that even though Reagan's popularity was diminished in 1982 and his party lost seats, he was still able to win re-election (rather easily) in 1984 and Obama supporters believe that such success could be duplicated by President Obama in 2012. Whether this is true or not I don't know but I do agree the comparison is definitely relevant.



Here is the original Fact-Check by PolitiFact, read it and judge for yourself..
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/07/mary-jordan/how-similar-were-recessions-under-ronald-reagan-ba/

Another Sign of American Voter Ignorance..

I hate to sound rude about this, but there seems to just be an endless amount of evidence that the average American voter is just plain stupid. As I have said many times, you don't have to have an interest in politics to stay informed. Staying informed is something that should be required of all voters because ignorance causing more problems than any corrupt politican will ever accomplish...

Here is what I am talking about. The good people at the Pew Research Center have discovered that more Americans incorrectly believe President Obama signed the TARP legislation into law and not his predecessor President Bush. Read it and weep...

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1057