MyDD :: Afternoon Thread

Afternoon Thread

by Chris Bowers, Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:38:00 PM EST

Here are some items of note today:

Survey USA has their new state by state Bush approval out. Overall, Bush is still at a poor 41-56.
Check out this timeline of right-wing dirty tricks in America.
Trent Lott is running for re-election. No pickup chance there now.
The committee vote on Alito will take place on January 24th. Firedoglake has a good post on the matter.
Blue Oregon has a good piece on how newly minted Chief Justice Roberts voted with Scalia and Thomas (and no one else) today on Oregon's assisted suicide law. In the process, he seems to have been less than forthcoming with Senator Wyden.
I wonder how many cable news nets are pointing out that Gingrich Said Democrats Think They "Run The Plantation".

This is an open thread.

Permalink :: 18 Comments :: Post a Comment

Gingrich Always The Pot, Calling The Kettle Black (none / 0)

You can always tell what conservatives are going to do. Just look at what they've spent the last 10, 20, 30 years of accusing liberals and Democrats of doing.

Run unsustainable budget deficits, with no regard for fiscal responsibility? Check!

Appoint judicial activists to pass an extremist un-American agenda the people would never vote for directly? Check!

Attack the patriotism of military heroes? Check!

Run Congress like a plantation? Check!

They are so, soooo predictable.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:11:24 PM EST

Maybe I just don't remember (none / 0)

But did anyone get bent out of shape when Newt said it or was he just being colorful?

by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:14:46 PM EST

The BAP rating (none / 0)

BAP is short for "Bush approval projection" and it's used for the GOP held Congressional districts.

Here's the formula.

Bush approval rating for the state plus the difference between Bush's H2H showing in that state and Bush's H2H showing in that district

Then again, for this, I just decided approval by the total of approve/disapprove, to make it slightly more "to the point"

Here's the 15 Republican districts with the lowest projected ratings for Bush (and the 'projected' rating, actual ratings may vary)

VA-11 (Davis) - 40%
NV-03 (Porter) - 40%
PA-06 (Gerlach) - 39%
PA-08 (Fitzpatrick) - 39%
CT-02 (Simmons) - 39%
OH-12 (Tiberi) - 39%
WA-08 (Reichert) - 39%
OH-01 (Chabot) - 39%
OH-15 (Pryce) - 38%
IL-10 (Kirk) - 38%
IA-02 (Leach) - 38%
PA-07 (Weldon) - 38%
FL-22 (Shaw) - 38%
KY-03 (Northup) - 35%
DE-AL (Castle) - 33%

KY-03's low rating can be attributed to the 11 point difference between Bush in Kentucky and Bush in that district. It might be too low.

Some of the states have had big drops between Bush's showing on election day and Bush's approval today.

Some of the biggest drops

Arkansas: 55/45 in 11/04, 39/61 in 01/06
Kentucky: 60/40, 46/54
Delaware: 46/54, 33/67
Indiana: 60/40, 47/53
Oklahoma: 66/34, 53/47
Wyoming: 70/30, 57/43
Missouri: 54/46, 42/58
Ohio: 51/49, 39/61

And I also had a percentage where the Congressional showing would be subtracted by the Bush showing. For example, somebody like Marilyn Musgrave finished 7 points behind Bush.

Now, if when I add that percentage to the Bush Approval Projection, I find that 47 Republicans can't make it to 50% (sure, there's some other factors here, like opponents spending money, weak incumbents, and open seats)

The 47 districts, for reference:

AR-03 (Boozman), CA-26 (Dreier), CO-4 (Musgrave), CO-7 (Open), CT-2/4/5 (Simmons, Shays, Johnson), FL-13 (Open), IA-1 (Open), IL-6 (Open), IL-11 (Weller), IN-2 (Chocola), IN-8 (Hostettler), IN-9 (Sodrel), KS-2 (Ryun), KY-3 (Northup), KY-4 (Davis), LA-7 (Boustany), MI-7 (Schwarz), MI-9 (Knollenberg), MI-11 (McCotter), MN-2 (Kline), MN-6 (Open), NC-5 (Foxx), NC-7 (Hayes), NC-11 (Taylor), NE-1 (Fortenberry), NJ-5 (Garrett), NJ-7 (Ferguson), NV-3 (Porter), NY-24 (Boehlert), NY-26 (Reynolds), NY-29 (Kuhl), OH-1 (Chabot), OH-4 (Open), OH-12 (Tiberi), OH-15 (Pryce), OK-1 (Sullivan), PA-6 (Gerlach), PA-8 (Fitzpatrick), PA-15 (Dent), TX-32 (Sessions), VA-2 (Drake), WA-5 (McMorris), WA-8 (Reichert), WV-2 (Capito), WY (Cubin)

There's a few I would quickly remove from this list (The open seats from 2004 and Sessions)

As well, there'll be a lot of things involving the word "If" for some of these districts.

Also, this does not factor in openness of the seat, or the incumbents unpopularity, although Tom DeLay and Tom Davis did clock in at barely over 50%

47 is a pretty good number, when the target is 15.

I'd imagine there's at least 15 winnable seats on that list too.

Ok, that's all.

by RBH on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:50:02 PM EST

Mississippi? Aw, What the Heck... (none / 0)

Lets throw some resources into Mississippi anyway. We gotta at least show up. Trent Lott, of all people, doesn't deserve an easy reelection.

Even though I'm from Florida, and I probably should be keeping my mouth shut on Mississippi, I still just want to put a little heat on Lott's racist butt.

"The collapse of confidence in the Republican leadership is not enough to elect Democratic leadership." -Dean

by gatordemocrat on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:50:28 PM EST

Re: Mississippi? Aw, What the Heck... (none / 0)

I agree. Many things can happen. Remember the 50 state strategy. Never say die!

by Fridley on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Say Das! n/t (none / 0)

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:26:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is it Just Me? (none / 0)

Or is there something screwy about the logic of this:

Remapping the Culture Debate

When it came to defining themselves in the nation's ongoing cultural battles -- such as the battle over "family values" -- Democrats had virtually ceded the field to Republicans, presenting an uncertain face to the public. Voters, the research showed, were looking to cultural and lifestyle markers to determine whether or not a candidate was, in fact, going to do right by the economy, the Democrats' one persistently strong area. The Democracy Corps pollsters concluded that voters saw traditional Democratic economic concerns as having little to do with them, being mainly "manifested in costly government social programs or political alliances with labor unions and minorities." The party's inattentiveness to cultural matters had, paradoxically, left these voters with "absolutely no sense that Democrats have a viable alternative vision that would truly promote broad economic growth or increased prosperity for working Americans."

Is the problem here really "inattentiveness to cultural matters"? Or is it rather a failure to formulate and push a view of the economy that explains why labor unions and social programs are good for the economy and social justice too?

Then there's this:

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Well, then, is the problem just that we are inattentive to cultural matters or also that we are not developing an institutional blueprint for an economy that is more just and cooperative.

Why is anything she says here an argument against "economic populism"? Once we have that, it should be pretty easy to find a moral justification for social justice. It's all right there in the New Testament.

Ideas? I know GFR is one of Bowers' favorites, but she's not one of mine.

by tgeraghty on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:36:13 PM EST

Naive Reporting (none / 0)

This is too much like stenography from someone who doesn't know a lot about survey data, and didn't do a very good job of getting experts to help her fill in her gaps. It only took me about 5-10 minutes to find some contradictory data.

My conclusion?

I'd really be interested in the underlying data, but I seriously doubt that it shows what is claimed here. For one thing, it contradicts the admittedly cruder sort of questioning that goes on in the General Social Survey. Still, the picture these guys paint tells us that the GSS variable EQWLTH--SHOULD GOVT REDUCE INCOME DIFFERENCES--ought to show a measurable, if not significant decline in affirmative responses from 1992 to 2004. But it doesn't. There's a little shifting around, but with an R of -.02, you can tell it doesn't amount to much.

Here's the question text:

74A. Some people think that the government in Washington ought to reduce the income differences between the rich and the poor, perhaps by raising the taxes of wealthy families or by giving
income assistance to the poor. Others think that the government should not concern itself with reducing this income difference between the rich and the poor. Here is a card with a scale from
1 to 7. Think of a score of 1 as meaning that the government ought to reduce the income differences between rich and poor, and a score of 7 meaning that the government should not concern
itself with reducing income differences. What score between 1 and 7 comes closest to the way you feel? (CIRCLE ONE)

Here's what happened with those most in favor of equality (1):

17.8
14.6
17.7
15.1
16.3
19.4
20.4

While responses (2) and (3) fluctuated differently, the total 1-3 was higher in both 1993 and 2004 than it was in 1998--by a significant amount: 48.0 in 1993, 47.0 in 2004, and 42.5 in 1998.

This simply doesn't square with what these guys are saying. I'm not saying that their data is bunk. Just that I think we have to have other people looking at it and comparing it to other data we aleady have from other sources.

And, of course, if their data itself is questionable--as I think this shows--then their conclusions are doubly so. I would never write off a new approach to mass political psychology sight unseen. But neither would I embrace it that way either.

Furthermore, we should not forget that they are taking an approach that accepts and reinforces the basic Republican viewpoint--that politics is a product that you have to sell people in a demographically targetted manner. The Democratic viewpoint is that politics should transcend mere market preferences. It should speak to us at a more fundamental level. It should be more coarse-grained, more robust, more one-size-fits all. Just how much this market-oriented approach influences the output remains to be seen, but it's a definite red-flag-raiser.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Naive Reporting (none / 0)

I knew you'd have some good info on this.

by tgeraghty on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:23:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Naive Reporting (none / 0)

the basic Republican viewpoint--that politics is a product that you have to sell people in a demographically targetted manner.

This is right. GFR writes as if people's world-view and political preferences are set in stone, as if political argument can't alter people's perceptions of self-interest and their political preferences.

by tgeraghty on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:24:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Politics vs. Retail Marketing (3.00 / 1)

It's pretty simple. A company marketing a product has very little to gain from spending money trying to change fundamental attitudes, when it's much easier to simply adapt it's marketing. There's not much motivation to be pro-active, rather than reactive. The benefits will be reaped by many others as well, including competitors.

But changing fundamental attitudes is precisely what politics is all about in the long run. Being pro-active is what agenda-setting is all about. And benefiting others--especially our own future candidates--is something we want.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:48:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]