djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 12:11:47 GMT -5
no, it really isn't, if you understood my point. here it is again: what ruins a politician's chances is not necessarily something that has ANY impact on voters. Again, me answering a point you weren't making. Mea culpa.
I think you're using "impact" in the sense of materially affecting their lives, say in the way losing a health insurance policy or having to pay 50% more out-of-pocket for it materially affects your life (random hypothetical example), as opposed to my sense of registering with a voter as a positive or negative association with a name on a ballot paper. correct. that was PRECISELY the sense that the original point was made in about the government shutdown.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 12:13:07 GMT -5
I don't think the government shutdown will register long on anybody's radar. and i do. we will find out 13 months from the shutdown. i look forward to settling the matter at that time.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 12:16:13 GMT -5
The shutdown didn't impact many people, by either what I'm calling "your" definition or mine. People, by and large, tuned it out. The President is preaching to an echo chamber at this point; he's never been very good at actually persuading anybody to change their minds - indeed, by deriding everyone who disagrees with him, he's succeeded in making political forces out of individuals who simply wouldn't have coalesced without his unifying presence. So, despite his assertions to the contrary, and despite what blip-polls tell us (and comparisons with blame allocation in 1996 are interesting - see here for example; i have researched this thoroughly. it doesn't change my stance. i can explain why, if you wish.also compare the view of Republican leadership ahead of the wave election of 2010, which split rather than empowered the GOP, to polls today), I don't think that the shutdown will hurt Republicans that much - by contrast, Weiner's indiscretions, which weren't impactful by "your" definition but were by mine, because of their prurient nature and ready comedic potential, proved electorally fatal. the shutdown impacted far more people than Weiner's sexting. we will see how this plays out next November.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 12:17:33 GMT -5
All the same, I'm trying to imagine the voter who sent a Tea Party Republican to Congress in 2010 who withdraws his support as a result of the shutdown. And I can't imagine what that guy looks like.
I'm also trying to imagine the voter who replaced a Blue Dog Democrat with a Republican, and wants the Democrat back. He's more plausible, but I don't see him flipping many, and certainly not unless the Democrat candidate is a fairly safe vote against the President's agenda, which isn't really a win for the Pelosi Caucus.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 12:22:32 GMT -5
"Impacted," in your definition?
Which we both agree doesn't particularly affect voting patterns because other factors are more "impactful"?
And the percentage "impacted" - do you think that's a subset of the percentage that supported the Tea Party candidates in the 2010 House elections?
Is it possible that the general trend of anti-government types to revert back to Reagan-era Republican affiliation might, if anything, be enhanced by the shutdown?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 12:41:46 GMT -5
All the same, I'm trying to imagine the voter who sent a Tea Party Republican to Congress in 2010 who withdraws his support as a result of the shutdown. And I can't imagine what that guy looks like. good luck with that. i am not trying to imagine that at all. i am trying to imagine a moderate Republican who had a TP candidate on the ticket voting against him, and having no such difficulties.I'm also trying to imagine the voter who replaced a Blue Dog Democrat with a Republican, and wants the Democrat back. He's more plausible, but I don't see him flipping many, and certainly not unless the Democrat candidate is a fairly safe vote against the President's agenda, which isn't really a win for the Pelosi Caucus. i think i am going to rely on the recent analysis done of the Gerrymandered districts rather than your imagination, if you don't mind.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 12:43:48 GMT -5
"Impacted," in your definition? no, impacted in the sense that voters were impacted by the shutdown. that was where this came from, Mojo.Which we both agree doesn't particularly affect voting patterns because other factors are more "impactful"? And the percentage "impacted" - do you think that's a subset of the percentage that supported the Tea Party candidates in the 2010 House elections? a larger percent than Blue State voters, if the stats are right.Is it possible that the general trend of anti-government types to revert back to Reagan-era Republican affiliation might, if anything, be enhanced by the shutdown? given the recent polling data, i would say that suggestion is ludicrous.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 14:13:40 GMT -5
I really shouldn't belabor this any more, but, to clarify, you're now using "impacted" not to mean what you've defined it to mean, by which measure even the most helpful analysis puts direct impact at less than a third of the voting public (so, one would think, less rather than more than the Blue State voters); but to mean something else?
Presumably not what I defined it to mean, by which measure it just hasn't moved the needle. Obama's RCP average a/d is still around -6, where it was in September. The generic congressional ballot RCP average is D+6.3; it was D+6.5 in October 2009, a year ahead of that election. Republicans have been assailed as the hostage-taking one-half-of-one-third of the government since that historic 'shellacking' of Team Obama, so that's kind of baked in at this point. And there's been an awful lot of irresponsible Chicken-Littleism from the White House that just hasn't matched reality, despite the unfortunately jejune efforts to make the cuts painful to people in unnecessary ways. Skepticism of Obama's case is also baked-in, and creates a firewall for oppositionists.
Your hope for a reversal of the House rests on a significantly increased vote share of people who stayed home in 2010 but are in 2014 sufficiently disgusted by something their Congressman did a year previously (that didn't impact them in either of the senses we've defined so far) that they go out and vote for the other guy, but not so disgusted by the Obamacare that started whacking them around the same time and still is doing that twelve months hasn't mollified their view of Tea Party opposition.
Of course, you, Sebelius, and Obama all resolutely believe that people will blame evil employers and insurers for changing the rules in response to Obamacare; I think it will be easier for them to keep the policy they hate and the job they despise, because they need them, and take it out on Congressional Democrats identified with Obamacare because they don't need them. I think Obamacare is more negatively impactful on Brand Democrat next year, by whatever definition of "impact" you choose, than a 16-day partial shutdown of the government a full thirteen months ahead of the election will prove to be on Brand Republican.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 14:25:39 GMT -5
I really shouldn't belabor this any more, but, to clarify, you're now using "impacted" not to mean what you've defined it to mean, by which measure even the most helpful analysis puts direct impact at less than a third of the voting public (so, one would think, less rather than more than the Blue State voters); but to mean something else? huh? by impacted i mean HARMED*. i would define harm as "damage to the person or property of a non consenting individual". i am starting to feel like Bill Clinton and the "is is" statement. *edit: i am pretty sure that is what the original poster meant when he said "impacted by the government shutdown", but you would have to ask that poster to find out.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 14:28:18 GMT -5
Your hope for a reversal of the House i hope for no such thing. i hope that TP Republicans are replaced by moderate Republicans. you know- then kind that actually WANT to govern?rests on a significantly increased vote share of people who stayed home in 2010 but are in 2014 sufficiently disgusted by something their Congressman did a year previously (that didn't impact them in either of the senses we've defined so far) that they go out and vote for the other guy, but not so disgusted by the Obamacare that started whacking them around the same time and still is doing that twelve months hasn't mollified their view of Tea Party opposition. Of course, you, Sebelius, and Obama all resolutely believe that people will blame evil employers and insurers for changing the rules in response to Obamacare; i not only don't believe that (resolutely, or otherwise)- i have no idea what you are talking about.I think it will be easier for them to keep the policy they hate and the job they despise, because they need them, and take it out on Congressional Democrats identified with Obamacare because they don't need them. I think Obamacare is more negatively impactful on Brand Democrat next year, by whatever definition of "impact" you choose, than a 16-day partial shutdown of the government a full thirteen months ahead of the election will prove to be on Brand Republican. that is what Nate Silver thinks. and he is usually right. we'll see.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 15:05:37 GMT -5
Then you are using your definition, and that "no" earlier to the same question was purely reflexive.
And, by that definition, the large majority of voters were not impacted.
We're told that we technically lost $24 billion, or about 28% of the QE 'funny money' for October 2013, due to the shutdown. No wonder the markets were unfazed. Do you really think those numbers matter more on Main Street than Wall Street?
The takeaway for a lot of people was that you can lay off more than three-quarters of a million government workers because they're non-essential, and most of us don't notice. I think I saw a figure of 800,000 bandied about - 800,000 workers on an average salary of $78,457 (the figure from April this year) cost us taxpayers a truly eye-popping $2.75 billion for just 16 days 'non-essential' work; and, of course that's just the salary portion of their benefit package. Annually, that figure soars to almost $63 billion on 'non-essential' salaries. That's nearly 75% worth of one month's QE bingeing. Gosh.
The total Federal workforce is around 2.1 million, not counting the 'self funded' (no snickering at the back) half million working for the Postal Service.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 15:09:59 GMT -5
By which you mean that you hope a moderate candidate can win in a primary in a Tea Party district helpfully ginned up by this year's antics in Washington?
Dare to dream...
While I'm at it, I hope a more moderate Democrat unseats Nancy Pelosi in her district full of Obamacare waiver beneficiaries (who certainly didn't need to read that bill to find out what was in it for them). I mean, come on.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 24, 2013 15:18:22 GMT -5
"... and a pony".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 15:20:10 GMT -5
By which you mean that you hope a moderate candidate can win in a primary in a Tea Party district helpfully ginned up by this year's antics in Washington? Dare to dream... i know, i know.
While I'm at it, I hope a more moderate Democrat unseats Nancy Pelosi in her district full of Obamacare waiver beneficiaries (who certainly didn't need to read that bill to find out what was in it for them). I mean, come on. in SF, Pelosi IS a moderate Democrat.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 15:23:43 GMT -5
Then you are using your definition, and that "no" earlier to the same question was purely reflexive. please cite the post. if i have said anything else, it must have been on accident. And, by that definition, the large majority of voters were not impacted. i already stated that. and therefore, the Weiner analogy works.We're told that we technically lost $24 billion, or about 28% of the QE 'funny money' for October 2013, due to the shutdown. No wonder the markets were unfazed. Do you really think those numbers matter more on Main Street than Wall Street? not sure what you are getting at here.The takeaway for a lot of people was that you can lay off more than three-quarters of a million government workers because they're non-essential, and most of us don't notice. that is not what i got from this, but everyone gets something different, i suppose. what i got is that if you lose 1% of the workforce that everyone affected by that 1% is impacted. I think I saw a figure of 800,000 bandied about - 800,000 workers on an average salary of $78,457 (the figure from April this year) cost us taxpayers a truly eye-popping $2.75 billion for just 16 days 'non-essential' work; and, of course that's just the salary portion of their benefit package. Annually, that figure soars to almost $63 billion on 'non-essential' salaries. That's nearly 75% worth of one month's QE bingeing. Gosh. The total Federal workforce is around 2.1 million, not counting the 'self funded' (no snickering at the back) half million working for the Postal Service. don't get me started on the USPS. we could fix that problem in ONE DAY, if we were businesslike about it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 15:34:02 GMT -5
Fundamentally different thing. Firstly, he was an individual, making very individual mistakes; secondly, he lied about his mistakes; thirdly, he kept making them; fourthly, he lied about that as well; fifthly, his mistakes weren't tolerable to his constituency. no, it really isn't, if you understood my point. here it is again: what ruins a politician's chances is not necessarily something that has ANY impact on voters. was it this one, Mojo? if so, i stand behind it. being an individual making mistakes and lying about them had no IMPACT on his constituency. the fact that they would not vote for him for mayor is proof that DESPITE the fact that his shenanigans harmed nobody other than himself and the unfortunate women who were subjected to his nudity. fast forward to the shutdown. the argument being made is that "nobody was harmed by the shenanigans". this is the same argument one could use for Weiner (though it is less true, imo), and yet the person making that argument seems to think that voters will blithely forget those shenanigans next November. i disagree. edit: to be clear, i don't see these things as fundamentally different AT ALL: 1) Weiner taking individual actions which have no impact on his constituency, but alter their perception of him. 2) members of congress taking public actions which have no impact on their constituency, but alter their perceptions of them.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 24, 2013 15:41:13 GMT -5
... don't get me started on the USPS. we could fix that problem in ONE DAY, if we were businesslike about it. Any chance that solution would not be problematic for anyone not urban white collar middle class?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 15:41:59 GMT -5
... don't get me started on the USPS. we could fix that problem in ONE DAY, if we were businesslike about it. Any chance that solution would not be problematic for anyone not urban white collar middle class? my solution has nothing to do with service, if that answers your question.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 24, 2013 15:47:09 GMT -5
Any chance that solution would not be problematic for anyone not urban white collar middle class? my solution has nothing to do with service, if that answers your question. As well as can be reasonably expected.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 15:58:06 GMT -5
my solution has nothing to do with service, if that answers your question. As well as can be reasonably expected. why should you be reasonable, when nobody else is? there are two ways for the postal service can fix their deficits. the first is to raise rates 25%. i can guarantee that, given the monopoly nature of the business, the market would support that. the second would be for congress to stop mandating that they keep such high reserves for health and pension benefits. those accounted for 70% of their deficit in 2012. or, of course, some combination of the above. it is really really simple stuff, imo. the fact that congress can't even solve that simple of a problem says far more about them than it does the postal service.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 6:55:49 GMT -5
You try running on a platform of hoicking a monopoly service charge to the point where working-class families can't afford to either visit one another at Christmas or mail one another the meager gifts they've saved for - oh, and, to sweeten the deal, imperil by implication every public-sector benefit boondoggle.
Watch how the other party and its loyal propagandists assail you for being anti-poor and anti-worker. Watch how the unions mobilize against you. Watch how popular opinion, even among people who can comfortably afford your proposals without blinking, nosedives.
Sure, some people will be fine with it; there's a constituency out there if you propose feeding the children of the poor to the rich to obviate the problem of poverty, but that's another Swift boat that isn't riding into elected office any time soon.
If representatives didn't have to worry about re-election, it might be different.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 7:20:41 GMT -5
My contention is that a Tea Party House Republican's constituency in his own district feels just the same about him after the shutdown - especially a year after the shutdown, and especially when the manifestations of Obamacare and another debt-ceiling showdown are impacting that constituency (or can plausibly be blamed for the impact - politicians frequently earn credit for things like victorious local sports teams, and attract blame for things like shark attacks: people vote irrationally) - as they did before.
There is no impact, in the sense I used the word, in the second case. It was made abundantly clear by both sides in 2010, and consistently since, what Tea Party Republicans are like. Poll respondents will tell you they want compromise, but they will also tell you they don't want the results of compromise. They will tell you they hate gridlock, but they will vote to maintain it. People respond to polls irrationally, too. It is the predictable alignment of these irrationalities that allows Nate Silver's methods to work.
When Weiner ran for Mayor, people were aware of his chequered history. They had factored that in. They had noted his wife stood by him, and they were aware of his tearful apology for the wrongs he had done. His contrition expiated his sin in the eyes of many, and other factors of his public record were given due weight.
The revelations during the campaign that this 'contrition' was insufficient to produce a change in his behavior had impact - the voters felt betrayed by Weiner (much as Tea Party voters in 2010 felt betrayed by the incumbents they replaced with Tea Party freshmen, in fact). Typically, incumbent representatives who act consistently with the platforms on which they were elected fare well in re-elections, ceteris paribus. To the extent that Tea Party Republicans were elected to hold down taxes and spending in Washington, and to the extent that they have been able to show diligent efforts to that end, those efforts will not impact their constituency.
You're entitled to argue that their constituency is the whole population of the area that they represents; just as the President's constituency is both those people who accept his frames and those he mocks, derides, and alienates for disagreeing with him. That example illustrates that, for practical purposes in the era of the perpetual campaign, your constituency is the people who will turn out for you at the next election. As long as you speak with conviction for 50% plus one of that electorate, you're golden. I don't like this rule at all, but it's wilful ignorance to pretend it doesn't apply.
You can also claim that, within the heart of each Tea Party district there is a silent quorum who will, a year hence, rise up with vengeful cries of "Moderation! Compromise!" and mobilize incoherently against the Tea Party volunteer army. Perhaps you can see the inherent problem with that claim. I hope so. It's like Vroomfondel's weak rallying cry in H2G2: "We demand rigidly defined areas of uncertainty!" It's definitionally absurd. Voter turnout tends to be depressed in midterms, the more so in midterms for lame-duck Presidents. Partisans show up; the middle tunes out. That's one of the reasons why we become more partisan in our politics - too damn many elections that don't matter to enough people.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 13:57:57 GMT -5
You try running on a platform of hoicking a monopoly service charge to the point where working-class families can't afford to either visit one another at Christmas or mail one another the meager gifts they've saved for - oh, and, to sweeten the deal, imperil by implication every public-sector benefit boondoggle. subsidizing rates makes no sense. at a certain point, i am going to say "here is the rule: the PO should be self sustaining" and leave it right there.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 14:06:11 GMT -5
My contention is that a Tea Party House Republican's constituency in his own district feels just the same about him after the shutdown - and my contention is that these districts are not nearly so red as you think they are.When Weiner ran for Mayor, people were aware of his chequered history. They had factored that in. They had noted his wife stood by him, and they were aware of his tearful apology for the wrongs he had done. His contrition expiated his sin in the eyes of many, and other factors of his public record were given due weight. no. here is what happened in that race. Weiner did his tearful apology brigade- LAST YEAR. then, a mere MONTH before he ran for mayor in 2013, it was revealed that he was STILL SEXTING. that is what happened to Weiner.The revelations during the campaign that this 'contrition' was insufficient to produce a change in his behavior had impact - the voters felt betrayed by Weiner . i understand. YOU are looking at betrayal. and i get that, i really do. i think the difference between you and i is that you see these TP districts differently than me. how i see them is that the TP had the votes in the primary, but won marginally in the GE. the average margin was 13% = 56.5:43.5. that is not resounding. in that margin were a lot of moderate Republicans. i might also note that outside of the TP, this shutdown has not been popular with moderate Republicans. therefore, i am not sure that the moderate Republicans who begrudgingly voted for their TP candidate this time are still "with" those candidates.You can also claim that, within the heart of each Tea Party district there is a silent quorum who will, a year hence, rise up with vengeful cries of "Moderation! Compromise!" and mobilize incoherently against the Tea Party volunteer army. Perhaps you can see the inherent problem with that claim. I hope so. It's like Vroomfondel's weak rallying cry in H2G2: " We demand rigidly defined areas of uncertainty!" It's definitionally absurd. Voter turnout tends to be depressed in midterms, the more so in midterms for lame-duck Presidents. Partisans show up; the middle tunes out. That's one of the reasons why we become more partisan in our politics - too damn many elections that don't matter to enough people. that might be true. i see your perspective now, Mojo. you are saying that the TP Reps did not betray their constituency, but Weiner did. you are looking at it from betrayal, and i am looking at it from harm to the country. you are seeing the deep blue Weiner voters, but i am not seeing the TP Rep voters as deep red. i think there is enough gray in those perspectives for me to say that we are talking about slightly different things, based on slightly different perceptions of who these men and women represent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 15:04:01 GMT -5
It is our doom
|
|