Category: Politics

Gas Prices Down, GOP Hopes Up?

Pejman Yousefzadeh notes that analysts are predicting significant drops in gas prices over the next few months as supplies increase and consumption grows at a rate that is slower than expected.

Gasoline tends to be an inelastic commodity, but a year of high prices do have an effect on people’s willingness and ability to reduce fuel usage. With the airlines being socked with even more restrictive security requirements, their fuel usage is down as well as more flights are cancelled due to security and fewer passengers. The end of summer means less driving and an end to some federal regulations demanding more expensive fuel blends.

Politically, there seems to be some correlation between gas prices and Presidential approval. That’s understandable, as gasoline prices are the most singularly visible sign of he economy’s overall health, and have a rather significant effect on the pocketbooks of American voters. A decrease in gas prices may ease some pressure on the GOP majority which is taking some of the blame for the increase in prices.

Will this be enough to have a significant effect on the election? It’s quite possible, although midterm elections tend to be more about local issues than national ones. However, the GOP needs all the help it can get, and if gas prices are closer to $2 than $3, voters will be less inclined to throw out incumbent politicians than they otherwise might be.

Would Katherine Harris Please Go Away Now?

Rep. Katherine Harris, who is rapidly proving to be the GOP’s chief embarrassment has has once again put her foot firmly in her mouth by declaring that the separation of church and state is a “lie”:

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is “a lie” and God and the nation’s founding fathers did not intend the country be “a nation of secular laws.”

The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will “legislate sin,” including abortion and gay marriage.

Now, Harris’ comments are probably being twisted to an extend, but a smart politician would never say something that could so easily be misconstrued as endorsing something perilously close to theocracy. It’s one thing to say that Christian morality should inform the creation of laws, but Harris’ comments were both inarticulate and silly. Harris has proven to be an embarrassment to Florida (no mean feat!) and her own party. It’s high time she realized that she’s shooting herself in the foot and made a transition back to the private sector.

Is Minnesota Trending Away From Democrats?

The Pioneer Press had an interesting piece this weekend on how the political dynamics in Minnesota are still trending towards the GOP:

The national scene seems to portend Democratic gains in governorships and Congressional seats, possibly leading to Democratic control of Congress. Low job approval for President Bush and Congress result from a familiar litany of problems — endless conflict in Iraq, high energy prices, anxieties about international turmoil and ongoing domestic controversies over immigration and health care.

Democrats, however, have not quite closed the deal with American voters. Surveys reveal them as unpopular as Republicans. Democrats have yet to present an appealing alternative to the GOP agenda. It will be up to individual Congressional candidates — in Minnesota, most notably Senate aspirant Amy Klobuchar and 6th District House candidate Patty Wetterling — to make the case for change. So far, their national party has not carried that argument with likely voters.

Running directly contrary to this national current is the favorable trend for the GOP in Minnesota state politics. This trend is of recent vintage. Part of it stems from growing GOP party identification in the state, detected in a recent Star Tribune Minnesota poll. In addition, a peaceful state legislative session, a budget surplus, improved economic growth and job creation all help Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty and GOP state legislative candidates.

I would also had that the Republican Party of Minnesota is one of the most disciplined and effective political organizations out there today. When it comes to identifying voters and getting them to the polls, the state GOP has it down. This is also part of a national trend in which the GOP has been doing an excellent job in terms of GOTV efforts. The Democrats still retain a slight edge in party ID, but that edge is slipping. Part of it is due to the changing nature of the US electorate — the unions, which used to be the Democratic Party’s biggest asset, are slowly being replaced by a more independent workforce. Blue states are generally losing population, while Red states are gaining. Even with immigration and urbanization, the GOP still holds a slight demographic advantage.

As the article notes, it also helps that there are deep divisions just under the surface of the DFL. The DFLers I’ve spoken to have noted that there’s a pretty substantial divide between the urban liberals and the traditional Farmer-Labor voters. The war in Iraq has become a political litmus test here in Minnesota for Democrats just as it has been national, and candidates such as Amy Klobuchar who are trying to find a moderate path are getting pushed by hardcore anti-war voters. Discipline is key to a political party’s future, and the DFL’s divisions could slow down their ground game come election time.

That doesn’t mean that Minnesota is likely to go red any time soon. However, it does show that even in largely inhospitable political climates, a disciplined and effective political operation can still win. The unpopularity of the President doesn’t necessarily effect local races — in fact, it has a very small effect, if any. When it comes to having a solid ground game, the GOP is doing quite well, which is how so many state offices are held by Republicans despite Minnesota being considered a very blue state.

The Problem With Summer Polling

Jay Cost has a great piece on why summer political polls aren’t a very good predictor of election results. I’m inclined to believe his argument. Most people aren’t paying much, if any, attention to politics. The generic ballot always favors the Democrats to varying degress. Cost is right in that summer polls often have a higher percentage of non-voters than polls conducted closer to the election as it’s harder to determine voting behavior when we’re several months out from a mid-term election.

I do think there is a great deal of voter hostility towards the Republicans at the moment, and I do find it likely that the Republicans will lose seats in the House. I find it plausible, but less likely that those losses will result in a loss of control of the House. The Democrats don’t have the kind of compelling political message that the Republicans did with the “Contract for America” in 2004, nor do they have the sort of leadership that the Republicans did. Nancy Pelosi is hardly a figure who appeals to the values and sensibilities of Middle America.

Of course, the GOP isn’t doing much better. Voter apathy could be quite high in this election, despite the minority of vehemently anti-Bush voters that dominate the political news. The reality is that American politics are in a shameful state, and partisanship overwhelms all. Many of those polled in these summer polls are rightfully fed up with the way in which Washington has lost touch with the rest of the country — however, it remains questionable whether a choice between two parties who haven’t gotten their acts together will be enough to motivate voters to take action.

Lieberman Well Ahead Of Lamont

The latest Quinnipiac poll has come out in the Connecticut Senate race, and it shows Joe Lieberman leading Ned Lamont by 49% to 38% with Republican Schlessinger trailing at a dismal 4%.

The two biggest factors playing into this is Lieberman’s support from Republicans, 78% of which are pulling for some more Joementum. It appears as though many Connecticut Republicans are voting tactically: Schlessinger has no chance of winning and is an exceptionally poor candidate. Lieberman is as liberal as they come, but at least is right on the war and puts country before party. Lamont is a creature of the increasingly radical netroots and hardly trustworthy on any issue. It’s hardly surprising that the Republicans are choosing to go with the devil they know rather than than empty suit being filled by the Kossacks and the radical left.

On the other hand, Lieberman has a strong level of support with independent voters. As Byron York notes in National Review Online, Lamont’s unfavorables have risen the more people get to know him. That in itself isn’t all that uncommon, but those unfavorable figures have been rising faster than his favorable ratings. That isn’t healthy for a politician, especially going against an incumbant like Lieberman.

Lamont has a relatively small chance at winning in Connecticut. While Lamont trailed Lieberman early on in the primary, the makeup of the electorate in the general election will be much more hospitable to Lieberman than it will to Lamont. Lieberman has the advantages of incumbancy, more support among Republicans than the Republican candidate, and national attention on Lamont’s weaknesses as a candidate of the “netroots”. Lieberman’s anti-partisan message may also have quite a bit of resonance with Connecticut voters.

Lieberman might have won the primary had he not alienated Connecticut Democrats by announcing his intentions to run as an independent so early. Lamont is unlikely to benefit from another such blunder. Lamont’s inexperience and lack of depth won’t help him either. It looks like that Lieberman still has enough “Joementum” to push him across the finish line this November.

The Anti-Partisan?

Robert Cox has an interesting piece on how Joe Lieberman’s attempt to run against the climate of hyperpartisanship in the country may be the right course to take. I’m inclined to believe that – when we’re facing problems from high gas prices to war in the Middle East, the last thing the average American voter wants is to listen to a bunch of politicians fighting like two-year olds. Ned Lamont spends more time running against George W. Bush than anyone who’s actually on the ballot. George W. Bush’s “stay the course” rhetoric is hardly persuasive when the “course” in Iraq appears to be right off a cliff. There doesn’t seem to be a single politician on the major national political scene that doesn’t come off looking like a vainglorious prick.

People are getting sick and tired of the ineptitude and corruption in Washington – and that feeling is bipartisan. (Although the Republicans, being in power, do get the brunt of it.) The Republicans got elected saying on a platform of compassionate conservatism – and so far have demonstrated a considerable deficit of both. The Democrats are running on the “we hate Bush” meme, which is great if the entire country were represented by Martha’s Vineyard, but gives the American voter nothing to vote on as an alternative.

I think Lieberman’s onto something here. As Cox explains:

In his Tuesday night speech, Lieberman, both conceding defeat and launching a new campaign for the U.S. Senate, decried the “old politics of partisan polarization” and said, “I went into public service to find solutions, not to point fingers. To unite, not to divide.”

Lieberman went on to describe a political environment within his own party in that “Every disagreement is considered disloyal. And every opponent it is not just an opponent but is seen as evil.” He vowed to continue fighting for stronger national security and work with Democrats and Republicans to “build a better life for the people of Connecticut … regardless of what the political consequences may be.” In staring into the abyss of an election loss, Lieberman may be on to something.

That’s a message that no one else has in politics right now, and it’s a refreshing change. There’s no doubt that Lieberman is well to the left of the American mainstream, but he’s one of the few Democrats who can speak credibly to people of faith. If the Democrats were smart, they would have used that to their advantage – of course, they threw him under a bus instead. The Democrats are assuming that the backlash against politics as usual works to their advantage – and there’s some compelling logic towards that. At the same time, when it comes to a level of partisanship that veers towards the insane, the Democrats have it in spades. The sort of “netroots” activists that now have the Democratic Party under their sway turns off nearly everyone else who doesn’t already share their views. As Lieberman said, when every disagreement is an act of treason against the Party, you’re not going to be able to appeal to those who don’t believe as you do already.

Lieberman’s anti-partisan backlash may be the smartest political move of this election season – a refreshing voice of sanity in an ever-more shrill shouting match. Lieberman is the first politician to embrace such a strategy – we’ll see if more read the political tea leaves the same way and follow suit.

Let The Democrats Be Democrats?

Two pro-Lamont prospectives: the first being from John Nichols of The Nation‘s Online Beat blog (which is a really nice-looking blog) and another from conservative talk show host and former Congressman Joe Scarborough.

Both argue that the Lamont win will energize Democrats who want to be hardcore, antiwar, “progressive” Democrats. Indeed, they’re almost certainly right. However, there aren’t enough “real” Democrats to win an election – even in a bastion of blue-blood liberalism like Connecticut. Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals by a significant margin in this country. The message of the “progressive” movement right now boils down to “we hate George W. Bush” followed by a mishmash of half-baked leftist policy ideals. It isn’t a coherent philosophy of governance, and its primary driver right now is sheer unadulterated hatred for the personage of George W. Bush.

If one were a hardcore Democratic partisan, yesterday’s results were something to cheer about. Ultimately, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. The utter lack of civility coming from the netroots is pure poltical poison. Democrats love to crow about how “the other side does it too”, but the reality is that when an undecided voter sees something like this, they don’t think very highly of the person using such unnecessarily vitriolic rhetoric.

I’ll be frank, it’s the civility, stupid. The netroots behave like a bunch of arrogant spoiled children. It’s not enough that they have to oppose the policies of their political opponents, it’s that their political opponents must be the embodiment of all that is evil. It’s not enough to disagree, they have to destroy. What Clinton called the “politics of personal destruction” is now the modus operandi of the Democratic Party. Look at rhetoric of Kos himself – the new puppetmaster of the Democratic Party – everyone who opposes his “progressive” agenda is routinely treated as traitors to some holy cause.

Politics is ultimately the art of compromise. Fanatics don’t last long in the political arena, not in democratic societies. Joe Lieberman’s great sin is that he tried to compromise – if that’s what being a “real” Democrat means, then the Democratic Party will never be successful over the long term.

Democrats are free to be “real” Democrats however they choose to define themselves. However, when they take honorable men like Joe Lieberman and throw them under a bus for the crime of not being ravingly partisan enough, they’re only shooting themselves in the foot.

Don’t Write The Joebituary Yet…

It looks like Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman, exactly as predicted. The final tally is likely to be somewhere around 52%-48% – which isn’t as large as some of the polls would have predicted. I’m curious to see what the exit polls reveal in the race – I’m guessing that many Lamont supporters ended up going with the devil they knew at the last minute, explaining why Lieberman had a pretty significant last-minute surge that put him closer to Lamont than the pre-primary polls had indicated.

I think this means that Lieberman is almost certain to be reelected. The CW on this race was that Lieberman would be toast if he didn’t come within 10 points of Lamont – 4 points means that Lamont is in trouble. Plus, with Lieberman’s recent gains, that shows that there’s growing skepticism about the political neophyte Lamont – a man whose vapid responses to challenging policy questions show him to be an incredibly poor candidate. If Lamont can’t pull off a big win in a primary like this, his chance of winning in the general seems much slimmer than it did previously.

Of course, a Democratic Party divided is excellent news for the GOP who can now more credibly paint the Democrats as the party of weakness on national security. The American people see the situation in Iraq for what it is – a dangerous and volatile period in which everything can fall apart in an instant, but that doesn’t mean they favor cutting and running. Americans don’t walk away from a fight, and while they don’t like protracted military engagements, that doesn’t change when the going gets tough.

Obviously the Kossacks will crow about the power of the “netroots” – but ultimately that power only serves the interests of making the Democratic Party more extreme and less electable.

Tonight’s message to the American public: there’s no room for moderates in the Democratic Party. That’s hardly the kind of message that’s going to resonate with the American electorate, and for good reason.

UPDATE: On the bad side, I’ll now feel somewhat obligated to root for a liberal Democrat. Granted, it’s rooting for a decent and patriotic liberal Democrat over a liberal Democrat who is being backed by some of the most distasteful group of extremists in recent American history, but I’ll still feel dirty about it…

UPDATE: On the bright side, RCP says this is the worst possible outcome for the Democrats. They’re right: a Lieberman win would reassure Blue Dog Democrats that the nutroots hadn’t taken over. A huge Lamont win would prevent what is sure to be a vitriolic and divisive campaign. This result ensures a divided Democratic Party.

Also, perhaps my psychic powers aren’t so weak afterall.

UPDATE: And already Kos is making his demands. I guess we know who’s in charge of the party now, don’t we?

It’s hardly surprising that at least one moderate Democrat is saying enough is enough.

Good News For Pawlenty, Bad News For Kennedy

Rassmussen has their latest Minnesota polls up. In the governor race, Tim Pawlenty is trouncing Mike Hatch 46-36. Pawlenty has the support of 86% of Republicans, while Hatch only has the support of 68% of Democrats. It appears as though Hatch needs to shore up his base if he wants to have any chance of winning – although I don’t think Hatch has a particularly large chance against a relatively popular incumbant like Pawlenty.

However, Rassmussen also has some bad news for Kennedy, as their latest poll shows Amy Klobuchar getting some real momentum against Kennedy. They have Klobuchar hitting the 50% mark, with Kennedy trailing at 38%.

I have a feeling that gap will close before Election Day, but it’s clear that Mark Kennedy has his work cut out for him. He’s been consistantly down in the polls, and even if the latest Rassmussen poll is a statistical outlier, Klobuchar’s level of support has been strong and steady. Kennedy is going to have to improve his own standings with both Republicans and independent voters before Election Day to have a realistic shot at winning. This will be one of the top races in the country, and it seems likely that both parties are going to be putting a large amount of money into either keeping or taking this open seat in an increasingly competitive state.

Lieberman’s Website Attacked

It looks like Lieberman’s campaign website has been hit with a second DoS attack, knocking it offline. Of course, the Lamont campaign has been trying to use the attack for political traction – what a nice group of people.

I’m fearing that this campaign could see violence against Lieberman supporters: the “netroots” are just that unhinged. Hopefully that prediction will prove to be utterly wrong, but given the way in which the “netroots” treats dissenters, it’s not too hard to imagine such a thing happening.