2009 election results analyzed...

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:14:03 AM MST

In Maine, gay marriage lost out by a narrow margin; in Washington, gay rights look like they'll be affirmed in a strengthened domestic partnership law. Republicans won gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey - but lost a House race that was supposed to be a bellwether on the Obama presidency  and Congressional Democrats.

Some folks are rushing to make sweeping conclusions from these races about national trends - Cillizza, for example, notes that independents flocked to the New Jersey and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidates,  but ignores the fact that most of them still approve of, and like, president Obama. Essentially, as Silver demonstrates, most of the results seem to be based on local politics - that's as true for NY-23 as it is NJ-GOV or the outcome for gay marriage in Maine.

But I do think there are some things to look at in these elections. For one, Democratic turnout was low - although not a factor - in Virginia, for one. Also, voters (especially independents) are no longer voting against Republicans - which you could argue they were doing in the Democratic sweeps of 2006 and 2008. Those elections were, in part, a forceful rejection of Republican policies. But now Democrats comprise the incumbent majority in federal government; any ills or unhappiness the electorate experiences will work against them. Still, there's no sign any of yesterday's results was an indication that voters are opting either for the Republican brand, or against the Democratic brand.

Whatever. Even if healthcare reform had gone swimmingly, and we had something bold and real in Congress, I don't think the results would be any different. Maybe there would have been more Democratic turnout, but it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference. But I do think abandoning Democratic principles will pose a real danger to Democratic electoral chances in 2010.

That said, I do think DC-based Democratic strategists are going to look at these races, see scattering independents, and urge their candidates to again tack rightward. This may not affect healthcare reform - though I wouldn't be surprised to see another push to drop the public option, such as it is - but it may be enough to down cap-and-trade, where many of the most conservative Democrats are from coal and oil states. (See Max Baucus' recent statements on cap-and-trade.) That's par for the course for elected politicos, who prefer to act cautiously and minimize risks than to act boldly and fight to win and re-win their seats.

In short Congressional Democrats - as usual? - will do the exact opposite of what they should do.

One way to mitigate this probable rightward shift is threaten primaries in key districts....

"...war of a faith that commands obedience against a faith that promises liberty..."

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:42:50 AM MST

As conservative religious groups across the country work to impose their brand of dogma on our legal system and deny basic rights to fellow citizens based on arbitrary, religious-based reasons, I'm reminded of this passage from Simon Schama's "The American Futre":

The implications of the First Amendment have inadvertently, or not, backed America into the great question on which the peace of the whole world, not just the United States, will turn....It's this unavoidable dialogue between faith and freedom, conviction and toleration, that has always been at the heart of American history and which is only crudely characterized as a "church-state separation debate." The unmistakable indifference of the American electorate to evangelical dogmatics in this election year, the clear sense...that evangelical politics has had its day, only comes as a surprise to those beyond America who imagined it would go on and on, eating away at democratic toleration. It's elsewhere in the world that dogma chokes on pluralism - the coexistence of conflicting versions of the best way to redemption - and uses state power to wipe it out. In the United States the Founding Fathers believed instead that religious truth would best be served by keeping the state out of the business of its propagation; that the power of religious engagement would not just survive freedom of conscience but be its noblest consequence. It was a daring bet: that faith and freedom were mutually nourishing. But it paid off and it has made America uniquely qualified to fight the only battle that matters, not General Boykin's quixotic reenactment of the true god against the false idol, but the war of toleration against conformity; the war of a faith that commands obedience against a faith that promises liberty. That, actually turns out to be the big American story.

The irony, then, in the pursuit of barring gays from state-based institutions is that religious groups are working to undermine the very structure of liberty that allowed religion to flourish in the United States.

Sad Comparisons

by: Matt Singer

Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:57:50 AM MST

They did things that polling shows Montanans want. They expanded access to health care, set targets to tackle global warming, built up internet access to tear down the digital divide, raised the minimum wage, enacted paid sick leave for families, and strengthened education.

Meanwhile, in Montana, we had a rightwing meltdown that will cost the state tens of thousands of dollars per day for a special session. And that's just counting legislators, not caucus or non-partisan staff, operating costs, or anything else.

Ridiculous.

Organized Labor in the Northwest: Good News

by: Matt Singer

Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:00:22 AM MST

And more great news comes out of Washington States where the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters have been absolutely kicking ass. As the executive secretary-treasurer writes, this isn't just good news for the individual workers involved -- it's also good news for the economy.

The reality when it really boils down to it is that over the long-run, we've got a choice. A cheap, barebones economy of shoddy work with massive inequality or a high-road economy powered by skilled, well-compensated workers who build infrastructure and products that will last over the long-term. The northwest appears to be choosing the highroad approach.

Good.

Western States Fight Warming (Hopefully, Montana Joins Soon)

by: Matt Singer

Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 13:45:36 PM MST

Cap-and-trade isn't idea, but, structured properly, it may actually be preferable to a mediocre cap. And, let's face it, it is a significant step forward from the status quo.

Quick Post on Tester

by: Matt Singer

Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 12:12:16 PM MST

Anyways, read the article.

Rep. John Sinrud: Montana Needs to be More Like Washington, D.C.

by: Matt Singer

Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:30:55 AM MST

House Appropriations Chairman John Sinrud, R-Bozeman, said splitting the budget into six or seven independent bills makes Montana more like the federal government.

"Just like in Washington DC," Sinrud said, "we will have the same clarity."

This doesn't improve clarity, it means Montanans will have to dig through six bills to figure out what is going on rather than one.

But the biggest mistake here, I think, is the changing of the plan mid-session, with little input, when we've got a deadline. The session should adjourn after 90 work days. The GOP just threw a massive wrench into the gears.

A few of us crazy bloggers have said from day one that these folks would prove incapable of governance. Boy am I sorry I prejudged this sorry spectacle.

Not.

Update -- The Lee story on this mess includes this choice paragraph:

House Republicans, who hold a tenuous 50-49 majority, said there's nothing mysterious about their new plan, which will convert the proposed state budget from its usual single, comprehensive bill into six or seven separate bills.

I'm wondering when the House GOP will actually figure out what it's game plan is.