Why Republicans Are Right to Worry About Hillary

I've long held the view that demographics drive elections - and especially presidential elections - more than the campaigns do. So, heading into the 2016 presidential campaign, Republicans are in a bit of trouble as the demographic trends continue to move against them. Indeed, an argument could be made that the climb for Republicans will get even steeper as a new Harvard study finds that race probably cost President Obama about 4 points in the 2008 and 2012 elections. Even discounting that study (and there are good reasons to that I won't bother covering here), the Republican Party has well-documented problems with various demographic groups from African-Americans to Latinos to women to young people and so on. Indeed, the base of the Republican Party is well ... old, white guys. And there aren't enough of them for Republicans to win.

Republicans should be worried about Hillary because she's strong in demographic groups where Obama isn't/wasn't. Hillary isn't going to beat any Republican among old, white guys. But she's a very good bet to run a little bit stronger than Obama among them. She's a sure-fire bet to run better among women - a group Obama won but not as handily as a generic Democrat might have. Finally, for those voters who worried about Obama's lack of foreign policy credentials in 2008, Hillary's credentials are unrivaled among all candidates in the field, Republican or Democratic.

If the 2016 election were held today, a generic Democrat would handily beat a generic Republican. But actual Republican candidates have good reason to worry about Hillary as they're even further behind her right now.

Obama Caught on Open Mic ...

... dissing Congress.



David Hawkings is aghast:

If overseas travel is a sort of elixir of truth for the president, then this “in vino veritas” moment couldn’t have come at a less opportune time. Republicans are wondering openly whether they should take as for real, or only for show, this month’s ballyhooed Obama “charm offensive” of senatorial dinners and House caucus meetings. Rank-and-file Democrats, too, are wondering if the president’s visits to them will lead to their becoming more regular legislative collaborators or if they’ll still be mostly taken for granted.

Yeah, because the Republicans were thinking about coming to the table and getting serious but then President Obama joked to Netanyahu that he enjoyed getting a break from Congress and the Republicans were offended.

Vilsack Not Running, Propaganda Aplenty

Tom Vilsack announced he's not running for the Iowa Senate seat being vacated by Tom Harkin. This immediately had the intended effect. The NRSC and the DSCC issued dueling statements worthy of any Soviet-era propaganda minister.

From the NRSC:

The [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] tried and failed to prevent Sen. Harkin's hand-chosen candidate, Rep. Bruce Braley, from a clear path to the nomination because they know his brand of liberalism is too far outside the mainstream for most Iowans. Now Democrats are stuck [with] a slick former head of the trial lawyers association and one of the most partisan members of Congress as their candidate, Bruce Braley.

From the DSCC:

In an attempt to distract from their waning influence within their own party, the NRSC has released a false and incomprehensible statement about Congressman Braley that only adds to the committee's embarrassment. Perhaps they should be more concerned about a field of candidates out of touch with mainstream Americans and a potential primary that will push the eventual nominee even further to the right.

Is there any point to this? Is it some kind of useful signaling game? Are there voters who donors or activists who find any of this useful?

No. This is pure nonsense that achieves nothing. Enter the political scientist. I think there's actually an interesting political science question here. Both committees employ people to write this stuff and send it out there. The AP or Reuters or whoever scoops it up and runs with it. Why do these various political actors waste time on this? There's something interesting in the (at least seemingly) wasted resources (time, money, etc.).

Discuss.

Will Ferrell Endorses Eric Garcetti for Los Angeles Mayor

This is a gamechanger ...

Obama and His Base

I like Ben Smith a lot. He writes a lot of good stuff. This is bad stuff. Really stupid to be honest.

Smith argues Obama is about to "screw his base" because Obamacare is going to raise health care costs for the young (Obama's base) and reduce health care costs for the elderly (they vote for the other guy - ANY other guy). Ezra Klein points out various reasons Smith is just wrong. But the worst part of it is this:

Imminent elements of Obama's grandest policy move, the health-care overhaul known as ObamaCare, are calculated to screw his most passionate supporters and to transfer wealth to his worst enemies.

What in the world are you talking about Ben??? Obamacare is "calculated to screw his most passionate supporters?" Come on. And he's transferring wealth to "his worst enemies?" Obama is not Nixon. Old, sick people are not his "enemies." The provisions Smith is referring to are a BADLY needed fix the health care system needs. Young people need to pay in when they are healthy and they have been behaving as free riders. It is a collective action problem. Obamacare fixes it.

And guess what else? Young people hope to someday ... ya know ... be old. They get the benefits of Obamacare back then.

This is horserace, slice-and-dice politics at its worst. Awful Ben. Just awful.

ST6 and the Raid on bin Laden's Compound

An absolutely riveting piece by Phil Bronstein of Esquire on the Navy Seal who shot bin Laden and, more importantly, on the life of Navy Seals both in the military and after the military. Tough piece. But this is my favorite snippet from the long piece:

One of the snipers who'd seen the disabled helo approached just before they went into the main building. He said, "Hey, dude, they've got an awesome mock-up of our helo in their yard." I said, "No, dude. They shot one of ours down." He said, "Okay, that makes more sense than the shit I was saying."

I guess keeping their sense of humor even in the most scary and dark moments is the only way to move through it.

Papal Elections Are Complex

This ought to make it harder to reform the presidential selection process. The Electoral College looks democratic and simple in comparison.

Biden

The blog has been radio-silent for some time so my apologies. No better way to kick off the new year though than this perfect mash-up of Joe Biden meeting with families of senators being sworn in. Pure joy ...

The Way Forward for Republicans

Jeb Bush is not it. Sorry.

I'm not saying Jeb Bush isn't someone Republicans might choose as a presidential nominee. I could see that happening. And that's part of the problem Republicans have. They need a sharper break with their recent past and they seem unwilling to make that break.

As for Jeb himself, some Republicans think he's the way forward because he is well-regarded for his job as Governor and because he is more "Latino-friendly" (not a hard-liner on immigration and his wife is Mexican).

Here's why that's wrong:

1) "Bush" - You can pretty much count the number of times Romney said the name in 2012 on one hand. And this was not a mistake by Romney. The name remains toxic among too many independents and even among some Republicans. Jeb gave a full-throated defense of his brother's presidency at the Republican Convention this year. It didn't rehabilitate GW's image any.

2) Between 1952 and 2004 (52 years and 14 presidential elections), Republicans put together a ticket that didn't have a Nixon, a Dole, or a Bush on it just 1 time (1964). That's kind of creepy. These days, there's a fine line between partisanship and tribalism. Turning back to another Bush gets way too close to the tribalism side of things. The turn to McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 was not quite the "fresh" makeover the Republicans needed. They desperately need that now.

3) Republicans don't so much need new ideas as they need a return to reason and "reasonableness." Mitt Romney actually pledged during the Republican primaries that he would not support $10 in spending cuts in return for $1 in tax increases because this would be $1 in tax increases too much. Voters sense this lack of reasonableness on various issues. A CNN poll out today indicates that 70% of Americans believe the Republican Party does not do enough to compromise with the President while just under half say the same about the President. Jeb Bush cannot be the new face of Republican reasonableness. And that brings us back to the root of the problem ...

The Republican Party has a problem with their base. Both political parties are prone to extremism in their primary processes. But it is worse in the Republican Party. How do we know? Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich (not to mention Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain and Rick Perry and Donald Trump) were serious alternatives to Mitt Romney in the primaries. They won serious primaries and got lots of votes. Dennis Kucinich ran for president but he never got a significant number of votes anywhere. The radical left does not hold the same sway in Democratic primaries as the radical right does in Republican primaries. It is not enough for Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels or Jon Huntsman to run. They need to have the space for these candidates to say reasonable things and still win the nomination. That space didn't exist in 2012.

It is a long way to 2016 and Republicans have time. But I'm not hopeful that Republicans have learned the key lessons yet. Nominating Jeb Bush would be a sure sign they haven't learned these lessons at all.

47% ...

... of Americans voted for Mitt Romney as it turns out.

That's poetic justice.

A Serious Question About Benghazi-gate

What's this about now?

Let's posit for the moment that Susan Rice was lying on the Sunday talk shows as McCain et. al. seem to be implying. What does she ... or Hillary Clinton ... or President Obama ... or the United States stand to gain from doing that?

In other words, what exactly are they accusing her of lying for? Richard Nixon was lying to cover up a criminal act. Bill Clinton was guilty of lying to save himself from embarrassment. I don't get what Rice, etc., is accused of lying for. And if you can't explain that piece of it, if you can't outline for me what the motive is here, there's no scandal.

So, again, what's this about now?