Greatest show on earth: Impeachment Circus

Finally, the impeachment has started. No big surprises so far, which means that I've been well informed, the news media has been on top on information, and the politicos have generally stuck to the positions they had already signaled.

'If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts...'

I listened in a bits and pieces of the House managers case, which was laid out over 3 days. They hit the evidence very hard. Lots of video, lots of evidence discussed. I didn't hear any histrionics, which also makes sense because histrionics and hyperbole would damage a case based on fact.

They do have a strong case. The testimony and other evidence all points to Trump putting a hold on aid to Ukraine while trying to extract a favor--the announcement of an investigation into the Biden family's role in Ukraine corruption. This looks like extortion, coercion, election chicanery, strong-arm tactics--otherwise known as abuse of power.

And now, the defense...

I haven't seen any good explanation refuting this interpretation of the evidence. The laughable arguments against the charge of abuse of power have been that it's hearsay (not once the phone call was released), that the president has the right to make these choices, that blocking the president's choices is treason or usurpation, that it's not extortion or coercion because the Ukrainian president denies feeling pressured, and that the money was released, so no harm and no foul, everything is OK.

The best defense was attempted by Mick Mulvaney, who said there were three conditions for releasing the aid: progress on corruption, Ukraine persuading other countries to provide aid, and cooperation with the Justice Department investigation of 2016 election interference. 

If any of the that had indeed been the reason aid was withheld, then the abuse of power charge would have been severely weakened. However, the 'three conditions' seem to have been a whitewash. There isn't evidence that they were ever the conditions. Oh dear. Someone should have been on the ball with the cover story back during the summer. But no one was, perhaps because Trump is not only corrupt but he is also inept, as are his toadies.

'If you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table'

So what will Trump's team offer as a defense? So far it seems like a mishmash. The largest point seems to be that the charges are false and are a fabrication by angry officials who want to oust the president. This isn't so much an argument about specific pieces of evidence as a denunciation of everything to do with the impeachment.

However, not being able to refute the evidence is a problem. One can claim that the charges are totally bogus, but usually you'd get into the particulars. "No, Your Honor, I couldn't have robbed the bank because I was at work that entire morning as twenty co-workers will testify."

So Trump supporters are trying to say the charges are bogus without being able to refute any of the details. They can make the point that many Dems have been trying to stymie Trump since he was elected. That is true. But it doesn't quash all those particulars related to Ukraine--the aid, the phone calls, the directions to work with Giuliani, etc.

Unfortunately, virtually no one from the GOP camp has been honest about this situation with the evidence. Justin Amash was, but that was months ago, and Amash was a renegade who was easily dismissed. No one of stature in the GOP has stood up and pointed out the evidence and said that it's a pretty huge, heaping pile of evidence that doesn't seem to be crumbling.

So the Republicans have ended up looking like yes men. Yet, when Schiff pointed this out, and referred to a newstory that the GOP senators were threatened (head on a pike if they didn't toe the line), those GOP senators were outraged!!! Sorry, folks, but that's what it looks like. You guys are too cowed to look at the evidence and call it as it plainly looks.

The lonely honest defense

Only National Review has made a reasonable argument: that Trump's actions were wrong, but the electorate can and will have the final say in just a few months, so let them do that. No one else seems to be interested in doing so. I guess the Republicans as a whole will stick with ignoring the evidence and mouthing talking points. They have to hope that most people are such partisans that no one will notice. There's an excellent chance of that. So, really, do the arguments even matter?

Should I have sympathy for the GOP senators? They have to listen to the evidence and then pretend it doesn't add up to anything. They're reenacting a version of the Emperor's New Clothes, which is a painful situation. However, if they are just going to be mice, maybe they don't deserve the respect generally given to senators.

Image: cartoonistgroup.com

Extras. Direct quotes from a large cross-section of senators. Now that the defense presentation is done, here is a summary along with notes as largely shooting huge holes in it. Lots of embarrassed reactions from senators here. Humor here, as senators claim to be blindsided. More humor, as lawyers like Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz reverse their earlier positions. Pay no attention to all that Giuliani talk--a version of there's nothing to see, so don't even look? The same with Bolton--no need for him to testify. On the other hand, Biden really is an issue.

Update 12/31/20. News that Giuliani lobbied for a Ukrainian connection to the same Zelensky adviser who was receiving directions on how to placate Trump. There had been a question on who was paying for Giuliani's travel during the question portion of the impeachment trial. Now we have a clue.

Update Februaryish. This whole Ukraine scandal has been a parade of lies and lame excuses from the Trump administration and their GOP/conservative supporters. Somehow these public servants want to know more about the whistleblower than the actions he blew the whistle on. Hell, there's hardly any interest in that. A few GOP senators are agreeing that Trump did something wrong. How the GOP smears: Stories about the whistleblower.

Charges against Judge Kavanaugh

If one person comes out with a story about Brett Kavanaugh with a lot of gaps in the details and no witnesses, it's not too credible. When the count gets up to four people, it becomes more credible. Now there are over 8 people on the record with their names and what they witnessed. It includes drunkeness, aggressive behavior, and sexual aggression toward women. And that doesn't count numerous people who wouldn't release their names.

I find the charges against Kavanaugh plausible, but that doesn't mean much. It means he might well have been there and he might physically have been able to do the actions he's accused of. I don't believe arguments like 'it's not within his character' or 'she's so honest there's no way she's lying.' Those arguments aren't convincing to me unless I peronally know the extreme credibility of the character witness. Why? Because 'it's not within his character' has been said about too many serial killer, serial molesters, etc.

So the charges are plausible. It's also plausible that Ford is lying or mistaken. That's why the investigation is important. It's not going to be easy. Many people are not going to want to talk about their wild times in high school or college. If they're conservatives, as many of Kavanaugh's supporters are, they may not want to reveal his dirty past for political or tribal reasons. If they were friends, they may want to remain silent and loyal. That makes it hard for Kavanaugh to clear his name. The suspicions will linger. There's no way around that. It's an injustice built into suspicion, and it's impossible to remove it from people's brains.

If Christine Blasey Ford is lying, she figured out quite a cunning lie to tell. It's one that fits the pattern of Kavanaugh's partying. She's obscured details like where and when to make it harder to disprove. But she's done it in ways that are somewhat believable. I do have a couple problems with her story, which is her not remembering how she got to the house and how she left. Particularly not knowing how she left, I'm left wondering if she went back into the party. I wonder if she's leaving out details that which might undercut her story of how traumatized she was. It's also possible that she dissociated, and lacks the memory for that reason. Or there could be other reasons her memory is poor. I'm not an expert on memory, and I'm not sure anyone is expert enough to sort this out. Of course, a strong reason to conclude Ford hasn't fabricated the story is that she told her therapist and husband years ago, with therapy notes to confirm that. It's hard to fabricate a lie in advance.

This is one of those times when an infallible truth serum would be so helpful. I wish I could ask them both, and get the real story, not the one sorted and selected for the audience in the American public. But that's not possible, and we humans are such cunning animals. We aren't to be trusted. So what to do? We're left trying to make judgments in our imperfect ways. That's life.

Image: dailykos.com

Extras. This will be very long because I did a lot of research and want to save the info I found.

Transcript of Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony. Julie Swetnick's sworn complaint. And another from another client of Avenatti. Decoding Kavanaugh's yearbook entry. Lots of references to sex and especially drinking. A letter from Kavanaugh to his friends about Beach Week, with lots of details and insider info. About Mark Judge's books.

Tucker Carlson and very sloppy argumentation. Weaknesses of Ford's story, and ignoring its strengths and supporting info. Biased assessment. As counterpoint, defending youthful mistakes--of privileged white guys, but not others.

Run down on two of the allegations. Rather complete at the time, so good detail. Private school culture at that time and place. Some sources fully identified. Also this article, which talks about gang rapes which weren't called gang rapes. A first-hand account by the author, so a named eye-witness. However, the parties are from the mid 1980s, so a few years after Kavanaugh graduated.

More people remembering Kavanaugh very drunk.  And more, with a follow-up. Others asked not to be named. A police report of Kavanaugh involved in a bar fight while at Yale, discrediting one of his character witnesses. Witnesses about Kavanaugh: Liz Swisher, Christine Keating, Lynne Brookes, James Roche, Charles Ludington, Elizabeth Rasor, Daniel Livan, Sean Hagan, Kerry Berchem, Kenneth Appold. Other named participants who should be thoroughly interviewed (which didn't happen) Mark Judge, Leland Keyser and Patrick Smythe. Also Renate Dolphin because she might have some very interesting stories to share.

A very critical analysis of Kavanaugh's testimony with numerous lies and evasions pointed out. Plus a companion piece on why Kavanaugh would be a harsh, rotten justice.

Inspired by Ford, a woman reveals her rape at a frat party many years ago. Is it fair for him to have to face consequences so many years later? Is it required that the survivor just let it go?

The very rigid rules for reading the FBI report, which forbids 'characterizing' the information. Looks like the FBI investigation is brief, limited, and a whitewash.

Update 11/5/18. A Republican consultant remembers being anger and aggressive at a conference meeting with Ken Starr. She's very disappointed with GOPers sweeping it under the rug.

Replacing Obamacare is harder than they thought

No surprise about the complexity of the task. The House just barely passed an Obamacare repeal-and-replacement. Now the Senate is trying to do it, and having even more trouble. While the House has some moderate Republicans, every moderate Republican in the Senate has a critical vote. Three defections to 'no' will scuttle the ACA replacement, so the margins in the Senate are even tighter. Also, each senator represents the whole state, not just the more conservative parts of it. It could be that senators need to be more concerned with Medicaid recipients than their colleagues in the House.

It's fascinating to read in this article what different senators want. Rand Paul and Ben Sasse (he of anti-Trump fame) would support a straight repeal. Is that position for real? Don't they worry about the ensuing chaos if there is no replacement plan?

Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, someone I wouldn't expect to be a moderate, is holding off on supporting the bill if it removes too much money from Medicaid. Louisiana isn't one of the richest states, so it probably has a fair number of people who have gotten their healthcare through the Medicaid expansion. Cassidy seems loathe to throw them back into healthcare limbo. Some senators, like Rand Paul, don't have such quibbles.

These negotiations will be interesting to watch. A pro-Trump PAC already targeted a senator leaning toward 'no' and already had to drop their pressure tactics. Whether the senators will be able to come together, compromise, and satisfy enough of them is an open question. A cool graphic in this article shows that more senators are concerned with the bill not covering enough versus those concerned with that it won't repeal enough. It leads me to expect a more moderate bill passing the Senate. But we shall see. Failure is certainly possible: only three senators need to decide to be stubborn to sink this bill.

Image: cbsnews.com

Letter to the Iranians

Dear Ayatollahs,

We really hate this president. We also understand that you don't like any Americans. So maybe you're willing to help us punk him.

Even though you're currently negotiating with this punk-ass president, you can help us and make him really angry by ending these negotiations with no deal at all. That would be great if you'd do that for us, and it would really embarrass the president badly. As Iranians, you have an illustrious history of punking American presidents, just like you punked President Carter, another piece of scum.

Of course, we have to disclose that we don't personally like you guys or approve of you, but we hate the president even more, which is why we ask you to punk him.

Thank you for taking this request under consideration, and thank you in advance for spiking these negotiations. We're pretty sure you're not missing anything by passing up a deal, so there's no cost to you for playing this great trick on punk-ass president Nobama.

Sincerely,

47 Republican Senators (all the real conservatives in the Senate)

Another proud moment in American letters

Image: wikipedia.org

Short: Congressional hijinks

Wow. I don't know enough about how to stymie legislation and debate. Unfortunately, our Congressional representatives do, and they've been very hard at work making sure that there isn't embarrassing open debate on issues of national importance. Exactly how do they do it? Read this and weep.

I know that our system is far from perfect, but I hadn't realized how much worse it's gotten. I also don't know if I'll see an improvement in my lifetime.

Perhaps two major improvements in one life is too much to expect. When I was young, I got to see the end of Jim Crow. Maybe, just maybe, I'll get to see the end of this hyperpartisanship too.

I wish ...

Image: cagle.com

Who was obstructing whom in the Senate?

The Democrats have been saying since 2010 that the Republicans have been obstructing legislation with endless filibusters. The GOP has been charging the Dems won't talk with the GOP, won't let them offer amendments, and won't allow votes that the GOP would like to take.

Not a surprise, but both charges are true. However, a commenter (somewhere on the internet--it's not important where) suggested that it started with Harry Reid stopping amendments and other votes. If this is true, then Reid is responsible for a lot of dysfunction, in fact a cascade of dysfunction. So I decided to check this out.

It was quite hard to do. The accusation hasn't been generally raised and examined, so I didn't find a convenient summary of the issue. Instead, I found lots of tit-for-tat fighting. So here it is.

Yes, Harry Reid filled up the amendment lists on most or all bills. This pissed off the Republicans, who wanted to offer amendments that put Democratic senators on the spot. The GOP didn't get to do this, but they still managed to defeat lots of these senators in the midterm elections just last week. So, if we identify the goals, they are something like this:

• GOP goal: Make Dem senators take embarrassing votes.
• Dem goal: Protect Dem senators from embarrassing votes.

So, did the Republicans get angry at being stymied, and then start filibustering all nominations? I found one brief mention of the possibility in a Norm Ornstein piece. Mostly, the GOP wanted to make it hard for the Obama administration to appoint officials to carry out their policies. They particularly targeted the Consumer Finance Something Something and the National Labor Relations Board. And also the EPA. The GOP also wanted to restrict the number of judges appointed by Obama to appeals and circuit courts. [Disclosure: I'm not sure what the difference is between appeals and circuit courts, but that information isn't really relevant here.] Almost everything I read talked about the GOP's motivation not being revenge for blockage of amendments, but being attempts to slow or block.

The Dem senators threatened many time to end the filibuster on appointments (except Supreme Court nominees). The GOP backed down several times, then returned to the practice, and finally the Dems went nuclear and ended the rule that allowed the GOP to filibuster. In most of this, there wasn't public discussion/negotiation of what Harry Reid was doing with amendments. The usual GOP stance was that they had every right to exercise oversight of appointments, and they were making sure that inappropriate people weren't being appointed. This excuse was generally bullshit, and was understood this way at the time. To summarize:

• GOP goals: Block the administration personnel and appointed judges. Revenge on Reid for when he blocked Bush nominees.
• Dem goal: End the blockage, end the filibuster if necessary.

So I didn't find that Harry Reid's tactics were the ultimate cause of the appointment blockade. I did find lots of bad behavior spanning decades as each side tried to maximize its advantage, and also tried to avenge the history of insults. It's an ugly feud that only gotten uglier.

ENOUGH ALREADY!

Image: selfdeprecate.com

Tons of Extras. I checked a lot of conservative sources to read their rationale for the blockade of appointments. That explains the imbalance below.

Right:

• The Dems have brought the law of the jungle to the Senate. When the GOP gets control, they should use it to the max.
• Mark Levin against the blockade of judicial nominees, circa 2003: "Nowhere in the Constitution, in the Federalist Papers or in any contemporary writings during the Constitutional Convention or the ratifying conventions can the Senate Democrats find support for their use of the filibuster to block judicial appointments."
• Weekly Standard against it too.
• Yeah, it's revenge for Dems blocking Bush's judicial nominees.
• The next set of obstruction tactics after the nuclear option was exercised.
• Recent: Keep the nuclear option on judicial appointments. It's more in keeping with tradition anyway.

Left:

• The GOP gives blatantly bogus reasons for their actions.
• One of the failed deals.
• The same old argument that nominees aren't qualified.

Neutral?

• Reactions to the Dems going nuclear. Republican apoplexy: You're going to regret this.
• Well-paced history of senators behaving badly for decades, tracing escalation through Frist and Reid. Discussion of the amazing number of maneuvers that can be abused. Blocking amendments--they both did it. Breaking agreements, ditto. I especially enjoyed pages 12-19.
• How that amendment-blocking maneuver works.
• Post-nuclear, but still blocked.

Short: Iran negotiates, but will the Senate approve?

Here's a fascinating article about the negotiations between the US and Iran. It doesn't focus on centrifuges or which sanctions need to stay, or on timetables, or any of that boring but important stuff.

Instead, it focuses on the elephant in the room. If Obama makes a deal with Iran, there's no fucking way that the Senate will approve it. No fucking way at all.

It doesn't take much reflection to see that this observation is true. The readers are probably nodding their heads in agreement right now. So, chances are that the Iranians know it too. Yet they are still negotiating.

I think they want a settlement and want to be part of global trade much more than they want nuclear weapons. That makes sense, because you can't eat nuclear weapons, live in them, or play them on your Xbox. You can't shoot them at people without HUGE repercussions either. Food, housing, and game consoles are much more practical, and maybe that's what Iranians really want. That's the better choice. Good on you, Iran. I hope it remains that way.

The Senate went nuclear, but Iran isn't... maybe?

Image: telegraph. co,uk

Is this the worst Congressional leadership ever?

Criticizing the leadership of the other party is so common that it's almost a reflex. I don't want to bash Congressional leaders just because I hate their party, which is what so many do. However, I'm seriously wondering whether we have some of the worst leadership ever.

Clearly from my previous posts I'm not a fan of Nancy Pelosi. She ran the House very strictly, and the moderate Democratic strain withered, though it's possible it would have withered anyway. Pelosi's biggest mistake was to pass measures that were too liberal while pretending that they were compromises. Pelosi may make noises like she knows how to compromise, but the actions don't follow. By not moderating her chamber more, lots of her party lost their seats in 2010, but she took no responsibility for it.

I thought Reid was somewhat cannier, and he is. However, I think perhaps he's chosen a path that is also ultimately bad for his compatriots in the Senate. He's always been tricksy with the Senate rules. He seemed the major force behind the Senate blockade of Bush appointments in 2007-8, though he backed off from it. However, the atmosphere never changed, and p. Petty partisan advantage has been the operational environment for the entire Reid tenure. A few times it's abated somewhat, but it always roars back, either with Reid ramping it up himself or in response to GOP provocation. It's been destructive to nearly everyone in the Senate, but Reid hasn't rethought the tactics. He still keeps an iron hand on the bills being debated and the amendments being offered. His purpose is probably to protect his senators from embarrassing votes. He may have won that battle, but he and the vulnerable senators have lost nonetheless.

To me this is a lesson that leaders have to rise above the partisanship at least a little. If they always reach for the partisan advantage, they end up looking grubby and petty and that infects their conference.

The GOP in the Senate don't look any better. Under Mitch McConnell, they ramped up their tactics as the minority. They also appear to relish the chance to inflict even more pain if they gain the majority. They will almost definitely hold those embarrassing votes that have been blocked. Many partisans are hoping to end the filibuster so that the Senate can pass a conservative agenda and force Obama to veto it. I'm far from certain this will happen, but I'd put the likelihood at 60%. That will change the Senate from the deliberative chamber where good deals can arise to a highly partisan operation like the House. It would be a huge loss of the country, but too many partisans are pushing for it without a thought about the long-term damage.

I wonder whether Boehner is the least bad of the lot. Occasionally he makes his conference take those hard votes. He resisted the Tea Party strategy in 2013, eventually giving in and allowing them to shut down the government, just to show them that their strategy was doomed. He seems to be the only top Congressional leader who isn't making his conference more intolerant. Oy, if he's the best of the lot!

Collect the whole set (1 of 4)

Image: conservativedailynews.com

Extra. I started this post two months ago, but was inspired to finish by this news story of a Democratic senator wishing Harry Reid was gone.

Update 10/14/14. Here's a post about how awful Mitch McConnell is, and not because he's a RINO.

Update 10/29/14. Here's another way that Reid has hurt his caucus. By allowing so few votes, senators from more conservative areas haven't been able to separate themselves from Obama and the Democratic norm. They're likely to lose their seats because of it.

What can the Dems do about 2014?

The Dems are facing a tough election this year, or that's how it looks at this point. Nate Silver is forecasting that the GOP gain a majority in the Senate. It might be the barest majority (just 51 senators) or up to 57. Or the GOP might not get the majority at all. What are the Dems doing about this?

In 2012, Democrats used a strategy of keeping quiet and taking victory from those right-wing crazies. Most of the GOP has learned from that, and they are toning down the crazy too, so the Dems are losing the advantage. They need other strategies, but it's not obvious to me what those strategies are. Here's what I've found from my internet searches:

• Get minimum wage referenda on state ballots to drive turn-out.
• Schedule symbolic votes in the Senate on wage issues. The bills won't pass, but will provide campaign fodder.
• Vague attempts at ACA fixes that help vulnerable red state Dem senators (or might help them except it's so vague).
• A strong get-out-the-vote effort that gets closer to presidential election numbers. The Dems didn't have this in 2010, and it would make a huge difference this year if they could do it.

I don't even think my usual prescription (make smart, centrist proposals) will work. The Congress locked into a two-year budget, so there's not much they can do about it. Any centrist proposals they make now look like 'too little too late.' Plus it will start an intraparty war, which can't help.

So I have no suggestions to help the Dems, and their own ideas don't seem enough (to me, at least). It's a grim picture, as this polling shows:

I think the Dems will lose the Senate this year. Furthermore, this shows how meager the Dem strategy has been for the past few years. It depended on the GOP craziness, and the GOP cooperated all too well. With the GOP playing it safe now too, they may have quite a big win due to midterm demographics and fatigue with the current regime favor them.

Image: breitbart.com

Extras. A Dem strategy blog: their round-up; a picture that's a bit brighter. Before it got complicated -- the outlook after the shutdown when the Dems could still count on GOP craziness. Even-handed analysis here.

What will the upcoming GOP Congress do?

So we're likely to have a GOP House and a marginally GOP Senate next year. What can we expect?

Per David Frum: The GOP will stop worrying about the deficit amid their rush to pay off their pals.

Daily Kos: It won't happen because we'll all vote and prevail.

Howard Kurtz: Twice the investigative fun! [That should help Hillary.]

Breitbart: Tea party will own the agenda. [That should help Hillary.]

Fiscal Times: No, moderate GOP senators will own the agenda (that is, what goes for moderate these days).

Norm Ornstein: Fights between Tea Party, leadership, and moderate GOP will prevent big reform proposals. Small bills will punish Dem constituencies to fund feel-good white-bread programs like pediatric medical research. Also, another vote for Twice The Investigative Fun!

So, what do I think? Well, I have to go with the past being indicative of the future. Throughout 2013, the GOP wasn't able to get it together. So I think skirmishes will continue within the party. Various pols will present their proposals and grandstand against rivals within the party. And yes, committee chairmen will run their grandiose investigations of various molehills.

I do have one caveat. If the leadership can unite the GOP during this year's campaign and they win some extra seats because of it, they may be able to keep that united front during 2015 and 2016. That's their best hope for capturing the presidency in 2016. But there are a lot of egos and a lot of pent up anger in the GOP, so I strongly doubt it will happen.

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball

Image: centerforpolitics.org

Extras. Context and another map. My detailed look at the trends in party affiliation and the Senate.

Harry Reid blew unemployment extensions and won't admit it

Dems have painted the Republicans in Congress as obstructionist, and that view certainly has a lot of facts behind it. However, there's no iron-clad law that says Dems can't or won't be obstructionist on some issues. The extension of unemployment benefits is a perfect example.

The Dems left this out of the budget deal, perhaps thinking that there was enough support among GOP senators from hard-hit states. Immediately with the new year, Dem senators started negotiating with moderate GOP senators and met them part-way: the Senate would consider a 3-month extension and also an 11-month version (the 3-month version having more GOP support). Also, the extra spending would be paid for with savings elsewhere in the budget. With those terms, 5-6 GOP senators joined the Dem caucus to overcome the first 60-vote choke point.

Then the negotiations feel apart. Harry Reid didn't allow these GOP senators to propose amendments, a nasty majority leader trick that isn't new but that Reid uses often. Do you suppose that would piss off the senators who had just helped on the recent vote? No surprise, it did.

The methods for "paying for" the extra spending were also a sticking point. Harry Reid offered mostly future money from 2024 to pay for the benefits--no current spending would be touched. This is a bad habit with the federal government--assuming future savings or economic growth will make budget fudges balance. I don't know if this ever worked.

So with these two big problems, the deal fell apart. What is the official word from the Democrats? According to Chuck Shumer, the second-ranking Dem in the Senate: "The bottom line is our Republican colleagues don’t seem to get it." That bit of drivel falls apart with one follow-up question: What was the sticking point on the deal?

Come on guys. No one is going to give an unconditional surrender. You have to negotiate! I worry that Harry Reid has an angle on this where he doesn't suffer at all, but he certainly should suffer at least a little.

Image: thepeoplescube.com

Extras.  Just a reminder, I'm not for endless extensions. One year is the maximum I support because 1) people have to adapt to the new reality. 2) Business need to have an endpoint on their contributions for laid-off workers if they're to do any new hiring.

• A very biased news report.
• Seven reasons why long-term unemployment is bad, but not why endless extension of payments is good.

Civil War fallout 150 years later

The Senate may turn Republican in 2014 because of the Civil War. That's incredible, but likely true. A war 150 years ago is still playing out in US politics.

Not exactly. At first I thought some deep south states might still switch from D to R, but then I checked my hypothesis and found that the Deep South's switch from traditional Democratic representation to Republican was complete in 2004 when Zell Miller (D) retired and was replaced by a Republican in the Georgia senatorial election.

So why are the Republicans expected to take over the Senate in 2014, and why had it been expected in 2012? What are the developments that lead to that general expectation?

First, I'll dispel the notion that more states vote Republican than Democrat as a matter of course: Obama won 26 states in 2012.

So What Are The Trends?

To research this question, I used Wikipedia's list of senators, such as this entry for Maine. I looked at the patterns of the elections of senators. (Senators, being state-wide representatives, are better bellwethers.) I was surprised by the number of states that had mixed Dem/GOP electoral results for much of their history.

• Myth - the inland west was mostly Republican. They were all mixed until Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona turned decidedly Republican.
• Myth - The northeast has been mostly Democratic for a long time. Northern New England was very Republican until recently. The northeast has turned mostly Dem only since the 1980s, while Northern New England remains mixed.
• Myth - The old Confederacy was solid Dem, and then became solid Republican. This isn't true of Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas.
• Myth - the rural plains and mountain states are strongly GOP. Surprisingly, North and South Dakota and Montana have a very mixed record, electing many senators from both parties.
• Myth - the west coast has been liberal for a long time. These states were also mixed until the 1990s when they started turning decidedly Dem.

My research revealed that the GOP has a lot of reason for optimism when it comes to the Senate. Seven states that currently have Democratic senators are likely to turn more solidly Republican. The states are: North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, and Alaska.

The Dems don't have many states on which they can pin similar hope, at least for the 2014 election. Maine and New Hampshire have the potential to become more liberal/Dem. Until the demographics change in states like Georgia, Texas, and Arizona, Dems have to hope for lucky pickups or wins due to strong local candidates.

So the GOP will go into the 2014 senate elections favored to pick up seats.

Yes, Civil War Fallout

The biggest surprise is that this sunny outlook for the Republican is indeed Civil War fallout. Arkansas and Louisiana are both southern states that are coming late to the conversion from solid Democrat to solid Republican. But that is only part of the good news for the GOP. They are also benefiting from the shift of western conservatives to solid Republican status.

1959: A very different map. New York is red, Texas is blue.

Image: wikipedia.org

Other Notes/Observations.

The most solid Republican state is Kansas. No state has been solidly Democratic throughout its history.

Solid Democratic states: 12.
Solid Republican states: 15.
Mixed: 23.

Northern New England was quite Republican until the 1950's, but the rest of New England has been much more mixed. Southern New England, mixed, then mostly Dem starting 2000

New York - mixed until late 1990's, then D.
New Jersey, no elected R since late 1970s.
Delaware - D until 1900, then mixed until 2000, then D.
Maryland - D until 1900, then mixed until 1980s, then D.
Penn - R mostly except during D waves.
WV - mixed.
Virginia - solid D post reconstruction until mixed starting 1960s.
NC - Mostly D post reconstruction until mixed starting 1970s.
SC - solid D post recontruction until all R after 2000.
Georgia - solid D post recon, mixed 1980's to 2000s, then all R.
Ala - solid D post recon until 1980's, solid R after 1990s.
Miss - solid D until 1980s, then solid R.

Kentucky - solid D post recon, mixed 1890s- 1990, then R.
Tennessee - almost solid D post recon, mixed 1970s, then R 1990s.

Florida - solid D post recon, then mixed starting 1960s.

Ohio- mixed.
Indiana - mixed.
Illinois - mostly R until 1930s, then mixed.
Michigan - solid R until 1930s, then mixed.
Wisc - mostly R until 1960s, then mixed.
Minn - mostly R until 1950s, then mixed/lean Dem.
Iowa - solid R until 1920s, then mixed.
Missouri - mixed, lots of reelections lost.
Arkansas - solid D until 1990's, then mixed.
Louisiana - solid D until 2000s, then mixed.

Texas - solid D until 1960s, solid R since 1990s.
Oklahoma - mixed until 1990s, then solid R.
Kansas - almost solid R throughout.
Nebraska - mostly R thoughout.
SD - solid R until 1910's, then mixed. Lots of lost reelections.
ND - mixed throughout.

Montana - mixed/lean D.
Idaho - mixed until 1960s, then R.
Wyoming - mixed until 1970s, then R.
Colorado - mixed since 1900s.
New Mexico - mixed.
Arizona - mixed until 1990s, then R.
Nevada - mixed throughout.
Utah - mixed until 1970s, then R.

California - mixed until 1990's, then D.
Oregon - mixed until now, now D?
Washington - mixed until 2000, then D.

Alaska - mostly R since 1980s.
Hawaii - solid D since 1970s.

Edit 3/23/14. Fixed mistakes. North Dakota isn't having a Senate election in 2014. Added W. Virginia and N. Carolina as likely to become more Republican. Also, 538 is currently predicting that the GOP takes control of the Senate. The GOP will probably try very hard to be more careful this year in their Senate nominations because of the mistakes in 2012. That will also increase their odds of taking the Senate.

Short: Weird pictorial of Congress wins and losses

Image: xkcd.com

Yes, it looks gross--like shredded blood vessels or color-coded spinal cord. In other words, nothing you want to see. However, this graphic shows the trends in the party affiliation of the members of both the House and Senate. A constriction on one side of this blood vessel means a big loss.

As volatile as control of the House and Senate has seemed in the last 30 years, it's nothing compared to the political shredding in the first 150 years of our republic. I was lulled by growing up during the relatively stable period between 1946 and 1978, but I definitely don't want to go back to that. I'm fine with throwing them out rather than letting bad policies get entrenched.

Smallest nuclear blast ever

Finally the Democratic Senate got fed up with the GOP blocking just about every damn nominee. They voted to end the Senate rule that allows filibustering of judicial nominees, with an exception that still allows the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees.

Earlier this year, the GOP backed down in the face of the Dems going nuclear. Why not this time? Here's the best answer I've seen:

"It could make the difference for a Republican, in that they no longer have to tag team to break cloture on nominees they want to let through, so there won't be as many ads to run about how 'so and so says they're a conservative, but they voted with Obama 327 times!'" -- Plain blog commenter

This identifies the real reason for the change in the GOP position. It was getting harder for the GOP to stop their own filibusters even when they reached unthinking, foot-stomping stubbornness. So now they've allowed the Dems to render that problem moot. (Update. Bernstein make the same argument here, but it comes from a professional and highly educated political observer.)

No other writer came up with this analysis. The MSM was treating it as no big deal. At the Daily Kos, it was mostly cheers for the defeat of those obstructionist Republicans. HotAir was loud, negative, and scattered. Some pointed out the hypocrisy of the Dems, a few looked forward to using the same power when the GOP reclaims the Senate, a few quoted Limbaugh's laughable analysis that the rules would last only for the Dems' advantage, and then revert. George Will laments the end of a "deliberative" Senate and the beginning of a coarse, 'majority dictates' Senate that is not bound by rules, but by expediency. 

RedState had a different take--it wants the end of all cooperation in the Senate in retaliation. The Senate won't pass anything inconvenient like an immigration bill, a farm bill, a continuing resolution--zip. Except that no true conservative trusts the squishy Senate RINOs, certainly not at RedState or HotAir

Thank God for that clear-eyed commenter who understood why the change happened now. In the long run, perhaps George Will will be proven right--we might deeply regret this change. But I don't know a way around it because the Senate has already slid so far down the slope. 

Image: tripadvisor.com.au

Shutdown and its effect on the Senate's future

The conventional wisdom is that Tea Party-aligned senators want a government shutdown, and establishment GOP senators (EST) don't want a shutdown. That seems to be the noises they're making.

However, there may be reasons that EST senators would want a shutdown. If these senators give the Tea Party its desired shutdown, the likelihood of being primaried goes down. The EST senator may also have a better chance of winning the nomination, but may have a lower chance of winning in the final election.

Tea Party senators (TP) may actually increase their numbers if the establishment prevents their desired government shutdown. That would prompt more challenges to EST senators, more TP nominees, and maybe less voter backlash in the final election.

So, what strategy is better for each group? Damned if I know. Another important question is what calculation will drive the decisions of each senator. Will it be the greater good, what is most likely to ensure reelection, or what is most likely to give the Senate majority to the GOP? Damned if I know again.

Image: ModeratePoli

Extra. More of my posts about the Senate.

The future of the Senate

I was going to write about how the Dems were doomed when it came to holding the Senate (not for the first time either). It stands to reason that with so many rural and southern conservative states, the Dems can't hold the Senate much longer.

Wrong. I checked out my hypothesis that there are more conservative states than liberal states, but that's not true. According to the 2012 presidential election returns, Obama won 26 states, and Romney won 24.

Image: freedomslighthouse.net

Of course, about a dozen of these are swing states. Many more are not so liberal that they won't elect a Republican senator. But it's not the slam-dunk for the GOP that I initially thought.

The GOP should have been able to flip the Senate, but they've picked some terrible candidates (roll call: Sharron Angle, Todd Akin, Christine O'Donnell). The GOP establishment keeps hoping, but the GOP base keeps undermining them. It'll interesting to watch what happens in 2014 because the Dems are still vulnerable.

The GOP desperately needs to turn the Senate. Their power in the House looks impregnable (thanks to their control of a majority of state governments and the tradition of gerrymandering), but it hasn't done them much good. The Senate routinely ignores the highly partisan bills arriving from the House, making the House look stupid and the Senate wise.

It's questionable whether the GOP can turn the Senate while they behave as they do in the House. There is no better incentive for voters to choose a Dem senate candidate than the current crop of House Republicans.

If the GOP were to gain the Senate, what would they do with it? If they became as extreme as the House, they would not keep the Senate long. Fed-up senators have already been quitting on a regular basis. On the other hand, the GOP have passed a lot of their agenda in a short time when they had the chance, as in 2001. That won't happen after 2014 with a Dem still in the White House. It's questionable what they could do with the Senate, except hope to build momentum for a complete sweep in 2016.

In the meantime, the GOP has got to be looking over its shoulder as some states are turning blue, or bluish. Virginia is one of the first, but Georgia and Arizona are getting ripe.

It seems to me that there's no strategy for the GOP to gain a lot of power, between their base, their extremists in the House, their frequently execrable candidates, and looming demographics. But I did think of one thing that could help them! If they just gave the House back to Nancy Pelosi...

Image: suitablyflip.blogs.com

Short: Those dastardly senators

Here's some interesting reading on how a nasty Senate maneuver started. The article talks about a Senate trick called "filling up the amendment tree" (sounds like Christmas?), but it could be about any number of Senate tactics. The article is short, the comments are intelligent and add to the story, so definitely worth two minutes.

The story is a reminder: It's definitely naive to think that everything X party does is fair and justified, and everything the other party does is low and contemptible. So many of the maneuvers are recycled, started by one side, perfected by the other, reviled when employed against your side instead of for it. Hypocrisy is the order of the day in our highest legislative body. Democracy continues to be the worst form of government except for all the others.

From such an appropriate source: nonsportsmanlikeconduct.com

Short: Want, but won't pay

Big surprise. The Senate voted in a non-binding (read symbolic/fake) resolution to reverse the 2.3% tax on medical devices that is part of the funding for Obamacare. According to the article, 34 Democratic senators appear to want Obamacare, but don't want to pay for it.

Come on guys, it's 2.3%. It isn't a killer tax. It's in an appropriate area so that the medical industry can help fund medical care. Did you suggest any alternative funding? It wasn't mentioned in the article, so I'm guessing NO. If you were my children, I'd cut up your credit cards and send you to your rooms.

Short: The Chuck Hagel Theater Company

So the Senate didn't get to vote on the Chuck Hagel nomination for Defense secretary because of a filibuster by Republicans. But there's going to be a second vote later in February, and some additional GOP senators have indicated that they would no longer support a filibuster then. More boring Washington political theater--yawn.

If only I could filibuster the senators to prevent them from turning these nomination votes into stupid partisan exercises. To be clear, I think nominations hearings are a good idea and should be a time for searching questions. But the votes should be "yes" unless the nominee is unfit in some way.

Many conservatives seem to know how this will play out, and realize it's not worth the fight. Some, like Erick Erickson of RedState, are still hoping to defeat the nomination. Others foolishly believe that they have won some sort of victory in the recent vote--they are in for a nasty surprise called reality. But I bet these fools have been tumbled by reality before.

 Still waiting for the evidence...

Image: theatlantic.com

Short: Revisiting the Senate

Likelihood is not destiny, as the Senate results showed. Back in April, I wrote about how the Dems had a lot of races in jeopardy, such as everything in the South, Midwest, Plains, and inland West. This is what the map looked like:

The results of the election were amazingly good for the Dems, who surprisingly held on to seats in Missouri, Virginia, N. Dakota, and Montana. They had expected pick-ups in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and an unexpected pick-up in Indiana. They also won toss-up races in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A great record for the Dems and nasty for the GOP:

Image: wikipedia.org

It's important to check your predictions against reality and outcomes. I blew this prediction.  A whole lot of GOP senate candidates blew their election bids. They blew it worse than I did.