That's how I read him, at least.

Everything negative he says here of the Tea Party can be said with equal force of Democrats-- but of course he would never say negative things about the Democrats.

THE RIGHT-WING populist Tea Party movement has politicians of both parties spooked. Democrats fear it will bring so many Republicans to the boil, and then to the voting booth, that they will lose control of Congress.

...

A Harris poll released the last day of March reported that a third of all adults support the Tea Party, and slightly less than a quarter oppose it. Do they know what they are supporting, or opposing? The movement is not yet united on a single platform or agenda, like Newt GingrichÂ’s 1994 Contract With America, which started as a triumph and ended as an embarrassment. The lack of specifics allows anyone who is just existentially fed up (and who isnÂ’t, on some days?) to feel right at home. No one will demand to know what he or she is fed up with.

Any political party is an amalgamation of different interests, some utterly contradictory -- Muslims have flocked to the Democrats over the War on Terror and Republican support for Israel, which puts them at odds with Jews who have long called the leftward party home.

So -- what foreign policy does someone vote for when he votes Democratic?

Does Kinsley know? Does he even care any more? Do the Democrats even bother to clarify themselves on this point?

I suppose he's saying the Tea Party is more amorphous than a centralized political party, not that the Democrats are perfectly clear about their agenda and the Tea Party perfectly unsettled. To which I'd reply, 1) No, the Tea Party is just as clear as anyone, and 2) Even if it weren't, it's expected that a leaderless movement would be a little fuzzy. Without leadership and heirarchy and rules about membership, you can't ever enforce a party line.

On Web sites and in speeches, Tea Party Patriots reveal a fondness for procedural gimmicks (like a ban on congressional earmarks), constitutional amendments (term limits, balanced budget), and similar magic tricks or shortcuts to salvation. Apart from a general funk, though, the one common theme espoused by TPPs is the monstrous danger of Big Government.

Ah, so they do have a definable agenda: You just don't like it.

The Tea Party movement has been compared (by David Brooks of The New York Times, among others) to the student protest movement of the 1960s. Even though one came from the left and the other from the right, both are/were, or at least styled themselves as, a mass challenge to an oppressive establishment. ThatÂ’s a similarity, to be sure. But the differences seem more illuminating.

First, the 1960s (shorthand for all of the political and social developments we associate with that period) were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people (undoubtedly including more than a few who were part of the earlier movement too). If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, thatÂ’s easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, itÂ’s less charming.

I think perhaps Kinsley's determination of the anti-war movement as being "charming" might have something to do with finding it generally amicable to his own liberal politics.

I point out that Kinsley's thesis here is that Tea Party isn't merely a movement he doesn't like -- that will certainly cause no surprises among his fans or his critics -- but that the party is objectively malformed and malfunctioning according to objective criteria. He tries dressing it up that way, but in the end, when it's time to actually put coin in the piggybank, he resorts, again and again, to a simple statement of I don' like 'em.

Well, bully for you.

Second, although the 1960s ultimately spread their tentacles throughout the culture and around the world, politically there was just one big issue: ending the war in Vietnam. No such issue unites the Tea Party Patriots. You might guess from some of their materials on the Web that the repeal of health-care reform is the TPPsÂ’ Vietnam, their towering cause. But even for devoted TPPs, stripping health insurance away from people whoÂ’ve just gotten it is unlikely to summon the same passions that the activists of the 1960s brought to stopping a misguided war.

Again he resorts to a mere policy preference which he costumes and masquerades as some fundamental deficiency in intellectual rigor. He's decided that doing the evil thing (taking away fake government health insurance) isn't as passionate a cause as doing the good thing (stopping a war).

He offers no reason, apart from a liberal bent, why one of those goals is laudable and proper and the other is simply spleen dressed up in policy garb.

Not only do TPPs not have one big issue like Vietnam—they disagree about many of their smaller issues. What unites them is a more abstract resentment, an intensity of feeling rather than any concrete complaint or goal.

I seem to remember a shitload of "abstract resentment" and "intensity of feeling" on display among those anti-war activists -- who generally were activists for a whole smograstborg of trendy radical posture-politics -- than Kinsley seems willing to admit here.

He is attempting -- seriously attempting -- to cast the 70s Free Love Radical Shouters (and Bomb-Throwers) in the roles of Serious Political Therorists United Between One Tangible Goal.

Unless my television is lying to me -- and, Praise God, it never does -- my takeaway of the late-60s/early-70s hippie freakshow was inchoate rage at being young, privileged, and wealthy, and therefore in favor a stinky melange of goofball fashion choices maquerading as politics.

No nukes, free love, F--- the Pigs, communes, smash the state, Acid Messianism, end capitalism, Hippie-version Christianity, burn your bra, rob banks for the Palestinian cause... all of this and more was part of that pissed-off-at-their-parents rabble that Kinsley is attempting to cast as very disciplined and rational an serious-minded about one big issue.

The antiwar movement also worked, sort of. As did the civil-rights movement that preceded it. Antiwar protests ultimately turned the establishment itself against the war, though extracting us from it still took years. By contrast, the Tea Party Patriots, I predict, are just the flavor of the month: the kind of story that the media are incapable of not exaggerating. The antiwar movement and the 1960s changed America in numerous ways forever. The Tea Party Patriots will be an answer on Jeopardy or a crossword-puzzle clue.

Again, attempting to demonstrate how awful and unserious the Tea Party is, he resorts to mere opinion -- here, a prediction they'll be unsuccessful.

A final difference: although the 1960s featured plenty of self-indulgence, this wasnÂ’t their essence.

Did he just claimed that pampered brats who want to fuck and smoke pot were not essentially self-indulgent? But were rather quite serious young men and women?

I think he did.

Unlike those joy-riding bong-blowing Good-Time-Charlie Tea Partiers, as you'll soon discover.

Their essence was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place.

It was selfless and idealistic for a draft-aged man to want stop the war he was about to be drafted into?

Note that I don't need to claim that such a man was wrong. Most believe the Vietnam War was a mistake (either from the get-go, or in insufficient and feckless prosecution), and I don't want to litigate that case.

But he's claiming that it was "selfless" for a man -- let's say a man like Michael Kinsely, born in 1951, who would have been 17 and of draftable age during the Tet Offensive and through the subsequent years of escalation -- to oppose the war.

Selfless? He had no self-interest whatsoever in taking this position?

Really?

And "idealistic"? This was idealism only - the war was only an abstraction for him? There was no... say... tangible, concrete benefit that would accrue to him if the war were ended before his draft number came up?

Can Michael Kinsley not remember back to his 17th year? Is he quite certain he opposed the war purely on abstract, idealistic grounds?

I am making a big deal about this because he wishes to contrast his own "selfless idealism" with the Tea Party's lousy mercenary self-interest:

The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested. And they lack poetry: cut my taxes; don’t let the government mess with my Medicare; and so on. I say “self-interested” and not “selfish” because pursuing your own self-interest is not illegitimate in a capitalist democracy. (Nor is poetry an essential requirement.) But the Tea Party’s atmospherics, all about personal grievance and taking umbrage and feeling put-upon, are a far cry from flower power. There is a nasty, sour, vindictive tone to the Tea Party that certainly existed in the antiwar movement and its offspring, but never dominated the atmosphere created by these groups.

Right. Well, Mikey, what you see as "selfless idealism" in, say, the millions of people gettin' paid by the federal government I see as naked self-interest. They want other people's money and have decided they can vote themselves it.

So I don't see that as you do, as all selflessly idealistic 'n shit. I see it as people gettin' paid out of other people's wages.

And I see the people whose wages are being taken as having a legitimate -- dare I say more legitimate? -- gripe about keeping their own.

You see, in the land of liberals like Kinsley, there's nothing whatsoever selfish or self-interested about millions of people voting themselves a raise in the form of health-insurance paid out of someone else's pocket.

But the moment those whose pockets have suddenly become lighter utter a peep of objection, it's time to start talking about "selfless idealism" versus a "nasty, sour, vindictive" feeling.

Like a mugger might selflessly, idealistically take my wallet, and then, having gotten the attention of a cop, I might, with a nasty, sour, vindictive sort of feeling, ask that at least get to keep the credit cards.

We will soon be learning that the Tea Party is also pretty stupid, because we think that we can balance the budget simply by cutting small-potatoes programs like the NEA or foreign aid or eliminating pork.

Some of us do think that -- and yes, some people aren't as up as they could be on budget math, or at least don't wish to understand the full dimensions of the problem.

And this makes the average Tea Partier different from the average Democrat in what way...? The average Democrat who thinks all we have to do is "tax the rich" and "end the war" and wait for Obama's 10% growth per year Era of Prosperity to wipe out the deficit?

It's true that many people believe that great goals can be accomplished with little pain -- and they believe that primarily because their politicians tell them that every day. And it's true, as Kinsley says, that Tea Party slogans often fail to recognize how much budgetary pain is on the horizon.

But before I decide, with him, that the Tea Party is more uninformed than most of the public, I really need him to point out the average Democrat in the middle class who actually understands that his taxes are going up -- and significantly so, not by just an ooch here or there -- to pay for all of the liberals' "selfless idealism."

...

“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility. To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?

Um, the current government? Liberals elected it, and people deceived by liberals.

This is nonsense on stilts. The Tea Party is trying to get the government under control, to which Kinsley says neener-neener, you elected it! Which isn't really true, and even it were, people are allowed to repudiate past bad votes.

This kind of talk is doubly self-indulgent. First, itÂ’s just not true. Second, itÂ’s obviously untrue. The governmentÂ’s main function these days is writing checks to old people. These checks allow people to retire and pursue avocations such as going to Tea Party rallies.

You're going to see more of this sneer -- The government is paying you your money so of course you have the time to take off to go to tea parties.

Which is an odd thing for him to say, since he's not questioning where all those people showing up in favor of Obama are getting their free time from.

Students, union hacks paid out of coerced dues, the indigent... Odd for him to suddenly discover the principle that if you're getting money from the government, you ought not to be making demands on it!

I think I could live with that principle -- but could he?

And, by the way, the government is "writing checks to old people" who have paid money into the system for their entire lives, from their first ice-cream shop job at age 15.

How much did Obama's new health insurees pay into the system before getting all complainey?

This basic fact about the government is no great secret. In fact, it’s a huge cliché, robably available more than once in an average day’s newspaper. But the Tea Party Patriots feel free to ignore it and continue serving up rhetoric about “the audaciousness and arrogance of our government,” and calling for the elimination of the Federal Reserve Board or drastic restraints on the power of the Internal Revenue Service.

“I like what they’re saying. It’s common sense,” a random man-in-the-crowd told a Los Angeles Times reporter at a big Tea Party rally. Then he added, “They’ve got to focus on issues like keeping jobs here and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.” These, of course, are projects that can be conducted only by Big Government. If the Tea Party Patriots ever developed a coherent platform or agenda, they would lose half their supporters.

...

What is most irksome about the Tea Party Patriots is their expropriation of the word patriot, with the implication that if you disagree with them, youÂ’re not a patriot, or at least youÂ’re less patriotic than they are. Without getting all ask-notty about it, I think a movement labeling itself patriotic should have some obligation to demonstrate patriotism in a way other than demanding a tax cut.

Yes, similar to how many on the left demonstrate their patriotism by demanding increased student loans, welfare, etc.

Again, it's only a bad thing when you want to keep some of your own money.

In their rhetoric, the Tea Party Patriots do not sound as if they love their country very much: they have nothing but gripes. Yes, of course, these are gripes against the government, not against the country itself. But that distinction becomes hard to maintain when you have nothing good to say about the government and nothing but whines to offer the country.

Again, a very strange charge from Kinsley -- the right has often pointed out that while the left claims to be "patriotic," they are forever criticizing America itself in savage terms -- and it has been pointed out that if someone attempted to claim to his wife that endless criticism and slander was the way he "showed his love," that wife wouldn't take too much solace in that.

But after years of making the case that such "dissent" was the "highest form of patriotism" -- that the greatest love of country is expressed by those who criticize it -- Kinsley decides to reverse field and start calling it unpatriotic.

Once again: It's only bad when you do it.

Posted by: Ace at 04:46 PM | Comments (262)
Post contains 2803 words, total size 17 kb.

Oh, my bad, did I say inflation? I meant to say that inflation has suddenly disappeared and prices are falling.

Inflation has essentially disappeared...

...Consumer prices fell in April for the first time in more than a year...

...Declining gas prices pulled overall prices down 0.1 percent last month. Gas prices are predicted to sink lower still this summer...

...Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, was flat in April. Over the past 12 months, it has risen just 0.9 percent -- the smallest increase in 44 years...

...The weakness of the economy has kept inflation so low that some economists are beginning to worry about the possibility of deflation -- a destabilizing period of falling prices and wages...

Similarly, all those freshly employed folks don't seem geared up to do much driving during what is supposed to be the peak driving season. When is the last time you saw gas prices declining significantly during summer in an economy that is claimed to be in recovery? My guess would be ummmm...never.

A nice round of deflation and further declining interest rates must have those people who just bought new cribs under the ObamaBucks giveaway program feeling kinda green at the gills...many could be underwater before the year is out.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 03:53 PM | Comments (185)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Jim Geraghty's point here is good -- even as I was making the "Critz-ran-as-a-conservative" spin-argument, I realized its infirmity.

Because the problem is that is how most Democrats in these sorts of districts always run. The question was not whether a Democrat from this sort of district would pose, yet again, as a conservative, while actually planning to vote for just about everything Nancy Pelosi wants -- that was guaranteed beforehand -- but whether or not this age-old trick would still work.

Alas, yes, it still does work.

Some conservatives bitterly chuckled that Democrats were celebrating the victory of a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat who opposed health care and cap-and-trade. (Public Policy Polling found only 30 percent of the districtÂ’s voters support Obamacare, and 58 percent oppose.) This comes on the heels of an anti-Obamacare, anti-Pelosi, pro-life Democrat, Mike Oliverio, knocking off incumbent Alan Mollohan in West Virginia. They contend that few Democrats will be able to run on as conservative a platform as Critz and Oliverio did.

That argument is true enough, but a lot of Democrats who are considered vulnerable will be attempting to run as conservatives this fall. In fact, what made PennsylvaniaÂ’s special House election a useful indicator was that the two candidates offered precisely the arguments we should see in many swing districts this fall: the Republican arguing that the Democrat was a puppet for President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrat insisting that no, he had nothing to do with those Washington liberals, that he was just a homespun country boy who voted in his districtÂ’s best interest. Tuesday, a district full of conservative Democrats concluded that Critz made the more persuasive argument.

A more persuasive argument? Or assumed a more agreeably-hypocritical posture?

Yes, people tend to do that all too frequently, buy into transparent nonsense, which often makes me wonder if people simply enjoy being lied to. That is: It's very possible people prefer hypocrites because fundamentally they are hypocrites themselves; they want politicians like themselves, people who mouth platitudes about responsibility and accountability and our children's future while voting to bankrupt those children.

Geraghty's next point is good, too:

For political junkies, a campaign on national themes is the natural and obvious choice. But no one ever asked the voters of either this Pennsylvania or that New York district whether they wanted their local House race to be a proxy war between two national parties. Up in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, there were plenty of voters who care about widening the St. Lawrence Seaway, redevelopment around Plattsburgh Air Force Base, highway plans between Watertown and Plattsburgh; topics that don’t get asked about on appearances on the Sean Hannity show or CNN. Hoffman’s botching of an interview with the Watertown Daily Times editorial board was much more harmful than it seemed at the time; no conservative should emulate Dick Armey in his dismissal of “regional concerns as ‘parochial’ issues that would not determine the outcome of the election.”

Tim Burns never quite emulated those comments, but he did repeatedly declare his candidacy a referendum on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Obama administration. Considering how badly the pair poll in the district, that simply wasnÂ’t the case. Conservatives chuckle at Democrats who constantly invoke George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, and note that neither of those figures will be on the ballot this November. Well, Obama and Nancy Pelosi werenÂ’t on the ballot Tuesday, either.

Hmmm... not sure how to handle that, then: I guess maybe conservative candidates have to run almost entirely as local politicians, and not try to nationalize the race too much by their own words or own ads, and maybe just trust that, even while not mentioning Pelosi, the general mood of the electorate will show itself. Maybe it's a don't-force-it-let-it-simply-come sort of deal.

There's a problem with that, though: "Local issues" is often synonymous with "directing federal money into the district" or "pressing for special federal favors," and that is far more congruent with the Democratic agenda with the Republican one.

Conservatives 4 Palin thinks we couldn't have won this heavily-Democratic race except in a low-turnout election, where our party's enthusiasm could edge down the gap in actual turnout; but Ed Rendell craftily scheduled this vote to occur on the day of the Pennsylvania Senate Primary, denying us that low turnout:

I had been worrying about this since Rendell made that announcement and as I watched the election returns online last night, my concerns were confirmed. It became clear very early that there was no way Tim Burns could win a special election run concurrently with a primary election for the same race. This was evident to me despite the point made by Rick Santorum and others early in the evening that the initial numbers were coming from Democrat strongholds and Burns could come back to win when the more conservative precincts were counted. This wishful thinking was unrealistic. There was never going to be sufficient Republican votes to overcome the 2-1 Democrat to Republican advantage in the district given that voters had to declare their party affiliation to vote in the primary on the same night.

The data I paid particular attention to in the PA-12 race were the results coming in from the primary election. From the very beginning, the number of votes being cast in the Democrat Primary for the 2012 general election in PA-12 was nearly twice the amount being cast in the Republican Primary. You would expect this since, as Santorum noted, mainly Democrat precincts were being counted. But as numbers began coming in from more conservative areas, the trend continued. Indeed when all the votes were tallied, 80, 736 were cast in the Democrat primary and only 45, 852 in the GOP Primary.

We had a relatively uncontested primary (Toomey won in a walk, as expected) and they had a hotly-contested one; that assured PA-12 Democrats would be out in force.

This may be true as well, but in many of the districts we hope to pick off in November, we can't count on a low-turnout election, either: Midterms aren't as big as presidential elections, but they're hardly small-potatoes elections, either.

Nate Silver covers all of the votes yesterday, including PA-12, of course:

The results: Mark Critz (D) defeats Tim Burns (R), 53-45.

The conventional wisdom: A big, clutch win for Democrats.

The reality: Neither outcome would have been surprising here. The polling showed a toss-up, and the district (with a PVI of R+1) is close to the national median. There's a lot of variance in open-seat elections for the House; even in an environment like 2008, Democrats would have had about a 30 percent chance of losing this seat, and even in one as relatively poor for them as 2004, they would have had about a 40 percent chance of winning it.

Still, the 8-point margin of victory was surprising. As I wrote yesterday morning: "It's really only if one of the candidates wins by middle-to-high single digits ... that [PA-12] might tell us something", and Critz met that threshold.

Republicans have some decent excuses; they may have been harmed by the fact that there was a contentious Democratic Senate primary occurring at the same time, for instance, and the DCCC seems to have a peculiar knack for winning special elections. The Democratic candidate ran against his party's health care bill! But make no mistake: there are garbage cans being kicked, and consultants being sworn at, at NRCC headquarters right now. And the Republicans may need to engage in some self-reflection about whether nationalizing the race will be the optimal strategy in each of 50 distinct states and 435 distinct Congressional Districts.

I think that this race was in fact "meaningful," as Silver says, not particularly that Critz won in a heavily Democratic that has been electing a Democrat for 36 years straight, but that he did so without much of a scare.

That does seem to suggest that our previous optimism was ill-founded: Yes, we may still win the House, but it will be, as it was once thought, a hard thing to do, and that talk of a full-on Democratic wipe-out was silly.

Butterball Pudgebunny Chris Matthews said it would have been "catastrophic" if Critz had lost, considering the built-in Democratic advantage there. And I guess we could extrapolate from PA-12 (assuming it wasn't an aberration) that November won't be catastrophic for Democrats. But "not catastrophic" is not the same as "good" or even "fair."

The Democrats, I think, will still do very poorly in November. I'm moving away from my giddy catastrophe stuff, but we don't actually need a Democratic catastrophe to win -- just winning what it looks like we could and should win should do the trick.

It will still feel like a catastrophe to the Democrats, of course.

Posted by: Ace at 12:01 PM | Comments (282)
Post contains 1485 words, total size 10 kb.

"...but by our bonds."

Okay, that's... cute and sweet, but aren't we sort of defined by our borders, too?

This does sound an awful lot like a suggestion that there really isn't a Mexico and really isn't an United States at all, that the border is simply an arbitrary contrivance.

Certainly it's fair to get that vibe from El Jefe Obama.

In related news, Obama's meeting with students, and he wants to see their birth certificates.

Okay, I lied. He (or his security team, really) isn't asking for birth certificates. But instead names, birthdates, social security numbers, and "citizen status."

Now, sure, this is normal and necessary. But even someone who doesn't buy into the birth certificate conspiracy theory can see a little bit of irony here.

I mean, he's checking the kids' "citizen status," presumably, to make sure no foreign-born radical can get into a position where he could gravely harm the presidency.

Come on. That's funny.

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (225)
Post contains 180 words, total size 2 kb.

Linked at Hot Air. Mild content warning for language and gags you read here every day.

Good campaign slogan: I'll shoot you in the goddamned head.

Posted by: Ace at 10:42 AM | Comments (69)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Possibly they're right -- we did lose a big one last night.

(At least for now: Remember November.)

However, Politico is overlooking something. Yes, Murtha's district leans conservative -- but not Republican. Politico ticks off the poll numbers that demonstrate the district seems to have a conservative temper in making its case for Democratic resurgence, but elides an important fact:

After all, this is a heavily Democratic district that elected the same Democrat the last eighteen elections. Their registration edge is in double digits, so an eight-point loss for Republicans isnÂ’t a bad showing.

Politico ignores this fact as contrary to the narrative and simply declares this to be some kind of Republican bastion that we lost when we should have won. No; it was a district we should have lost, in any other cycle, but had hope for in this one cycle -- and those hopes were dashed. Which isn't really surprising.

But more importantly, Murtha's district has leaned far more Murtha than for any party. Murtha Pork is the lifeblood of this economically depressed area; an awful lot of people rely, directly and indirectly, upon Murtha's -- or his proxy's -- ability to funnel millions of dollars from the rest of the country into this small slice of Pennsylvania.

If ideology were the determinant consideration here, the district should have fallen to the Republicans a while ago.

Furthermore, Critz ran as a conservative Republican, nearly, adopting the Tea Party's positions on the bailouts and health care and the social conservatives' position on abortion. This isn't really some kind of vindication for the Democratic Party generally, and certainly not for Obama's out-and-proud brand of liberalism.

One more thing: The media has been telling us that the mood in the country -- the strong disapproval of incumbent Democrats -- was anti-incumbent and not anti-Democratic at all. They've made this claim too many times to recount.

So, in Pennsylvania, a non-incumbent faced another non-incumbent and the non-incumbent won, as he had to.

Or, since Critz was, arguably, the proxy for the ultra-incumbent but quite dead Abscam Jack Murtha, then perhaps this is a signal that incumbents aren't necessarily in trouble. But only in places that rely heavily on federal spending.

Either way, the MFM could keep with their precious anti-incumbency storyline.

But now we're told this was actually a victory for the Democratic cause.

When Republicans are winning, it's only a victory for the forces of anti-incumbency, with no import as regards the nation's preferred ideology. But suddenly when the Democrats win one (and this was always a longshot for us) it's no longer a referendum on incumbency at all, but a referendum on the Democratic Party, and they won, so for the MFM it's Yayy, us!

All the evidence pointing to monster Republican House gains this fall—the Scott Brown upset win in Massachusetts, the scary polling numbers in once-safely Democratic districts, the ever-rising number of Democratic seats thought to be in jeopardy—was contradicted Tuesday.

In the only House race that really mattered to both parties—the special election to replace the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha in Pennsylvania’s 12th District—Republicans failed spectacularly, losing on a level playing field where, in this favorable environment, they should have run roughshod over the opposition.

Given the resources the GOP poured into the effort to capture the seat and the decisiveness of the defeat—as it turned out, it wasn’t really that close—the outcome casts serious doubt on the idea that the Democratic House majority is in jeopardy and offers comfort to a Democratic Party that is desperately in search of a glimmer of hope.

The district itself couldn’t have been more primed for a Republican victory. According to one recent poll, President Barack Obama’s approval rating in the 12th was a dismal 35 percent, compared to 55 percent who disapproved. His health care plan was equally unpopular—just 30 percent of those polled supported it, while 58 percent were in opposition.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was even more disliked in the blue-collar, western Pennsylvania-based seat: Just 23 percent viewed her favorably, compared to 63 percent who viewed her unfavorably.

Still, Democrat Mark Critz managed to pull off an eight-point victory, 53 percent to 45 percent, over Republican Tim Burns in a district that John McCain narrowly won in 2008—the only one in the nation that voted for John Kerry in 2004 and McCain four years later.

The race marked the third highly-contested, fair-fight special House election that the GOP has dropped in the last year.

The seat Murtha held for 36 years is precisely the sort of Rust Belt district—economically populist and culturally traditional—that Republicans must win to claim the 40 seats necessary to take back the House.

Yet the way Critz and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee won the contest offered a reminder that the prospect of a GOP majority remains a mirage. And TuesdayÂ’s result has Democrats breathing a sigh of relief, thinking theyÂ’ve found a formula to mitigate their losses in what will still be a difficult election season.

The playbook from the Pennsylvania special election isnÂ’t complicated: Make the election a choice between two local candidates and not a national referendum on the Democratic Party or the state of the nation; savage the Republican from the outset and donÂ’t let up; keep the focus on jobs and core economic issues; most important, separate yourself from your national partyÂ’s policies and politicians as necessary.

It may not be complicated -- Run as a Republican! -- but not many districts share with the Johnstown area such a special focus on the "core economic issue" of shoveling money hand over fist into one district.

Edit: Politico's selective reporting put it in my head that this district is basically a Republican one, and I wrote it up initially admitting the district "leans Republican." I have rewritten it to reflect the fact it actually leans Democratic, and pretty hard at that.

A handful of districts are like this -- socially conservative but fiscally very liberal. But few districts outside of the Virginia suburbs have such a huge, direct financial interest in a free-spending federal government.

Posted by: Ace at 09:39 AM | Comments (179)
Post contains 1032 words, total size 7 kb.

Lots of different takes on what the results mean.

One thing is clear, Obama can't deliver for Democrats. Even the AP notices that.

Sen. Arlen Specter became the fourth Democrat in seven months to lose a high-profile race despite the president's active involvement, raising doubts about Obama's ability to help fellow Democrats in this November's elections.

The first three candidates fell to Republicans. But Specter's loss Tuesday to Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania's Democratic senatorial primary cast doubts on Obama's influence and popularity even within his own party — and in a battleground state, no less.

Of course, it's possible that Democrats will fare better than expected this fall. And there's only so much that any president can do to help other candidates, especially in a non-presidential election year.

Still, Obama's poor record thus far could hurt his legislative agenda if Democratic lawmakers decide they need some distance from him as they seek re-election in what is shaping up as a pro-Republican year. Conversely, it might embolden Republican lawmakers and candidates who oppose him.

In Arkansas, Blanche "I've always relied on the kindness of DC insiders" Lincoln barely beat Lt. Bill Halter but since neither candidate got 50% of the vote, they are headed to a runoff.

One of Lincoln's primary issues was getting tough on Wall St. Funny thing is, Chris Dodd, expecting the primary to be over, just tried to water down her signature proposal. Now they either have to keep her measure in or pull the rug out from underneath her. Since she's a lost cause in November, they'll probably just cut her loose now.

In Kentucky, Rand Paul and the tea party movement just wiped out establishment Republican Trey Greyson. I still think a guy who is comfortable hanging out on the radio with Alex Jones is a very bad idea for Republicans. I hope he manages to stay focused and disciplined enough to win in November.

Paul has some work to do to get Greyson supporters on board for November. If Greyson Republicans don't come home or just stay home, a safe Republican seat could go to the Democrats.

The big race of the night was the special election in PA-12 to replace Jack Murtha.
There are as many theories on what the Democratic win means as there are people offering them, probably more.

The conventional wisdom is if this really is a Republican wave year, then you would expect to see them winning this kind of seat. The Democrats won a bunch of specials leading up to their victories in '06 and '08. When Democrats won in a place like Mississippi's 1st Congressional District, everyone knew something was up.

On the other hand, despite all the talk about this being a socially conservative district, it does have a 2-1 Democratic advantage and did send Jack Murtha to
Congress for over 30 years.

PA-12 didn't lean that much in the GOP's favor. Yes, as Democrats and MSNBC reporters are enthusiastically pointing out, it is the only district that flipped from voting for John Kerry in '04 to John McCain in '08. But McCain only carried it by 900 votes. And that was after Obama had personally insulted western Pennsylvanians as bitter xenophobes who cling to their guns and God because of economic alienation. Fifty-eight percent of voters in the district were still willing to vote for Democrat John Murtha in 2008.

As Sean Trende has pointed out, Republicans don't need to win districts like PA-12 to win back the House: "there are over sixty districts represented by Democrats with better Republican performances than PA-12. The Republicans' path to 218 seats doesn't necessarily run through this district – in fact, I don't think their path to a 1994-esque 230 seats necessarily runs through this district."

All that plus the Democrat ran as a fairly conservative candidate (anti-health care law and against Cap and Trade). Add that all to the district's long standing addiction to pork, which a Democrat who worked for Murtha is more likely to continue and that's what you get.

While it's possible to explain/rationalize the Democratic victory there, image is important in politics. A Republican victory was what people expected and if Burns had pulled it off, we'd be spinning dreams of huge Republican gains in the fall. It doesn't mean they won't still happen but I think it's time to put away ideas of 100 seats in play and concentrate are more likely targets.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:28 AM | Comments (286)
Post contains 748 words, total size 5 kb.

Starts getting good at around 1:30.

An innocent topiary was harmed during the filming of this natural event.

Recall the state of technology in the US a few hundred years ago; can you imagine being a plains Indian during something like this? What did people do, besides hunker under their collapsed teepees and take a beating?

This is why houses are awesome.

Posted by: LauraW at 06:49 AM | Comments (208)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

So says ObergrupenMcPollster.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Connecticut finds Blumenthal with just a three-point advantage over Linda McMahon, 48% to 45%. Two weeks ago, he led the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment by 13 percentage points. The New York Times story broke late Monday; the survey was taken Tuesday evening.

When matched against former GOP Congressman Rob Simmons, Blumenthal leads by 11 - 50% to 39%. Two weeks ago, the longtime state attorney general held a 23-point lead over Simmons.

Blumenthal now leads Peter Schiff, a high-profile Wall Street investment banker, 53% to 37%. In the previous survey, he posted a 54% to 29% lead over Schiff.

Still, just 26% of voters say Blumenthal should withdraw from the Senate race. Only nine percent (9%) of Democrats hold that view.

However, 53% of voters say “the issue of Blumenthal and his military service” will be at least somewhat important in terms of how they vote. That figure includes 27% who say the issue is Very Important. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 25% consider this issue Very Important.

To add insult to injury, one of the vets Blumenthal surrounded himself with yesterday looks like he has his own issues with exaggerating his service. Birds of a feather and all.

How bad is what Blumenthal did? Chris Matthews (Chris Matthews!) just destroyed him last night at several points in his 2 shows. Here's how he closed his second live show yesterday.

We have a lot of fun beating up Matthews and for good reason but credit where it's due. He didn't spin it or parse it (like Marc Ambinder tries to do), he just laid into the guy. Good for him.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:39 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.

Damn it all.

Bear in mind this guy ran as basically a Tea Party Conservative (sure, right), and that he has to run again in November.

Posted by: Ace at 06:28 PM | Comments (304)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.