Matthew Yglesias remarks that, when staking out positions, congressmembers are not very strongly constrained by the ideologies of their constituents.
Wow, that was a lot of big words. What I meant to say was: Congressmembers and Senators can pretty much vote how they want on most issues, whatever their constituents happen to believe. Not always, of course, but a representative can take a much more liberal or conservative line than the voters in his or her district or state, and still do fine when election time comes.
Yglesias gives some examples from the U.S. Senate, and I just wanted to back him up by citing some research from the House of Representatives.
First, here's a graph (from chapter 9 of Red State, Blue State; the numbers are based on research with Jonathan Katz) showing that, when running for reelection, it helps for a congressmember to be a moderate--but not by much:
Being a moderate is worth about 2% of the vote in a congressional election: it ain't nuthin, but it certainly is not a paramount concern for most representatives.
To look at this another way, here's a graph showing the members of the House of Representatives in 1993-1994:
Representatives from more politically extreme districts tended themselves to be further to the right (if Republicans) or to the left (if Democrats), but only slightly so, with a lot of exceptions. There's a lot of leeway on where politicians stand.
(And, yes, many of these Democrats did lose in 1994--but, pretty much, the ones that lost were those in marginal districts, not particularly those with extremely liberal ideologies. By this I'm not trying to say the extreme liberals benefited from their ideology--as noted above, I estimate that it hurt them by, on average, a couple percentage points of the vote--but that these couple percentage points didn't really matter much; the partisanship of their districts was much more of the key factor in determining whether they were reelected.)
More discussion here, in the context of the notorious "median voter theorem." As I wrote earlier, I am sympathetic to the related point that it can be a mistake to assume that politicians of your political party agree with you, deep down, on the issues, and that they're only voting differently because of expedience, craven political calculation, or whatever. It's worth considering the hypothesis that lots of Democratic politicians do not share the values and policy preferences of lots of Democratic voters, and similarly for the Republicans. Given the diversity of public opinion, this really has to be true on some issues, and it very well might be true all over the place.
Another way of saying all this is: Incumbent congressmembers almost always win reelection. And, when they don't, they're often losing as part of a national swing (as in the 1994 Republican sweep or the 2006/2008 Democratic shift). And when an incumbent does lose unexpectedly, it can be for something unrelated to their votes (remember the "check kiting scandal" of 1992?).
65 comments
It seems to me that 2 points could make all the difference in the world.
While the average margin of victory is far higher than 2 points, it is much closer in upsets. I haven't yet found the statistic, but I wonder how many races turn over by margins of less than 2 pts.
"...lots of Democratic politicians do not share the values and policy preferences of lots of Democratic voters, and similarly for the Republicans."
When it comes to the R's, I'm fairly sure this is a 'duh' statement. Pick an R, any R (besides Bachmann) and you'll find substantial personal disagreement with many positions held by the R 'base,' not to mention the TEA Party. They have generally have some form o' skoolin' and it's hard to not give them some credit for being able to think.
I wold suggest that a "moderate" voting record, whatever that may be, is not nearly as important as doing what you told the voters you would do or at least not getting caught too often voting in opposition to your voters.
The Blue Dogs problem is that they are saddled with very public votes on the Porkulus and Obamacare bills, which are very unpopular with their constituents, that in turn casts light in their rather liberal voting records on not so well reported matters like spiking discretionary spending by 20%.
Your analysis would be more useful if you could compare the positions of each district with the voting patterns of their congress critter to see if there is a correlation.
Warren Buffett last night on Charlie Rose…
…where he expounds on the need for a sensible tax system (he thinks the capital gains tax should be increased—his take: “Why am I paying less on capital gains than the waitress serving me pays in withholding?” He also demolishes the idea that Obama is a socialist, and says he hope the president achieves a “redistribution of prosperity to the bottom 20%-30% of the income earners in America.”
Now who are you going to believe? Bart de Palma, Pete Kent, Fifi, Walker, bleepul—or the richest guy in the world?
The Dem Congress faces the classic choice: hold onto power, or do something with it. These are at cross purposes because their major priority is unpopular with the American people. The health bill is finally an actual bill, not just airy Obama talk and promises, and it is unpopular (deeply so with Independents). If they pass it next year, the pain of the bill will be coming online but none of the benefits: a perfect storm for a horse whipping election. No one really believes that the bill will do much to help our national finances, and - more importantly - everyone knows that it will be a drag on employment and economic productivity. (There is some debate on the first point, but I don't think I've heard anyone dispute the latter point.) But the economic and fiscal health of the country both outrank health care on the priorites list. If they pass this bill, or something like it, the Dems will be ignoring both the priorities of the American voter and their stated opinion of the bill itself. I can't see how they would emerge from that without major losses. Politically, their best bet is to dump the whole thing and pass some mild insurance reform - but even that might not save them. Clinton was punished for even proposing such a bill. Heck, the GOP - which almost never leads generic Congressional ballots - now has a four point lead among registered voters (undoubtedly higher among likely voters). That's what we call a national swing.
Where is this analysis wrong libs?
Where it's wrong is that Jeff and Bart are still perpetuating the lie that the Health Care bill and the Stimulus bill are unpopular. That's a classic tactic of spreading misinformation: keep repeating and repeating it, and people will assume it's true. And who's this "everyone" who says the bill will be a drag on the economy/employment? Jeff's meme, "the economic and fiscal health of the country both outrank health care on the priorites list," is the latest Republican trick to brainwash people into the absurd notion that health care is a separate issue from the economy. Health care is a huge part of the economy. And Clinton was punished for failing to pass the bill. Let's see the Dems not fail this time then. And recent polls are what we call a national bounce, from all the hype about the gubernatorial races. The bounce will fade.
Inkan1969 said...
Where it's wrong is that Jeff and Bart are still perpetuating the lie that the Health Care bill and the Stimulus bill are unpopular. That's a classic tactic of spreading misinformation...
Your timing is perfect. Scott Rasmussen had a piece in the WSJ today reviewing a variety of national polling:
In a Rasmussen Reports poll taken after the House of Representatives passed health-care reform by the narrowest of margins last Saturday night, 54% of likely voters say they are opposed to the plan with only 45% in favor. Furthermore, in the all-important category of unaffiliated voters, 58% oppose the bill. That's one of the reasons why so many moderate Democratic House members opposed it.
The CNN poll also shows that in addition to health care, a majority of Americans disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, unemployment, illegal immigration and the federal budget deficit. Put simply, there isn't a critical problem facing the country on which the president has positive ratings.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from Oct. 22-25 found that the president's personal ratings have suffered a similar decline. His rating for being honest and straightforward has fallen eight points from January to 33% and his rating for being firm and decisive has fallen 10 points to 27%.
Even more fundamentally, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted from Oct. 15-18 shows that the president has now reached a point where less than a majority of Americans believe he will make the right decisions for the country.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Oct. 26 shows that only one-third of likely voters believe the stimulus package has helped the economy. And two separate Rasmussen Reports polls from earlier this month showed that less than half of likely voters approve of the health-care initiative, while a majority (55%) expect politics to become even more partisan in the coming year. Meanwhile, almost half of respondents told Rasmussen Reports that since Mr. Obama has been in office they are doing worse economically. Respondents by a 62%-27% majority respondents say they trust themselves over the president to make economic decisions facing the nation.
These are national averages. The numbers in Red districts represented by Blue Dogs are at least 5-10 points worse. The Porkulus and Obamacare may remain popular in whatever Blue megalopolis you hail from, but it as long since tanked in the rest of the country among the only people who count to politicians - voters.
Pragmatus:
Buffett is a perfect example of leftist hypocrisy - I got mine so let the government f_ck you. I will take his arguments to cut executive pay and redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor seriously when he volunteers to reduce his compensation to the level of CEOs at the quasi-nationalized banks and agrees to double capital gains taxes, tanking his investment business.
“redistribution of prosperity to the bottom 20%-30% of the income earners in America.”
This is not a good idea just because a rich guy says so.
The illuminating fact is that Buffet thinks this should be forcibly done to others, but is not willing to do it himself, voluntarily. If he thinks higher taxes would be such a great idea, he's welcome to write a check to Washington! I'm sure they accept donations.
But he won't do that. Even a leftist like him knows you can do more good through private charity or socially-responsible business investment than through the auspices of the federal government.
I think most politicians know that their constituents have only a few key issues (often wedge issues) that they care about and pay attention to in term of how their elected pol votes. That likely affects outcomes more, so the moderation marker is skewed.
On the Health Care issue: when voters are asked about a specific bill vs. the concept, the outcome is always different. Many people will say that they do not like the specific bill because it is a compromise (in both directions). So, some will hate the House bill due to compromises on Abortion and other details, some on the public option, some on the fear of costs, some on taxation issues, most on not really understanding what it is at all.
That is the real truth that Bart and Rassmussen ignore: the reason most favor health care reform and a majority want a public option, yet a majority do not like "the bill in congress" is that they do not understand the bill and are scared by what they hear. This is why we have a congress vs. voting on everything ourselves - we send people to congress who are supposed to understand the details and to understand the need for compromise.
When Medicare was being argued in congress in the 60s and the Republicans and the far-right media (many newspaper editorial boards) were pronouncing doom and the death of the US, people were very agitated about the bill, especially as it had many compromises. It is very popular now.
If the moderns Dems can muster the courage they had then, things will turn out well. People relax once it is done (within a couple months). It is like the stock market - hates uncertainty.
@Bart, perhaps some history will help you and Rasmussen. Look at Reagan's approval polls (and similar national polls). In the 1st year, he dropped to sub 40%. Anyone inheriting a major recession will get blamed sooner or later - "why isn't he doing something?". People did not believe any of the measures his government were taking were helping in the 1st year. His numbers only improved once job numbers were improving in 83.
People use their "vantage point" (to use your term) which is why they think the stimulus package has not helped. All they really care about is jobs, their fear of their own situation and those they care about, and whether the "economy" seems better to them. Voters do not trust economists and broad metrics because they only care about what affects them personally (vote their pocketbooks).
For Reagan numbers, look at the WSJ numbers (I assume you trust the WSJ): http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
PaulK:
The concept polling meant to promote Obamacare is deliberately misleading. Hell, I support the concept of a truly competitive and self sufficient public option for which I do not have to pay a dime as a tax payer. The problem, of course, is that this concept has as much chance of being turned into reality as you have of seeing a heard of unicorns stroll through Central Park because it is contrary to every common sense law of economics and business.
The only polling that matters is that asking about the actual Obamacare bills before Congress. Voters should be scared about what is actually in these bills. Obama and the Dem congressional leadership know this, which is why they hold votes on the bills before the congress critters, nevertheless the voters have a chance to read these monstrosities.
If the voters are only scared by disinformation, then why not publish the bills weeks before the votes and point to the statutory language that debunks the disinformation. The fact is that nearly all of the so called disinformation has a basis in the text of the bills.
Barf & Nathan…
First of all, listen to the entire interview before you explode with your gimme-gimme-gimme arguments. Buffett says he has no problem with the maximum capital gains rate going back up to 39%—of which he says, “Nobody ever said back then ‘Gee, 39%? I guess I just won’t invest any more’, nor would they say that again.”
Buffett has given away more money than the both of you together times 20 billion. I seriously doubt he takes a massive salary at Berkshire Hathaway. Doesn’t make sense when he’s also said the taxes he pays on his California estate are “ridiculously low”.
Bart, you’re a low-budget pinchpenny who doesn’t give a shit about anyone but yourself. Sounds like Nathan is a student of your way of thinking. The world doesn’t get anywhere listening to the likes of you; it’s only when your screaming, crying ilk are cleared out of the way that real progress takes place.
Bart…
Since there’s no such thing as “Obamacare” every reference you make to it must mean you’re talking to your own anus again.
Probably the smartest conversation you’ll have today.
"The illuminating fact is that Buffet thinks this should be forcibly done to others, but is not willing to do it himself, voluntarily."
I hear this argument every time a group of rich liberals starts asking for tax increases and it's a fallacious one.
The rich, liberal person stakes out an intellectual position on taxes: the system should be more progressive and good would come of this. The conservative person then asks why they're not doing the conservative, "individual liberty" thing to do: donating.
I don't see why it's complicated that these are two different things. Warren Buffet is not suggesting a voluntary tax system for the rich; he is suggesting a mandatory one, and he's not a hypocrite for only wanting to participate in the one he's suggesting. There's a reason taxes aren't voluntary: people wouldn't pay them. He knows that by having a handful of particularly good-hearted rich people donating extra money, he won't really change much in the big picture (even Warren Buffet's income is small compared to the US government) and he'll undermine his own belief that the system should be made more progressive.
Incidentally, he gives away most of his money as it is - just not to the US government. That should please conservatives, no?
@Bart, how many citizens do you think can read the language of a Congressional bill?? I would say less than 1%. Besides all the procedural language and that much of it is annotation and modification of existing law, which you have to look up), the very nature of the language used is archaic and beyond most without specific training.
If we had a summarization of the bill by a non-partisan group that explained the highlights (and lowlights), that would be different. Instead, we have narrow reading and intentional misinterpretation ruling the day in most cases: that is where we got "Death Panels" from end of life counseling being paid for.
You know as well as I do that most respond to the poll based on what they heard, and most only remember the extreme elements. Ask a left-leaning person and the only detail they likely remember is that abortion will not be covered. Ask a right leaning person and the only detail they likely remember is the public option (or taxes). Ask a senior citizen, and many will remember that someone lied to them and said "medicare will be cut" rather than the wasteful and worthless private-medicare program.
This is why politicians exist: voters do not devote enough time to understanding details. Even if they did, most voters hate compromise, yet that is the very nature of national politics.
jeff said…
“Incidentally, [Buffett] gives away most of his money as it is - just not to the US government. That should please conservatives, no?”
Alas, no. Today’s selfish conservatives are only concerned with the nickels in their pockets, and don’t see why they have to give up a single one to anybody.
Examples of the largesse of others only sets them to worrying about their nickels even more. I guess they expect to be buried with them, taking grave goods along like the ancient Egyptians so they’ll have something to spend in the hereafter.
Pragmatus,
I invite you to cite facts to support even one of your silly insults toward Bart, myself, or conservatives. Heck, forget facts. Can you even articulate a theory to support your invective?
Also: read my post. I didn't say or imply that Buffet is selfish. He is obviously quite generous.
Jeff,
Are you suggesting some kind of law of increasing returns for government revenue, so that (say) Buffet's contribution to the government is more important when coupled with others than if he simply donates it on his own?
I do not mean to accuse Buffet of hypocrisy. I am just pointing out that private charity is a more effective means to help those in need than sending money to Washington. That Buffet agrees with me is evident in his own (laudably generous) spending choices. I would also add that volunteerism is better than compulsion.
A big part of the reason that the current health care reform bill is so unpopular is because the public, by margins of anywhere from 60-75% depending on the poll you cite, favors a strong, robust, Medicare-like public option, and the current health care reform bill contains nothing of the sort.
The current health care reform bill hands 50 million new customers to the private, for-profit insurance companies, people who will be required by law to buy their shitty product with no meaningful cost controls. Gee, who could have imagined that a bill like that would be unpopular?
This is the new Democratic party - doing what their corporate owners want is more important to them than doing what the public wants.
The problem with liberals is that they equate domestic government spending with helping those in need. Ergo, in their minds, anyone opposed to government spending must be callous toward the poor. Pragmatus' comments are less civil than what we often hear from liberal commentators, but the content is much the same: supporters of economic freedom are selfish.
This comes from a profound misunderstanding of what we believe--from assuming that everyone shares your assumptions. I am not unwilling to give. I simply dispute that government is the best way to give, and (to a lesser extent) that people should be forced to give.
The inefficiency of government need hardly be belabored. (Though maybe I'm making unshared assumptions of my own: anyone want to defend the idea that government charity is more efficient than private charity?) So let me ask you all this: would the world be better off if the US government had forced William Buffet and Bill Gates to pay higher taxes, than it is because of their private efforts? More generally, what do you say to a generous person who would like to give more to a favorite charity, but is hampered by high taxes that as often as not fund what he considers to be useless or counterproductive endeavors?
Pragmatus wrote:
"Probably the smartest conversation you’ll have today."
It's our fault for not being able to speak his native tongue.
I suggest this concise instructional entitled "Learn To Speak Tea Bag".
PaulK said... @Bart, perhaps some history will help you and Rasmussen. Look at Reagan's approval polls (and similar national polls). In the 1st year, he dropped to sub 40%. Anyone inheriting a major recession will get blamed sooner or later - "why isn't he doing something?". People did not believe any of the measures his government were taking were helping in the 1st year. His numbers only improved once job numbers were improving in 83.
Of course, part of the Dems problem is the unemployment rate. That is why I view the 27 seats the GOP lost in 82 as the least amount the Dems will lose in 2010.
However, the Reagan policies of tax cuts, spending cuts and rebuilding the military remained popular. In stark contrast, the Porkulus and Obamacare are not. That is why I am looking at a 1994 level wave election rather than the usual recession election in 2010.
Pragmatus said...
First of all, listen to the entire interview before you explode with your gimme-gimme-gimme arguments. Buffett says he has no problem with the maximum capital gains rate going back up to 39%—of which he says, “Nobody ever said back then ‘Gee, 39%? I guess I just won’t invest any more’, nor would they say that again.”
Actually, many folks said just that. Investment soared after the world's highest capital gains tax was reduced to what is actually an internationally average rate. If the capital gains tax rate was jacked up to 39%, then the market would tank by a minimum of 2000 points.
Bart… Since there’s no such thing as “Obamacare” every reference you make to it must mean you’re talking to your own anus again.
Why are you so terrified about having The One's name attached to government takeover of health insurance? Doesn't everyone love The One?
PaulK said... @Bart, how many citizens do you think can read the language of a Congressional bill?? I would say less than 1%.
Less than 1% of liberals, maybe 5% of conservatives would read the bill on their own. However, a substantial number of conservatives would read excerpts of the bill provided by journalists and think tank analysts and a heavy majority would read media reports describing the contents of the bill.
...the very nature of the language used is archaic and beyond most without specific training.
Any bill which a citizen of average intelligence cannot understand should be rewritten in standard English.
You know as well as I do that most respond to the poll based on what they heard, and most only remember the extreme elements. Ask a left-leaning person and the only detail they likely remember is that abortion will not be covered. Ask a right leaning person and the only detail they likely remember is the public option (or taxes). Ask a senior citizen, and many will remember that someone lied to them and said "medicare will be cut" rather than the wasteful and worthless private-medicare program.
You folks on the left are really intentionally clueless. Our local tea party group had a meeting last weekend going over the particulars of the bill. The conservative blogosphere is filled with annotated details of the bill, Talk radio has spend hundreds of hours describing the bill and bringing in experts.
This is why politicians exist: voters do not devote enough time to understanding details. Even if they did, most voters hate compromise, yet that is the very nature of national politics.
1) Obama and the Dem leadership will not even allow Congress time to read the bill.
2) Obama and the Dem leadership have repeatedly lied about nearly every major provision in the bill.
Why the hell should I trust the Dem government in DC to do the right thing?
You may love Bg Brother, but we want to toss his ass out of power over the next two elections.
@Bart, given that you were only recently in school, I guess you only look at that time as "history". But you are very wrong. The Reagan policies were only popular with a small minority at that time - his popularity (such that it was) was from his messages, not actual policies. Unemployment was rising, services for the poor and unemployed were being cut, he was spending on pure pork mil projects, and he was cutting taxes for the rich. His popularity was dropping as a result because this was not helping the economy (from people's vantage point anyway). Voters expect instant results, but they do not come. The "trickle down" concept was only irritating the middle class more.
Once the economy starts its recovery, Obama's projects will be very popular just as Reagan's popularity improved at that point.
The difference here is that we are farther into the recovery, so the 2010 elections are likely not to be a repeat. That is the lesson of Reagan - make sure people think things are better and something tangible has been done (other than cutting taxes for the president's buddies).
You are free to not learn from history and just spout off GOP talking points, but some of us like a more pragmatic approach.
"...the very nature of the language used is archaic and beyond most without specific training."
This to you is an acceptable excuse, rather than a source of outrage?
Let me see if I understand the Left-Democrat/Right-Republican position correctly: 1) We'll get elected by gerrymandering, and spending gargantuan sums on dishonest ads to scare inattentive citizens. 2) We can foist anything we like on the nation without bothering to even let them know in advance. 3) Trust us. Didn't you elect us to handle these "details" for you?
The system is broken.
congressmembers are not very strongly constrained by the ideologies of their constituents
Congressmembers are elected on a range of qualifications and I suspect that voters don't often consciously know that these qualities are that influences their vote. Character, demeanor, history, and judgment are qualities that voters consider in addition to their qualifications. Many cite this as their 'gut' reason for voting.
Politicians shouldn't be expected to vote their constituents ideologies all the time since those ideologies could potentially not be in their best interests in the big picture. Climate change legislation comes to mind. Passing climate change legislation may not render short term benefits for a particular community but it will bring wholesale benefits for the larger nation and eventually, the community. A politician has to have the foresight to see this even if his/her constituents can't.
But if they go too far, they don't last very long as Corzine has discovered and I suspect Joe Lieberman will come next election.
I also think it's why you see politicians spend their political capital early and become more moderate later in their terms. Health care reform could only be done now and at no other time in this administration. Even then, it was a calculated risk (see Lieberman). If Obama had waited until midterm elections to address it, it would have never made it to the house much less past it. Many congressmembers up for reelection would have bailed quickly. House whips would've sent up the white flag immediately.
You thought Karl Rove was good? He was good at whipping independents into a fearful frenzy for short term power. What he didn't bank on was that Americans aren't fooled for long. The Obama administration isn't going to make the same mistake.
As an admittedly fairly sweeping generalization, I think right-leaning politicians would be more likely than lefties to be forgiven for saying one thing and voting another.
After all, they represent groups of people for whom being lied to is practically a cultural norm. Take all those adulterous churchmen who somehow keep their jobs, or well-coiffed televangelists who proclaim "Ah' am a Man of God! Ah truly am!" They can then lie, steal and fornicate, and people will continue to send them money. And most of the contributors will be Republican voters.
I think lefties are much more likely to hold their Rep's feet to the fire because lefties are society's natural skeptics.
By the way (and off topic), Bart DP said Our local tea party group had a meeting last weekend ... and it just struck me what a gigantic misnomer this is. Here we have folks who see themselves as the nation's last rugged manly men, taking charge, being strong and stockpiling ammo to save their country from the godless invaders. So where do they meet to plot strategy? At tea parties.
Am I the only one for whom that phrase conjures an image of effete wussies sitting around with their legs primly crossed and pinkies raised over Limoges teacups?
filistro,
You have heard of the Boston Tea Party, no? Not a dainty affair.
@Nathan: The illuminating fact is that Buffet thinks this should be forcibly done to others, but is not willing to do it himself, voluntarily. If he thinks higher taxes would be such a great idea, he's welcome to write a check to Washington! I'm sure they accept donations.
Should people who support the wars in Iraq pay a voluntary tax on their income? I mean the Spanish-American war was paid for by a phone tax, or at least they should have to sign up their kids for the military (Hello Romney). But of course they won't their canard is that "the government is suppose to fight wars" but it's funny how this is the one situation they don't "remember" that the governments money comes from the people namely them! If I support the Red Cross that means I either give time or money (I've done both) it doesn't mean I "think their really cool" that's being a fan not a supporter.
***********************************
Now on to the main topic. Most politicians come from the upper 1/3 of society (income and class), very few members of congress were actually working class when elected. I don't mean they came from the working class, I mean they were members prior to being elected. So to accurately measure the phenom you would really need to measure how the upper 1/3 of their district actually felt. I bet most members would fall in this range, so they probably don't feel out of place to members or their district. Sort of you may disagree with your rich uncle but still like him as a part of your family, but if a rich city slicker whose dating your daughter shows up you just don't think he "fits" in.
Finally two points. Rasmussen public opinion polls never line up with most other pollsters. They have a 4-7 point GOP bias. As I have said numerous times you need to actually ask not if you like it or not, but if you don't like it because it's too liberal or conservative. Dennis Kucenich D-OH (sic, too lazy to look up the spelling) not voting for the bill is much different than Eric Cantor.
Secondly the way you can tell when a poll is trying to "get" a result is look at their categories. Independents are tilting right these day, because about 20% of Republicans are calling themselves independents not Republicans. They for the most part didn't stop being conservatives (or switch to the Dems), they just are mad at the GOP for losing. This large block of former GOPpers moved into the "independent sphere" and are pushing the groups numbers rightward. When the Dems are down large numbers of liberals call themselves moderates and you see a similar phenom, moderates will skew left.
If a pollster wants to give good news to the right they site Independents, if they want to give good news to the Dems they site Moderates. Both these groups have large numbers of people who are Independents (conservatives) or Moderates (liberals) in name only, because it makes them feel good. Just so there is no confusion, I'm not saying there aren't Independents or Moderates just that both these groups numbers are swelled by the liars.
Inkan1969,
As an electoral supporter of the GOP, I can only hope that delusions like yours are prevalent among the Dem leadership. "Health Care" is a voter priority, but we now have a specific bill, and it is very unpopular (and was long before the supposed "bounce" from the recent elections). It may be that this bill won't prove a fiscal disaster, but it doesn't even pretend to help the jobs picture. The supposed economic benefits of health care reform are always highly notional and down the road. Futzing around with an expensive health care entitlement does not constitute "focusing like a laser beam" on the economy.
Frankly, I can't believe how badly the Dems are cocking up their big political opportunity. The idea that reputable polls would have the GOP beating the Dems in Congressional Ballot questions would have been considered risible four to six months ago. I suspect that Reid knows this, and will react to the panic in the party ranks and engineer a quiet demise for this health care bill. It reminds me a lot of Bush's failed effort to engineer Social Security reform in his second term. Except the Dems are in a far more dominant position than the GOP enjoyed in 2004.
@Nathan, "This to you is an acceptable excuse, rather than a source of outrage?" -- legal documents need to be very precise to avoid multiple interpretations. The courts spend enough time trying to decipher laws as it is. The language is historical and goes back to the founding of this country and the legal language used at the time (in England as well).
The nature of these bills is that they have to amend and modify existing laws, such as tax laws, health care laws, rules and regulations for various industries, UCC, and other codes. So, they tend to be hard to read simply because of that if nothing else. The section/sub-section/Romanet style is just normal legal form.
To understand the 1st issue, imagine you read a book and then decided to provide an update to it by changing sections and adding things. Instead of being able to mark up the text, you had to write a new paper. To make matters worse, others are updating it too, so you cannot just use page numebers. So, you end up with things like: chapter "things we like to do", paragraph starting with "It was a breezy Fall", sentence starting with "Only my friends" through sentence "We said we would call" to be removed and replaced with "...". Try to make sense of that if you are not doing this every day!
I love it when a wealthy person with a conscience, someone like Buffet, exposes the hypocrisy and selfishness of the right-wing. The nutbats fall over themselves trying to defend people who are richer tan they are, and who have been screwing us all - and the country - and the world.
There has been a class war going on in America for a very long time, as wealth has been redistributed from the lower 90% to the rich 2%. And somehow, the moneyed elites manage to convince a small but loud minority of nutbat wingers that this is a Good Idea, and that it keeps them "free".
I guess it's because the nutbats like to fantasize about being one of the oligarchs - as if any of them have a chance to get rich, given the nature of the class war the elites wage against us. They'd like to be among those with a bootheel on the necks of the middle class.
Fine, go ahead and lick the boots of your corporate masters. I'll stand alongside a man with a conscience, someone like Buffet, who knew what it was like to be poor and knows the games that the oligarchy plays to keep you guys scrambling after their crumbs.
America aspires to be a democracy. We revolted against the medieval-style manor-lords. It's time we remembered who we are.
@PaulK:
legal documents need to be very precise to avoid multiple interpretations.
What's funny about this is that Bart de Palma is, if IIRC, a lawyer...and yet, he's joining the chorus that says "the law should be written in plain English." Don't aspiring lawyers learn this essential concept in, like, the first semester of law school?
Kinda makes you wonder why he thinks he should be taken seriously, ¿doesn't it?
wv: ducksi: Some of them are doubleplusgood ducksispeakers.
Quote from Nathan…
“The illuminating fact is that Buffet thinks this should be forcibly done to others, but is not willing to do it himself, voluntarily. If he thinks higher taxes would be such a great idea, he's welcome to write a check to Washington! I'm sure they accept donations.”
First off, Einstein—buffet is what they serve down at the cafeteria. You know, where you have to reach under the glass to get your cheese sandwich, then the mashed potatoes, then a slice of pie? Buffett, as in Warren, is the rich guy. Maybe if you read the papers once in a while, instead of counting your dollar bills over and over on the floor in your underwear, you would know. When he suggests that redistributing the prosperity so that the bottom 20-30% of society gets a bit of what’s been taken away from them over the past so many years (since Reagan in fact), and all you can say in reply is that he advocates something “forcibly done to others”, then you’re not much smarter than a pickled egg. So there’s not much to discuss—all you can see is that one of your grubby dollars might be taken away from you.
Watch the entire interview, then if you have a problem with what Warren Buffett suggests, write to Charlie Rose, not me, to express your indignation.
Bart, you just get denser every day, like buckeye wood left out in the rain.
Warren Buffett’s comment about the old maximum rate for taxing capital gains (39%) was that the rate was not injurious to investors in the slightest. If you can make $10,000 in capital gains, and have to pay 39% tax on $1,000 of it, you’re not going to throw up your hands and say “Well that’s so unfair that it’s just not worth it!” That was what Warren Buffett said. All your palaver to the contrary is just more fluff from what you call a brain. As I suggested to Nathan, watch the entire interview and learn something.
Matt…
Bart De Publican is the kind of lawyer whose practice is so thriving that he spends all day here whining about imaginary threats to his pocketbook.
I suppose it never occured to him that the royal road to getting rich is earning money rather than agitating day and night against having one cent taken away from him in—oh my God!—taxes.
jeff, is the economic benefits of HCR being down the road any reason to not do it at all? You imply that the government is doing nothing other than HCR work. I think they can multitask.
Bart, where is the original link to that CNN poll? The other polls sited date from October and are likely stale. Rasmussen's own poll has no credibility: only his election polls have proven reliable.
I think Pragmatus made a good argument about the problems with sticking to polls on "a specific bill". I think about all those people at dailykos.com who hate the Stupak amendment. That amendment makes the bill unpopular there, but not enough to make most people want to kill it altogether. Bart envisions the public getting information from excerpts of the bill filtered through the media and through conservatives. These filters would be part of the machine designed to make people scared of the bill. Polls about the specific bill run the risk of amplifying personal dislikes of particular details in the bill, or of manufacturing consent along the pollster's agenda.
Bart, Pragmatus is more likely disgusted instead of "terrified" (Find some other needs to satiate your carnal need to terrify people.) of your idiotic use of "Porkulus" and "Obamacare". How do you expect anyone to give you credibility when you resort to first-grade bully teasing? And you continue to propagate the Big Lie of an Obama "cult". Most of the right wing nuts' arguments over the Stimulus and HCR have consisted of "death panel" style Big Lies, even shamelessly saying the other side is lying. Why the Hell should we trust Big Liars such as Bart, jeff, Rasmussen, or the reeducation-camp style teabagger readings of the bill?
And at the present time, I hail from South Carolina.
BDP:
"You folks on the left are really intentionally clueless. Our local tea party group had a meeting last weekend going over the particulars of the bill. The conservative blogosphere is filled with annotated details of the bill, Talk radio has spend hundreds of hours describing the bill and bringing in experts."
Right, like the misleading "details" that you posted a few days ago from Betsy McCaughey, which you then defended with your own clumsy handwaving?
You and your teabag friends who rely on that sort of "expert" shill and her skewed and out-of-context "details", who eagerly lap up the talking points from "conservative blogosphere" and "talk radio", really have some nerve suggesting that anyone else is intentionally clueless.
And by the way, there is nothing on this page more intentionally clueless than your boneheaded attempt to cast Buffett as a hypocrite. I find it hard to believe that even you think there's any legitimacy in that attack.
_________
For what it's worth, here's my anecdotal data point regarding polling.
I am an independent voter (registered as such, have never been registered otherwise, and have voted for candidates from both major parties and some smaller parties). At the moment, I don't particularly like the current health care bill and I'm lukewarm at best on the Congressional Democrats and Obama in terms of their handling of this and other issues. I would say as much to a pollster.
But it would be a gross misinterpretation to think that this means there is any realistic chance that I will ever again vote for a Republican nominee for any office. Like the trolls who represent them on this site, the GOP has become near-irredeemably repugnant in both their methods and their ideology.
When Shakespeare wrote, in Henry VI—
“First thing we do,
let’s kill all the lawyers”
—did he mean real lawyers or those who have so little to do they can haunt political blogs night and day complaining how unfortunate they are?
Yes, Nathan, I have heard of the Boston Tea Party.
But this new iteration, in its confused logic, over-the-top rhetoric, rudeness and rampant paranoia, actually reminds me more of another very famous Tea Party.
You know, the one at which the immortal question is posed... "Why is a raven like a writing desk?"
Which, come to think of it, is also rather like the questions Charles is constantly posing in here, and then badgering people because they won't answer him.
BTW, Bart, about where I currently hail from. Simpsonville, SC, actually, where I expect Congressman Inglis to be Scozzafava'ed next year. About 20 miles South is Laurens, SC, a county seat. Potentially nice downtown, lovely traditional movie theater However...Right in the middle of downtown is The World Famous Redneck Shop, full of Confederate, Klan, and even Nazi memorabilia. And plenty of teabagger propaganda like "stacking the deck in favor of socialism", as seen there. Maybe not every teabagger is a racist, but the Redneck Shop is evidence that it's a factor among the teabaggers here where I hail from.
I feel so TERRIBLE for Laurens, SC. Their downtown really needs a revival, but THIS is in the middle of the place, scaring people away. It's like someone opened an adult book store on Main Street. :-(
I'm sorry, I can't seem to make the link work. Isn't it ?
http://www.capitoltheatreandcafe.com - The best of Laurens, SC.
http://www.theoriginalredneckshop.com/ - the worst of the Teabagger movement, let alone Laurens.
Pragmatus wrote:
"When Shakespeare wrote, in Henry VI—"
In truth, that was "Macbeth", I believe.
The "lawyers" were really legal scholars (not attorneys), who would be expected to object to Macbeth's planned bloody usurpation of the throne.
When the legal "obstacle" was brought up, Macbeth said "First thing, we kill the lawyers".
However, we do have the equivalent of the three witches in Macbeth: Palin, Bachmann, and Taitz. And we have widespread "magical thinking" among the wingnuts. It's yet to be seen how bloody the current wingnut Macbeths will be, but they keep reminding us of their guns quite often.
Hey, we even have a character whose circumstances of birth are being used by the witches in their schemes.
That crazy Bard.
Todd Dugdale…
Was the line in Macbeth too? Hereis a source which cites the location in Henry VI, part 2.
Shakespeare was famous for using a good joke more than once!
wv suckn: The line writes itself...
@Quixote, per being an independent - I am exactly the same. I have always been DTS and I have voted for both parties over the years. Although I would not say that I will "never" vote GOP again, I certainly will not as long as it has become what it is.
When the GOP is socially moderate to somewhat liberal and fiscally conservative, it is at its best. Right now, the pendulum has swung sharply to socially very conservative (anti-everything) and pretend fiscally conservative. I say "pretend" because they seem to have no problem wasting money on wars (never heard any criticism for 8 years), no problem subsidizing corrupt big business (Insurance companies, Halliburton, Wall Street, etc), no problem running massive deficits and debt, and hypocrisy at almost every level. I am hopeful that the real GOP will come back, perhaps like a snake shedding its molted skin by casting off the Palin/Limbaugh/Beck style "populists".
Yes, the kill all the lawyers is a comedic statement from Dick the Butcher (a funny thug) when discussing how to perpetrate the treachery in part 2 of Henry VI. That was not MacBeth, who handled his treachery with the help of his wife via poison.
@filistro
I wanted to warn you about our regular cadre of trolls the other day. You looked as though you were being sucked into the vortex. But it appears you have ably identified them as well as their modi operandi.
And I liked I appreciated your imagery of our trolls sitting around the settee, pinky aloft, indulging in tea and crumpets yet griping like curmudgeons about how their world has disappeared. I even had a vision of Mule Rider arriving on his ass weilding a pink parasol.
Precious.
Best of luck in the 538 forum.
Well, Pragmatus, you're right about the Shakespeare quote after all.
Sorry to have doubted you, and sorry to have misled anyone.
BTW, the Lawyer comment is from Henry VI. Ironically meant to be complimentary to lawmakers. Yet it has been co-opted to represent the reprehensible practices of legal sharks.
The quote is:
"The first thing we do, Let's kill all the lawyers"
Todd D…
Originally I thought the quote was from Merchant of Venice, and had to look it up and find I was wrong.
Just for the record, the United States has the lowest tax rate in the industrialized world, except for Turkey and Mexico (if you consider them to be industrialized). We're roughly tied with Japan, at around 27% overall tax rate (federal, state, local, FICA, etc.).
And Buffet is correct. The working poor pay more than 15% of every penny they earn in payroll taxes (FICA, unemployment, workers' comp)...a greater rate than the 15% the richest pay for dividends and capital gains.
Those who are apoplectic about potentially increasing taxes, particularly on the wealthy, should consider these facts.
@Bart
Were all these legal experts at your tea parties the same ones who said that Non-resident alien is the same as illegal alien ?
Or maybe you came up with that beauty on your own.
"Ironically meant to be complimentary to lawmakers." --- No, that is a myth created by some lawyer trying to put a spin on it.
It was part of a comedic break (common in many Shakespeare plays). It was said because the point was that what was being discussed was not legal. It would get a laugh simply because many people did not like lawyers (or legal clerks).
DEM_in_Virginia, that one was Betsy McCaughey's conveniently inflammatory "error". Bart quoted it and made a brief attempt to defend it with some weak, transparent bullshit including selective quoting. The legislative interpretation that goes on at one of these mad tea parties must be highly entertaining.
I'm pretty sure Shakespeare stole that "lawyers" line from South Park.
I second what PaulK said about the Republican Party.
I find it amusing that this unbelievably vile quote:
Obamacare
inspired great admonishments about "first-grade bully teasing," in defense of the guy who wrote this:
Maybe if you read the papers once in a while, instead of counting your dollar bills over and over on the floor in your underwear, you would know.
Pragmatus,
Sorry for my spelling error. I again invite you to explain why you believe I am either wealthy or greedy, or indeed to back up your constant stream of invective with so much as one solid fact about BDP, myself, or fiscal conservatives in general.
Amazingly, Pragmatus did manage a kind of pseudo-substantive statement to me between pointless insults:
[Pointless insults]...When he suggests redistributing the prosperity so that the bottom 20-30% of society gets a bit of what’s been taken away from them over the past so many years (since Reagan in fact), and all you can say in reply is that he advocates something “forcibly done to others”, then you’re...[more pointless insults].
What's so bad about saying things are being "forcibly done to others" when someone proposes that something be done to people by force? And what exactly has been taken away from the poor since Reagan?
Taking things away from someone is not the same as taking fewer things away from others for someone. You make it sound like Reagan sent goons into poor neighborhoods to carry away their belongings. If taxation isn't theft, you can at least admit that reducing taxes isn't theft, either.
PaulK,
Your post convinces me that a complex system of laws, which cannot be simply rewritten because legal precedent already depends on them, requires a certain corresponding complexity of language. Indeed, it may not be possible for the lay public to fully understand even a good health-care bill--although such bills should be public anyway so lawyers and other learned people of all political persuasions can parse them.
I still think the jargonification of law has gone too far, though. We may understand how it arises, but it still poses a problem. Thanks to the vast expanse of existing law and legal terminology, there's no way citizens can understand the effects of new legislation, or even be completely sure they aren't already felons! How are we supposed to be governed by the people, when the people have no way of comprehending the actions of government?
Can you think of any way to reduce the negative effects of this (perhaps inevitable) complexity?
I think this post makes a lot of sense - but, i think it would be interesting to see how donor-related voting patterns matter. I would guess that voting against the interests of major industry in a state or district would have much more damaging consequences for a Congressman than voting particularly liberal or conservative. I'd love to see some data in that regard. This would make me think that taking a liberal stance on healthcare may be less damaging than a liberal stance on say enviornmental regulation, which might have bigger industry implications (unless of course you live in a district with major insurance companies)
@Nathan, the point is really that law and legal codes are like say Mathematics or a Computer programming language: it is important to use the full and proper syntax and semantics to make it work as you want and expect.
For law, the semantics must be unambiguous. In theory, the translations from legal language to plain language is handled by reporters/journalists who specialize in that as well as by aides to politicians (that is how many politicians known what they are voting on - they rely on aides to translate and summarize).
The problem is that the role of proper summarizing has been taken over by too many with an agenda - so we get nonsense translations such as "Death Panels" from "End of life counseling to be paid under certain circumstances".
In theory a program could do this translation, but it would not know what matters and what doesn't, so you would get way too much information. That is the real problem. Much of what is in a bill is superfluous to the normal person, but crucial to the law. The trick is to find the sneaky inserts that may have a big impact, but look like procedural language.
So, your question is valid, and people have been fretting over this for 100 years or so (before that, it was assumed that the uneducated simply voted for a lawyer/politician who would handle these details). The 4th estate was supposed to keep the politicians honest by informing the voters what was *really* going on.
"Just for the record, the United States has the lowest tax rate in the industrialized world, except for Turkey and Mexico (if you consider them to be industrialized). We're roughly tied with Japan, at around 27% overall tax rate (federal, state, local, FICA, etc.)."
And no other industrialized country pays nearly the same percentage of its budget on defense.
Post a Comment