Kevin Drum - November 2010

Exit Poll Nonsense

| Tue Nov. 9, 2010 1:13 PM EST

Matea Gold and Jordan Steffen of the LA Times do yeoman work today trying to show that women were an outsize part of the Democratic loss last week:

"I think women just did not see an economic narrative that was meaningful to them," said pollster Celinda Lake. "It really has to speak to the kitchen table. It can't just speak to banks and Wall Street."

During a year when the economy was the dominant concern in the electorate, single women were likely to feel those pressures even more acutely. "Unmarried women are the most economically vulnerable group, particularly if they have children," said Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster. "While there has been a lot of discussion in this recession about men and manufacturing jobs, it still is the case that unmarried women are the poorest. If they feel their concerns aren't being addressed by Obama and the Democrats around the economy, it sort of makes some sense there was a decline."

This kind of thing pisses me off. One of the reasons I do a biannual review of the exit polls is precisely to head off this kind of nonsense. Not that Gold and Steffen had to read my post to figure out what was going on: their own chart shows that nothing special was happening among women. Overall, Republicans did about 7-8 points better than in 2006. Among women, they only did 6 points better. Among unmarried women, they only did 4 points better. Among married women, they only did 4 points better. In other words, women were more loyal than average to Democrats this cycle. They switched in lower numbers than most other groups. Far from feeling economic pressures "more acutely," they apparently felt them less acutely by a small margin.

But stories need narratives, whether they're correct or not. "Nothing special happening among women" might be accurate, but I guess it doesn't make a very good headline.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Liberals vs. Progressives

| Tue Nov. 9, 2010 12:23 PM EST

A conservative-ish friend was visiting me a couple of weeks ago and wanted to know what the word "progressive" meant. It's just someone who's really far to the left, isn't it? I said no, not really, it was basically a term born a few years ago when liberals decided that the word "liberal" was irreparably tarnished and we needed something new to call ourselves. But beyond that, honestly, I wasn't entirely sure.

Turns out I'm not alone. Chris Moody explores the etymology of the word here, and apparently no one else really knows for sure either. Enjoy. But there's one thing he misses: Glenn Beck has been spending a ton of time and energy demonizing the word "progressive" over the past couple of years, and I suspect my friend was reacting to the fallout from that. So trying to find a new word didn't work. No matter what we call ourselves, conservatives are going to do their best to make it unfit for polite company. Probably best not to worry too much about it.

The GOP's Problem

| Tue Nov. 9, 2010 2:50 AM EST

Anne Applebaum writes today about the Senate election in Alaska, which pitted a tea partier who refused to endorse actual spending cuts against an old-style pol who bragged about bringing home the bacon. It highlighted the Republican Party's root problem in all its squalid glory, and the winner, as we all know, was Lisa Murkowski, the old pol:

When offered a direct choice, in other words, the majority of Alaskans chose the corrupt, big-spending Republican Party of Murkowski over the shallow, hypocritical radicalism of [Joe] Miller.

If nothing else, Alaskans' interesting choice must be keeping the Republican leadership awake at night: When faced with the reality of actual funding cuts, a year or two from now, might not other Republican voters suddenly feel they need someone like Murkowski, too? This must be a particular dilemma for the new Republican speaker, John Boehner....Poor Boehner must feel pulled in two directions, particularly because so many Republicans — and so many Americans — don't practice what they preach. They want lower taxes, higher defense spending, more Social Security and, yes, balanced budgets. They want the government to leave them alone, but at the same time they aren't averse to the odd federal subsidy. They like the way Miller talks, but, in the end, will they vote for Murkowski?

Answer: they'll vote for the Murkowskis of the world. Even the tea partiers will vote for the Murkowskis if the alternative is losing spending they care about. And that's the only spending that matters since there isn't enough spending they don't care about to make even a dent in the federal budget deficit. Boehner, I assure you, knows this perfectly well. There aren't too many ways to square this circle, so the smart money says the next couple of years are going to be full of fireworks, most of them very carefully designed to obscure the fact that Republicans aren't really serious about trying to cut much of anything. It should be very productive.

Our Unbalanced World

| Tue Nov. 9, 2010 2:17 AM EST

One of the effects of the Fed's new quantitative easing program is that it will weaken the dollar slightly and possibly reduce the U.S. trade deficit a bit. That's a positive thing, but the Wall Street Journal reports that international reaction to the Fed's program is growing increasingly harsh:

Global controversy mounted over the Federal Reserve's decision to pump billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, with President Barack Obama defending the move as China, Russia and the euro zone added to a chorus of criticism.

....On Monday, China's Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao said the U.S. isn't living up to its responsibility as an issuer of a global reserve currency. The Fed's move doesn't "take into account the effect of this excessive liquidity on emerging-market economies," he said.

The top economic aide to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Russia will insist at the G-20 summit that the Fed consult with other countries ahead of major policy decisions.

....German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble lashed out at U.S. pressure on Berlin to rein in the country's surging exports, telling Der Spiegel magazine, "The American growth model...is stuck in a deep crisis."

This is just crazy. Exporting countries like China and Germany have relied on the United States as the ultimate consumer nation for years. The whole world has. And everyone knows this is unsustainable. Schäuble calls it a "deep crisis" and he's right.

But they're addicted to it every bit as much as we are, which is why they go nuts when we take (extremely modest) measures to weaken the dollar in an effort to get our trade balance just a bit more balanced. So they need to make up their minds. Do they think America can run trade deficits forever? Or do they think we need to get our trade house into some semblance of order? If it's the latter, do they think we should start doing it now, or should it always be put off until "someday"? What exactly do they want?

Trade deficits can't last forever. Period. The only question is whether America's trade deficit goes away slowly and steadily, or if it goes away all at once during some kind of global panic. The rest of the world, to judge by their hysteria over the Fed's actions, is willing to risk the panic as long as it happens sometime in the future and mostly affects us. I'm not.

DADT and the Courts

| Tue Nov. 9, 2010 1:55 AM EST

Responding to my post earlier today about Republicans, not Democrats, being primarily responsible for blocking repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, Glenn Greenwald tweeted:

DADT was gone - done - and Barack Obama brought it back, probably for years. That's just a fact.

Glenn was talking about the fact that the Department of Justice is appealing a September district court ruling that held DADT unconstitutional. But this is an argument I have a real problem with. It's not because I have a problem with court rulings on issues like this, but because I have a problem with district court rulings on issues like this being used as a handy excuse for presidents to overturn laws they don't like.

Let's face it: if you pick your jurisdiction right you can probably find a district court judge to rule just about anything unconstitutional. It would be easy, for example, to find a district court judge somewhere to say that the healthcare reform law was unconstitutional. If this happened in 2013 and President Palin decided not to appeal the ruling, thus overturning the law, what would we think of this? Not much, and rightfully so. A district court judgment is just flatly not sufficient reason to overturn an act of Congress.

I guess the reason this is on my mind is that George Bush is back in the news, and it strikes me that this is the same category of reasoning he used to justify the use of torture on enemy combatants. Bush, of course, didn't bother with the fig leaf of a court ruling, but he used OLC memos to provide the same kind of excuse to uphold only the laws he wanted to uphold. A lot of liberals spent a lot of time condemning this at the time, and we were right to do so. This is really not a tactic we should be defending now just because the law at stake is one we don't like.

On a different note, I sometimes think that Republicans must be busting a gut over all this. Here they are, working loudly and relentlessly to prevent the repeal of DADT, and what's the result? Lots of liberals sniping at each other. You can almost hear Karl Rove cackling over his Diet Coke. Political strategy rarely pays off so beautifully.

The Senior Vote

| Mon Nov. 8, 2010 3:53 PM EST

Speaking of senior citizens and how they voted this year, why did they suddenly decide to vote en masse for Republicans? Part of the reason is that everyone voted en masse for Republicans this year. Still, seniors switched in even higher numbers than most groups, despite the fact that the economic turndown actually affects them less than most other age groups. Here's one explanation:

“I’ve been saying since August 2009, that there was a tsunami — in this case a senior citizen tsunami — headed towards Capitol Hill,” said Jim Martin, chairman of the 60 Plus Association, a conservative campaign group targeted toward older voters. “That tsunami came ashore.”

....“I think that there is a level of fear that has grown with seniors vis-à-vis the Obama health care plan,” said Republican pollster Steve Lombardo. “Anytime that there’s change, I think seniors are going to be more concerned that that change is going to affect them in a negative way.”

Well, yeah. Seniors might very well be concerned that Medicare changes are going to affect them in a negative way. But there's that pesky passive voice again. Why were seniors concerned about this? No fancy political science is needed here: the answer is tens of millions of dollars spent on demagogic advertising like this. There's no need to get any more complicated about it.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Chart of the Day: Generation Gap

| Mon Nov. 8, 2010 3:27 PM EST

Via Jon Chait, the New York Times ran an interesting graphic this weekend showing demographic breakdowns of election results going back to 1982. Here it is for age groups:

Basically, all age groups were relatively evenly split between Democrats and Republicans until 2004, when the youth vote started to blow out for Democrats, and 2010, when older voters went heavily for Republicans. That's not quite what I would have expected, so this is a useful corrective. The other charts are interesting too.

NOTE: The NYT exit poll numbers don't match the numbers at the CNN site, though they're close. I'm not sure why this is. If anyone knows, enlighten us in comments.

Our Ruling Class

| Mon Nov. 8, 2010 2:51 PM EST

Matt Yglesias on the conservative love affair with Ireland during the Bush era:

I wouldn’t try to blame their property crash on low tax rates. But by the same token a frightening number of pundits went “all-in” on the idea that Ireland’s conserva-friendly tax policies were behind a boom that was in fact driven by a real estate bubble. There needs to be some accountability for this, because it appears to quite genuinely be the case that relaxed financial regulation is a can’t-lose strategy for (temporarily) attracting financial inflows, sparking an asset price bubble, and boosting growth. But that doesn’t mean countries should do it. And we need a system of international praise and esteem that’s not so blind to these issues.

Italics mine. Good luck with this. I've never spent too much of my energy on the Dean Baker-ish crusade about how we keep listening to all the people who got everything wrong during the aughts, but that's mostly just a matter of writing temperament, not because I disagree with him. But it's getting harder and harder not to jump on the bandwagon. I mean, we've now got mainstream Republicans suggesting we should (kinda sorta) go back on the gold standard, we've got conservative economists who believe we should raise interest rates because inflation is our biggest worry right now, and we've got a victorious GOP that thinks spending cuts and deregulation are the key to prosperity — all aided and abetted by an economically illiterate pundit class seemingly convinced that accounting identities are just guidelines and the federal government should be run the same way you and I run our family budgets.

I mean, it's almost as if the entire scientific community agreed about the fundamental chemical and thermodynamic reality of GHG-induced global warming but instead we listened to a bunch of cranks who — oh wait. We are listening to them, aren't we?

Never mind. I'll just retreat back into my cave now. Somebody send up a flare when it's safe to come back out.

Is In-Flight WiFi in Danger?

| Mon Nov. 8, 2010 2:26 PM EST

I think Bruce Schneier might be overreacting here:

Okay, now the terrorists have really affected me personally: they're forcing us to turn off airplane Wi-Fi. No, it's not that the Yemeni package bombs had a Wi-Fi triggering mechanism — they seem to have had a cell phone triggering mechanism, dubious at best — but we can imagine an Internet-based triggering mechanism. Put together a sloppy and unsuccessful package bomb with an imagined triggering mechanism, and you have a new and dangerous threat that — even though it was a threat ever since the first airplane got Wi-Fi capability — must be immediately dealt with right now.

Please, let's not ever tell the TSA about timers. Or altimeters.

The two linked reports are actually pretty weak tea. The Gizmodo post is based on a New Scientist report, and the New Scientist report is basically sourced to one guy: Roland Alford, the managing director of "an explosives consultancy in Chippenham," who says he "expects" in-flight Wi-Fi technology to be scrutinized in future security reviews. And maybe it will be. Frankly, the TSA security folks wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't do at least that. But the fact that one guy thinks in-flight Wi-Fi will be scrutinized doesn't mean that in-flight Wi-Fi will actually be banned. Or even restricted. It's probably reasonable to expect the worst from TSA as a default reaction, but this particular report is literally based on nothing. I woldn't panic yet over this.

DADT on the Chopping Block?

| Mon Nov. 8, 2010 1:43 PM EST

Adam Serwer reads the Wall Street Journal today and finds a story saying that Senate Democrats are planning to jettison repeal of DADT from this year's Pentagon funding bill:

Look, if Democrats can't repeal a policy more than two thirds of the American people, including a majority of conservatives want gone then they can't expect people to vote for them....That Democrats would cave on this now shows how far the party of Harry Truman has fallen. In December the Defense Department is reportedly set to release a study showing that, like the American people, most servicemembers aren't opposed to gays and lesbians openly serving. That's in contrast to the vast opposition of most servicemembers to racial integration in the 1940s; if Truman had insisted on staying his hand until a political climate as favorable as this one had come along, integrating the military might not have happened until decades later. 

Democratic spinelessness on this is worth mocking. But let's get real: the problem isn't with Senate Democrats, 97% of whom voted to repeal DADT in September. The problem is with Republicans, 100% of whom voted against repeal even though, as the Gallup poll above shows, repeal is favored by 60% of Republicans, a majority of conservatives, the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

100%. Not one single Republican was willing to buck the tea party hordes and vote for DADT repeal. Even Susan Collins of Maine, the only Republican who publicly supports repeal, concocted a transparently bogus excuse not to vote for it.

Democrats may not be profiles in courage here, but they aren't the villains on DADT repeal. They just aren't. Republicans are. They're willing to unanimously filibuster funding for the military in order to pander to the small percentage of their own party that thinks gay people are icky. And they'll keep doing it, too. They don't care about the military report due in December and they don't care whether DADT repeal would actually affect military readiness in any way. They'll defund the entire Pentagon if that's what it takes to keep the tea partiers happy. They're the enemies of national security here, not Democrats.