Kevin Drum

Yet Again, There Will Be No Dodgers on TV in Los Angeles This Year

| Fri Apr. 1, 2016 2:08 PM EDT

Time Warner Cable in Los Angeles owns the rights to the Dodgers, but no other cable operator has been willing to pay the high asking price to carry TWC's Dodgers channel. As a result, the Dodgers have been blacked out on most TVs in Southern California for the past two years. This year, Time Warner tried once again to cut a deal, and everyone turned them down yet again:

The company proposed cutting the carriage fee for the channel, entering into binding arbitration or signing a six-year deal — but struck out. "They’ve rejected every offer we’ve made," Time Warner Cable spokesman Andrew Fegyveresi said Thursday.

"We’ve offered short-term deals and long-term deals, we’ve lowered the price by 30%, we’ve asked for arbitration, we’ve offered ... the same thing they charge for their regional sports networks, we’ve told them we’d meet them any time, anywhere to negotiate and nothing has worked," Fegyveresi said.

Boo hoo. They tried everything—everything, I tell you. Except, of course, for the one thing that would have worked: the right to make the Dodgers an extra-cost option, not part of basic cable. Most cable operators see no reason that every television viewer in the LA basin should have to pay 60 bucks a year more in cable fees regardless of whether or not they care about baseball.

And that's the one thing TWC won't do. Why? Because then it will become crystal clear just how few households actually care enough about the Dodgers to pay for them. And that would truly be a disaster beyond reckoning. There's a limit to the amount of sports programming that people are willing to have crammed down their throats!

So what's going to happen? Time Warner paid $8 billion for a 25-year deal to broadcast the Dodgers, and they're taking a bath. As things stand, they could keep taking a bath for 23 more years. At some point, surely they have to cave?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Did the Internet Kill April Fool's Day?

| Fri Apr. 1, 2016 1:50 PM EDT

Here is today's question to ponder: Did the internet kill April Fool's Day?

Sure, April Fool's has always been kind of annoying. But back in the dark ages, the effort involved in creating pranks, along with the inherent size limits of meatspace circles of friends, kept it from getting too far out of control. Then along came the internet, and suddenly April Fool's jokes were easy and unavoidable. There were times when it seemed like every page you visited had some dumb April Fool's joke embedded somewhere.

But now there's a backlash. Everyone's weary of the whole thing. And the number of April Fool's pranks seems to have gone way down.

So is that that? Are we getting back to a time when only a plucky few pull off April Fool's pranks, and they know they have to make them good enough to be worthwhile? Or are we just taking a breather this year?

Has Donald Trump Wrecked the Republican Ideological Coalition?

| Fri Apr. 1, 2016 12:25 PM EDT

Dylan Matthews points me toward a new study by Matt Grossmann and David Hopkins that can be summarized in the chart below, which I mashed up from a pair of separate charts:

Well, that's no surprise, is it? Distrust of the lamestream media has been a conservative staple for decades. But Grossmann and Hopkins claim this has a broad, systemic effect on how partisans view the world:

The American party system contains two distinct partisan types: a Republican Party chiefly defined by a common ideological commitment and a Democratic Party that is instead a coalition of social groups. Republican perceptions of widespread bias in the mainstream media encourage party members to view themselves as engaged in an ideological battle with a hostile liberal establishment, turning even their choice of news source into a conscious act of conservative self-assertion.

....Democrats, in contrast, are relatively content to rely on traditional media sources that often implicitly flatter the Democratic worldview but do not portray themselves or their consumers as combatants in a political or ideological conflict....The information environment in which they reside claims to prize objectivity, empiricism, and policy expertise—thus remaining highly congruent with the character of the Democratic Party as a coalition of voters who demand practical solutions to social problems in the form of targeted government action.

OK. Once again, I'm not sure this is really news. So why highlight it? Because I'm disappointed that the authors didn't take the opportunity to examine the Donald Trump phenomenon in light of all this. In 2016, we've learned that perhaps the Republican coalition isn't actually as ideologically committed as we thought: conservatives are voting for Trump in large numbers despite his rather obvious disdain for standard Fox News right-wing principles. In 2012, the Republican primary battle was between the tea partiers (Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann) and the moderates (Romney), but that's not happening this year. Instead, it's been a battle between Trump and everyone.

So perhaps Fox has failed? Presented with a populist conservative like Trump, a large number of conservatives have jumped ship and decided that the ideological Fox worldview was never what they cared about in the first place. They liked the outrage and they liked the liberal bashing, but the whole "small government/hooray for corporations/cut capital gains taxes" schtick never really did much for them. They just went along because of the other stuff. In the end, when it came down to a choice between Fox and Trump, Trump won.

Maybe this doesn't mean anything. Maybe Trump is sui generis and everything will go back to normal if he loses. But it's certainly worth some hard thought.

UPDATE: David Hopkins replies here:

In our view, the existence of the conservative media universe is actually central to the story of Trump's success....Many conservatives out in the electorate might have been open to the argument that Trump's various policy apostasies should properly rule him out of membership in the conservative movement, but regular voters are not necessarily going to reach such a conclusion by reasoning on their own. Some political authority that they know and trust would need to make this case against Trump in order for it to stick—and today, the authorities that Republican voters know and trust the most are not elected officials or policy intellectuals but leading personalities in the conservative media empire. By and large, these personalities—Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh—have not criticized Trump in this manner, and in fact have often praised him, thus validating him in the eyes of the electorate as a true conservative in good standing.

This sets up an interesting dynamic: "Fox News" vs. Fox News anchors. In its corporate role as an arm of the Republican Party, Fox News is anti-Trump. But most of its anchors are Trump sympathizers. They care more about maintaining their credibility with their fans than with their bosses—and their bosses don't have the leverage to do much about it.

I'm not sure what this all means. But it deserves a bit of cogitation.

Chart of the Day: Net New Jobs in March

| Fri Apr. 1, 2016 10:58 AM EDT

The American economy added 215,000 new jobs last month, 90,000 of which were needed to keep up with population growth. This means that net job growth clocked in at a respectable 125,000 jobs. Both the number of workers and the number of unemployed increased, and the headline unemployment rate increased from 4.9 percent to 5.0 percent. About a tenth of the new jobs were in the public sector, which is a little more than usual. Labor force participation was up by 0.1 percentage points. Overall, this was a fairly typical jobs report in the post-recovery era: not bad but not great. The labor market is showing slow and steady progress, but not enough to make up for the output gap from the Great Recession anytime soon.

Hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees were up at an annual rate of about 2.4 percent compared to last month, and weekly earnings rebounded from last month's decline. This is also the new normal. It's better than nothing, but it's not exactly a sign of a booming labor market.

Reality Is Bearing Down on Paul Ryan

| Thu Mar. 31, 2016 5:20 PM EDT

Lisa Mascaro reports that the honeymoon may be over for Paul Ryan. He only lasted five months:

As Congress is careening toward another budget crisis and the Republican Party is ripping itself apart over Donald Trump’s rise, the man best known as the architect of the GOP’s austere spending blueprint is likely to miss an April 15 deadline to approve a new funding plan for 2017.

He’s been unable to overcome the same resistance from the conservative House Freedom Caucus that doomed his predecessor, and is so far similarly unwilling to use the power of the speaker’s office to force stragglers to fall into line.

....To some, Ryan’s repeated calls for Republicans to “raise our gaze” and his frequent attempts to position himself as the GOP’s deep thinker are starting to give off an air of ivory tower insignificance. Conservatives wonder if he's still a "young gun" trying to shake up the party. At a Trump rally in Ryan’s Wisconsin hometown of Janesville last week, the crowd booed the mention of his name.

....In many ways, the speaker’s problems are of his own making, the result of a leadership strategy he helped forge to recruit the most conservative candidates to run for office and then, after Republicans won the House majority in the 2010 midterm election, reject almost all of Obama’s initiatives.

Well, it's still early days. Maybe Ryan is just working slowly and steadily to gain some kind of consensus. More likely, though, the tea partiers aren't any more willing to compromise under Ryan than they were under Boehner—and that leaves Ryan high and dry. If he can't convince them to be flexible even during an election year, he obviously doesn't have much conservative credibility left. Hard to believe.

Email Newsletters Are a Blight on Mankind

| Thu Mar. 31, 2016 1:04 PM EDT

Justin Wolfers is annoyed by the email newsletter bubble. Brad DeLong comments:

Authors seeking both eyeballs to sell to advertisers and a committed, engaged audience with which they can conduct a conversation are now trying to ride two horses—a clickbait audience served by self-contained pieces, and a newsletter audience with which they can interact and converse. I don't think it is working very well.

Is that what's happening? I've always thought there was something different going on: the professionalization of the blogosphere has, ironically, made blogs too stuffy and corporate. If you want to write a post complaining that the local supermarket doesn't carry the brand of peanut butter you like, you can hardly do this at Vox.com or 538 or the Washington Monthly.1 Those sites are reserved for serious commentary. So if you still want to write that kind of stuff, you do it in a newsletter that's all yours and nobody else controls.

But Brad is suggesting that the real motivator is a desire to—what? Avoid the trolls? (Who cares about trolls?) Write in a more interactive space? (How are newsletters more interactive than blogs?) Write in a more private space where you can toss out weird ideas with less potential for blowback? (Cowards.) Create "added value" for subscribers who will hopefully donate money to you/your employer? (You corporate shill, you.)

I think we should toss this question to the newsletter writers. What's the deal? If you need a second writing space, why not a quick-and-dirty blogspot blog or Tumblr or Medium? Why the throwback to email?

1I typically solve this problem by writing this kind of stuff on weekends, which I consider a more personal space. So far, nobody has disabused me of this notion.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Financialization of the World Is Kind of Mysterious

| Thu Mar. 31, 2016 12:03 PM EDT

In the course of a general critique of the US economy over the past few decades, Brad DeLong says this:

The US today spends 8% of GDP on finance. That is twice as much as 40 years ago. Once again, the U.S. gets nothing for it—gets, in fact less than nothing, because the lion's share of responsibility for the 10% growth shortfall of the past decade rests on the shoulders of the hypertrophied dysfunctional finance system. It is not as though anybody claims that the plutocrats of high finance and of our corporations are doing a materially better job at running their organizations and allocating capital by enough to justify their now even-more outsized compensation packages. It is not as though we can see the impact of paying more to financiers in the tracks of faster economic growth. Rather the reverse.

I know I'm probably revealing more ignorance here than I should, but how did this happen? Finance isn't a monopoly. In fact, it's one of the most globalized, fluid, and competitive industries on the planet. Why haven't its profits long since been reduced to zero, or close to it? I can understand occasional blips as markets change—CDOs and SIVs get hot for a while, so experts in CDOs and SIVs make a killing—but the overall industry? How has it managed to hold onto such outlandish rents for such a sustained period?

Real answers, please, not buzzwords or conspiracy theories. What's the deal here?

Everybody Is Wrong

| Thu Mar. 31, 2016 11:43 AM EDT

Atrios is unhappy with how the left is treated:

I'm struck by how everything The Left does is wrong. Not just in terms of policy, but tactics. Running a third party candidate is wrong (I actually agree with this generally!), running in a major party primary is wrong, protesting is wrong, protesting the wrong way is wrong, not protesting is wrong, having a journal of important Lefty ideas is wrong, not catering to the feefees of Real Americans is wrong, proposing legislation is wrong, objecting to racism and sexism is wrong. There's a longer list, I'm sure, but self-styled "moderates" chastise Lefties no matter what they do.

I dunno. I'm pretty sure we all feel this way. I'm a more moderate liberal than Atrios, but as near as I can tell I'm also wrong about pretty much everything. Hillary is a liar, Glass-Steagall did too cause the economic collapse, nobody votes for a squish, it's all just privilege, Bernie is going to lead a revolution and his numbers add up just fine, I'm a shill for big corporations, Obama is a total sellout, etc.

On the conservative side, where I can take a more Olympian view of things, it's pretty obvious the same thing is true. The tea partiers hate the RINOs, the RINOs hate Trump, and the Trumpettes hate everyone. One side are sellouts, the other side is just a bunch of purity mongers.

That's life. In politics, you're always wrong according to everyone who's not you—and the more extreme you get, the wronger you are. That's the price of being in the arena, or even just being a spectator cheering against the Romans.

Hillary Clinton, Enemy of the Status Quo

| Thu Mar. 31, 2016 10:44 AM EDT

The headline news from today's Washington Post poll is the astonishing unpopularity of Donald Trump. His net favorable rating is -37 percent: 30 percent like him and 67 percent don't. The other candidates have net negative ratings too, but nothing close to this.

On another subject, 69 percent of respondents claim to believe that the "current political system" is dysfunctional. I don't know whether to take that seriously, or just as a generalized gripe about politics. What's interesting, though, is who would do the most to address this. Trump is the top choice, unsurprisingly, but Hillary Clinton is close behind—which is a bit surprising. It certainly suggests, along with other evidence in this and other polls, that support for Hillary isn't just strong, but roughly as enthusiastic as it is for anyone else.

On the Republican side, enthusiasm for Trump sure seems to be waning. That hasn't translated into votes for Cruz or Kasich—not yet, anyway. But it might.

Is This the Most Astonishing Obamacare Result Ever?

| Thu Mar. 31, 2016 1:11 AM EDT

Phil Price points us today to an intriguing chart from the Department of Health and Human Services. It shows readmission rates within 30 days of a hospital stay for Medicare patients—including both "official" readmissions and short-term "observations"—and it's pretty stunning. When Obamacare passed, readmission rates started to fall dramatically almost instantly. They fell most sharply for a subset of conditions specifically targeted by Obamacare, and by a smaller amount for other conditions. If this is accurate, it means that hospitals could have done something about readmission rates all along, but they just hadn't bothered. Only after Obamacare provided an incentive to get their readmission rates down did they do anything about it.

So how should we think about this? I'll confess to some skepticism because the chart is almost too perfect. For four years the readmission rate is dead stable. Then, in a single month between December 2010 and January 2011 it suddenly drops by a full percentage point, and continues dropping for two years. This decline started about eight months after the passage of Obamacare, and it's hard to believe that hospitals could react that quickly.

Then, the very instant that penalties begin for high readmission rates, everything stabilizes again. Apparently America's hospitals unanimously decided that once they'd hit a certain level, that was good enough and they wouldn't bother trying to improve even more.

Maybe. But even for those of us who believe in incentives, this is the damnedest response to a new incentive I've ever seen. I guess my advice is to treat this with cautious optimism. It looks like a great result, but as with most Obamacare outcomes, it's too early to tell for sure how things are going to work out. When we have five or ten years of experience, we'll start to be able to draw some concrete conclusions. Until then, we can say how things seem to be going so far, but not much more.