I enjoyed today. It was all fun and schadenfreunde-y watching republicans on the teevee hunched over with bitter scowls on their faces and trying to say "it don't mean nuthin' anyway." I still remember the defection of Ben Nighthorse Campbell in the '90s after the GOP took power, and it stung. Insult to injury. So I'll enjoy the payback.
On a more strategic note, this is a pitch-perfect moment, narrative-wise. Yes, Specter left for pure political self-preservation. It was not a principled move. But, it fits the previously established narrative that the Republicans are too extreme, unable to accept dissent or moderation, that their quest for ideological purity is shrinking their caucus and making them a minor regional party. There was a poll out yesterday which showed that only 21% of americans self-identify as republicans, lowest number in 25 years (and about 15 points lower than in 2005).
What this does not do is give the Dems a filibuster-proof majority. Yeah, Specter is pro-choice and pro-environment, so that's all great, but he still opposes EFCA and Dawn Johnson for OLC, and he said up front that he's not intending to be a party-line democrat. As Harry Reid said a couple years ago, "Arlen's always with us except when we need him." I expect more of the same. maybe I'm wrong -- Nate Silver looked at all party switchers of the past 50 years and found that most changed their voting markedly to be in line with their new party. This does mean that health care is more likely to be passed under the regular order, instead of under reconciliation. I hope I'm wrong here, and this is good, but I'm not really sure what the democrats get out of this. It's more that this is bad for the republicans than it's good for the democrats.
The other calculation is that it means the dems are stuck with another center-right dem in a blue state that Obama won by double digits. There were a couple of legitimate candidates, progressives, eyeing a run, and now they'll be scared off or forced out of the democratic primary. Which is a pity -- I want more democrats, but also better democrats.
On a more strategic note, this is a pitch-perfect moment, narrative-wise. Yes, Specter left for pure political self-preservation. It was not a principled move. But, it fits the previously established narrative that the Republicans are too extreme, unable to accept dissent or moderation, that their quest for ideological purity is shrinking their caucus and making them a minor regional party. There was a poll out yesterday which showed that only 21% of americans self-identify as republicans, lowest number in 25 years (and about 15 points lower than in 2005).
What this does not do is give the Dems a filibuster-proof majority. Yeah, Specter is pro-choice and pro-environment, so that's all great, but he still opposes EFCA and Dawn Johnson for OLC, and he said up front that he's not intending to be a party-line democrat. As Harry Reid said a couple years ago, "Arlen's always with us except when we need him." I expect more of the same. maybe I'm wrong -- Nate Silver looked at all party switchers of the past 50 years and found that most changed their voting markedly to be in line with their new party. This does mean that health care is more likely to be passed under the regular order, instead of under reconciliation. I hope I'm wrong here, and this is good, but I'm not really sure what the democrats get out of this. It's more that this is bad for the republicans than it's good for the democrats.
The other calculation is that it means the dems are stuck with another center-right dem in a blue state that Obama won by double digits. There were a couple of legitimate candidates, progressives, eyeing a run, and now they'll be scared off or forced out of the democratic primary. Which is a pity -- I want more democrats, but also better democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment