Friday opinionating.
Charlie Cook:
A Turning Point For Democrats?
It's too early to say for sure, but it's possible that the Republican wave has subsided.
Very few people watch political polls more closely than I do. (Whether that's a good thing or suggests that I'm slightly neurotic is up for debate.) When you monitor surveys incessantly, you occasionally see results that you're unsure how to interpret. You don't know whether they signal a key turning point in public opinion or whether they're just a hiccup, a passing blip. Or perhaps the odd results are from an outlier poll, a statistical anomaly that is the political equivalent of a false positive medical test.
We're currently experiencing one of those periods of uncertainty. One interpretation of recent results is that the momentum in this critical midterm election has shifted and the Republican wave has subsided. Another interpretation is that it's too soon to tell whether much has changed at all.
Charlie's a fair-minded guy, so whether he's liking you or raining on your parade, give him a close listen.
Eugene Robinson:
Christmas came early for demagogues. The court decision putting a hold on the worst provisions of Arizona's new anti-Latino immigration law is a gift-wrapped present to those who delight in turning truth, justice and the American way into political liabilities.
Paul Krugman:
Why does the Obama administration keep looking for love in all the wrong places? Why does it go out of its way to alienate its friends, while wooing people who will never waver in their hatred?
These questions were inspired by the ongoing suspense over whether President Obama will do the obviously right thing and nominate Elizabeth Warren to lead the new consumer financial protection agency. But the Warren affair is only the latest chapter in an ongoing saga.
WaPo:
For all Sarah Palin's nationwide recognition, the first name in Alaskan Republican politics is still Murkowski. Actually, it's Lisa.
Nate Silver:
We're introducing a new scale tonight to "reward" polling and strategy memos which are vapid, disingenuous, jargony, or just plain fucking wrong. The scale is dubbed the Pennometer after former Clinton strategist Mark Penn, who was a master of the genre; it runs from 0 Penns for memos that are honest and persuasive to 5 Penns for those which might as well have been penned by Penn himself.
Our contestant in this pilot episode is this memo, which was circulated to the Washington Post's Greg Sargent by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). It argues that it's like totally impossible for the Republicans to win the House, okay dudes?
In case you didn't get it, a 5 Penn memo's worth of factual credibility was written either by Penn or the Onion (the Onion one is usually funnier, but Penn's capable of hilarity.)
Drew Altman:
In our June poll 45% of seniors who said they were most likely to vote in the midterm election said they were either much more likely or somewhat more likely to vote against a candidate who voted for the law. That compared with 28% who said they were more likely to support a candidate who voted for it, a notable 17 percentage point difference. But many other factors come into play in local races other than seniors views on health reform. Seniors said the candidates’ personal qualities (cited by 31%); the direction of the nation as a whole (31%); and the candidates’ stands on the issues (29%) all would influence their votes. That last category includes all issues and significantly, only 13% of seniors said health care would be the most important issue to their vote (11% of people under 65 said the same thing). A district would have to have a very close race, lots of seniors who vote, few other competing issues, and a candidate who succeeds in making his or her opponent’s vote on health reform a hot issue for senior’s votes on health reform to play a significant role in a race.
See also Kaiser poll: Health care reform support reaches new high.
