I can’t take credit for the comparison between this week’s U.S. Mid-Term elections and the disastrous wedding for the Starks in ‘Game of Thrones’ I spotted it on twitter, but the analogy is quite apt.

The Democratic Party, with a coalition that is better suited to presidential elections, found itself thoroughly routed electorally from the contest as the Republican Party, its ranks filled with people willing to crawl across broken glass to cast a vote against Obama and his allies, swept the national legislature.

I would have written about this yesterday but I have taken ill and on Wednesday I was unable to craft sentences beyond ‘tree good fire bad.’

Now that the House and the Senate at firmly under Republican control, but short of veto proof levels, it shall be interesting to see which track the Conservative trains depart along.

When the Democrats held the senate the Speak of the House had no pressure keep back any of the more extreme conservative measures. Passing repeals of the ACA was easy when you knew it would die leaving the House, but with a friendly Senate things get more complicated,

The truth of the matter is killing the ACA would involve throwing millions of their insurance, and forcing the issue through a government shutdown. No simple repeal bill will be signed by the president. Any bill defunding it will not be signed by the president. You can only get those signature by attached it to ‘must pass’ legislation and then refusing to back down as the government shutters in crisis.

A smarter course would be to seek modifications to the ACA and then declare victory, but after selling the evils of the ACA to their base for six years it will be hard convincing said base that now it is acceptable policy no matter how much tinkering at the edges (medical device taxes etc) you have performed.

Of course the Republican now own the budget process. No longer can they pass the Ryan budget confident it will go nowhere and have the actual pain its cuts would cause remain theoretical. It’s true that the Democrats, in a fine display to invertebrate physiology, failed to pass a budget for 4 years, but last year when they did pass one, the Republicans refuse to conference on the matter. Now it is all theirs.

I do not know what is going to happen, but I do suspect it will be interesting.

The mid-term elections are only a few weeks away and it looks as thought life might get interesting. Nate Silver, last I looked, was giving the Republicans about a 65% chance of taking control of the Senate. Given the sweep of governorships the Republican won during 2010, a critical redistricting election cycle, the baked in advantage from rural districts outnumbering urban ones, and the Democratic party’s base for not showing up on off-year elections, it looks all but certain that the Republicans will retain control of the House. I see no signs of a wave election, for either party, and if forced to guess I would hold that in November the Republicans will have control of the Legislative branch of the United States Government. I am not sold that this is going to work out all that well for the Republican Party in the long term. If they want to move legislation from bill into law they will have to pass bills that the President can sign. Right now, with the Democrats controlling the Senate, the Republicans have been having a responsibility free ride in their legislative actions. They can pass repeals of the ACA all they like, knowing perfectly well that the bills will die in the Senate, with the majority of American unaware of their existence. Once they control the Senate the landscape changes, but the internal dynamics of the Republican Party does not. The Tea Party base will brook no concessions, no compromises with President Obama, but to pass bills into law they will have to compromise. The Hassert rule, which is really more of a guideline but they adhere to it like it was the 11th Commandment, means nothing gets out of the House unless the Tea Party faction is happy with it. You cannot make them happy with compromises and you can’t violate the rule, leaving the Republicans in a position where their options are to pass nothing, or pick fights with the President, fights that they will lose. Why will they lose those public relations fights? Because it is easier for the White House to stay on message then it is far the vast number of Representative and Senators to do that same. Because the President will offer compromises, just as he already has on Social Security (offending his base) and the Republicans will be forced to publicly reject them. Because it it the Republican’s philosophy that government is the problem and when government is locked up in a partisan fight people tend to assume that the Republicans like it that way. If this goes on for two years, the Republican nominee will have a headwind he or she will not need. They may very become the Dog that caught the car and asked, now what?

[Update: apparently Silver’s latest projections have the Republican Take-over down to 53%. Interesting]

In the 2008 primary season we were treated to a barrage of opinion pieces that proclaimed the inevitability of Hillary Clinton in her quest for the Democratic Nomination. Of course we have the advantageous position of historical high ground to see just how wrong all those predictions turned out to be.

Here it is 2014 and without the mid-term election yet resolved the opinion are flying fast and furious about 2016. Those opinions are as rooted in serious thought as the Fast and Furious films were dedicated to realistic physics. Naturally one of the most persistent memes is that Hillary is once again the inevitable Democratic Nominee for PotUS.

‘Inevitable’, you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means. Hillary is no more ‘inevitable’ in her aspirations than any particular character is inevitably going to survive their encounter with George R.R. Martin’s bloody word processor.

It is certainly true that Hillary (It is no disrespect to refer her by her given name to prevent confusion with her equally famous spouse.) possesses tremendous advantages going into the fight; her name recognition, fund raising ability, a deep well of contact and connected supporters, all play an important part in a candidates odds of success, but other factors matter as well.

Hillary is a spectacularly poor campaigner. Like Mitt on the Republican side, she has actually won only a single electoral contest. She has displayed a gross inability to connect with voters, has a notoriously thin skin criticism, holds grudges with a tenacity unseen since Nixon, and has approached the nomination process, both in 2008 and 2016, as though it were a coronation.

None of this means she will not be the nominee. Just as Mitt was able to achieve victory in the Republican Primary field of 2012 she could pull it off, but I think it would take a similar dynamic.

Mitt faced a Party that did not trust him and was further to the right than what seemed his natural position. (Personally, I am not convinced we know what is Mitt’s true position. He was always the salesman and in a predominantly liberal state he played up the moderate and in a conservative primary he switched colors faster camera-equipped traffic light.) Hillary faces a party that is becoming more populist and more liberal while she herself has a difficult time selling that message. Mitt survived because there were plenty of not-Mitt candidates to split the vote, allowing the distrusted Romney to claim the Republican Iron Throne. Clinton would be best served by a pack of not-Hillary candidates who could split the more liberal voter of her party, allowing her a similar path to victory.

The rise of popular and decided liberal politicians such as Elizabeth Warren is a major threat to Hillary and only time will tell if she can survive and once again fail while being declared inevitable .

Well, following the recent Supreme Court decision, that’s the cry I keep seeing from the left side of my Facebook and Twitter feeds. As I understand it the Court found that it was unconstitutional to place limits on individuals when they contribute fund to political action groups and committees and the like. I am not terribly upset by the decision.  Of course there are great many others who are, however I am not swayed by their arguments.

On hand they seems to be saying that money buys politicians. Of course I think what they mean is that money buys the other dies’ politicians. I doubt that there is any level of campaign contribution that would induce Diane Feinstein to become pro-gun, for Elizabeth Warren to go lax on big finance.  There is  a tendency, which I try not to share, to believe that the politicians you support are good and virtuous people and those you oppose are corrupt scamps selling out their country, Virtue and vice exist across the spectrum.

A more substantial argument is that with massive amounts of money, an interest group can get ‘their man’ into office to bent the process to their will. On one level this is true, but it is equally true when you raise money for liberals or conservatives, you are using your money to influence the election to bring about the result you desire. The question seems to be is big money an overwhelming factor and determining who wins an election?

Well that depends on the election. Local city races, state reps, here where fewer people are engaged, the news is far less interested, money can be a big factor, but as the races get more national money is important for getting the message out it is far from determinative in respect as to who winds.

In 2012 Obama spent 683 million to Romney’s 433 million, so you might think Obama bought the election, but that just the candidate’s spending. The national parties also took part; Democratic spending was 292 million and the Republicans spent 386 million.  Outside group also threw money at the presidential race (these figure are just for the presidential contest, not the whole election cycle.) Liberal interests groups spent 131 mill massive outspent by conservative who threw 418 million trying to get their man into office and failed.

I believe that as long as the money flow is transparent, particularly in this age of information, it is far less corrupting than it used to be. This court decision isn’t costing me any sleep, but here’s some advice for those on the left.

You want more out of government? You want to see the obstruction stop? Four words are key, but I suspect the challenge will be to great for your team.

Get. Out. The. Vote.

Too often your team only fields a full force during Presidential elections, while on the right that have managed to energize and motivate their base to show up. And before you gripe that they do it with lies and distortions and slanderous personal attack, that does not matter. They get the warm bodies to the polls in off year elections. You gave them 2010, a redistricting year,  and you’ll feel that sting until 2020 and perhaps beyond.

It is easy to be partisan. You cheer your party when they are right, you denounce the other party when they are wrong, and you stay silent on the inverse.

Let publicly state a admiration on Senator Rand Paul’s old-style filibuster this week. Now there are lots of areas where I part ways with Senator Paul, but here he is a lot more right than he is wrong.

The administrations dodgy answers retaining the option for military drone strike on US soil is flat out wrong. American citizens on American soil get full Constitutional protections and rights. (I know that there are those who extend that world wide, but I do accept the frame work we are at war with Al Qaeda and that people who in effect ‘take up the enemy’s’ uniform can’t complain when they are fired upon on the battlefield. However, here at home, we more than have the resources to capture them without using Hellfire missiles fired from drones. Any US Citizen get full access to courts and full protections. (It is one of my chief bitches about the Bush 43 that he violated that and why he ranks for me as the worst US president.)

Some may ask, ‘So do you now regret voting for Obama?’

No. The use of drone on US soil is still a hypothetical, albeit a very troubling one, where the Republicans have yet to renounced Bush 43’s torture program and abuse of US Citizens, which are matters of record, not maybe of future abuses.
What Paul did was a true filibuster, not that travesty that gets used so much today of quiet paper filings against things you do not like.

For that Senator I salute you.