Speaking of artificially inflated wages:

D.C. says more than 300 city workers involved in unemployment scandal

The District said Monday that hundreds of city workers took nearly $2 million in fraudulent unemployment benefits, a scandal that roiled the D.C. government earlier this year and prompted widespread firings and criminal charges.

Lisa Mallory, the director of the D.C. Department of Employment Services, told the D.C. Council that her agency had detected $1.9 million in overpayments to District workers who collected unemployment benefits while on the city's payroll.

"This probe continues to be ongoing," said Mallory, who has credited access to a specialized database for the initial detection of the fraud. ...

Joe K., #9290:
The entire discussion has been about gains within the context of upside potential.

Obama did equally as well in 2012, coattails-wise and potential pickup-wise, as Richard Nixon did in 1972. The 1972 Democrats had a 75-seat majority, the 2012 Republicans had a 49-seat majority. Nixon "peeled" off 12 House seats; Obama "won" 8. This despite the fact that Nixon '72 had the 4th-best margin of victory for any President, while Obama '12 had the 35th-best. And despite the fact that incumbency has become an even stronger advantage in 2012 than it was in 1972.

That's the kind of thing you'll learn if you actually look at the numbers. It's also why your "Obama's weak coattails" shtick is asinine nyah-nyah material. There's essentially no such thing as coattails. Certainly there's no retroactive pattern that suggests any predictive power. The only guarantee is the fact that gains are typically modest in Presidential years, and are much smaller than in midterm years. That's another reason why your "Obama’s poor performance" shtick is a flop; Obama's performance, such as it was, was good. Again, I dispute that it’s a "follow me, boys!" performance at all. But if that’s the road you insist on walking, then you have to account for the fact that in the post-primary era, Barack Obama trails only Ronald Reagan, who had the “advantage” of a 119-seat Democratic majority (and 103 in 1984).

Either coattails don’t exist, or Obama’s got ‘em; your choice.

Have any ambition in proving any of that wrong, or are you just going to bark and bark?

Who called the ABA a union? Way to shuck and jive.

I'm not sure what other answer you were waiting for.

Really? Grade school rhetorical tricks are all you've got? Surprise me, buddy.

The "natural price" of manual labor is what the labor would be worth on the free market.

As Monty reminds us, there is no 'natural price' of manual labor. Even in our most basic condition, if I leave my cave to cut up firewood, what's my labor worth? In one sense it's worth x Btus, but beyond that, finding its 'natural price' is a fool's errand. (What constitutes a 'fair' price is an interesting matter, but distinct from 'natural' anything.)

Nor are there 'free' markets, as you ought to know. What you like to pretend are 'free' markets are invariably created through associations of which there is nothing natural, are sustained only through elaborate infrastructure, and maintained at the point of a gun, no less, which seems to be your go-to complaint. Sorry about that, but welcome to the world.

Obama did equally as well in 2012, coattails-wise and potential pickup-wise, as Richard Nixon did in 1972. The 1972 Democrats had a 75-seat majority, the 2012 Republicans had a 49-seat majority. Nixon "peeled" off 12 House seats; Obama "won" 8. This despite the fact that Nixon '72 had the 4th-best margin of victory for any President, while Obama '12 had the 35th-best. And despite the fact that incumbency has become an even stronger advantage in 2012 than it was in 1972.

That's remarkable. Nixon in '72 looked invincible. That his coattails were unimpressive surprises me, particularly when there were so many seats to be won (if you take my meaning).

Fun 2008 presidential election trivia question, that I heard this afternoon: Name the four states with the closest margins of victory, for either side, in percent.

Obama did equally as well in 2012, coattails-wise and potential pickup-wise, as Richard Nixon did in 1972. The 1972 Democrats had a 75-seat majority, the 2012 Republicans had a 49-seat majority. Nixon "peeled" off 12 House seats; Obama "won" 8. This despite the fact that Nixon '72 had the 4th-best margin of victory for any President, while Obama '12 had the 35th-best. And despite the fact that incumbency has become an even stronger advantage in 2012 than it was in 1972.

You believe the GOP's 2012 incumbency advantage in the House, which it had enjoyed for a whopping 22 months, was stronger than the Dems' incumbency advantage in 1972, when the Dems were in Year 18 of an eventual 40-year grip on the majority? Get serious.

Have any ambition in proving any of that wrong, or are you just going to bark and bark?

LOL. Not only wrong, but stridently wrong. Always a fun combination.

The "natural price" of manual labor is what the labor would be worth on the free market.

As Monty reminds us, there is no 'natural price' of manual labor.

As I reminded you, there is.

Joe, if Obama had historically bad coattails, who are you comparing him to, to arrive at such a conclusion? You seem to have rejected almost every post-1960 presidency as having different circumstances and thus being an inappropriate comparison.

Bark, bark. Got it.

Joe, if Obama had historically bad coattails, who are you comparing him to, to arrive at such a conclusion? You seem to have rejected almost every post-1960 presidency as having different circumstances and thus being an inappropriate comparison.

Mostly Reagan and Nixon, but Obama 2008 is also somewhat applicable.

I didn't believe it was controversial to say that the Dems underperformed in the House in 2012, but I should have known that saying anything that might reflect even slightly negatively upon Obama would be met with resistance here.

***

Bark, bark. Got it.

So you're sticking with your apparent claim that the GOP's 2012 incumbency advantage in the House, which it had enjoyed for a whopping 22 months, was stronger than the Dems' incumbency advantage in 1972, when the Dems were in Year 18 of an eventual 40-year grip on the majority?

1972 incumbent reelection rate: 94%
2012 incumbent reelection rate: 97%

I'm tickled that you think the two largest election blowouts of the past 45 years are better matches for Obama than Obama.

I didn't believe it was controversial to say that the Dems underperformed in the House in 2012, but I should have known that saying anything that might reflect even slightly negatively upon Obama would be met with resistance here.

Here's the crazy thing: Let's say that the national vote went D +5 from where it already was. Assuming uniform swing, that would have resulted in zero additional D pickups.

The anomaly was 2006 and 2008. Thanks to the 1990 and 2010 redistricting and general population patterns, Republicans have something like a 6-12 seat natural advantage in the house.

The 2014 midterms will be very interesting. D's are defending their 2008 senate victories. Due to the makeup of the two parties' coalitions, we might be headed to a schizophrenic electorate where the off-year elections are dominated by an electorate that gets marginalized in the presidential years. Weird mix. Most likely, the economy improves significantly in the next two years and people assume that it's due to status quo or dealmaking or some other ######## explanation.

1972 incumbent reelection rate: 94%
2012 incumbent reelection rate: 97%

???

The 1972 incumbent reelection percentage was lower precisely because the GOP picked up more seats in '72 than the Dems did in 2012. That's sort of been the whole point here.

I hate to ask this for the third time, but are you seriously claiming that the GOP managed to create a stronger incumbency advantage in 22 months from 2011 to 2012 than the Dems had created in 18 years from 1954 to 1972?

***

Here's the crazy thing: Let's say that the national vote went D +5 from where it already was. Assuming uniform swing, that would have resulted in zero additional D pickups.

What about retentions? Kathy Hochul lost in NY-27 by 2 points. I'm guessing there were others within that hypothetical 5-point range.

Joe Scarborough sort of apologizes to Nate Silver.

-- MWE

??? The 1972 incumbent reelection percentage was lower precisely because the GOP picked up more seats in '72 than the Dems did in 2012. That's sort of been the whole point here.

The difference is 12 to 8. Those 4 extra seats account for less than 1% of the House membership, so your idea of "precisely" is a little imprecise.

I hate to ask this for the third time, but are you seriously claiming that the GOP managed to create a stronger incumbency advantage in 22 months from 2011 to 2012 than the Dems had created in 18 years from 1954 to 1972?

Joe, please take this is the best possible spirit: you're fucking boring. You don't hate to ask these things; you sometimes repeat them word for word as if they're incantations that will smite your enemies. At least this time you left out "whopping."

Is it your claim that House incumbency ISN'T stronger and more institutionally protected now than it was then? If so, you're alone. There have been reams written about how it's been accomplished, and you can go find them. I haven't signed up for a lifetime job posting facts and figures for you to ignore or wish away.

What about retentions? Kathy Hochul lost in NY-27 by 2 points. I'm guessing there were others within that hypothetical 5-point range.

Hochul was occupying an R+6 district... but wait, wait, don't tell me -- you're no longer a fan of 'unskewing'.

The fact is - redistricting has become much of a science than it was 50 years ago. The real pain from 2010 wasn't losing congress, it was losing a bundle of statehouses that were inevitably going to lead to a tough slog in the first congressional election afterwards. The only state that the Democrats were able to gift themselves was Illinois (where they outperformed - picking off 4 seats). They did well in CA, too - but CA's redistricting is done by an independent commission, not the legislature (as is AZ, where the Dems also over-performed).

Joe Scarborough sort of apologizes to Nate Silver.

Eh. An apology with a bit of tweaking. The best you can hope for, really.

Joe, please take this is the best possible spirit: you're ####### boring. You don't hate to ask these things; you sometimes repeat them word for word as if they're incantations that will smite your enemies. At least this time you left out "whopping."

"Repeat them word for word"? "Incantations"? That's funny.

Perhaps you didn't know this, but we have this thing called "cut and paste" now, which is helpful when someone (like you!) dodges a question and it needs to be re-posted.

Is it your claim that House incumbency ISN'T stronger and more institutionally protected now than it was then? If so, you're alone. There have been reams written about how it's been accomplished, and you can go find them. I haven't signed up for a lifetime job posting facts and figures for you to ignore or wish away.

The Dems held the House for 40 consecutive years from 1954 to 1994, then the House shifted to the GOP in '94, then back to the Dems in 2006, and then back to the GOP in 2010. If incumbency was so much more powerful now than it was 20 years ago, there would be fewer handovers of the gavel rather than more.

Hochul was occupying an R+6 district... but wait, wait, don't tell me -- you're no longer a fan of 'unskewing'.

I believe this is what you liberals call "shifting the goalposts."

The claim was that a D+5 shift of the electorate wouldn't have resulted in any additional Dem pickups in the House. That might be true, but it doesn't tell us anything about retentions, which, in a zero-sum game like the House, are just as important as pickups.

Here's the crazy thing: Let's say that the national vote went D +5 from where it already was. Assuming uniform swing, that would have resulted in zero additional D pickups.

The anomaly was 2006 and 2008. Thanks to the 1990 and 2010 redistricting and general population patterns, Republicans have something like a 6-12 seat natural advantage in the house.

i think redistricting is part of it, but i also think the congressional elections are representative of another factor that's at play, namely that "generic republican" tends to perform very well in polling, whereas named republicans do not. i have to think that at least part of the reason why downballot republicans perform much better than their presidential or senatorial counterparts is because they don't get the same volume of attention, and thus, whether they're loons or not, they are viewed by the electorate more as generic republicans than the nutters that they actually are.

Eh. An apology with a bit of tweaking. The best you can hope for, really.

Seemed gracious enough to me.

The claim has been misstated. As I posted a page or so back, an additional across-the-board +5% for the Democrats would not have won them control of the House, but it would have gotten them additional seats.

The Dems held the House for 40 consecutive years from 1954 to 1994, then the House shifted to the GOP in '94, then back to the Dems in 2006, and then back to the GOP in 2010. If incumbency was so much more powerful now than it was 20 years ago, there would be fewer handovers of the gavel rather than more.

Large partisan tides are regular features of electoral politics; we've seen them in 1930, 1934, 1946, 1948, 1958, 1964, 1966, 1974, 1980, 1994, 2006 and 2010. When a party has a 100-seat majority, it survives these jolts. When the majority is 25 seats, it doesn't.

The 2006 Democratic wave was statistically comparable to the Republican wave in 1994. And yet the Democrats picked up just 31 seats (and 23 incumbent GOP defeats) in 2006, compared to the 54-seat pickup in 1994 that included 34 incumbent Democrats going down.

Your homework assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to find out what might have caused the difference.

The claim has been misstated. As I posted a page or so back, an additional across-the-board +5% for the Democrats would not have won them control of the House, but it would have gotten them additional seats.

You're right. I'm sorry, I garbled it. I went looking for where I found it and couldn't. That's my mistake.

i think redistricting is part of it, but i also think the congressional elections are representative of another factor that's at play, namely that "generic republican" tends to perform very well in polling, whereas named republicans do not. i have to think that at least part of the reason why downballot republicans perform much better than their presidential or senatorial counterparts is because they don't get the same volume of attention, and thus, whether they're loons or not, they are viewed by the electorate more as generic republicans than the nutters that they actually are.

Huh? No, it's because more Democrats win 85-15 than Republicans because of big cities.

Large partisan tides are regular features of electoral politics; we've seen them in 1930, 1934, 1946, 1948, 1958, 1964, 1966, 1974, 1980, 1994, 2006 and 2010. When a party has a 100-seat majority, it survives these jolts. When the majority is 25 seats, it doesn't.

Wait a minute, why would a party's majority be down to "25 seats" if incumbency was getting more and more powerful?

The 2006 Democratic wave was statistically comparable to the Republican wave in 1994. And yet the Democrats picked up just 31 seats (and 23 incumbent GOP defeats) in 2006, compared to the 54-seat pickup in 1994 that included 34 incumbent Democrats going down.

Well, for starters, there was a 26-seat difference in the pre-election baseline.

Wait a minute, why would a party's majority be down to "25 seats" if incumbency was getting more and more powerful?

Incredibly, the answers are available to you for free. Written by J.K. Rowling, no doubt, because the explanation must be witchcraft.

Well, for starters, there was a 26-seat difference in the pre-election baseline.

It does save time to equate starters with enders.

This discussion is way off the rails, just like it went way off the rails the last time.

If incumbency was so much more powerful in 2012 than it was 25 years ago or 50 years ago, control of the House should flip less often rather than more often.

Regardless, if I was a Dem — God forbid! — and I was told in 2011 that Obama would cruise to reelection in 2012 but the Dems would recoup only a small number of the seats they needed to regain control of the House, I would consider that a disappointing year.

Obama did worse in 2012 than he did in 2008, the Dems are worse off in the Senate in 2012 than they were in 2008, and the Dems are much worse off in the House in 2012 than they were in 2008. If you believe a win is a win is a win, that's fine. But the simple fact is, Obama and the Dems have substantially less power and political capital than they did four years ago. If Dems truly don't find that to be disappointing, then I find that to be odd.

I would consider that a disappointing year.

Not even the people on FOX NEWS think the Dems had a disappointing election cycle in 2012. You're forging new ground that FOX actually doesn't have the bravery dementia necessary to believe. It's pretty astounding.

Regardless, if I was a Dem — God forbid! — and I was told in 2011 that Obama would cruise to reelection in 2012 but the Dems would recoup only a small number of the seats they needed to regain control of the House, I would consider that a disappointing year.

Obama did worse in 2012 than he did in 2008, the Dems are worse off in the Senate in 2012 than they were in 2008, and the Dems are much worse off in the House in 2012 than they were in 2008. If you believe a win is a win is a win, that's fine. But the simple fact is, Obama and the Dems have substantially less power and political capital than they did four years ago. If Dems truly don't find that to be disappointing, then I find that to be odd.

Those are two different claims. Democrats are clearly in a less powerful position than in 2008/early 2009 when Specter flipped. However, that was the most powerful the Democratic party had been since 1965. Merely controlling the Senate and the Presidency is not that disappointing, especially when you also pick up 8 seats in the House and sufficiently improve your negotiation position so that you might get more of what you want.

The bottom line is that we're much less likely to fight a blindingly stupid war in a blindingly stupid way, and we're more likely to have decent economic policy than we were before the election. I hold out hope that Republicans are also not stupid enough to try to take the country's credit hostage, but I am not 100% sure that this is a go. I think Obama has to get an increase in the debt limit in these lame duck negotiations.

Not even the people on FOX NEWS think the Dems had a disappointing election cycle in 2012. You're forging new ground that FOX actually doesn't have the bravery dementia necessary to believe. It's pretty astounding.

As usual, I'm not sure what this was supposed to prove. I never claimed to be speaking from the standpoint of FOX NEWS. As I clearly said in #9325, I was speaking from the standpoint of the Dems.

As much as Bush and Congress were allegedly unpopular in 2004, the voters reelected Bush and added to the GOP majorities in the House and Senate. In 2012, voters gave Obama and the Dems much more of a split decision. If Dems aren't disappointed in this, that's great, but it seems kind of odd.

***

The bottom line is that we're much less likely to fight a blindingly stupid war in a blindingly stupid way, and we're more likely to have decent economic policy than we were before the election. I hold out hope that Republicans are also not stupid enough to try to take the country's credit hostage, but I am not 100% sure that this is a go. I think Obama has to get an increase in the debt limit in these lame duck negotiations.

Most of this is just editorializing that has nothing to do with the original discussion, and all of it could have been dealt with by Obama and the Dems in 2009–10.

Most of this is just editorializing that has nothing to do with the original discussion, and all of it could have been dealt with by Obama and the Dems in 2009–10.

Not at all! If Romney were elected, war with Iran is much more likely. In addition, contractionary monetary and fiscal policy was heavily emphasized by the Republican candidates for president. You can't effectively legislate to prevent future administrations/congresses from passing their own laws.

Obama's election makes those things much less likely. Why should I be disappointed? Because the system is set up in such a way as to make Republicans mildly more likely to have control of Congress? Because a wave election didn't happen?

Not at all! If Romney were elected, war with Iran is much more likely.

Hey, I thought you were big on stimulus?

Jokes aside, I'm not so sure about your assumption. Obama increased U.S. forces in Afghanistan, massively expanded the drone wars, and bombed Libya. Despite his Kumbaya rhetoric, Obama hasn't shown any big aversion to deploying military assets.

Why should I be disappointed? Because the system is set up in such a way as to make Republicans mildly more likely to have control of Congress? Because a wave election didn't happen?

Because a non-filibuster-proof Senate combined with minority status in the House is going to make life a lot more difficult for Obama than many people here seem to believe.

I never claimed to be speaking from the standpoint of FOX NEWS.

- spit-take -

Because a non-filibuster-proof Senate combined with minority status in the House is going to make life a lot more difficult for Obama than many people here seem to believe.

But better than it's been since 2010? So I'm supposed to be disappointed that Great Society-era majorities are not the new normal? I guess I wasn't as delusional as Republicans who believed the 2010 electorate was the new normal.

I never claimed to be speaking from the standpoint of FOX NEWS.

- spit-take -

Do you actually read the comments to which you reply, or do you just glance at the author's name and start typing?

But better than it's been since 2010? So I'm supposed to be disappointed that Great Society-era majorities are not the new normal?

How much better? Minority status in the House is minority status; those eight additional seats likely won't come into play very often on key legislation. The 55-45 is better in the Senate, but with a lot of red-state Dem senators defending seats in 2014, the Dems could be facing tough intra-party hurdles when it comes to getting things like tax hikes and immigration passed in the Senate (and that's before even mentioning far-left agenda items like climate change legislation).

I guess I wasn't as delusional as Republicans who believed the 2010 electorate was the new normal.

I don't know a single person on the right who believed 2010 was the new normal. If they did, they would have been predicting a Romney win long before Oct. 25, plus a takeover of the Senate.

I never claimed to be speaking from the standpoint of FOX NEWS.

- spit-take -

Do you actually read the comments to which you reply, or do you just glance at the author's name and start typing?

Here is your true/false quiz for Wednesday:

1. You are, as you've said, a conservative. T/F

2. FOX news is the mouthpiece of the GOP, of conservative Americans. T/F

3. As both you and FOX spend time speaking in support loudly and frequently - of the GOP - you have similar goals and speaking points. T/F

4. Your "Oh, the demos, I'd be disappointed if I were them, it was a bad election cycle" is a position that not even FOX has taken. T/F

You have similar goals and desires, very very similar. When you outpace them, it's worth note. That's what I was noting.

I don't know a single person on the right who believed 2010 was the new normal. If they did, they would have been predicting a Romney win long before Oct. 25, plus a takeover of the Senate.

And when exactly did you predict your Romney win? The 25th? You mean you, there, with that date?

Eh. An apology with a bit of tweaking. The best you can hope for, really.


Seemed gracious enough to me.

My statement came out harsher than it should have. The tweaking ("27 decimal places") was light-hearted towards Nate, and any disrespect he had was towards "progressives" rather than Nate.

Not even the people on FOX NEWS think the Dems had a disappointing election cycle in 2012. You're forging new ground that FOX actually doesn't have the bravery dementia necessary to believe. It's pretty astounding.

I know it's a bit gauche to announce plonkings these days, but old habits die hard, and no one would ever accuse me of being terribly concerned with coming off gauche regardless, so, for the record, the last two pages has led me to reconsider my reconsideration and re-plonk Joe. I mean, there's just *zero value* in his posts.

2012 incumbent reelection rate: 97%

A microcosm of everything wrong with American society in one statistic.

The lifestyles of Canadians and Americans are not 1-1 comparable

And yet we have a baseline. 1960. There was no significant difference in health care expenditure or life expectancy back then. Since then Canada's been spending less per capita on health care with no observable negative outcomes. You don't get to wave that away.

A microcosm of everything wrong with American society in one statistic.

Not being snarky, but what is it in Canada?

Since then Canada's been spending less per capita on health care with no observable negative outcomes

But think of the jobs we've created in the insurance and medical-records industries! We built that!

I don't know a single person on the right who believed 2010 was the new normal. If they did, they would have been predicting a Romney win long before Oct. 25, plus a takeover of the Senate.

Most people on the right and in the media were predicting that Obama would have a tough time getting reelected back in 2011. Hell, a lot of people started saying that right after the 2010 elections. Even a lot of Dems thought Obama was in a lot of trouble. I remember arguing about this with several people on this site months ago.

Most people on the right and in the media were predicting that Obama would have a tough time getting reelected back in 2011. Hell, a lot of people started saying that right after the 2010 elections. Even a lot of Dems thought Obama was in a lot of trouble. I remember arguing about this with several people on this site months ago.

The *entire point* of the poll-truther/"unskewed polls" movement was built on the assumption that 2010 drastically changed the proper assumptions about voter enthusiasm, voter ID and voter turnout. The *entire argument* in the run-up to 2012 was that the polls were wrong and Romney was in position to win because "it's wishful thinking to assume 2012 will look more like 2008 than like 2010."

The attempt to backtrack on that now is just Joe being Joe.

Not being snarky, but what is it in Canada?

A microcosm of everything that's wrong with Canadian society? Winter, basically.

I certainly didn't think Obama would waltz to re-election. The economy was always a concern. My distant analogy was 1936, however, when FDR was re-elected despite a poor economy. Others would argue that the uptick and optimism was far greater in '36. I think that the stimulus and the auto-industry bailout and Obamacare gave a lot of people the sense that Obama had indeed acted to prevent worse catastrophe, and that there was reasonable grounds for hope for 2013-17. The huge jump in unemployment came in 2009, but voters didn't necessarily connect it causally to Obama (and fair enough). Unemployment receded in 2011-12, so even though it was higher in Nov. '12 than in Nov. '08, and that should have spelled disaster, people probably didn't draw a straight line across those two Novembers and decide their vote mechanically on that basis.

2012 incumbent reelection rate: 97%

What is below was posted November 8th, so I'm not sure what's changed recount- and late-result-wise (or if the post is just factually inaccurate), but are we sure 97% is a correct figure?

Source

In the 2012 elections, all 435 House seats were contested. According to Ballotpedia, there were 42 incumbents who retired, leaving 393 seats to be contested by incumbents.

13 incumbents were defeated in the primary elections (Ballotpedia).

22 incumbents were defeated in the general election, 10 Democrats and 12 Republicans (Politico).

That makes for 358 incumbents reelected of the 393 who were running (or 35 House incumbent losses, depending on how you want to look at it), making a reelection rate for 2012 of 91%. This is about 2% lower than the historical average since 1954.

Also, a 91% House reelection rate for 2012 is the exact same reelection rate for the Senate this year, where 21 of 23 incumbents were reelected.

9341. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM (#4307335)
A microcosm of everything wrong with American society in one statistic.

Not being snarky, but what is it in Canada?

According to a study conducted for The Hill Times last spring, 78 per cent of incumbents standing for election have been re-elected in Canada since 1968. In the last two elections, that number was inflated to 87 per cent. Link

Not a hell of a lot better, but then again our approval rate heading into elections isn't in the single digits either.

Seemed gracious enough to me.

Heh. I will give you the BOTD here and assume you are making a funny.

Winter, basically.

I'd say that constitutes at least 60%. Harper makes up about 30%, the other 10% is debatable.

The *entire point* of the poll-truther/"unskewed polls" movement was built on the assumption that 2010 drastically changed the proper assumptions about voter enthusiasm, voter ID and voter turnout. The *entire argument* in the run-up to 2012 was that the polls were wrong and Romney was in position to win because "it's wishful thinking to assume 2012 will look more like 2008 than like 2010."

If Joe were forced to cough up a dollar for every time he made that same argument here on BTF, we could nearly pay off the national debt with his contributions. Karl Rove's election night comedy act on FoxNews was little more than Joe's previous three months' worth of postings condensed into about 10 minutes.

Not being snarky, but what is it in Canada?

In the last federal election (2011), 98/308 ~32% of seats changed party affliation.

Joe Scarborough sort of apologizes to Nate Silver.

Just the sort of apology you'd expect from that guy - Nate's just a liberal cheerleader, I was chiding left and right, I called it correctly too, and the only reason Silver got it right was because the state polling was good.

The meme that has popped up in the con-o-sphere that "the left" only credits Silver because he somehow conjures figures favorable to democratic candidates is a perfect projection of their own love for the Dean Chambers of the world who really do conjure figures to produce numbers appealing to conservatives.

What is below was posted November 8th, so I'm not sure what's changed recount- and late-result-wise (or if the post is just factually inaccurate), but are we sure 97% is a correct figure?

A minor point of order, but weren't at least two incumbents running against each other because of redistricting? How does that affect the count?

The *entire point* of the poll-truther/"unskewed polls" movement was built on the assumption that 2010 drastically changed the proper assumptions about voter enthusiasm, voter ID and voter turnout. The *entire argument* in the run-up to 2012 was that the polls were wrong and Romney was in position to win because "it's wishful thinking to assume 2012 will look more like 2008 than like 2010."

Good point.

If incumbency was so much more powerful in 2012 than it was 25 years ago or 50 years ago, control of the House should flip less often rather than more often.

This is completely off base. Likelihood of flipping is correlated with the size of the majority. A House where Democrats have a 100 seat edge and incumbents win 80% of the time is less likely to flip than a House where Democrats have a 1 seat edge and incumbents win 99.5% of the time.

I certainly didn't think Obama would waltz to re-election. The economy was always a concern. My distant analogy was 1936, however, when FDR was re-elected despite a poor economy. Others would argue that the uptick and optimism was far greater in '36. I think that the stimulus and the auto-industry bailout and Obamacare gave a lot of people the sense that Obama had indeed acted to prevent worse catastrophe, and that there was reasonable grounds for hope for 2013-17. The huge jump in unemployment came in 2009, but voters didn't necessarily connect it causally to Obama (and fair enough). Unemployment receded in 2011-12, so even though it was higher in Nov. '12 than in Nov. '08, and that should have spelled disaster, people probably didn't draw a straight line across those two Novembers and decide their vote mechanically on that basis.

I'm glad you brought up FDR in '36 because I think it's a very interesting discussion --

FDR not only cruised in '36, but unlike the Democrats in 2010 - the Democrats in '34 saw further increases to their majority.

I've had this argument with plenty of 'Cornell West faction' progressives - folks who wanted Obama to go full New New Deal - but there are some very significant differences between the landscape FDR inhabited and that which Obama lives in...

Virtually all of the more muscular New Deal programs came after the '34 midterms - the only real exception being the CCC (but even that was relatively small compared to what it would grow to following '34). FDR's initial budget director, Lewis Douglas, was a serious and steadfast budget hawk -- he would only go so far as to say we should have two budgets, an 'emergency' budget to deal with the Depression, but that the longterm budget ought to be balanced (i.e., no to any entitlement programs). He'd leave the administration around the midterms - and eventually became a loud FDR critic. Rather than giving back the huge gains they made in 1934 - the Democrats actually added another 9 House seats and an amazing 10 Senate seats (counting LaFollette in with the Dems).

So how did this happen?

I think there are three reasons --

1) First and foremost, the 'radicals' weren't on FDR's right flank, they were on his left... both within his party and just in general - FDR just had a more left-leaning fulcrum to balance upon. From Francis Townsend and the 'Townsend Plan' movement for a national pension, to Huey Long's populist southerners, to LaFollette's midwest progressives, to western and plains populists like the MN Farmer-Labor through people like Henrik Shipstead, Burton Wheeler, and William Lemke -- it was a ton easier for FDR to implement all manner of progressive programs for the simple reason that FDR could always point to the left alternatives... Sure, sure - I know there were organizations like the Liberty League and what not -- but they never really had any power and were simply outnumbered and overwhelmed by the much more influential, numerous, and powerful pulls to the left that FDR had.

2) The Democratic party was more cohesive - the solid south stayed solid because FDR was certainly willing to quietly let die things like anti-lynching legislation... Social issues simply didn't have a role - the only even moderately controversial issue within the party was organized labor. Beyond that - south, west, midwest, and even growing urban pockets in the NE -- the Democrats had a national cohesion that they lack today.

3) The 'right' was truly frightened -- sure, he was a Democrat, but I think Joe Kennedy put it best when he said something to effect of "When we {the wealthy/robber barons/1%/whatever) saw the upheavals and rise of radical solutions in Europe, we were more than happy to give up half of what we owned if it meant assurances we could at least keep the other half". In effect, while he most certainly had GOP opposition -- it was largely token because I think many on the right economically actually saw FDR as at least a distasteful bulwark against something far worse.

Different times, different times... It's worth noting in 1936 that while FDR thrashed Landon ~60%-36% -- there was actually a solid 3%+ that voted against FDR from the left - and that's with the Union party not having Huey Long, just the vestiges of his organization, as a more economically populist alternative.

Oh - BTW -

I can never let an opportunity to discuss 1930s Democratic electoral fortunes pass without mentioning that the much maligned Howard Dean presided over the most successful DNC chairmanship since FDR's Jim Farley... you can look it up - Dean's DNC chairmanship produced more Democratic congressional, Senate, gubernatorial, and state legislature wins than anyone since Farley.

Politically I'd say the biggest problem with Canada is strict party discipline.

But I don't really pay very close attention to Canadian politics (I still think of Harper as the "new" PM, and how long has he been in power? 18 years?)

I can never let an opportunity to discuss 1930s Democratic electoral fortunes pass without mentioning that the much maligned Howard Dean presided over the most successful DNC chairmanship since FDR's Jim Farley... you can look it up - Dean's DNC chairmanship produced more Democratic congressional, Senate, gubernatorial, and state legislature wins than anyone since Farley.

I was never a Dean for President guy, but he is one of the most unfairly maligned Dems of the last 50 years. I'm completely with you on his record of success It's funny to hear even Rove quoting Dean's strategy now, despite the disdain that Republicans and many Democrats had for him during his tenure. Unfortunately, like Silver to an extent, the case of an outsider with new ideas that is rejected by the insiders who would rather just collect their checks and power.

And yet we have a baseline. 1960. There was no significant difference in health care expenditure or life expectancy back then. Since then Canada's been spending less per capita on health care with no observable negative outcomes. You don't get to wave that away.

I do think there's an interesting discussion to be had here. Canada and the United States are in some ways very similar and in some ways very different societies, and the aspects that are at present similar or different are by no means the same ones that have been in the past. Using Ron's example of a base-line here I don't think it's useful or accurate to talk about anything inherent in either nation.

Was the US more obese than Canada in the 60s as well? If not, why is it now?
Did Americans travel more by car than Canadians in the 60s? If not, why did that change, and if so, why the same medial care outcomes?

It doesn't necessarily have to be a discussion about medical care, though I'd say one of the most consciously described elements of Canadian culture in the past few decades has been universal health care...Tommy Douglas was named Greatest Canadian after all! (Though perhaps CBC viewer demographics skew the results?) Anyway, all just a sly ploy to talk about Canada.

I can never let an opportunity to discuss 1930s Democratic electoral fortunes pass without mentioning that the much maligned Howard Dean presided over the most successful DNC chairmanship since FDR's Jim Farley...

Howard Dean is like John the Baptist to Obama's Christ...

Was the US more obese than Canada in the 60s as well? If not, why is it now?
Did Americans travel more by car than Canadians in the 60s? If not, why did that change, and if so, why the same medial care outcomes?

First, in any discussion about statistics where Ron says something and anyone else aside from maybe Szymborski or Nate Silver or Tango says otherwise, go with Ron. If the question is Ron vs Ray, or Ron vs Joe there is no real question at hand.

That said, the obvious retort to "you can't use the fact that Canada has better health stats than the US because they use transit and drive less" is "and this is why, in addition to more socialized health care/insurance/outcomes systems, the US should also invest in transit and drive less.

In the last federal election (2011), 98/308 ~32% of seats changed party affliation.

Canadian politics does seem to have more "party deaths" than the American game.

1993 election - PC Party (previously 156 seats and sitting government - won 2 seats)
2011 election - Liberal Party (previously 77 seats and opposition party - won 34 seats)
The NDP jumped up 67 seats and the Bloc fell 43 seats as well. I'd guess the 2011 election was one of the most volatile in recent history.

If you want to know what a "disappointing election cycle" is, ask Kim Campbell.

So on vacation, so it has been a while. My favorite post is Joe K saying liberals should be disappointed with the results of the election.

I am really pleased with the results actually. Liberals won the Presidency and added seats in the House and Senate in a truly terrible year - bad economy, bad Senate geography. We won majorities in California big enough that maybe we can solve that states yearly budget crisis. State majorities in my current state (MN). Got rid of two odious house GOP members.

And Joe thinks I should be disappointed? Huh. I'll take that result every darn time, though getting a house majority would have been nice.

And yet we have a baseline. 1960. There was no significant difference in health care expenditure or life expectancy back then. Since then Canada's been spending less per capita on health care with no observable negative outcomes. You don't get to wave that away.

Fair enough. How are things like wait times, especially for non-critical surgery such as hip replacements?

Oh yeah - if I do not post tomorrow - Happy Thanksgiving (US version) everyone.

May you all have many reason to give thanks tomorrow and every day!

Seemed gracious enough to me.

Heh. I will give you the BOTD here and assume you are making a funny.

I wasn't. You didn't think the apology was gracious?

Obama steals election!

The links on the left margin are an amusing read.

PROOF OF LIBRUL VOTE SUPPRESSION

Voter Suppression: Clearly, the raw number of votes nationally is way down from where it was in 2008. For months the mainstream media clearly communicated a message with ONE voice, that Barack Obama was likely to win reelection, Mitt Romney was a weakened candidate that was damaged in the primary process and further weakened when Obama attacked him with tens of millions of negative ads on TV and Romney stood no chance of getting elected. That millions of potential Republican voters, that vote for McCain in 2008 while far less enthused about doing so, did not turn out to vote for Romney in 2012 clearly proves the voter suppression campaign waged by the mainstream media and to some extent by the Democrat Party, worked quite well.

If you want to know what a "disappointing election cycle" is, ask Kim Campbell.

Kim had nothing on Richard Hatfield. I have to imagine watching McKenna appoint some of his own MPPs to pretend to be an opposition must be far more humiliating.

And yet we have a baseline. 1960. There was no significant difference in health care expenditure or life expectancy back then. Since then Canada's been spending less per capita on health care with no observable negative outcomes. You don't get to wave that away.

Fair enough. How are things like wait times, especially for non-critical surgery such as hip replacements?

Fair enough, as long as you include in your study all the operations like hip replacements that never get performed at all here in the U.S., due to the lack of health insurance.

Of course I'll admit that when the "waiting time" extends from the time of a person's diagnosed need for such an operation to the time of his or her death, it may not be too easy to make a precise aggregate calculation.

Fair enough. How are things like wait times, especially for non-critical surgery such as hip replacements?

It appears hard to find national averages (or at least takes longer than a 5 second google search), but Nova Scotia's Health Ministry has a cool website that allows for searchable wait-times for dozens of procedures.

Link

Provincial average looks like 50% likely in 139 days, and 9 out of 10 patients get it in 488 days. Not sure how that ranks against national averages.

Regardless, if I was a Dem — God forbid! — and I was told in 2011 that Obama would cruise to reelection in 2012 but the Dems would recoup only a small number of the seats they needed to regain control of the House, I would consider that a disappointing year.

Some of us accounted for the effect of (mostly GOP-controlled) redistricting, and adjusted our expectations accordingly.

From the other party's perspective, I'd say a net 2-seat loss in the Senate when you were defending less than half as many seats as your opponents qualifies as more than "disappointing;" it's well-nigh catastrophic.

I can never let an opportunity to discuss 1930s Democratic electoral fortunes pass without mentioning that the much maligned Howard Dean presided over the most successful DNC chairmanship since FDR's Jim Farley...



Howard Dean is like John the Baptist to Obama's Christ...

Heh...

It's true, actually... I was actually a lot more active in Dean's campaign than Obama's (in both 2008 and 2012), but we really didn't have a clue what we were doing. Joe Trippi was busy wasting the oodles of online cash raised on baubles and nonsense, and organically - we were using things like the Meetups to try to organize, but inevitably, we had bad phone lists and our 'Dean house parties' were little more than longtime, committed Democrats 100% certain to vote D getting together to kvetch about Bush, rather than getting onto the porches and phones of people Democrats needed to be talking to.

As I said in the election runup - the Obama campaign had none of that... It was supremely organized, no time, people, or money were wasted, etc.

Not sure if anyone posted it - but the LA Times had a very good article last week that sounds almost precisely like the sabermetrics revolution in baseball 10 years ago. We didn't have that in 2003/4 -- I still remember going to a Kerry canvas event in Iowa that was an utter debacle... TPM has a number of e-mails from folks who back up the big picture with smaller anecdotes like this one, this one, and this one.

I don't have any numbers on what percent of those hardcore Deaniacs gravitated to the Obama campaign, but I think it was a pretty good number (at minimum, I know that my Chicago Dean meetup group almost wholly gravitated towards Obama's Senate campaign when DFA went bellyup) -- but I think it really was a case of a fair number of people who looked at the Dean phenomenon and could sort of "see" the forest, but just didn't know exactly how to find the trees... the Obama campaign found the trees.

Fair enough, as long as you include in your study all the operations like hip replacements that never get performed at all here in the U.S., due to the lack of health insurance.

Why would I include that in the study? We're talking about wait times for people with insurance.

Why would I include that in the study? We're talking about wait times for people with insurance.

Well it's part of the trade off. Longer wait-times for all in order to ensure eventually everyone gets the same care. If getting hip replacements for everyone who needs them isn't a priority (or even a concern) then that's fair enough. But that's kind of the end of the conversation right there.

From the other party's perspective, I'd say a net 2-seat loss in the Senate when you were defending less than half as many seats as your opponents qualifies as more than "disappointing;" it's well-nigh catastrophic.

The real question is what sort of lessons the Republicans take from their losses in swing states and districts where the Tea Party forced wingnuts onto the ballot in elections that would likely otherwise have gone Republican. At this point that's definitely an unanswered question.

Why would I include that in the study? We're talking about wait times for people with insurance.


Well it's part of the trade off. Longer wait-times for all in order to ensure eventually everyone gets the same care. If getting hip replacements for everyone who needs them isn't a priority (or even a concern) then that's fair enough. But that's kind of the end of the conversation right there.

This is a bit quizzical to me --

I tried to track back upwards to see the start of this discussion, but I just thought I'd throw out there that ALREADY, more than 80% of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by government-sponsored insurance... I'm probably off a bit on the numbers, but without going back to look them up -- Medicare handles something like 65% with another 15% handled by either Medicaid or TRICARE (the military health care plan).

In other words, 4/5 of hip replacements are already happening under the umbrella of government-run programs...

I didn't believe it was controversial to say that the Dems underperformed in the House in 2012,

They won the vote nationally, the reason they didn't win the 25+ seats needed to regain control was due to the Republicans doing a splendid job of redistricting- not because they "underperformed"- the truth of course is only controversial to the righties who still want to stick their head in the sand about this year's election.

The real question is what sort of lessons the Republicans take from their losses in swing states and districts where the Tea Party forced wingnuts onto the ballot in elections that would likely otherwise have gone Republican. At this point that's definitely an unanswered question.

It's being debated... and I'm deliciously enjoying it - already, you've got GOP insiders making loud noises about 'taking back' party control from activists, while activists are screaming back 'YOUR guys lost the two Presidential elections!'.

In other words, 4/5 of hip replacements are already happening under the umbrella of government-run programs...

Well, Andy threw the "lack of insurance" thing out there w/r/t hip replacements, but even under your numbers that still leaves 1/5. Hip replacements is perhaps not the best example since they skew towards older people who have medicare, but, then again, most health care skews towards older people.

Howard Dean is like John the Baptist to Obama's Christ...

So when does Dean get beheaded and Obama crucified? Not that there aren't Republicans willing to volunteer to help.

So when does Dean get beheaded and Obama crucified? Not that there aren't Republicans willing to volunteer to help.

Who plays Salome?

Well, Andy threw the "lack of insurance" thing out there w/r/t hip replacements, but even under your numbers that still leaves 1/5. Hip replacements is perhaps not the best example since they skew towards older people who have medicare, but, then again, most health care skews towards older people.

OK - and most of that healthcare is already covered, and based on satisfaction rates/the fact that 'vouchers' scare seniors, more than adequately provided by government programs (be it Medicare, Medicaid, or TRICARE) - I think the 'scarcity' argument is a dead end for government-sponsored program opposition.

Financing it is a different discussion - but this is the problem with the spaghetti hurling approach to opposition... arguments against that have merit get drowned out by the volume of arguments that don't, once you peel away the layers and look at the data.

Why would I include that in the study? We're talking about wait times for people with insurance.

Well it's part of the trade off. Longer wait-times for all in order to ensure eventually everyone gets the same care. If getting hip replacements for everyone who needs them isn't a priority (or even a concern) then that's fair enough. But that's kind of the end of the conversation right there.

Well, this is kind of a big reason why people with insurance were upset with moving to Obamacare. They already had insurance that they were satisfied with, a huge number of them could have reasonably expected to keep their insurance, and they didn't want said "tradeoff." And yet they were told that they wouldn't see any difference in their health care - unless if it was an improvement. But above you admit that, yes, there is a "tradeoff" (here, with wait times).

And so what really happened here? The vast majority of people who had insurance or could afford it were told to go scratch so that the fraction of people who didn't have it could get it. That was the point of Obamacare, which wagged the system with the interests of the fraction of people who didn't have it and couldn't afford it (and yet who were still getting a floor of services anyway).

Who plays Salome?

Bristol Palin, duh. She's been practicing.

2011 election - Liberal Party (previously 77 seats and opposition party - won 34 seats)
The NDP jumped up 67 seats and the Bloc fell 43 seats as well. I'd guess the 2011 election was one of the most volatile in recent history.

And yet the Conservative party GAINED 23 seats and thus a majority.

My favorite post is Joe K saying liberals should be disappointed with the results of the election.

This is just the most classic head-in-the-sand denialism one could ever hope to see. Sometimes I want to feel bad for Joe, because he's so obviously neck-deep in the pit and incapable of ever getting out. But then I realize he's Joe and pop some popcorn to watch as he slowly disappears beneath the murky surface of the mud.

They won the vote nationally, the reason they didn't win the 25+ seats needed to regain control was due to the Republicans doing a splendid job of redistricting- not because they "underperformed"- the truth of course is only controversial to the righties who still want to stick their head in the sand about this year's election.

This is not true, as is noted in the article I linked above. The 2010 redistricting played at best a minor role (2 seats or so). The majority of the built in Republican lean of the House has to do with the inefficient division of districts for Democrats and the 1990 redistricting.

Redistricting shows a minor role at best.

Well it's part of the trade off. Longer wait-times for all in order to ensure eventually everyone gets the same care. If getting hip replacements for everyone who needs them isn't a priority (or even a concern) then that's fair enough. But that's kind of the end of the conversation right there.

All Ray cares about is what affects Ray. Some poor people struggling with hip displasia don't count in the stats because it's possible that if those people can get hip replacements, hypothetical Ray who needs a hip replacement would have to wait longer.

So when does Dean get beheaded and Obama crucified? Not that there aren't Republicans willing to volunteer to help.


Who plays Salome?

Paula Broadwell... or maybe Jill Kelley...

And so what really happened here? The vast majority of people who had insurance or could afford it were told to go scratch so that the fraction of people who didn't have it could get it. That was the point of Obamacare, which wagged the system with the interests of the fraction of people who didn't have it and couldn't afford it (and yet who were still getting a floor of services anyway).

I love how, when it's a question of providing health insurance options to this demographic, it's "a fraction of people" - language clearly intended to marginalize and underplay the size of the cohort.

But when the question is about that same cohort's voting decisions, the "fraction" becomes a massive, bought-and-paid-for-with-graft-and-"gifts" behemoth of the electorate.

Redistricting shows a minor role at best.

The nature of the House slants power and seats to rural/red districts, yeah?

More importantly, if Westeros had universal health care and hip replacement surgeries maybe Lady Tanda still holds Stokeworth.

Though I suppose this assumes
A) A member of the landed aristocracy can't afford health insurance
and
B) Bronn wouldn't have just killed her anyway

I suppose universal healthcare can't solve all problems.

Howard Dean is a very interesting figure. As a Presidential candidate, he seemed better at convincing his supporters that they were changing the world than like, actually winning any delegates. But as DNC Chairman, as zonk says, he was very influential and effective. I associate him with the "50-State Strategy," which would seem to make eminent sense to a party that's trying to be truly national, but was considered naïve and profligate by some of the Democratic brain trust early on. Yet without that strategy, would Obama win Virginia twice and North Carolina in 2008?

Politically I'd say the biggest problem with Canada is strict party discipline.

Absolutely. Right now the party leaders hold the careers of ordinary members in their hands. If the party leader refuses to sign the nomination papers of a prospective candidate then the wishes of the riding association don't matter. He can't run for the party in that riding.

What's more, the party leader can appoint a certain number of candidates (10 iirc). No nomination process or anything like that.

And as a reward for being a good soldier, there's the possibility of a senate appointment (and even a cabinet post) for defeated candidates.

There's just a very limited future for anybody who gets the wrong side of the party leader. See for instance what happened to Helena Guergis. (Since the name won't mean anything to Americans, cabinet minister who was bounced from cabinet and the party for reasons that the PM declined to make public. She sued and lost. The judges at every step being absolutely clear that the PM doesn't need a reason to remove somebody from cabinet)

Every so often somebody bounced from the party succeeds as an independent, but it's rare.

Well, this is kind of a big reason why people with insurance were upset with moving to Obamacare. They already had insurance that they were satisfied with, a huge number of them could have reasonably expected to keep their insurance, and they didn't want said "tradeoff." And yet they were told that they wouldn't see any difference in their health care - unless if it was an improvement. But above you admit that, yes, there is a "tradeoff" (here, with wait times).

And so what really happened here? The vast majority of people who had insurance or could afford it were told to go scratch so that the fraction of people who didn't have it could get it. That was the point of Obamacare, which wagged the system with the interests of the fraction of people who didn't have it and couldn't afford it (and yet who were still getting a floor of services anyway).

While I have no doubt that there might well be modifications that impact some people -- I just completed my annual enrollment period last week and I have the same plan as before. The costs are a bit higher, but the rate of increase was actually lower than it's been in previous years. Now... being single and without any (knock on wood) major health issues, I'm in an HMO - and one of those types of insurees that was paying out in premiums more than I was getting back in care - so I was 'subsidizing' care regardless of Obamacare or no, but I'm just not seeing the sea of change that is supposedly upon us.

All Ray cares about is what affects Ray. Some poor people struggling with hip displasia don't count in the stats because it's possible that if those people can get hip replacements, hypothetical Ray who needs a hip replacement would have to wait longer.

See, this is the leftist game. Someone raises a legitimate question about whether people with health insurance will see a negative tradeoff post-Obamacare, and the leftist attempts to smear the person with only caring about what affects him. Simply for raising the issue.

It is a legitimate question whether the people with insurance will see a negative tradeoff after Obamacare. And I don't agree that the focus should be on the needs of the people who WEREN'T paying rather than the people who WERE. The people who weren't paying were getting a floor of services anyway. They were getting more than what they put in.

Just because you dress it up as "health care, omigod, this is health care, man!" doesn't mean that it is any different from your typical m.o. of wealth redistribution. And as we saw, despite the focus on "people need these operations to survive!!!", liberals also thought it was horrible if a person who got such an operation had to be forced into bankruptcy because of it.

Who plays Salome?

Nancy Pelosi?

Who plays Salome?


Paula Broadwell... or maybe Jill Kelley...

I was kinda thinking Donald Trump, myself. (Nontraditional casting, you know?)

2012 incumbent reelection rate: 97%

A microcosm of everything wrong with American society in one statistic.

Bonus: It's only the third-highest incumbent House reelection rate in the last four Presidential cycles.

Re: #9347--
Primary losses are typically not included in these incumbency stats, just Election Day results. (This includes the above.) Whether earlier defeats in internecine battles should be added in with being beaten by the opposition in November is a matter of philosophy. It would be interesting to see the same kind of statistics over time for primary challenges.