Christie and Walker

David Umhoefer writes at The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Will Gov. Scott Walker zoom past New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on his motorcycle thanks to the developing scandal related to creation of traffic jams on the George Washington Bridge?
So says John Hayward at Human Events.

"One of the little preliminary races that pundits have been placing some early bets on, years out from the 2016 presidential election, is whether the Establishment Guy in the GOP primary would be Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie," Hayward blogged. "The race may just have been settled..."

Not so fast, counters Peter Grier, Washington editor at the Christian Science Monitor.

"Does it show that Christie is a bully who at the least created an atmosphere where such vindictiveness could flourish? His opponents think that already, and in “Bridge-ghazi” will see confirmation of their view," writes Grier. "Is he a take-charge guy who is willing to break a little china to get stuff done? There are probably lots of Republican primary voters who do not believe that jamming up New York City’s intake routes is a bad thing."

Back in November, John Dickerson wrote in Slate that if governors have an edge over senators, Walker would be Christie's main competition.

That narrows the field down to the pool of leading current and former Republican governors: Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Perry, and Walker. All of those men have something to recommend them, but "no one checks as many boxes as Walker does," as an Iowa GOP strategist puts it. Walker has near hero status in the grassroots for taking on Wisconsin’s public sector unions. Cruz talks about taking stands on principle, but he lost his fight. Walker took a stand, was targeted by the full force of the Democratic machine, and stayed alive. He won a recall election with a larger margin than his original victory. He raised $30 million for that race, so he knows how to tap wealthy donors. Social conservatives also consider him one of their own for his pro-life views and his pedigree: His father was a Baptist minister.

Jindal and Perry have supporters in conservative circles, but Jindal can't match Walker's union-slaying story and Perry's accomplishments won't help him overcome the memories of his disastrous 2012 run. If the incentive is to pick a Christie alternative who can survive, it also helps if the candidate comes from a battleground state—even better if they come from a swing state in the Midwest. Walker also brings helpful connections to Iowa, that early caucus state. Besides governing in nearby Wisconsin, Walker grew up in Iowa. Right now GOP operatives describe the competition in the Hawkeye State as one between Rand Paul (whose forces control the state party) and Sen. Ted Cruz (who excites the base).

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush hails from a swing state, but he himself has admitted that he is out of step with the Republican Party on immigration. He may still be noodling a run, but he could easily be painted as a GOP moderate—and that space is already occupied by Christie. That leaves just John Kasich of Ohio. Like Walker, Kasich also took on the unions, but he lost. In the eyes of conservatives, he did something else that may be unpardonable: He took federal Medicaid money as a part of the Affordable Care Act. That robs Kasich of an issue he could have used to distinguish himself from Christie (who also took Medicaid money) and, say some conservatives, dismantles his ability to argue for smaller spending in Washington. Walker, on the other hand, refused the Medicaid money, and is launching his own state solution, which is receiving praise from conservatives.

How To Do Oppo

Many posts have discussed opposition research.  Though nominally about a criminal investigation, this sequence from The Wire offers a wonderful lecture on the process by Lester Freamon (Clarke Peters).

Poverty, Social Mobility, and the Midterm

The New York Times reports:

Senator Kay Hagan, a North Carolina Democrat who is up for re-election, is admonishing Republicans back home as “irresponsible and cold-hearted” for slashing unemployment benefits. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, says that her party’s thinking is “stale and old and doesn’t really address the magnitude of the problem.”

Poverty is suddenly the subject of bipartisan embrace.

President Obama will highlight income disparity in his State of the Union address this month, part of a broader effort by Democrats to push a populist theme for their midterm campaigns against Republicans. Republicans are offering solutions that would give the states and the private sector, not the federal government, more authority to help improve the plight of the poor.

Peter Wehner writes at Commentary:

Yesterday Senator Marco Rubio delivered a major speech on poverty and social mobility. It’s impressive for several reasons.

While not ignoring the issue of income inequality, he made what I think is the correct and important point: Lack of social mobility, not income inequality, is what we should focus on. And the speech was intellectually impressive in part because it was intellectually honest. Senator Rubio explained with some sophistication the reasons for what he calls “opportunity inequality”–including long-term economic, social, cultural, and educational causes. This speech was not politically partisan or shallow; it admitted the causes of poverty and decreasing social mobility are complex. (Many European countries now have as much social mobility as, and more opportunity than, the United States; and today a child’s future depends on parental income more in America than it does in Canada and Europe.) Senator Rubio’s address deepened the public’s understanding of these issues, and that’s all to the good.

On the policy side of things, Senator Rubio’s proposals on the Flex Fund (which would consolidate many anti-poverty programs that in turn would be distributed to the states to enact their own anti-poverty agenda) and transforming the Earned Income Tax Credit into a real wage subsidy are promising steps, with more, I gather, to follow.

What Mr. Rubio unveiled yesterday merits support on federalism and subsidiary grounds, in terms of how we should think about the working poor versus those who are unable to work, because it incentivizes work and creates incentives to avoid unemployment programs, and because it makes upward mobility more, not less, likely. (For a more detailed and illuminating discussion of the merits of Rubio’s proposals, seehere and here.)

Michael Barone writes of New York Mayor de Blasio and the liberal perspective:

Liberal pundits are hailing de Blasio and his politics as a harbinger of the political future and a return to the liberal tradition of Franklin Roosevelt and his political ally New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia.

But in 1944, the heyday of FDR and La Guardia, the five boroughs of New York City cast 7 percent of the nation’s votes. In 2012 they cast only 2 percent of the national vote.
It’s interesting that New York, which has had more liberal and redistributionist public policies than almost anywhere else in the nation over those 68 years, also has one of the nation’s highest rates of income inequality.

High tax rates and high housing costs (exacerbated for many years by rent control) have squeezed middle-class families out of New York. They have migrated in the millions to lower-tax, lower-housing-cost places like Florida and Texas.

The Obama Democrats did reduce economic inequality somewhat by raising the top income tax rate back to 39.6 percent. The proposals they’re talking about now are either small potatoes, or moves to have the working middle-class subsidize non-workers or the young to subsidize the old — redistribution, but not very progressive.

Enthusiasm Gap

Pew reports:

Overall, the percentage of the public that is looking forward to this fall’s midterm election is about the same today (51%) as it was in January 2010 (50%). Currently, 63% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats say they are anticipating the midterm elections; a similar gap was evident four years ago (60% of Republicans vs. 48% of Democrats).

Last month, a Pew Research survey found that more Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters (53%) than Democrats and Democratic leaners (47%) were “very enthusiastic” about voting in this fall’s elections. But the GOP’s advantage was narrower than it was a year before the 2010 midterms.

Dead Donors

Politico reports:

The Republican Party’s on the hunt ahead of 2016 for younger voters — and younger megadonors.

Conservative super PACs were dealt a blow in the past nine months, when two of their biggest benefactors died, Texas billionaires Harold Simmons and Bob Perry.

Combined, the two men, who were the second- and third-biggest donors behind the Adelsons in the 2012 elections, gave nearly $50 million last cycle — that’s more money than the next 10 Republican donors combined.

The void the two leave behind represents an even bigger problem for the Republican Party: just as it struggles to attract younger voters, it also must win over younger elite donors.

... 

Among the top 10 Republican donors of the 2012 election cycle, only one was under the age of 60 — Peter Thiel, who is 46 – and only three were under 70 – Miriam Adelson, 68; Robert Mercer, 67; and Robert Rowling, 60, according to public records. On the Democratic side, half of the top 10 donors were under 70 and three were under 60.

The Not-So-Great Economy and the Midterm

Last month, Charles Cook wrote in National Journal:

Conventional wisdom holds that if people see the economy improving, they will be less likely to "throw the bums out" in the next year's elections. But the key is public perception of the economy, not month-to-month shifts in numbers. Although the National Bureau of Economic Research dates the last recession as beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009, according to polls taken as recently as this summer, a majority of Americans believe we are still in a recession. My hunch is that those analysts predicting that the new economic numbers will prompt a change in the political dynamics of 2014 are getting a bit ahead of their skis.

The first thing to keep in mind is that even as the reports last week showed lower unemployment, more jobs, and stronger economic growth, they also revealed that the nation's overall personal income dropped by $10.8 billion, or a tenth of 1 percent. Disposable personal income dropped by $23.6 billion, or two-tenths of a percent, in October; Mesirow Financial's chief economist, Diane Swonk, notes that gains in real disposable income came more from declining gasoline prices than higher wages.

In short, few economic benefits are trickling down to the poor or, for that matter, to the working and middle classes. Indeed, economists say the GDP growth came from a buildup of business inventory, which usually results in lower growth in subsequent periods, as owners draw down those inventories before manufacturing orders head back up. As the Dec. 10 Blue Chip Econometric Detail report, which accompanies the monthly Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of top economists, put it, "The large upward revision to third-quarter GDP was due entirely to a $30 billion upward revision to inventory investment. The consensus anticipates GDP growth will slow sharply in the fourth quarter to 1.6 percent before rising to 2.5 percent in the first quarter of next year. GDP growth is expected to pick up gradually over the remainder of the forecast, reaching a 2.9 percent annual rate in the second half of 2014."

At the end of December, Gallup reported:

The Gallup Economic Confidence Index averaged -17 last week, significantly improved from the -39 found in mid-October during the federal government shutdown. But the index remains stuck in negative territory at the end of 2013 and is considerably below the peak of -3 measured in early June.

And Drew DeSilver writes at Pew:

Nearly 10.3 million Americans were unemployed in November, and almost 4 million of them, or 38.8% of all unemployed, have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. (December unemployment figures are due out Friday morning.)

The number of Americans who have remained unemployed for more than 26 weeks soared during and after the Great Recession, peaking at 6.7 million people — 48.1% of total unemployed – in April 2010. (All figures used here are unadjusted for seasonal variations.) While long-term unemployment has fallen slowly since then, it remains well above pre-recession norms, both in absolute and percentage terms: The averages in 2008 were 1.76 million and 19.7%, respectively.

Number of people unemployed 27 weeks or more (in thousands) Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Clinton, Obama, and Change

Andrew Kohut writes at Politico:

Here’s the potential problem: Demographics notwithstanding, views of Clinton among Democrats correlate strongly with views of Obama. No fewer than 71 percent of Democrats who hold a highly favorable view of Obama feel the same way about Clinton. And the converse is true: Democrats who are unenthusiastic about the president are also unenthusiastic about Clinton—just 29 percent rate her very favorably.

And Clinton faces another potential challenge: the desire for change that divides the Democratic base between populists and centrists, given that she was married to one centrist Democratic president and worked for another [Obama -- a centrist?] The appeal of populism among Democrats in 2016 cannot be discounted. Sixty percent of Democrats continue to say their finances are not in good shape, even as many of them see the stock market and real estate values having recovered. Little wonder that a September Pew survey found 62 percent of Democrats saying that regulation of financial organizations has not gone far enough, compared with just 32 percent of Republicans who hold that view.

In 2008, Obama was the "change" candidate while Clinton was the "experience" candidate.  In Epic Journey, we explained:

A 2007 survey asked Democrats which was more important to their candidate choice: experience or the ability to bring about change. Only 26 percent chose experience while 73 percent wanted change.47 If Democrats valued freshness over familiarity, Obama was the one.

So in 2008, Obama beat her by being the outsider.  In 2016, Obama could drag her down by reinforcing her image as an insider.