Mayors

Previous posts have noted that "unintentional gerrymandering" is one result of the clustering of Democrats in big cities.  Another is the shift of big-city mayors to the D column. At Bloomberg, Mark Niquette writes:

Twenty years ago, half the 12 largest U.S. municipalities had a Republican mayor. When Bill de Blasio takes office in New York on Jan. 1, none will.

As middle-class residents moved out of cities and immigrants and young people replaced them, the party lost its grip on population centers even as it increased control of governor’s offices and legislatures. The polarization has pitted urban interests against rural areas and suburbs, denying Republicans a power base.

“The New York election hopefully is somewhat of a wake-up call,” said Scott Smith, the Republican mayor of Mesa, Arizona, and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. “If that doesn’t get Republicans on the national level more interested, then it should.”

De Blasio’s election means that besides New York, there will be Democratic mayors next year in Los Angeles; Chicago; Houston; Philadelphia; Phoenix; San Antonio; Dallas; San Jose, California; Austin, Texas; and Jacksonville, Florida. A runoff will be held in February in San Diego to replace Democratic Mayor Bob Filner, who resigned in August amid charges of sexual harassment.

In New York, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 6-to-1, yet voters hadn’t elected a Democrat since David Dinkins lost to Rudolph Giuliani in 1993. De Blasio, 52, won this month by the biggest margin by a non-incumbent in city history on vow to close the growing gap between rich and poor.

But note that the GOP does better in smaller communities.

IRS Proposes to Tighten 501(c)(4) Rules

At Politico, Byron Tau and Lauren French write:

The Obama administration proposed rules on Tuesday that could make it harder for some nonprofit groups that play politics to get away with claiming a tax exemption.

But don’t be fooled, this is not the end of political “dark money.”

The rules, released Tuesday by the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service, are unlikely to stem the tide of anonymous donations that have flooded into politics since the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

And even if the Obama administration takes an aggressive stance when the final regulations are released, political groups could circumvent the rules by converting into other types of entities not governed by the rules, veterans of campaign finance law and tax exempt status said.

“One of the problems of this rule is it is only talking about (c)4s and you need to get a hold of all these entities,” said Donald Tobin, an Ohio State University law professor and former Justice Department tax lawyer. “Clearly when you have an entity-based regulation, it encourages people to engage in activities from another entity.”

The proposal is the first major response to a May Treasury inspector general report blasting the IRS for added scrutiny of tea party conservative groups seeking a tax exemption — a major controversy that led President Barack Obama to fire the acting IRS commissioner and other officials to exit the agency.

At Slate, Emma Roller writes:

So now's the time groups like Americans For Prosperity should be sending out apoplectic press releases, right? Nope. They're either lying low, or they aren't all that worried about the rule being implemented. Basically, their argument is thus: The fact that the administration has to change the rules to bring these groups into violation proves that they've been following the rules all along.

"By proposing a rule change, the administration appears to be conceding that they can’t get 501(c)(4) groups to change their behavior without changing the rules," one source close to several conservative nonprofit groups said. "So while they may be able to change some behavior moving forward, it’s also a tacit validation that many of these groups have been acting properly since Citizens United."

The problem is, this is a pretty nebulous way to write a rule. Defining tax-exempt status based on whether a group uses communications with candidates could rope in nonpolitical groups. Interpreted widely, for example, it could threaten the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit group that used a member of Congress in a PSA within 60 days of an election. And even if the rule is passed, the administration would most assuredly still have James Bopp to reckon with.

"On Track"

Jonathan Easley reports at The Hill:

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Tuesday the Obama administration would meet its self-imposed Nov. 30 deadline to have HealthCare.gov running better.

“We are definitely on track to have a significantly different user experience by the end of the month,” Sebelius said on a conference call with state and local elected officials about the ObamaCare rollout.

It is strange that Secretary Sebelius keeps using the phrase "on track," because she used it so many times before the disastrous rollout:

Kansas City Star, September 20:

Sebelius downplayed a Wall Street Journal report Friday that pricing glitches are being found in the federal system.

“Testing is being done,” Sebelius said. “We’re very much on track to be ready Oct. 1.”

She said any “bumps in the road” will be fixed by the opening date.

Austin American-Statesman, August 8:

Sebelius, who noted that she knew Perry when she served as governor of Kansas, responded to Perry’s criticism with a chuckle.

“First of all there is nothing that is delayed,” she said. “There is nothing that is not on track. I have, again, no idea what it is that he is anticipating in terms of costs to the state.”

Dallas Morning News, August 8:

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius predicted Thursday that computer bugs won’t impede the roll-out of new state health insurance marketplaces on Oct. 1. She also rejected Gov. Rick Perry’s suggestion that Americans grasp Obamacare “all too well” and are rejecting it.

Despite reports that information technology systems may not be fully ready to swap and protect applicants’ information with state Medicaid eligibility computers, Sebelius insisted her federal agency and its contractors are up to the job.

“I’m confident that we will be up and running, and on track, on Oct. 1,” when Americans can begin shopping in the online marketplaces that are being created for each state.

McClatchy News, June 24:

“We will be ready on Oct. 1st,” Sebelius said Monday. “I’m confident we’re on track to get it done.”

Washington Times, April 12:

In one terse exchange, Mr. Brady repeatedly challenged Mrs. Sebelius on her agency’s ability to have exchanges operating by this fall, citing a series of missed deadlines in recent months.

“I can only tell you what I’m telling you,” Mrs. Sebelius said. “We are on track to meet the Oct. 1 deadline.”

Annus Horribilis for Obama and the Democrats

Lloyd Green writes at the Daily Beast:

Not surprisingly, America is losing patience with Obamacare and Obama. Support for Obamacare steadily leaches out, with nearly three in five Americans now opposing the President's eponymous achievement. Can you really blame House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for saying that she always called Obamacare the Affordable Care Act? Failure is an orphan.

But even more damaging than the public’s loss of confidence in Obamacare is America’s growing distrust of the President’s integrity and competence. Half the country thinks of him as less than truthful. Obama’s approval rating is 40 percent, his disapproval is 55 percent, and his base is unhappy.

Women (53 percent) and suburbanites (58 percent) now disapprove of him, according to the latest CNN poll. To put things in context, Obama won 55 percent of the women’s vote and captured America’s suburbs, as he bested Mitt Romney. If the presidential election were held today, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll reported that Romney would have his revenge. Clearly, 2013 is Obama’s annus horribilis, his terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year.

Indeed, 2014 doesn’t look much brighter as the Democrats head into the midterm elections. Growing hostility toward Obamacare will present an even more serious problem for Obama and the Democrats, and their upstairs-downstairs brand of coalition politics.

CNN reports:

A new CNN/ORC International poll indicates a dramatic turnaround in the battle for control of Congress in next year's midterm elections.

Democrats a month ago held a 50%-42% advantage among registered voters in a generic ballot, which asked respondents to choose between a Democrat or Republican in their congressional district without identifying the candidates.

That result came after congressional Republicans appeared to overplay their hand in the bitter fight over the federal government shutdown and the debt ceiling.

But the Democratic lead has disappeared. A new CNN/ORC poll indicates the GOP now holds a 49%-47% edge.

The new survey was conducted last week and released Tuesday.

Obama Slipping, Democrats Sweating

The president's public standing continues to erode.  CNN reports on a poll showing that only a minority thinks the president can manage effectively.

And a CNN/ORC International survey released Monday morning also indicates that 53% of Americans now believe that Obama is not honest and trustworthy, the first time that a clear majority in CNN polling has felt that way.

According to the survey, conducted last Monday through Wednesday, 40% say the President can manage the government effectively. That 40% figure is down 12 percentage points from June and is the worst score Obama received among the nine personal characteristics tested in the new poll.

"A lot of attention has focused on the President's numbers on honesty in new polling the past three weeks, but it looks like the recent controversy over Obamacare has had a bigger impact on his status as an effective manager of the government, and that may be what is really driving the drop in Obama's approval rating this fall," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.
...
Obama's woes are not limited to honesty and his managerial skills. Fifty-six percent say he is not a person they admire, and an equal number say he does not agree with them on important issues. Fifty-six percent also say he does not inspire confidence, and 53% don't view him as a strong and decisive leader. All of those figures are all-time records for Obama in CNN polling.

At Politico, Jonathan Allen reports that some Democrats are getting ready to criticize the president if the Obamacare website is still faltering at the end of the month.

That will come in the form of more aggressive scrutiny in Republican-led oversight hearings, open advocacy for further delay in the enrollment deadline and individual coverage mandate, and more calls for a staff shake-up in the White House.

“The president and his team have repeatedly assured us that the system will be working by Dec. 1. That’s when I start looking at what we have to do in our oversight function to hold the administration accountable for making it work.” Rep. Bruce Braley, an Iowa Democrat who is running for an open Senate seat said Thursday, adding that he’s contemplating whether to ask the president to fire members of his staff. “I’m thinking about those options. But my biggest concern is fixing the system and making it work.”

Asked whether he was mad at the president, Braley hesitated for a few seconds amid the din of a Capitol hallway.

“Yes,” he said.

Also at Politico, Alex Isenstadt writes of Democratic leaders' efforts to put the best face on things:

"We’re trying to deny what everyone knows is happening,” said one Democratic pollster who is a veteran of competitive congressional races. “Anybody who is halfway intelligent knows this is a big … problem for us. It’s impossible not to see. We can try to hide our heads in the sand and pretend it’s not a problem, but it is.”

Keith Frederick, another Democratic pollster, was more diplomatic.

“I think if you’re the leaders of the party you have to keep a positive message as long as possible,” he said.

...

“There’s a rash of polls out this week showing Obama’s approval going down and the generic ballot closing. That explains why people are doing what they’re doing,” Frederick said.

Medicaid and GOP Governors

At The San Francisco Chronicle, Debra Saunders writes that Republicans are divided over whether governors should expand Medicaid with Obamacare money.

It's a hot issue because Obamacare allows states to expand their pool of eligible Medicaid recipients. For the first three years, Washington promises to pay 100 percent of the freight for new enrollees; later, federal support would shrink to 90 percent. (Washington covers about half the cost of today's pre-ACA enrollees.)

It's as free as free money gets in this country -- nearly $1 trillion over 10 years, which leaves Republican governors with a dilemma. To snatch or to spurn, that is the question.

More than 20 states with a Republican governor or legislature have refused the new Medicaid scheme. Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal lead the pack of GOP guvs who have said no. Jindal said the so-called free Medicaid money "would cost Louisiana taxpayers up to $1.7 billion over the next 10 years and move nearly 250,000 Louisianans from private coverage to Medicaid."

Last week, the Club for Growth called out an Idaho congressman for accepting the endorsement of an industry group that supports Medicaid expansion in Idaho. Club spokesman Barney Keller told me the issue isn't exactly a litmus test, but "anyone who thinks that the feds are going to make good on their promises to pay for the Medicaid expansion" is kidding himself.

This month, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told Fox News that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie could be sorry the Garden State is expanding Medicaid under Obamacare. "I don't think that is going to resonate in the Republican primary," quoth Paul, who himself seems eager to run in 2016.

Christie is in good company. Other GOP governors -- John Kasich of Ohio, Jan Brewer of Arizona and Rick Scott of Florida -- are taking advantage of the Obamacare Medicaid terms.

At The Washington Post, Reid Wilson writes:

When Gov. Chris Christie (R) decided that New Jersey would expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act , he opened the door to health-care coverage for 104,000 of the poorest Garden State residents, a move he said would save the state $227 million this year alone.

But he also may have complicated his hopes of making it through a competitive Republican presidential primary in 2016, when rivals will be looking for any opportunity to distinguish themselves from the rest of the crowded field.

Christie is one of eight Republican governors to accept the expansion, including at least one other potential presidential candidate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich . The jockeying over Medicaid is a hot topic this week in Phoenix at the Republican Governors Association’s annual meeting, and it is shaping up as one of the earliest fights in the shadow campaign for the Republican nomination.
...
Asked by a reporter in Phoenix whether accepting a Medicaid expansion would make securing the Republican nomination more difficult, Kasich said: “Is that how you’re going to make a decision?

“Anybody who would be making the decision from that standpoint I wouldn’t want to be supporting for president,” Kasich said. “I think all things kind of fade over time.”

Today's New Breed Senate Democrats = Young Turk House GOP of 1980s and 1990s

So Reid has pulled the nuclear trigger. At The Los Angeles Times, Michael Memoli credits Democratic Young Turks:

After pushing through one of the most significant rule changes in Senate history, Majority Leader Harry Reid struck a solemn tone: "This is not a time for celebration."

But behind closed doors in a room off the Senate floor, some of the newer Democratic senators couldn't help themselves, gathering for a quick party to congratulate one another. They were the ones largely responsible for pushing the veteran Nevada lawmaker to pull the trigger on ending filibusters against most presidential nominations.

The partisan revelers were part of a new breed of Democrats emerging in the Senate. Mostly elected after 2006, these relative newcomers have only known a Democratic-controlled Senate and have little experience with successful bipartisan cooperation, due largely to the tea party's grip on the Republican Party.

Now they are hoping to become a new power center in the party, nudging the old guard to adopt more aggressive tactics in pursuit of legislative goals and largely brushing aside Republican threats of retaliation and obstruction. They see the rules and traditions of the Senate as having stifled the will of the majority and stalled President Obama's agenda.

In this sense, the "new breed" of Democratic senators are the doppelgangers of the Gingrich House Republicans of the 1980s and 1990s. For them, the 1978 midterm was the main point of entry.  Aggressive opposition to tax hikes and Carter foreign policy defined the Gingrichites, just as equally aggressive opposition to the Iraq War and Bush economic policy marked the emergence of the new Senate breed.  The House Republicans of the earlier time had never served in the majority.  The new Senate Democrats have never served in the minority. The House Republicans chafed under Tip O'Neill's heavy-handed tactics.  The Senate Democrats chafe under what they see as Tea Party obstructionism.  The pressure on Reid to adopt tougher tactics is reminiscent of GOP pressure on Bob Michel.