Sometimes I wonder about the nonsense that gets put forth as "analysis" of America's current political situation. Often, the pundit is doing nothing but engaging in wish fulfillment analysis; in other words, the columnist discusses what he or she wants to happen rather than analyzing what is actually transpiring. I understand the problem faced by the pundit; I know that when I write on this blog I have to try not to let my partisan feelings overcome my critical thinking (and I am not always completely successful.) Nevertheless, sometimes the things that the pundits say are so wrong as to be ridiculous.
A good example of wishful thinking replacing analysis is an article by Alex Isenstadt at Politico in which Isenstadt opines that the new Republican majority in the House will be much more friendly to president Obama because there will be more Republicans from districts that Obama carried in 2012 as well as from districts that Romney won by 10% or less in that same election. Somehow, Isenstadt believes, the imperatives of re-election will make the Republicans much more pliable than they have been for the last two years. This is nonsense. Of the 18 seats that the Republicans gained in 2014, three were in districts that Romney carried by fewer than 10%, 8 were in districts Obama won, and seven were in districts that Romney won by more than 10%. Of the three that Democrats gained, none were in districts that Romney won by more than 10%. Put these figures together and you find that there will be a significantly larger number of Republicans from "hard core" GOP districts in the new Congress than there have been until now. These people are hardly likely to be more friendly to Obama.
It is true that there may be a few more Republicans who want to be seen as working with the president, but there are two reasons why that will not have an impact on the new Congress. First, Obama will never work with them. The president has never compromised or even discussed compromise with House members since he has been in office. Second and more important, While there may be a few more of these Republicans, their votes will be much less important. The conservative heart of the GOP caucus is substantially larger, so the votes of the peripheral representatives are not needed as much to achieve majorities.
A good example of wishful thinking replacing analysis is an article by Alex Isenstadt at Politico in which Isenstadt opines that the new Republican majority in the House will be much more friendly to president Obama because there will be more Republicans from districts that Obama carried in 2012 as well as from districts that Romney won by 10% or less in that same election. Somehow, Isenstadt believes, the imperatives of re-election will make the Republicans much more pliable than they have been for the last two years. This is nonsense. Of the 18 seats that the Republicans gained in 2014, three were in districts that Romney carried by fewer than 10%, 8 were in districts Obama won, and seven were in districts that Romney won by more than 10%. Of the three that Democrats gained, none were in districts that Romney won by more than 10%. Put these figures together and you find that there will be a significantly larger number of Republicans from "hard core" GOP districts in the new Congress than there have been until now. These people are hardly likely to be more friendly to Obama.
It is true that there may be a few more Republicans who want to be seen as working with the president, but there are two reasons why that will not have an impact on the new Congress. First, Obama will never work with them. The president has never compromised or even discussed compromise with House members since he has been in office. Second and more important, While there may be a few more of these Republicans, their votes will be much less important. The conservative heart of the GOP caucus is substantially larger, so the votes of the peripheral representatives are not needed as much to achieve majorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment