Divided We Stand - United We Fall

Carnival of Divided Government LI Unus et Quînquâgintâ Special Leap Year/Day Edition

2012-02-29T22:15:00.001-08:00

Welcome to the 51st edition of the Carnival of Divided Government LI - The Special Leap Year / Leap Day / Leaping Mitt Romney Edition.

February 29th - Leap Day. Like presidential elections, it only comes around every four years. On this Leap Day, Mitt Romney leaped over his primary Republican competitor for the GOP nomination with decisive victories in Arizona and Michigan. Or not. No matter. The importance of this day to this carnival should be obvious to all. The Dividist has one whole free extra day to keep the monthy carnival on track and post the second carnival of the year in the second month of the year. Whew. Just made it.

As explained in earlier editions , we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this the Carnival of Divided Government LI (ûnus et quînquâgintâ), as in all of the CODGOV editions, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media writing on the single topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees).

Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in The Dividist reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions. Among the on-topic posts, essays and articles we choose our top ten favorites for commentary and consideration. We hope you enjoy these selections, and without further ado, we leap directly into this month's selections.

Carnival of Divided Government - LI

In this election year, a pundit's fancy turns to the presidency. Several have written in depth assessments of President Obama's first term. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post reviews analysis by Sullivan, Scheiber, and Fallows, then looks forward to Obama's second term outlining "The best way to judge Obama’s first term - and his second":

"..if Obama did win a second term his accomplishments would be comparatively limited. He will not enjoy anything like the congressional majorities of his first two years again. He is likely to face a Republican House or a Republican Senate or both. What he can accomplish in terms of new legislation will thus depend on how much congressional Republicans want him to accomplish in terms of new legislation. Though there’s some reason to believe that losing the 2012 election could empower more moderate factions in the GOP, anything beyond modest levels of cooperation would remain unlikely. Divided government is not the place for miracles. As such, it’s likely to be the legislation from Obama’s first term that decides his legacy and holds the most hope of addressing the country’s toughest policy problems.”

The Dividist agrees with Klein's assessment of the probable outcome in fall elections for House and Senate. However, his characterization of what can be accomplished during divided government requires donning the pink colored glasses of his preferred political perspective. "Miracles" in his parlance, would presumably comprise more traditional big government, big spending, big deficit liberal policies along the lines of the trillion dollar Obamacare and Porkulus legislation passed on pure partisan votes. If those "miracles" are out of play in Obama's second term due to divided government as Ezra Klein asserts, then by all means - let us come together and unify behind even more divided government in the administration to come.

Eric Wasson reports at The Hill on House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer's comments at a Third Way event, holding out hope for another type of political miracle during this divided government cycle in "Hoyer seeks deficit deal before election despite odds":

"Jim Kessler of the centrist think tank Third Way said Monday that this “triple witching hour” will be an event as rare as Haley’s Comet and must be seized. Hoyer at a Third Way event, argued that a time of divided government is an good time to find a solution on the debt and that a day after the next election, the 2014 elections will start to loom before members of Congress, a prospect that would encourage more delay"

It could happen.

Karl, blogging at Patterico's Ponitifications, looks at the conventional wisdom promulgated in much of MSM that the recovering economy makes President Obama' reelection a virtual certainty, cites work by Henry Enten and finds the informed MSM wisdom wanting in "Fundamentals are Fundamentals":

"Indeed, even after Enten boosts Obama’s number by adjusting for incumbency and divided government, he cannot get Obama to 49%, although that would at least get Obama within the standard error for a modified Hibbs model. In the real world, the newest figures for Q4 2011 are not much better: real disposable personal income increased at only a 0.8% annual rate, after declining the prior two quarters. On a year-ago basis real disposable personal income declined 0.1%, the only decline ever recorded in a non-recession environment. That 0.8% rate is the Obama average."

The Dividist is not sure how much credence to put into this kind of statistical political analysis. Intrade gamblers currently give Obama a 3/2 edge to be re-elected. A competent Republican campaign will make it close. So... he'll probably be reelected.

Will Hart of Contra O'Reilly blog is looking like something of a kindred spirit as he wraps up the weeks activity in "Miscellaneous 117":

"if I had to grade Mr. Obama, I'd probably give him about a C/C+. Yes, the dude has had some awesome terrorist decapitations and all (which I've consistently credited him for), but a) the health-care bill is ladened with disincentives and waivers and b) the stimulus package was basically a get rich quick scheme for big corporations....Having said that, though, I still plan on voting for the guy. This, in that he's still much better than Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (that, and I actually kind of like divided government)"

The Dividist likes it too. He likes it a lot. And Mr. Will "Take no Prisoners" Hart is now a member in good standing of the United Coalition of the Divided.

Joshua Hedlund is blogging at PostLibertarian, hoping for limited government, and "Rooting for Divided Government" :

"I grew to view the Republicans through jaded eyes and saw some of the dangerous effects of what happens when one party controls it all, first under Bush and then under Obama. I saw the Democrats lose their control of one chamber of Congress in 2010, and I saw Democratic agendas being foiled – and the unemployment rate start falling. I saw arguments about uncertainty and business and that divided government can be a great thing because it severely reduces the number of continually changing rules about the economy that make it hard for businesses to start and expand and grow the economy...
Maybe it takes a Democratic president for Republicans to remember the old rhetoric about small government, and it takes Republicans in congress during a Democratic presidency to actually be able to stop big, active government while they remember that they still oppose it. If you believe that Romney is a corporate stooge with questionable conservative credentials who’s really no better than Obama, might it not be better to let Obama do pretty much the same things Romney would so the GOP will oppose it instead of go along with it? Or is that much cynicism too strong to be healthy?"

No Mr. Hedlund, it is not. That kind of cynicism about elected leaders puts you in perfect sync with the authors of our Constitution, and their very rationale for desigining checks, balances into our government - divided by design. As James Madison explained in Federalist #51:

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. "

And welcome Joshua - to the United Coalition of the Divided.

Alex Urban is a Political Scientist studying Public Relations at the University of Georgia, getting it partially right (and partially wrong) opining in "Government needs bipartisan cooperation" :

"It takes two parties (no pun intended) to have a gridlock. If Congress and the president do not agree, stagnation in legislation often occurs. This is much more common during periods of divided government like we have now, with the executive branch being controlled by the Democrats and the legislative branch being controlled by the Republicans. It is ironic that both parties blamed each other for the gridlock. The pigheaded attitude of blaming the other side is what causes the lack of legislation in the first place. The way Republicans and Democrats talk, they make it seem as if it is impossible to get anything done in government while it is divided. And they are right, provided the two sides are as stubborn as they are now... All it takes to pass laws during periods of divided government is a little compromise and less blaming from both sides. Congress, as it stands, works around a vicious cycle of antagonism that ends with both sides losing and nothing accomplished. It is time for both sides to place their egos aside and try to come to some meaningful compromises."

Yeah... no. First - as a political science graduate - Alex should be familiar with the definitive work on legislative productivity and divided government - David Mayhew's "Divided We Govern". Pofessor Mayhew shows that there is no correlation between legislative productivity in a united vs. divided government in the modern era. None. You can have productive and gridlocked legislatures in both united and divided governments. A much more relevant factor for legislative productivity is what Mayhew call's a palpable public demand for change. The Dividist believes that this demand for fiscal sanity and spending cuts exists today and gives reason to hope for a grand bargain that really addresses the problem by the end of the year. Regardless of the outcome of the election in the fall.

The Angry Jew blogging at Ask An Angry Jew submitted an angry post arguing that our problems could be solved if we could all be a little less angry and listen to each other in "The Right, The Left, The Divisive":

"I have had it with the name-calling, the opinionated screeching voices, the knee jerk reactionist, the… oh wait, damn it now I’m name-calling! Well too bad, you people deserve it. You are either on the far left or on the far right. Where are the millions of my fellow frustrated political middle-of-the-roaders? Have we gone so far down the path that the vocal minorities of both parties now shout so loudly that no other voices can be heard? The only voices we hear above the din are the screeching opinions of people who get paid to be absurd. And absurd they are! The problem lies squarely at the feet of the people who believe the vitriolic hatred that they regurgitate."

He just sounds angry to me.

Christ, blogging at And Christ Said, is unhappy with the President's communication skills and offers some advice in "Obama-ism is an ill-defined failure":

"...you REALLY have to love arguing and debating; you have to have this fire in your core that makes you want to respond to nitwits every time they open their mouths and say something stupid. Absolutely everything should take a back seat to that because if it doesn't, you will not get the public on your side and you will not cow your competition. Oh sorry; does that sound childish to you? You say the president has better things to do? Ummm…does the word “gridlock” mean anything to you? Has this been a government that’s worked effectively over the last 3 years? No. You can’t just leave arguments hanging in the air as Obama always does on every single issue; you have to go to WAR when your opposition disagrees with you and refuses to compromise... So to my “expert” friends, you missed the mark on this one. Obama-ism is very easy to interpret. His real problem is that he doesn't have the raw gumption and moxy needed to crystallize his vision in this insane, hyper-partisan, hyperbolic 2-second-attention-span internet era. You need a man made of titanium to do that; Obama has his head in the clouds and he occasionally looks down and gets irritated. Uh-uh; that’s not going to cut it."

Perhaps a parable or two might be helpful.

Zach Abrahamson and Carrie Brown writing at The Politico first quote the noted bipartisan, apolitical, above-the-fray statesman and leader of the most entrenched one-party-rule big city political machine in the country - Rahm Emmanuel and informed by his sage advice, conclude that everything we know about divided government is wrong in "Death of bipartisanship has killed the Washington deal":

"Neera Tanden, an influential Democrat who heads the liberal Center for American Progress, echoed McCarthy. “Two different elections point in two different ways, and both sides are arguing over fundamental principles,” she said. Tanden argues that much of the commentary about Washington incorrectly supposes that it is petty obstacles — political posturing or the tactics of special interest groups — that prevent a return to grand bargains of the Andrews Air Force Base variety. “The debate has become so shrill and partisan people just assume it’s ridiculous,” she said, when the argument is actually over basic questions that may get resolved only when the electorate decides in an emphatic way which side is right.

This analysis is shared by Rahm Emanuel, a veteran of Washington and Obama’s West Wing and now the mayor of Chicago. “We need to take on the mythology that divided government produces progress,” Emanuel said. “Divided government produces divided government.” The notion of closed-door bipartisan deals, he said, belongs to a bygone era: “Events have moved on. What the markets want, and what the world wants, is decisive action. That comes with single-party governance.”

Huh. So... Since there is almost zero chance that the Republicans will lose control of the House, and a very good chance that they will take control of the Senate, I guess we should presume that Rahm Emanuel is advocating the defeat of Barack Obama in 2012 to return to what "the markets and world wants" and single party Republican governance. Who'd have thunk it?

Also, please note David Mayhew "Divided We Govern" reference earlier. This is what you need to know: Divided government doesn't work until it does. Divided government works when it needs to. If we listen to what the pundits of the right and left have to say, it needs to work before "sequestration" kicks in at the end of this year. So... it will.

Mackenzie Eaglen - an AEI scholar and Time columnist is concerned that automatic spending cuts at the end of the end of the year might mean that we spend less on defense than the next 10 or 14 or all of the rest of the countries in the world combined. She assures us that this would be a very bad thing in "Sequestration: A Big Word – And a Bigger Problem That Demands Action Now":

"But too many in Washington are content to wait until after the November elections to move on either bill. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) have both said they support President Obama’s threatened veto of any effort to undo sequestration if it does not include tax hikes as part of the deal. Pushing off this issue until November will make the problem bigger and costlier to fix. Where to find the funds to avoid sequestration will also not likely be any more clear after the elections and a probably continued divided government. Republicans are hoping for a clean sweep and a mandate for domestic spending reductions, while Democrats are hoping for a resounding victory and a clear mandate to raise taxes as part of any sequestration deal. Reality may not match either’s dream."

Things get done in Washington when they have to be done and not before. It looks like both parties agree that "something must get done" before the end of the year. So it will. The Dividist is not worried.

With that we conclude this edition. Look for the 52nd Edition of the Carnival of Divided Government Duo et Quînquâgintâ (LII) - Special April Fools Edition - sometime on or about April 1. Please submit your blog article at the carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Year of Divided Government Dragons 龍 2012 Senate Election Outlook

2012-02-11T16:59:00.000-08:00

King DivGoverah astride the capitol.
A 2012 divided government sequel?

For the committed dividist, deciding how to vote in a national election is a two step process. The first step is a realistic clear-eyed assessment of the prospects for either party taking control of the House, Senate, and White House. The next step is advocating and casting a vote for the scenario most likely to prevent one party rule of the legislative and executive branches. Finding the divided government vote in any given election cycle is far easier than it sounds. In fact, it is usually quite obvious.

In an earlier post, we looked at the at the prospects for the House of Representatives and determined that (Nancy Pelosi's delusional rants notwithstanding) the Republicans held a prohibitive majority. The GOP majority is likely to shrink this cycle, but in 2013 John Boehner will still be Speaker of the House. The Senate is a tougher call. Currently the Democrats have a 53-47 majority in the Senate (counting Independent Senators Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman as caucusing with Democrats). The Republicans need to pick up net four seats for an outright majority, or as few as three seats to tie and control the majority if the Republicans win the White House.

For some time, the Dividist predicted that 2012 would be the best chance for the Republicans to retake the Senate majority (links here, here, here). This expectation was based on the crushing structural advantage enjoyed by the GOP in this cycle. There are 31 seats up for grabs in 2012. 21 of those seats are held by Democrats and 10 are held by Republicans. The Democrats will be playing defense. 21 seats are a lot to defend. Moreover, many of these Democrats were swept into office in the 2006 wave election, including some in normally conservative red-tint states. Nine of the ten Republicans are in mostly safe seats, and have a target rich environment.

Ben Domenech at Ricochet succinctly summarizes the field of battle:

"The Democrats are defending horrid ground this cycle, truly horrid. They have seven open seats to defend, including two—replacing Nebraska Cornhusker Kickback King Ben Nelson and liberal bichon frise lover Kent Conrad of North Dakota—which are, barring the arrival of a sweet meteor of death, almost assured to end up in the Republican column. And for the Republicans, the opposite is true – they have just two open seats to defend. The first is in the strongly red Texas to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison... The second is in the significantly red Arizona, where Republican Congressman Jeff Flake is the near-certain victor, to replace conservative stalwart Jon Kyl."

Still - four seats are four seats. Many felt in 2010 the GOP could have (and should have) taken four additional seats but failed by putting clown candidates instead of establishment Republicans against Democrats in Nevada, Connecticut, Colorado, and Delaware. They have a similar opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2012.

Let us peer into Larry Sabato's crystal ball. His current outlook for the Senate:

"Democratic hopes of retaining the Senate are starting to rest heavily on defeating either or both Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Dean Heller (R-NV)... The underlying and near-absolute requirement for Democratic retention of the Senate is that President Obama recovers and wins fairly handily... The range of possible Senate results heading into 2012 appears to be a skin-of-the-teeth Democratic majority (50-51 seats) to a flip of about 53-47 GOP control. Naturally, strong partisans disagree with us. Democratic leaders insist they won’t lose any seats, while private Republican estimates are that the GOP could have 56-57 Senate seats next November. Currently, we believe both parties are too optimistic."

Sabato sees it as very close. The Dividist agrees.

Intrade bettors are more pessimistic for the Democrats. The Intrade Prediction Markets have a good track record of forecasting winners when the election is imminent. While it is a great barometer of current sentiment, it is less reliable as a soothsayer when the election is still many months away. FWIW - this is what people who are willing to put their money where there mouth is think about the 2012 Senate Race:

As of 11-Feb-12 Intrade gives the GOP a 75% chance of taking the Senate

My advice to Intrade gamblers - buy the Democratic side of the Senate contract now, and sell out as the election approaches and it inevitably tightens. But don't wait for the election to close the contract.

Look - Democrats are going to lose Senate seats. It is a question of how many and whether they can take any seats from Republicans to make the majority rule summit of that hill a little too steep to climb. Perhaps the race that will tell the tale, is in Massachusetts. The 2010 special election where Republican Scott Brown won ~~Ted Kennedy's~~ The People's Senate Seat foreshadowed the GOP 2010 wave later that year.

This year Brown is up against liberal darling Elizabeth Warren. This looks to be a much tougher race if for no other reason that, unlike Brown's 2010 opponent Martha Coakley, Elizabeth Warren can at least feign interest in the local sports teams. She took the lead in the polls as soon as she jumped into the race, but Scott is far from out of it.

Net net. The Republicans will keep control in the House. Senate control is leaning Republican but it's too close to call. If the Republicans win the White House it is virtually certain they will also take the majority in the Senate and One Party Republican Rule will be restored. Voters who prefer to avoid a return to the salad days of 2000-2006 cannot rely on the Democrats holding the Senate, leaving only one certain way to avoid that outcome.

The Divided Government vote for 2012 is a vote to re-elect Barack Obama.

It's Halftime in Canada, Mexico and Italy

2012-02-06T22:00:00.000-08:00

UPDATED: 07-Feb-12

image ripped from Jalopnik

Yesterday, like most Americans, I watched the game (and commercials) and enjoyed both. I thought the Clint Eastwood Chrysler ad at halftime was excellent. It never occurred to me that this was an overtly political ad, or endorsing Obama's re-election, or supportive of corporate bail-outs. Who knew? Apparently I am not sufficiently politicized to recognize the offensive polarizing nature of the ad.

I naively saw the ad as simply a straight-line continuation of the theme and style of Chrysler's excellent "Imported from Detroit" Eminem ad last year.

Here is the 2011 Eminem ad:

Here is the 2012 Eastwood ad:

Common themes: Strength and resolve overcoming adversity; A focus on pride of place - Detroit for Eminem - generalized to America with Eastwood; Dramatic uplifting music; A popular, way cool, instantly recognizable celebrity emerging from the shadows at the end of the ad to deliver the money quote directly to the camera.

They are practically the same ad.

The purpose of advertising is to sell a product. The purpose of this ad is to sell Chrysler cars. Advertising sells cars by creating an image and cachet that buyers find attractive and associate with the car. This ad succeeds without ever showing the car.

Chrysler had an image problem. Along with GM, Chrysler suffered a serious black eye with the American public. Cerberus - the private equity firm that bought Chrysler from Daimler Benz cut its losses by means of of a government bailout and a managed bankruptcy with heavy handed terms dictated by the Obama administration. At the end of the day, Chrysler was purchased by Italian car manufacturer Fiat, mostly because no one else would buy it.

All of this was considered rather unseemly and distasteful to American car buyers at the time, but that was all in the past way back two years ago. Now we have a resurgent automobile industry with Chrysler cars "Imported form Detroit" creating jobs in America and competing with foreign manufacturers. Right? Well... not quite:

"Chrysler has one assembly plant in Detroit proper, two more in the suburbs, one each in Ohio and Illinois, two in Canada and two in Mexico. The Dodge Challenger glimpsed in the ad is built in Canada with a Mexican-assembled V8 and a transmission from Indiana. The company's cash is counted in Italy by Fiat, and its chief executive ... resides in Switzerland for tax reasons. It's one thing for any corporation to trumpet accomplishments; quite another to posit itself as the herald of a new morning in America. The sadder, harsher truth is that these pep rallies do much for Chrysler but little to abate Detroit's everyday horrors. If only the city called Detroit could metamorph as adroitly as Chrysler's concept of "Detroit."

These ads are great because they succeed in wrapping Chrysler and their cars in the image of a resurgent Detroit and project a message of resilient Americans fighting out of an economic downturn - all delivered by respected and well-liked celebrity personalities.

If there is a political message to found here, it has nothing to do with the advertisement itself. The ad is doing exactly what any good ad should do. Even more -Memeorandum found it, people are writing columns about it, it is being posted on blogs and social networks. Chrysler is getting their money's worth from this campaign.

The political problem is with the underlying company. The problem is with the moral hazard unleashed when they were bailed out with taxpayer money. The problem is with the subsequent heavy handed politically motivated machinations orchestrated by the Obama administration in the bankruptcy proceedings. I would not want to buy a car from that company.

I'd rather buy a car from that other company. That Halftime in America, Clint Eminem, Imported from ~~Ohio~~ ~~Illinois~~ ~~Canada~~ ~~Mexico~~ Detroit company. You know the one I mean... Fiat.

UPDATE: 07-Feb-12
Right. You knew this was coming. It was inevitable.The Parody:

Year of Divided Government Dragons 龍 2012 Political Prognostication & the House of Representatives

2012-02-01T15:48:00.000-08:00

The three headed King Divgoverah 2010 dragon ravages the homeland

We are in the midst of a two week celebration of the Chinese New Year and it is not just any new year celebration. This is the Year of the Dragon - the Water Dragon* - the most auspicious, desirable, and luckiest of the Chinese zodiac menagerie. It is, of course, also an election year. Can we glean any meaning from this collision of ancient Asian astrology and modern American politics?
OF DRAGONS AND DIVIDISTS
The last year of the Water Dragon was 1952-53 and, according to Forbes, was lucky for Republicans and Bullish For Stocks:

"The last time the sign of the Water Dragon appeared was in 1952, which, like 2012, was an election year. President Eisenhower was elected in November 1952, and the exact Chinese Zodiac dates from that year were January 27, 1952 through February 13, 1953... Since 1952, there have been four other Dragon years as part of the 12-year cycle. The average for the five years is a gain of 5.8% using the Dow Industrials before 1980 and the S&P 500 in later years."

In the last year of the Water Dragon, Republican Dwight Eisenhower was elected President and Republicans also took control of the Senate with a narrow majority, initiating two years of One Party Republican Rule. If Republicans win the White House and Senate this year, we will again return to One Party Republican Rule.

This month we also note the one year anniversary of our latest episode of divided federal government in the United States. The Dividist does not think it useful to look at presidential elections as simply a choice between individual champions of the two major political parties and vote on that basis. Between R or D presidential nominees, the level of corruption and hypocrisy is always just a question of degree, most useful as an indicator of which special interests will benefit more from the two flavors of corporate statism that will result. Instead, we find it more helpful to look at the likely final configuration of House, Senate, and Presidency, the combined leadership that will result, and then make a decision on how to vote between those combined configurations.

LOOKING FORWARD
The two most likely 2013 federal government configurations for the leadership in the White House, House of Representatives and Senate are:

1 - Obama (D), Boehner (R), McConnell (R)

2 - Romney (R), Boehner (R), McConnell (R)

Of the two, the Dividist finds the first scenario to be more likely, and preferable. Nothing against Romney - there is just less opportunity for mischief when there is more oversight, more checks on corruption and more legislative restraint imposed on the extremes of either party. Our Constitutional checks and balances seem to work better when our leaders are not all on the same team.

For those independent voters like the Dividist who would prefer to avoid a return to one party rule, voting specifically for divided government is a reasonable voting heuristic. Such a vote requires looking into the future, realistically assessing the likely partisan outcome of the elections, then casting the most probable vote to keep the government divided. Scenario 1 above is our current best guess of what will actually transpire in this election cycle, but scenario 2 is a close second. As a consequence the Dividist will be supporting Obama’s re-election in 2012, for the exact same reason he supported McCain in 2008.

Supporting the re-election of Barack Obama for President in order to maintain a state of divided government is based on the premise that in 2012 Republicans will retain control of the House of Representatives and win a majority in the Senate. The Dividist has anticipated this scenario in one form or another since 2008 and reinforced this perspective with prognostication posts in 2009, 2010, and again last year.

DIVIDIST IN THE HOUSE
As someone once said, it is always a good idea to check your premises. We'll start with House of Representatives. Paul Brandus of West Wing Report took a look at the prospects for keeping the government divided and arrived at the same conclusion in his forecast for divided goverment in 2013:

"History shows that presidents running for re-election tend to boost their party's fortunes in the House by a dozen seats, but given the 2010 wave election that swelled the GOP majority to a 43-seat margin (241-198), that won't be enough."

Moving on - who better to assess the likelihood of Republicans retaining control of the House than the former and current Speakers of House?

Former Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is predicting that Democrats will recapture the House in November, a move that could open the possibility of the San Francisco Democrat regaining the speakership and becoming the first politician to return to that office after a defeat since Texas Democrat Sam Rayburn in 1955."

Current Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner:

“I think it will be nearly impossible” for Democrats to win back the House in November, Boehner said. “I think our freshman members are doing a good job preparing themselves for the upcoming election. I would also note that redistricting across the country has helped those freshman members and others in tough seats who will now have better seats."

It should be noted that House Speakers do not have a great track record with predictions of this nature. Lets check elsewhere.

Sabato's Crystal Ball:

"If these rating changes seem like a muddle, with Democrats and Republicans alike gaining in some places and faltering in others, that’s because the changes are a muddle. And ultimately a muddle is good for the GOP because they already hold the majority...Ultimately, if Republicans win all the seats we currently favor them to win, and Democrats win all the seats they are favored to win plus all 15 toss ups, Republicans would still hold a 233-202 edge in the House."

The Intrade Prediction Markets concurs, currently show a 70% chance of Republican maintaining control of the House:

Advanced charts

NET NET

The Republicans have a 43 seat majority in the House of Representatives. Flipping control of the House with a majority that large is difficult, but happens. It happened in 1994, it happened in 2006 and it happened in 2010. A necessary condition for these kind of wave elections is a sour national mood that swamps the default condition best articulated by Tip O'Neill's famous dictum "All politics is local". It is a well documented phenomena that even when voters hate Congress as a whole, they still like their local congressperson and typically reelect incumbents at over a 90% rate.

Flipping the House of Representatives requires a wave election where independents vote with a large plurality for one party, as opposed to doing what they usually do - cancelling themselves out. In 1994 they voted predominantly for Republicans amid widespread anger against the overreach and corruption of Democratic One Party Rule. In 2006 they voted predominantly for Democrats amid widespread anger against the overreach and corruption of Republican One Party Rule. In 2010 they voted predominantly for Republicans amid widespread anger against the overreach and corruption of Democratic One Party Rule. A pattern is beginning to emerge. The common characteristics of all three of those wave elections that flipped the House were:

Widespread anger at Congress
A partisan focus for that anger (pre-existing single party rule).

In 2012, the anger is there, but there is no partisan focus for that anger. Democrats and Republicans share power. Voter anger is distributed and diffused.

CONCLUSION
The conditions do not exist for a nationalized wave election sufficient to override the House incumbent advantage. Republicans will retain majority control of the House of Representative.

The House of Representatives outcome is the cornerstone of our divided government prognostications for 2012. For the federal government to remain divided, the Democrats must either retain majority control in the Senate, or Barack Obama must win reelection.

The next post in this series will look at the Senate and the prospects for change in that branch.

===

* SPECIAL NOTE: While researching this post, the Dividist learned that he was born under the sign of the Water Dragon. This is what the Chinese Zodiac says about those born under the sign of the Water Dragon:

"Force and power are the symbols attributed to the Dragon... those born under the influence of the Dragon are considered the luckiest of all and good fortune simply follows them wherever they go.. Indeed, whether male or female, Dragons are libidinous and score quite a hit with the opposite sex."

This note has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this post. The Dividist just thought it important to take note of these facts for the enlightenment and edification of The Reader.

===

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

George Will on the "unfettered executive" and Madisonian constitutional democracy

2012-01-29T18:49:00.000-08:00

When George Will is not wasting his WaPo column singing praises for the latest GOP clown candidate in the national media spotlight, his clear voice can highlight the truth of a matter like few other pundits. His latest column is a pitch perfect observation on how President Obama's State of the Union address betrays a longing for an "unfettered executive" branch by his administration and among his supporters:

"Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not “consumed with personal ambition,” they “work together” and “focus on the mission at hand” and do not “obsess over their differences.” Americans should emulate troops “marching into battle,” who “rise or fall as one unit.

Well. The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer — this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society...

To enact and execute federal laws under Madison’s institutional architecture requires three, and sometimes more, such majorities. There must be majorities in the House and Senate, each body having distinctive constituencies and electoral rhythms. The law must be affirmed by the president, who has a distinctive electoral base and election schedule. Supermajorities in both houses of Congress are required to override presidential vetoes. And a Supreme Court majority is required to sustain laws against constitutional challenges...

Like other progressive presidents fond of military metaphors, he rejects the patience of politics required by the Constitution he has sworn to uphold."

There is a false note in this otherwise harmonious column. Will asserts by omission that the desire for an unfettered executive branch is a uniquely progressive Democratic Party desire. Not so. The executive privilege, unitary executive definition, and and war power assertions of the Bush/Cheney Imperial Presidency is still fresh in the Dividist's mind, even if forgotten or minimized by Mr. Will. The single greatest disappointment of the Obama Presidency has been his willingness to use the Bush/Cheney Unitary Executive definition as a starting point to further expand the power of the presidency.

The appetite for expanded executive authority is also evident in all of the current batch of Republican Presidential hopefuls except Ron Paul. None more so than Big Government Conservative Newt Gingrich, who would also like to remove any judicial constraints on both the executive and legislative branch. The Dividist is not sure which is more frightening - New Gingrich claiming authority to disregard or dismantle the judicial branch: "I decided that if you had judges that were so radically anti-American that they thought ‘one nation under God’ was wrong, they shouldn’t be on the court." - or - President Obama directly dismissing the joint session of congress in his SOTU address: "You won't act, so I am." Both are depressing prospects to consider.

Today, the republican House of Representatives, divided government and the Supreme Court are the only meaningful constraints on the democratic executive branch. This election cycle the GOP is likely to maintain their majority in the House and take majority control of the Senate. Senate control will add one more fetter to a democratic president but, if recent history is a guide, will put no additional limitation on the power of a republican president. This should give pause to George Will and anyone else who purports to care about Madisonian Democracy and the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution.

The Dividist wonders what George Will will feel about the prospects for an "unfettered executive" if it is a Republican is in the White House who is not even constrained by a Democratic majority in either the House or Senate?

There is a real risk that we will return to One Party Rule under the Republicans in 2013. If it becomes obvious that the GOP will have the majority in both the Senate and the House, the Dividist hopes that anyone as concerned about executive branch overreach as George Will would endorse the re-election of Barack Obama to prevent severing any of the remaining tenuous fetters still constraining the executive branch beast. The Dividist is hopeful, but will not be holding his breath.