DeMint Watch: Post-Election Poll

I've been thinking that Jim DeMint is a likely Republican candidate in 2012. And: buying up DeMint contracts on Intrade! I have an open order outstanding, so posting this is strictly speaking contrary to my financial interests. Please totally disagree and literally sell DeMint short so I can get a good deal on him.

Via TigerHawk, here's a poll of 70 conservative bloggers including questions about who helped and hurt them most in the 2010 elections. Here are the results:

1) Out of the following people and groups, which do you think was the most valuable player in the election cycle?

Jim DeMint: 10.6% (7 votes)
The NRCC: 16.7% (11 votes)
The NRSC: 0.0% (0 votes)
Sarah Palin: 62.1% (41 votes)
The RGA: 9.1% (6 votes)
The RNC: 1.5% (1 vote)

2) Out of the following people and groups, which do you think did the most disappointing job during the election cycle?

Jim DeMint: 0.0% (0 votes)
The NRCC: 4.5% (3 votes)
The NRSC: 55.2% (37 votes)
Sarah Palin: 6% (4 votes)
The RNC: 34.3% (23 votes)
The RGA: 0.0% (0 votes)

The idea that Sarah Palin is the Republican MVP strikes me as kind of bonkers, but it shouldn't surprise us very much that right-wing bloggers love her. What is interesting is that "Jim DeMint" is one of only two non-acronym names that the people at Right Wing News bother to mention in their poll, and that he gets the kind of response that an emerging candidate should get at this stage -- plugged-in members of the party base saying, "yeah, I like that guy!" and nobody really hating on him. Obviously he needs more love by the time 2012 comes around -- people have to really love the guy to vote for him. But there's a clear path from here to there. Activists tell other activists about you, and over a year it's all the way down to the rank and file.

DeMint recently came out and said he wasn't running in exactly the way that you do if you're running.

God Does Not Do That With The Universe Either

This artist wants God to create more universes. So he is trying to incite God's sexual lust with quark-gluon plasma porn. His previous projects included porn for houseplants.

I think the God porn looks better than the plant porn. I doubt that it'll incite divine sexual lust, but it certainly succeeded in getting me to link to an article about him, so well done, artist guy.

Is It Better To Vote No Than Not To Vote At All?

There's an interesting post at the Monkey Cage arguing that Democratic incumbents paid a substantial cost for having voted yes on the major legislation the party supported. The size of the cost varied, of course, and people in very liberal districts probably gained support for having voted yes. But in the average Democrat-represented district, each yes vote on major legislation (TARP, stimulus, health care, cap and trade) cost 2/3 of a percentage point. In very conservative districts, each yes vote costs 4%.

I'd like to ask John Sides and Eric McGhee whether we have to understand the result entirely in terms of the costs of having to vote yes. Part of it could be in terms of the benefits of voting no. If major legislation is introduced and you get to vote no, it's something you can talk about to emphasize your moderation and independence from the party. If they never introduced the legislation in the first place, you wouldn't get to do this. It's possible that getting to vote no is a genuine plus, relative to never having the issue come up for a vote at all.

This isn't a big issue when you're considering how to vote on a piece of legislation in front of you. when you're evaluating the decision of party leaders to bring up the legislation in the first place, it's an important question. Holding votes on ideologically charged legislation could actually help a party's moderates -- or at least the ones who vote no.

Good Sign From Susan Collins

Recently I've wondered how long Susan Collins (up for re-election in 2014) and Olympia Snowe (up in 2012) would remain Republicans. After watching the Tea Party end the careers of moderate and even not-so-moderate Republicans, I'm sure they're worried about their future in the party. The best course here is probably to become Democratic-caucusing independents in exchange for assurances from Democratic leaders that voting the right way would earn them the Bernie Sanders treatment, where the Democratic Party just stands down and doesn't run a serious candidate against them.

So I'm happy to see Susan Collins attacking Sarah Palin for being a "celebrity commentator" instead of governing.

Hoyer, Clyburn, Pelosi

I just sent an email to Josh Marshall. Why not make it a blog post? BTW, I feel like I absorbed some of the pacing of Josh's writing style (which I like) as I was writing it.

Dear Josh,

I appreciate your coverage of the Hoyer-Clyburn leadership contest. But especially where it concerns potential problems for Pelosi, I think your commentary is making mountains out of molehills.

There's no reason to think that Pelosi is risking anything valuable by tacitly supporting Clyburn. Let's accept the premise that this is Murtha II, as you put it. Did Murtha I actually have any bad consequences? Not as far as I can see. Pelosi worked very well alongside Hoyer this session. Passing health care reform was the acid test for our House leadership. Things went beautifully.

The title of your post, "Don't Strike If You Can't Win" assumes that Pelosi is striking. I'm not sure. My thought is that Pelosi is just doing whatever is consistent with old favors and allegiances. The way Clyburn is acting, it seems that he's the prime mover here. Probably he thought he could win this and leaned on his allies to help out.

I saw the old Murtha-Hoyer fight the same way. Pelosi owed Murtha for taking the lead on Iraq withdrawal. After the election, Murtha thought he had a shot at the Majority Leadership, and he cashed in his chips. Turned out they weren't enough. But looking back, I'm sure Pelosi thinks that successfully repositioning her party on Iraq was worth the cost of backing a loser.