TPM Reader AB reflects on the Colorado results …
I’m sure you all are inundated right now with readers offering their unsolicited opinions on what happened Tuesday, so forgive me if I’m just adding to an unwanted deluge.
But as a relative newbie to Colorado and its politics, I’ve been thinking a lot about newspaper endorsements ever since Cory Gardner’s victory was called Tuesdaynight. There was an interesting piece over at Vox a couple weeks ago running down the political science on endorsements. The broad strokes are that there’s reason to believe such endorsements can have an effect, particularly in close races.
In light of yesterday’s blowout, a group in Mississippi wants to institute an official “Confederate Heritage Month” via voter initiative. But don’t worry it will include “history, heritage, achievements, and prominent people, including Mississippi’s African American and Native American veterans.”
TPM Reader NL on the roadblock in the House and the steep wall of inequality …
Frank Rich, in his column, asks what Democrats stand for now? I’m probably as up to date on politics as any observer and I can’t say that I can’t say I have a clear answer to that question. I always vote, but my friends who are infrequent (but Democratic) voters didn’t know what the Democrats want to do on the economy and ended up not voting on Tuesday. I think a part of the problem is that the Democratic leadership knows they can’t retake the House for another 8 years, which means coming up with good policy prescriptions isn’t going to make a difference anyway.
This plays to my own basic beliefs about politics and what I’ve referred to as “policy literalism” so it’s preaching to the choir. But TPM Reader TS responds to our Reflecting on Tuesday #2 …
Apropos of the comment that Dems are reluctant to outline robust economic opportunity policies because they know they cannot fully retake the Congress for some years, that underlines a huge problem for Democratic politicians: they vastly underestimate the value of political signaling, communicating a direction they are fighting for to constituents.
GOP campaign chief thanks Dems for sidelining Obama “their best messenger.”
Quadruple amputee Michael Petrozzino sought as suspect in the murder of his parents.
One chart explains why the Dems can’t win the House no matter how people vote.
On Tuesday Coloradans elected a new virulently anti-gay state legislator and exorcist who among his other accomplishments once, purportedly, performed an exorcism on President Obama – which apparently didn’t work. But Gordon Klingenschmitt also argues that one of the potential cures for homosexuality is spanking – which suggests that Klingenschmitt has either never been to a Pride parade or is perhaps a Ted Haggard in the making.
I’m doing a Reddit AMA at 1 PM eastern. Stop by at this link.
The Supreme Court in a surprise move has decided to take up the issue of whether the tax subsidies that are essential to the Obamacare economic model are available on the federal exchanges. The tendentious argument from Obamacare opponents is that the law itself, in one obscure provision, only provides for subsidies on exchanges set up by states — even though that was clearly not what the law as whole means or what Obamacare proponents in Congress or the White House intended. So just to be clear, this is a very significant legal attack on the law, even though it was a laughable line of attack when it was first initiated.
Today’s move by the Supreme Court is a surprise because the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals is about to review the same issue in the Halbig case. Oral arguments are scheduled in Halbig next month. Nothing is certain, of course, but the full DC Circuit is expected to reverse an early decision of a three-judge panel that invalidated the subsidies. So that was supposed to be the next big legal decision on the issue.
But in the meantime, anti-Obamacare plaintiffs in another similar case asked the Supreme Court to review the decision of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the subsidies. That case, King v. Burwell, is what the Supreme Court agreed to take today.
Here’s the rub.