Monitoring headlines over the past couple of days, it's clear that the media has decided that the Republicans have won the election that--not to put too fine a point on it--isn't over until tonight. The NY Times and Washington Post seem sure that even the White House has decided the election is lost.
An amount of money has been spent that likely will never be totally known, but is certainly well beyond obscene. Unsurprisingly it's estimated that the Republicans have won the contest to spill the most billions in "dark money," courtesy of our Supreme Republican Court. But then if money is speech, how can I be talking?
My email inbox has been stuffed every single day with pleas to donate $3, $5, $200 from every Democrat with a name, plus some that look made up. I used to get a thrill when I saw President Obama's name as the sender, but this time around I just got embarrassed, and felt really tawdry sending him to junk mail. The mailers sent in his name did him no favors--there wasn't even the pretense of a presidential message, just check boxes for cash.
Today I got around to sorting through the piles of campaign mail on behalf of candidates and propositions. None of it made me feel good about anything.
Nationally, the Democrats seem to have too many mediocre candidates. But their Republican opponents are far, far worse. If Iowa actually elects Joni Ernst to the US Senate (and media has decided it already has), the state and the US Capitol both deserve to fall into the sea. And I'm well aware of Iowa's location when I say that.
.jpg)
Conventional wisdom is that Republicans succeeded in making these elections about President Obama (even though they dropped their plan to sue him, and stopped insisting they would repeal Obamacare), and because the world not being perfect enough is his fault, they will win. A few writers were a bit more cautious, noting for example the radio ads Obama made for black radio stations that could affect turnout and therefore outcomes in some highly contested states. But basically, this is part of the post-election narrative that--like it does just about everything--the media has delivered in advance.
Conventional wisdom is that the Senate is lost to Dems, and except for the dramatic and inflated headlines that the media will joyfully hype, that it doesn't make much difference anyway. Jonathan Chait's argument is probably the most sophisticated, and maybe the most reasonable. After noting that "the Republicans in the House are, by and large, barking mad" and oppose everything, including the concept of governing, and without the House, nothing gets passed, therefore the Senate is superfluous. "If the House could make a deal with Obama, the Senate would sign on to the deal if it were controlled by Republicans or if it were controlled by Democrats. Gridlock will continue through the next Congress regardless of the Senate race."
Of course, legislation isn't all that's at issue--there are judicial and executive appointments, treaty ratification etc. Plus the joy of seeing McConnell's face more often. But basically Chiat is among those who are essentially saying this election means nothing.
My prime political consultant Andy Borowitz agrees that nothing will change, although he sees the impact a little differently, in his story headlined Midterms Prediction: Billionaires to Retain Control of Government.
And yet, on Tuesday afternoon I'll walk a quarter mile or so to my polling place (which is itself pretty dull--nowhere near as interesting as any of my Pennsylvania polling places, with their kibitzing pols and bake sales) and I will (figuratively) hold my nose and (actually) vote.
I will vote. Why? Because I'm a damn citizen that's why.
No comments:
Post a Comment