That’s why candidates use them:
The race for Governor of West Virginia is looking more and more like a toss up, with Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin now leading Republican Bill Maloney only 47-46. Tomblin’s lead was 46-40 on a poll conducted at the beginning of September and he had led by as large a margin as 33 points earlier in the year.
A lot of money has been spent on attacking Tomblin in the closing weeks of the campaign and that appears to be taking its toll on the Governor’s image. His net approval has dropped 13 points in the last four weeks from +25 (50/25) to just +12 (44/32). Attempts to saddle Tomblin with the burden of Barack Obama might be having an impact as well- the President’s approval in the state is just 28%, with 63% of voters disapproving of him.
When we polled West Virginia a month ago Maloney led by 65 points with Republicans and 5 points with independents. He currently leads by 65 points with Republicans and 4 points with independents. So there’s basically been no change with those voting groups. The shift that’s occurred has been with Democrats. Maloney’s share of their vote has increased from 17% to 24%, while Tomblin has remained in place at 69%. Maloney has particularly made in roads with conservative Democrats- they now support Tomblin by only a 49-43 margin.
It’s been wall to wall negative ads for two months, and I didn’t notice Tomblin firing back until a month ago. At one point I tried to keep track of all the different groups running ads against Tomblin, but quickly gave up. In a special election, with an unmotivated base, it would not surprise me at all if Tomblin loses. To be honest, I’m not really sure at all what difference it will make between Maloney and Tomblin (I have no idea why I’d be compelled to vote for Tomblin other than to fight back against Republican craziness)- it surely is going to have no impact on the 2012 election, because Obama will lose that in WV by double digits (and the SoS is a Democrat).
singfoom
Hmmm, maybe we need publically funded elections and an end to special interest group advertising around our elections, regardless of their partisan bent?
I know it’s a cliche of the human condition to beoman that this current crop of humans is a lesser crop than those who came around previously, and maybe that’s all just bullshit nostalgia, but with the amount of rhetorical chicken fucking going around with dead ideas that already haven’t worked, maybe we are getting fucking dumber.
Sasha
If the impression can be made that Tomblin’s loss was because he was too close to Obama, that might affect how other races play out in the region (especially for Blue Dogs).
Baud
What’s the Blue Dog analogue of hippie punching, because that’s what I feel like doing right now.
NobodySpecial
As you never fail to tell the dirty hippies, one is a Democrat, and support for Democrats must be universal and full-throated. Anything less is treason.
By the way, how’s that Manchin fellow working out for you again?
singfoom
@Baud: Dog-kicking? Blue punching?
Accountability?
Hill Dweller
Negative ads work on ignorant people.
Mino
To be honest, I’m not really sure at all what difference it will make between Maloney and Tomblin…
You don’t expect the same nasty surprises as voters got with the Upper Midwestern governors? You know, privatizing the state’s assets for their buddies’ benefit? Defunding schools and universities? Etc.
Baud
@NobodySpecial: Did John say he wasn’t going to vote for the Dem?
NobodySpecial
@Baud: Most people who complain about aspects of Obama’s policies also don’t say they’re never voting for Obama again. Does that stop anyone from pilloring them as a ‘firebagger’?
This is their nonsense. They should enjoy it.
John Cole
@NobodySpecial: I’m voting for Tomblin, my point was he is an unappealing candidate and has run a bad campaign, although the overwhelming amount of outside money has really hurt him.
And Manchin is LIGHT YEARS better than the other option, which was Raese, who is a certified lunatic.
It’s kind of depressing that you simply can not understand that someone who isn’t doing what I want as often as I want (Manchin) is still a better option than someone who will be an abomination (Raese).
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@Hill Dweller:
Which is most of them.
Baud
@NobodySpecial:
Firebaggers aren’t people who complain about Obama’s policies. They are people who attack his personality and values, dismiss his successes, ignore Republicans completely, blow honest criticisms way out of proportion, and make up Fox-News-like fabrications about him.
It’s clear with them that they are not voting for Obama and will work to defeat him.
singfoom
@NobodySpecial: Just as an aside, and as someone who has been called a firebagger here, it’s the commentariat here that usually levels that claim from my perspective, not John.
@Baud: Though it’s reasonable to say that the term firebagger is bandied about with respect to the people with honest criticisms as well, is it not?
Firebagger/OBot, we’re all the 99%. Get together.
Villago Delenda Est
@Baud:
I’ve been called a “Firebagger” around these parts in the past, and yet I haven’t done any of the things you’ve cited.
Unless complaining about his pathetic 2009 stimulus package, and the advisers who recommended it, like Peter DeFazio did, qualifies me as one.
Baud
@singfoom: Just as the term Obot is bandied about for people who honestly agree with Obama’s position.
I mentioned this earlier, but let me be clear. My ONLY beef with firebaggers, hippies, etc. is their opposition to Obama and Democrats generally. If I’m wrong and they are on board, then I’m very happy to “get together” to defeat the Republicans.
NobodySpecial
@John Cole:
It’s kind of depressing that those who complain about Obama’s policy stands or tactics are all automatically dumped into the bowl with the likes of Larry Johnson, too. I don’t see many tears from you on that end.
You cannot complain that people don’t support Democrats enough because they criticize them and then on the other hand pull this ‘They’re both the same!’ Naderite bullshit. At least, not without looking like a troll or a hypocrite.
FlipYrWhig
You mean West Virginia has “conservative Democrats” who sometimes vote for Republicans? Wow, you learn something every day. Has the Democratic party of WV tried to address this by being more liberal? From what I’ve read on the Intertoobz, that’s usually what works.
NobodySpecial
@singfoom:
Cole’s pretty good at being ‘hands off’ about that type of criticism from his ‘commentariat’, too. So he can take a few shots about it when he does it.
PanAmerican
Tomblin went squishy on a voting for Obama question. Giving conservative Democrats the excuse to not vote for HIM. You would have thunk after blue doggies like Gene Taylor pulled the same shit and failed miserably in ’10…. Sometimes you got to nut up and be counted.
Mino
@singfoom: The primary Democratic opposition to getting special interests out of campaigns has been predicated on the contributiion of union at the national level. If, as I suspect may be in the near future, unions pull back to state and local campaigns, that opposition becomes moot.
FlipYrWhig
@Villago Delenda Est: It’s a thin distinction, I realize, but IMHO the divide between “firebagger” and “critic” is approximately between “his 2009 stimulus package was pathetic, and he didn’t even try to get a better one, probably because he’s a stealth Republican corporatist” and “his 2009 stimulus package may have been the best he could do, but it still wasn’t enough and they didn’t do enough to shame Republicans for sabotaging it.”
Stillwater
Let’s try looking at it this way: negative adds work because the electorate is more interested in what’s wrong with people/government than what’s right about it. And they’re more focused on what’s wrong with people than with what’s right about them.
Are American’s just negative people?
Villago Delenda Est
On the nominal theme of the thread, I’m reminded of a Doonesbury strip back in 1974 when Lacey Davenport was making her initial run for Congress, in which someone suggested that perhaps Lacey’s campaign needed to run some negative ads (she was running against a Nixon loyalist after Watergate came to a head).
The initial response from the staffers was “are you kidding? We need at least a few weeks to get the reaction we want from them!” or words to that effect.
Baud
@Stillwater:
I think we’ve become that. We’ve become obsessed with the idea that we’re being taken advantage of by ________ and that is reason why everything is so wrong.
Villago Delenda Est
@FlipYrWhig:
How about the inadequacy of it for stimulating the 99% to make sure the bankster buddies of his three top economic advisers were taken care of?
singfoom
@Baud: No argument there, the reverse is true as well, and the 99% comment wasn’t leveled at you specifically, but everyone in general.
Mino
@FlipYrWhig: I would love to see the unions get more involved on the state level. Many of these red state Democratic parties are sclerotic. The one in Texas is full of DNC types.
FlipYrWhig
@Villago Delenda Est: I think that’s a bit close to firebagger territory for my taste, but we’ll have to take it under consideration in the next Obot Cabal Conclave.
ETA: I say that because your argument is that it was _willfully_ inadequate. OTOH, if the argument was that it _came out_ inadequate because of the flawed thinking of key advisors, that seems much more thoughtful and reasonable.
OzoneR
@Stillwater:
My cousin moved to Australia, and said she never realized just how dark and ugly Americans are until she lived somewhere else and noticed it inside her
and she’s always been pretty left politically.
I don’t know if we’re negative people, but we’ve become negative people. We certainly weren’t in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.
waratah
@John Cole: I live in Texas, I understand.
OzoneR
@Villago Delenda Est:
yeah, the problem with this is, it didn’t do that. TARP did and that was before he was even elected.
singfoom
@FlipYrWhig: @Villago Delenda Est:
And this is the topic that has gotten me called a firebagger. The Obama administration’s approach (even in the context of following programs begun in the previous administration) to the financial collapse, and specifically the behavior of bad actors within the financial community and the failure to pursue any corrections/prosecutions has in my view been incompetent, bordering on complicit. (And I say this as someone who will vote O in 2012 and worked on the campaign in 08)
Yes, they got Dodd-Frank passed, but it’s weak and the same incentives for moral hazard are still there. I think the administration’s weakness on this is one of the things that has caused OWS to be necessary to push the conversation in that direction enough to give people political cover. Or at least I hope that is one good effect that might be acheived…
Baud
@FlipYrWhig:
I’m bringing the cheese dip!
KG
@singfoom:
Probably a First Amendment issue there… the whole Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association thing. And no, I don’t think a time/place/manner exception can be carved out; which is basically what they said in FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life
OzoneR
@Villago Delenda Est:
well you did now.
OzoneR
@singfoom:
they didn’t do anything illegal, that’s the problem. They didn’t break any laws because we repealed those laws.
You want them prosecuted for things that are no longer, or were no longer, crimes.
Like I said in a previous thread, the quicker you accept that most of these people aren’t going to jail and aren’t going to go bankrupt, the faster we can all move on and push for policies that will never let this happen gain.
singfoom
@KG: I know, and I know it’s quixotic, but I really think the answer is full publically funded campaigns across the board.
I disagree that money is speech, but SCOTUS disagrees. As do many I’m sure.
The problem for me is that advocacy ads favor the 1%, since they have the money to air them.
I’m not in favor of abridging anyone’s right to speak or make themselves heard, but at this point, the field is so tilted, that we have to do something.
Every single election cycle, the amount of money increases. On a certain level, I think that makes my vote meaningless. YMMV
singfoom
@OzoneR: They committed fraud, they intentionally misrepresented the quality of investments (along with the rating agencies) to their clients.
That’s still on the books, it’s just going to take a while to wind through the courts.
As for the rest, I realize that most likely there will be few prosecutions. I care less about the prosecutions themselves because they just serve as a warning, but I don’t see the issues that helped cause the problem fixed in a policy way yet.
Just another pony for me…
OzoneR
@singfoom: Part of this is our own fault. Why does money buy elections? Because people fall for propaganda it pays for. If the American voters were smarter and more education about politics and about policy, the money wouldn’t matter as much.
Baud
@singfoom: I’m more optimistic about Dodd-Frank than you are, but it’s a fair issue for debate.
OzoneR
@singfoom:
and the ones who did, like Madoff, went to jail. In many cases what they did, the “fraud” you see, was LEGAL, or if it wasn’t, it was done overseas in someone else’s jurisdiction.
Elizabeth Warren would be shocked to hear it.
singfoom
@OzoneR:
I’m cynical about the chances for the CFPB, but I’m certainly willing to see if it has a positive effect.
Villago Delenda Est
@FlipYrWhig:
That’s just the thing: those key advisers dismissed increasing the percentage of the stimulus being spent on infrastructure out of hand in favor of all the goodies for the banksters, to include the flawed HAMP.
Infrastructure actually has two payoffs: the stimulus of the initial infusion into products, and the economic activity that is enabled by the existence of it.
Making sure banksters get more money to buy their second yacht doesn’t count.
f_space_that
I will be voting for Tomblin tomorrow. The unrelenting anti-“Obamacare” TV ads have really pissed me off.
AA+ Bonds
I am cheered by how Digby has ads for left-wing lawyers in the left column
Amanda in the South Bay
Poor Scots Irish vote against their own economic interests?
Color me shocked.
aisce
@ flipyrwhig
indeed. surely there are some more mountains that need their tops blown off? and how’s the anti-immigrant sentiment? dey took er jerrrbs. and there’s no such thing as too xenophobic. make sure them messicans don’t come within a hundred miles of the state border.
that’s good thinking. the dnc should be banging down your door.
lacp
@Amanda in the South Bay: Yes, my father’s father’s family came over in the 1700s and settled on a rocky hill in WV overlooking the fertile soil of the Ohio River valley.
And stayed on that goddam hilltop for 200 fucking years. You’re looking for the sharp ones? Next drawer to your right.
aisce
@ ozoner
you speak from experience, right? got a lot of firsthand experience during the ol’ depression?
dipshit.
Corner Stone
@Villago Delenda Est: Careful amigo. You’ve got FlipYrNick as well as Original Nick(tm) on your firebagging ass now. Expect His eminence President Stuck at any moment to trifecta your avowed Hamsher lovin’ heart.
Corner Stone
@NobodySpecial:
Sheesh, he’s the biggest troll on this blog.
wrb
@lacp:
Yet, they are the ones who did that thing the enlightened are supposed to do: learned from history.
The hills can be defended.
The resilience of hill towns was remarkable: how they survived as wave after wave of slaughter and pillage decimated those in the fertile valleys.
OzoneR
@aisce: I don’t need to speak from experience. It’s called history.
lacp
@wrb: True enough, except that after the end of the Civil War, there weren’t a whole lot of large armed bands roaming the countryside. And my folks didn’t even start coming down out of the mountains until the 1920s.
OzoneR
@Villago Delenda Est:
No, they didn’t. They dismissed them based on what voting Senators wanted.
OzoneR
@singfoom:
Then why the hell would you think any real reform would work?
lacp
@OzoneR: That’s the crux of the biscuit, isn’t it? Perhaps I’m too depressed/cynical/whatever from a daily diet of naked capitalism, but it appears that the regulators have been pretty much owned by the fat cats since at least the era of Bush the Elder. It may be that we’re terminally screwed.
OzoneR
@lacp: .
I await Corner Stone’s mocking of you suggesting “Nothing Can Be Done”
In all seriousness, we don’t know until we try. We can’t sit here and argue for change and reform and then when we get a piece of it, say “Oh, well, I don’t think it’ll work”
We weaken ourselves. We weaken our own arguments. We can’t sell stuff like single payer healthcare and regulations if secretly we’re following up our argument with “fat cats run everything and we’re totally screwed” People are just going to ignore us.
You either believe reform will work and fight for it, or you don’t and you may as well just take a blowtorch and start burning shit down.
Corner Stone
@OzoneR:
“Nothing can be done!”
lacp
@OzoneR: But it appears the problem is not so much the laws but the people, moving through the continuous revolving door between regulators and regulated, none of whom are in an elected position. They were ignoring shit and sweeping it under the rug even before the sainted Clinton gave his blessing to the martyrdom of Glass-Steagall.
In other words, I don’t think this sort of problem is amenable to being cleaned up by John Q. Citizen. That doesn’t mean it’s automatically insoluble. It changes when people are appointed to positions of authority in places like Treasury, the FDIC, the SEC, and held accountable to clean up the mess. Apparently there was an earlier era when regulators were not recruited from the industry sectors they regulated, but this does not appear to be the case any more.
At the moment ,we’re stuck with Geithner, who seems a tad risk-averse when it comes to playing sheriff of Wall Street. But stuck with him we are – if for some reason the President decided he wanted to go a different route, the only candidate to replace him of whom the Senate Republicans would approve would be someone to the right of Zombie Fred Hayek.
Well, enough gloom-‘n-doom for one night. Think I’ll see if there’s anything new at Hulu.
A Humble Lurker
@Corner Stone:
Poor persecuted babies. The world weeps for you both, I’m sure.
OzoneR
@lacp:
I’m not sure that necessarily true. FDR’s first Treasury Secretary was a Republican businessman, for example. The first chair of the SEC was Joe Kennedy.
But say it is true, it’s a place where electing more Democrats to Congress helps too…if there were 60 Bernie Sanders, maybe Geithner’s nomination wouldn’t have gone through, maybe he would have never been nominated,
Yeah, it’s a high bar to reach, but if we have 70%-80% on our side, why is it difficult to get that number to vote for Democrats who would do these things. These candidates exist, they just don’t win.
singfoom
@OzoneR: Because I have some hope they won’t completely capture (in a regulatory sense) the CFPB and I’m a cynic who wants to be an optimist. And because somethings gotta give…
OzoneR
@singfoom: Much of that has to do with how people vote. If people keep electing Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to Congress even though they don’t support their policies, then we’ll continue to have this problem.
I mean, even at Occupy Wall Street, I went by there this weekend, saw 12 signs the read “End Corporatism and Wall Street Greed, Ron Paul 2012”
I wanted to bang my head against a lamppost.
Justin
Grow up and get motivated is what I would tell people. Pressure candidates all you want but come election day its time for hard choices. Tolerable Democrat or Teabagger Republican running against the Affordable Care Act? Recall that when Mass. Dems sat out or strayed the result was Scott Brown and a strengthening of the Teabaggers. We need a show of solidarity right now to save WV from a lot of unnecessary trouble.
FlipYrWhig
@OzoneR:
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, the bigger problem from a left perspective is that people keep electing Republicans and Blue Dogs to Congress because they _do_ support their policies. West Virginia doesn’t want a Democrat like Chuck Schumer or Barbara Boxer, it wants Joe Manchin. (Rockefeller, like Byrd before him, is holding on based on legacy and constituent service, presumably.) Run a Democrat to the left of Manchin and see how well he does. There’s only so far clever “framing” is going to go. IMHO it’s pretty self-evident that Democrats from states that don’t vote Democrats for the presidency have limits, and will gladly swing towards Republicans if the Democrat on the ballot crosses those limits. If you’re lucky, you get a populist like Jim Webb, and if you’re unlucky, you get a vacuous haircut like Evan Bayh, and if you’re _really_ unlucky, you get a crazy person. That’s America, where the left is highly constrained. We need to rebuild it. It’s going to take a long, long time.
And it’s going to take persuading some of these people who have learned to vote against their own self-interests. To recover, they’ll need a high, but softer, so it’s really OK if they get hooked on conserva-Dems for a while, because the alternative is both individually destructive and a public political health issue.
OzoneR
@FlipYrWhig:
and yet if you polled West Virginia, I would wage a guess they support stuff like ending the tax cuts on the rich and EFCA, but they won’t vote for people who do.