Yes, they might threaten to shut down the government. And once the threat is made, they couldn’t be seen to lose face by blinking first. Or, even worse, they certainly can’t let it look as though Obama has won. Why, something like that would be just inviting challengers from the right in their next primaries.
But they’ve totally learned their lesson.
It’s easier to back down then you think. You pass a spending bill that cuts spending by 2%, if Obama vetoes you don’t pass another one until a shutdown gets close, you have tough negotiations, and you come out of it with a 2% increase instead.
I am unaware of any evidence that the GOP has learned its lesson and you have not presented any.
It is indeed wise not to commit political suicide during an election year. That doesn’t imply they have learned their lesson. If they had learned their lesson we would have heard a repudiation of those tactics. Instead we get crickets.
The underlying problem is that Boehner doesn’t control his caucus. Nor does McConnell. They don’t have a lot of leverage over folks like Cruz. And the conservative media likes to fan flames: it’s good for their business, even if it’s bad for the Fortune 500.
File this in your prediction thread. You may link to this post if you want. (No snark.) It’s a contingent prediction, a prediction that applies if the Senate changes hands. Or don’t file it: your last post concedes the argument: otherwise shutdowns wouldn’t get close. There would just be routine continuing resolutions.
I guess the logic of my argument implies that one would expect brinkmanship from the Republicans if the Democrats keep control, but that financial markets won’t really care. But I wouldn’t put as high a probability on this scenario: it’s conceivable that the GOP isn’t that stupid. Indeed, McConnell is understood to be pretty savvy. It’s Boehner who is the weak leader.
Ummmm, they haven’t shut down the government and have passed spending bills without so much as making a fuss.
Repudiation is unnecessary and counterproductive, although many individual Republicans have said that shutdown was a bad idea. Enough that there aren’t enough votes for another one even if the leadership is so inclined, which they are not. They never were. It was Cruz’s idea and he doesn’t have the following he did before the shutdown. Failure is a stepchild and all that.
They have learned that shutdowns (it’s been more than once, as you know) are ineffective politically. But what is the evidence that they’ve learned they are irresponsible?
Emphasis added.
So which is it? Are the Republicans going to threaten the economy with a governmental shutdown or not? Remember, they used to just pass continuing resolutions if negotiation broke down. The Republicans could commit to that today.
Look adaher, taking two mutually conflicting positions can gain you a solid prediction record (according to some scoring criteria) but it’s not best practice.
My prediction is only that there won’t be an actual shutdown. Seeing is Obama will blink, historically not an unreasonable gamble, makes perfect sense as a political strategy, although it’s easier if you’re a foreign enemy than domestic political opposition.
Zing!
Tell it to Bin Laden.
Anyway, then you don’t necessarily disagree with Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips. However, I suspect he would add that you are discounting miscalculation, legislative gridlock and Republican personalities too much.
Meant to say, “Seeing IF” Obama will blink, not “Seeing is”, which could be interpreted to mean he WOULD blink. He might, he might not. Depends on whether he thinks what he’s vetoing is good for the party’s 2016 prospects and his legacy.
A-a-a-and … Georgia is trending Demward now too.
A wager, maybe? $100 to favorite charity says Republicans will wind up in control of the Senate (may have to wait till January until things settle?
I don’t bet anything more than gloating rights. You’re on for those, though.
On the other hand Democrats have cut bait on Kentucky and canceled their ad buys.
Kentucky was always a stretch, anyway. Now, if Grimes had *embraced *Kynect instead … too bad it long ago was too late to change.
Yes, but what the polling gods giveth, they taketh away. Gardner’s lead in Colorado is now as consistent as Hagan’s lead in NC. Mark Uterus is looking pretty much toast at this point.
Also, Roberts and Brown took leads in their last polls in their races.
As of today, it’s GOP+8, which was exactly my prediction I believe.
Frankly, the fact that “Shutting down the government without even having an end goal is a bad idea” is a lesson the Republicans couldn’t learn without trying it first doesn’t speak well for them.
I think Udall’s still got a good chance – we had this exact situation, nearly, with a Republican leading by a small but significant margin nearly up to the end in 2010, and the Democrat won by a razor’s edge.
Quite true. But if it’s the race you are thinking about, it involved a far more skilled incumbent vs. a rabid Tea Partier. Cory Gardner has been endorsed by Colorado’s largest newspaper and Mark Udall is so inept he’s running a one issue campaign. As an incumbent who has been in office for six years. He has nothing to run on other than that he doesn’t believe in any restrictions on abortion?
Oh, and Elvis, about Georgia: Nunn has to get over 50% to win. There’s a strong Libertarian in the race sucking votes from Perdue. If it goes to a runoff, Nunn’s chances get a lot worse.
It’s probably going to a runoff in any case. LA too, so Senate control may very well not be decided until January, when the GA runoff occurs.
An ultra-close election, was it?