Are Retiring Republican Senators More Likely To Support Obama?

Here is a question I can't figure out: will retiring Republicans, freed from their need to appeal to their base, be more likely to support President Obama's agenda?

I assume the answer is yes, but I'm actually not so sure.

Obviously we need to distinguish between more moderate and conservative Republican retirees (i.e., Martinez & Bond vs. Brownback.)

The question does assume that their is some sort of objective "correct position" in the national interest on the issues that Republicans only stray from in order to play political games. Thus, freed from that game-playing obligation, the Senator will be free to maximize national interests, having eliminated their need to play to the base.

A good example of this is Specter, who I imagine is saber rattling on Holder more because of Pat Toomey's looming primary challenge than any real umbrage. I think this is exacerbated because of Specter's particular vulnerability on justice issues from the Conservative base. (It will be interesting to see how Specter treats Obama's judicial nominees. Harshly, I'd assume.)

But I'm not so sure that the retiring Republican votes on Obama's agenda are so assured. Take the auto-bailout bill. Martinez (who I believe had announced his retirement at that point, but certainly knew about it) still voted against it -- I'm not sure about how much foreign auto production occurs in Florida.

It is interesting to note that Bond was one of 3 Republicans south of the Mason-Dixon line (retirees J. Warner & Dole were the others) to vote for the bill. (Actually, come to thnk of it, Brownback also voted for the bailout.)

Stay Angry. Stay Focused.

But don't forget why we're doing this:

Palin is firing up the base...the Democratic base

Less than 24 hours after her coming out screed in St. Paul, Sarah Palin has managed to unite the Democratic party almost as well as the Clintons did last week, and fire it up, almost as much as Obama.

Consider:

Gloria Steinem, stalwart HRC supporter, writes a scathing editorial in the Los Angeles Times:

Palin: wrong woman, wrong message

Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

Froma Harrop, to date no Barack fan she, follows suit:

Don't They Have Birth Control up in Alaska?

[...]

One tries to untangle McCain's political calculations. The Schiavo case, creationism and similar excesses appeal to a passionate but small slice of the electorate. They are one reason voters are booting Republicans out of power. So while some religious conservatives may be "energized" by the Palin pick, most everyone else is revolted.

Across the country, independents and undecideds of all stripes were negative towards Palin's speech.

But now, in the most concrete example of how the Democratic base has gotten fired up. The Obama campaign has raised over $8 million since Palin delivered her polemic.

So thanks for that Sarah, and keep up the good work!

The Round Mound is profound

Sir Charles speaks.

The vanishing fundraising window

Earlier this month, I argued that Obama would have had one additional strategic benefit by waiting until just before the convention (and by extension, the end of the primary season) to pick Clinton as his running mate:

Clinton’s presence on the ticket may be able to gin up Republican fundraising…except, because they are taking public financing, the McCain campaign will have precisely one week to both collect AND spend that money.

In short, absent some increase in RNC money and possibly 527 money, for the most part McCain’s advantage here would be completely neutralized by the clock. If Hillary had been the VP nominee all summer long the Republicans would be dining out on this–but now they simply would not have enough time to do it.

Now, obviously Obama didn't choose Clinton--and at the same time, much crowing has come from the McCain camp about how much money they've raised based on picking Palin.

But their problem is: they are about to run out the same clock as I outlined above!

MSNBC:

It is important to note, however, that after McCain makes his acceptance speech Thursday, he can no longer use any money raised previously. This is referred to as "primary" money.

Advantage Obama: less coverage after Denver

One discernible pattern this year: after every major Obama success (Iowa, running the table in February, the Philadelphia Speech, Berlin), there is a period of intense media adoration, followed predictably by a fairly severe backlash against the Media stoked by Obama's opponents.

Think about:

• The backlash against MSNBC's coverage after Iowa.
• The Saturday Night Live attacks at the end of February.
• The "Obama gives a good speech, but doesn't do enough shots" attack before the Pennsylvania primary.
• The celebrity attack after Berlin.

All four of these attacks proved to be fairly damaging in the short term, leading in some measure to Obama's defeats in New Hampshire, Ohio and Texas, Pennsylvania and the narrowing of head-to-head polls against McCain in August.

Now consider what happened last week in Denver. Obama delivered another speech that was roundly praised and lauded for clearing the extremely high expectations that had been set. As Chuck Todd said, the Republicans didn't even know how to respond.

Good lord, even Pat Buchanan was impressed.

In the past, what would have followed was a media echo chamber fueled narrative praising Obama to the high heavens. That, of course, would be followed by some sort of McCain crybabying about the media's fawning, and then an attack undescoring this theme.

Except this time it didn't happen.

By trying to be oh-so-clever and stepping on Obama's speech, the McCain campaign did succesfully turn the narrative towards themselves, but in doing so they missed out on exploiting their favorite topic: not Obama's speeches, but rather the coverage of those speeches.

Obama gains by directly appealing to a record 38 million people watching his speech--and he gains because McCain failed to mount their Rovian attack on that strength.

Now the idea of "Obama fatigue" has been debated, and largely debunked. But, by going for the shock value of the Palin pick, the McCain camp sacrificed their favorite (and possibly most succesful) attack to date.

And that attack has nothing to do with "experience."