Simple Answers to Silly Questions

Mickey Kaus: "What does it tell you about a political party if in a year of epic disaster for their opponents the best they can hope for is a 51-49 majority in the Senate?"

That there are only 15 Republican-held Senate seats on the ballot this November, that the composition of the Senate naturally favors the GOP, and that defeating incumbent legislators is difficult.

UPDATE: Also just a friendly Election Day reminder that it would be easier for Democrats to win a majority in the Senate if we DCers had representation in the Senate. Alternatively, on pure ressentiment grounds I'd be satisfied if they just revoked Wyoming's statehood on the grounds that it doesn't have enough residents.

Comments

It's been said so often that it's become a bit of a cliche, but it still bears repeating: Mickey Kaus is an idiot.

Posted by Christmas | November 7, 2006 1:13 PM

He's not an idiot. His writing is intentionally dishonest.

Posted by JP | November 7, 2006 1:14 PM

What reader constituency is Kaus supposed to represent? Are there really sufficient self-hating Democrats to justify Kaus drawing a salary?

Posted by dj moonbat | November 7, 2006 1:15 PM

One can be dishonest and an idiot at the same time. I think Mickey Kaus proves that.

Posted by AndrewBW | November 7, 2006 1:17 PM

Slate is owned by the WaPo. Look at Kinsley and Cohen on the WaPo op-ed page this morning. Just like Kaus, both of them choose election day to diss the Democrats. So this isn't too hard to figure out. If you're a real Democrat, you can't get a job writing for the Washington Post. Only Alan-Colmes types need apply.

Posted by JR | November 7, 2006 1:19 PM

He gets his audience by pissing people off. Ever listen to sports talk radio? There are two varieties of hosts: the unabashed cheerleader/homer and the guy who shits on the home team just to provoke his audience. Kaus is the second guy.

Posted by JP | November 7, 2006 1:21 PM

Stupid? Dishonest? Both?

Who cares.

Simple advice: Stop paying attention to the bozo. Believe me, you'll be happier AND smarter.

Posted by jimBOB | November 7, 2006 1:22 PM

Kaus makes no sense. In '94, the GOPers only got to 52 in the election. And that was with a lot more seats the Dems had to defend.

Posted by Al | November 7, 2006 1:30 PM

Hey, Micky!

California, New York -- 4 senators 55 million people
Wyoming and Alaska -- 4 senators 1 million people

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 7, 2006 1:47 PM

Kaus...Kaus... didn't he used to have a blog --back in the day?

Posted by Dan F. | November 7, 2006 2:02 PM

Wah, my state isn't actually a state, and I don't have senators. Wah, Wyoming is a state, and they have senators. Wah, I totally forgot about the existence of a house of reps. Wah, people are bad-mouthing democrats, and I go straight to calling them lying idiots and then I attack any media institution that has ever published their work.

On the day that the dems probably take both houses, why are you all such a bunch of cry-babies?

Posted by Mike | November 7, 2006 2:13 PM

If they end up gettng a 51-49 majority in the Senate - that will mean that out of 33 Senate races this year, the Democrats will have won 24 and the Republicans 9. That's call a serious ass-kicking, Mickey, no matter how you spin it.

What does it say about a political party in power that loses 24 out of 33 contested seats? That's called "repudiation", Mickey.

Posted by Andy | November 7, 2006 2:19 PM

I actually just read that comment by Mickey over at Slate and thought to myself, "boy that's an idiotic comment; I wish I had a forum to complain about it." And look, you've done my work for me! Thank you, MY.

Posted by right | November 7, 2006 2:22 PM

What does it tell you about the American media that an outlet of the Washington Post Company employs Mickey Kaus?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 7, 2006 2:27 PM

that the composition of the Senate naturally favors the GOP

Naturally, undemocratically, and overwhelmingly.

A Senate vote in Wyoming is worth 60 times what a Senate vote in California is worth.
.

Posted by Gee | November 7, 2006 2:27 PM

Mickey Kaus is an idiot. I've stopped reading Slate purely because they carry him.

Posted by Laertes | November 7, 2006 2:30 PM

I'd be satisfied if they just revoked Wyoming's statehood on the grounds that it doesn't have enough residents

I've always thought that Utah statehood should be revoked on Establishment Clause grounds, but any so-called state that unleashes Dick Cheney on the world has some 'splaining to do too.

Posted by DaveL | November 7, 2006 2:34 PM

Alternatively, on pure ressentiment grounds I'd be satisfied if they just revoked Wyoming's statehood on the grounds that it doesn't have enough residents.

Glad to see you came around to my line of thinking.

Posted by Mike T | November 7, 2006 2:39 PM

I just listen to Mickey and Robert Wright on my drive into work today (blogging heads). I have found reading him intolerable in the past, but I liked him a little better with Robert Wright, someone with whom I often agree. Mickey seems to me to be riding a wave of contrarianism that was popular in the mid to late 90s, and he seems to think it is still relevent, and seems largely unaware of how terrible Bush has been and has a weird belief in the GOP not getting a fair shake from the liberal media...

Speaking of bloggin heads, and apologists for Bush named Ann(e), I was curious to see our beloved host diavlogging with Althouse, whom I have ound to be less worthy of respect than either Applebaum or Kaus. Matt, of course, treated her with admiring respect, but I wonder if blogging entries and diavlogging have different standards for acceptable behavior, and if diavlogging might be better, if it descended into blogging snark. /rambling

Posted by theCoach | November 7, 2006 2:43 PM

Why don't we just let DC residents vote for the Senators and rep. from Wyoming?

Posted by flippantangel | November 7, 2006 2:46 PM

I'd be satisfied if they just revoked Wyoming's statehood on the grounds that it doesn't have enough residents.

Also, Wyoming still has a lot of 'splaining to do for Pacemaker Dick.

Posted by dj moonbat | November 7, 2006 2:51 PM

The Democrats could always convince 100,000 of their supporters to move Wyoming long enough to qualify to vote...if they were serious.

Posted by monkyboy | November 7, 2006 3:13 PM

If you had ever been to Wyoming, that would be all the explanation you would need. Just as oil enables mideast tyrants, gas wells enable Haliburton.

Posted by Consumatopia | November 7, 2006 3:19 PM

the Coach, Kaus ain't contrarian, he's 'contrarian'; pretending to courageously dis the less powerful, on behalf of the more powerful. Like Kinsley, which explains how Kaus got onto Slate.

Mike, did you actually not understand Matt's post? Please set your reading comprehension to 'on'.

dj moonbat: "What reader constituency is Kaus supposed to represent? Are there really sufficient self-hating Democrats to justify Kaus drawing a salary?"

Nah, he's sort of a Vichy Democrat. He's got the sweet schtick of 'I'm a Democrat, and I say 'f*ck the Democrats', so I must be telling the truth (did I say how courageous I am?)'.

Posted by Barry | November 7, 2006 3:27 PM

Has anyone ever advocated incorporating D.C. into Maryland as opposed to advocating full statehood? At least it would have Congressional representation, if diminished electoral weight. Republicans will never allow D.C. to arbitrarily get two senators on top of its electoral weight; it's no less unfair than Wyoming getting those two senators.

Posted by brendan | November 7, 2006 3:30 PM

As one of my profs said after the 2004 election:

"People disagree about affirmative action. But whatever you think, does it really make sense to have affirmative action for residents of underpopulated states?"

As a practical matter, it is impossible to imagine under what circumstances Senate representation could be reformed. The political environment would have to change almost beyond recognition for anything like that to happen.

Posted by luman | November 7, 2006 3:59 PM

But whatever you think, does it really make sense to have affirmative action for residents of underpopulated states?

Sure it does, if you think it's important to create a federal constitutional order that underpopulated states will want to be a part of. The Founding Fathers weren't retarded, you know.

Posted by Steve | November 7, 2006 4:02 PM

He's not an idiot, he's a hack.

Throw the hack down a well,
so my country can be free!

Posted by Kuas | November 7, 2006 4:19 PM

Steve:

That thinking is anachronistic.

Now, if some enlightened supermajority ever got the power to ram through electoral reform, Wyoming wouldn't have the option of seceding.

Posted by brendan | November 7, 2006 4:19 PM

There are two varieties of hosts: the unabashed cheerleader/homer and the guy who shits on the home team just to provoke his audience. Kaus is the second guy.

Brilliant.

God, it's so like Matt and his Eastern Bloc approach to the environment to knock on Wyoming. Sure there aren't many people there, but it's some pretty land, okay?

But really, if we're going to revoke statehood we'd best start with DELAWARE!!
That shithole doesn't have land or people. Let's give DC one of their senators and PR the other.

Screw Delaware!

Posted by Ross | November 7, 2006 4:24 PM

Now, if some enlightened supermajority ever got the power to ram through electoral reform, Wyoming wouldn't have the option of seceding.

There is only one type of Constitutional amendment that is expressly forbidden, regardless of how big a supermajority you might assemble. Do you know what it is?

Posted by Steve | November 7, 2006 4:51 PM

I don't think it's a silly question.

Congressional realignments tend to happen when a party can nationalize an election (and continue to nationalize successive elections) around a particular issue or set of issues. The Democrats haven't found a way to nationalize congressional elections since the 1994 Republican sweep.

And it is going to be harder for them in the post-9/11 (pre-whatever-comes-after-it) era. National security isn't the only issue around which you can nationalize congressional elections in these times, but unless your party (as opposed to individual pols like Hillary Clinton) meets a certain threshold on the question of national security you're probably going to fail to nationalize congressional elections around other issues. And the Democrats are too divided on the issues of national security and foreign policy (Mrs. Clinton gets it but any number of other Democrats don't) to speak with one voice on these matters.

On the flipside, the Democrats do have a strategy for winning the White House in the post-Reagan era, and I think we will see Clintonism 2.0 (reinvented for the age of Islamist terrorism) recapture the presidency in 2008.

Posted by Linus | November 7, 2006 5:27 PM

"The Democrats could always convince 100,000 of their supporters to move Wyoming long enough to qualify to vote...if they were serious."

A few decades ago, a rumor began to circulate that all the hippies -- for those of you who remember them -- were going to move to Wyoming en masse and take over. Many residents made serious preparations for armed resistance. Long live the People's Republic of Wyoming!

Posted by CJColucci | November 7, 2006 5:30 PM

Evidently Instapundit thought Kaus was making a good point, since he uncritically quoted and linked to Kaus (http://instapundit.com/archives2/2006/11/post_122.php).

Heh, indeedy.

Posted by Nordy | November 7, 2006 5:52 PM

Kaus is a poor man's Gregg Easterbrook. Of course Marshall Whitman is a poor man's Mickey Kaus.

There used to be a blog that kept track of this for us...

Posted by Rob | November 7, 2006 8:10 PM

"...I'd be satisfied if they just revoked Wyoming's statehood on the grounds that it doesn't have enough residents."

Here's a more constructive suggestion: merge Wyoming, with the most underpopulated House district, with Montana, the most overpopulated House district. We'll be down a pair of Senators, but the resulting two House seats will be more fairly sized.

Alaska, unfortunately, has no neighbors to combine with.

Posted by Grumpy | November 7, 2006 8:40 PM

[i]Sure it does, if you think it's important to create a federal constitutional order that underpopulated states will want to be a part of. The Founding Fathers weren't retarded, you know.[/i]

Well it certainly made sense as a comprimise when the constitution was drafted. But it doesn't follow that it is a good way to run a democracy. The question is: should bargaining power in 1785

Posted by luman | November 7, 2006 8:40 PM

Sorry:

Should bargaining power in 1787 determine political power today?

Posted by luman | November 7, 2006 8:42 PM

I like best the proposal that DC residents should vote for the Senate seat in the least populated state. And for House too: perhapt Wyoming would get two House seats that way, except that WY-01 would be completely in DC, while WY-02 would be partly in DC, partly in Wyoming proper. Candidates would get a modest federal subsidy in the form of a chartered place that would shuttle between two parts of WY-02 -- and two parts of the Senate campaign.

Reply to Idiot Kaus: compared with Kim Il-Jong who clears nice and fat 100% with 99.9% turnout, Democrats are utter failures even when COMBINED with GOP. Sooo?

Posted by piotr | November 7, 2006 11:29 PM

Of course, a PLANE would shuttle between Wyoming and DC, a PLACE would stay in place.

Posted by piotr | November 7, 2006 11:31 PM

Is H. Meyerson an Alan-Colmes?

Posted by md 20/400 | November 7, 2006 11:43 PM

piotr--great minds think alike! we should start a group to advocate for this creative solution!

Posted by flippantangel | November 8, 2006 12:10 AM

There is only one type of Constitutional amendment that is expressly forbidden, regardless of how big a supermajority you might assemble. Do you know what it is?

I dunno, but I bet those pre-Gödel Founding Fathers weren't smart enough to make this prohibition self-protecting.

Amendment Z: All prohibitions on amendments are abolished

Amendment Z+1: Wyoming Sux

Problem solved!

Posted by Consumatopia | November 8, 2006 2:04 AM

Amendment Z+2: Even if Arnold goes back in time and moves his Austrian parents to America, he still isn't allowed to be President in any timeline.

Posted by Consumatopia | November 8, 2006 2:08 AM

From Article V: "... no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Possibly Consumatopia's solution would work, but it's all academic anyway.

There was a fairly serious attempt a few years ago to effectively let DC be a part of MD for purposes of federal elections. It didn't go anywhere.

Posted by DaveL (a different one) | November 8, 2006 10:08 AM

Wyoming has MANY democrats (Wyoming has MANY democrats (

Posted by JMA | November 8, 2006 1:58 PM

Wyoming has MANY democrats younger than 30 lurking in Laramie and Jackson, but they are too busy skiing, climbing, working in the service industry, or going to school to be bothered to vote. If GOTV could focus on that population WY would be much closer than it is now.

Posted by JMA | November 8, 2006 1:59 PM

Are you Democrats really advocating depriving underpopulated states of their Senate votes?

What ever happened to preventing the disenfranchisment of minorities? I thought that was a core value of your party. Minorities aren't just racial.

I should warn you about what happens when a party forgets its core values - it loses a national election.

Posted by Matthew in Denver | November 8, 2006 4:37 PM

What does it say about the internets that Kaus is mistakenly referred to by some as a serious political commentator? And what's with those eyebrows of his? Hasn't he ever heard of tweezers?

Posted by coffeequeen | November 8, 2006 6:02 PM

Kaus is a smart dude. He doesn't let ideology get in the way of logic...sure, he writes too much (like all bloggers) and puts his foot in his mouth sometimes.

But he admits it, and unlike most left-wing bloggers, is living in the real world.

Posted by M_David | November 8, 2006 9:21 PM

How does the Senate being comprised of two elected officials from each state 'naturally favor the Republicans'?

The operative word being 'naturally'.

Does Matt mean 'naturally' in the sense of 'at this particular moment'?

Posted by CornFuzed | November 9, 2006 8:22 AM

"...if we DCers had representation in the Senate."

You DCers can get the full representation as resident of a state when Washington returns to being a part of the State of Maryland. It worked for one half of the original Washington DC!

As a resident of Maryland myself, I don’t want another mismanaged single party city in the state, but that would be better than having another single party state.

Posted by LeeInMD | November 9, 2006 4:13 PM

The residents of DC voted for a known crackhead to be their mayor! The Federal part of DC should return to being a territory run by the federal government, and the rest should return to being part of Maryland. As bad as Maryland is, they have run things better than DC, and might be able to use the insane amounts of money pumped into the DC public schools to make them moderately functional, or at least better babysitting services. Then perhaps with a slightly better education the new Marylanders will make better choices when casting their votes. Marylanders may fear the effects this might have, but really what will it do? Make PG county more black, and Montgomery county more wealthy. Those counties were cast in those rolls quite some time ago. But on a bigger picture note: let's not re-district the nation to skew the elections to your ideology. Not everyone wants to live under your set of rules. That's why we have this system. Some people even like living in a place without so many people, and at the same time want some kind of representation to protect that standard of living. I'm talking about people like farmers, outdoorsman and small town folks, not millionaires on large estates. They may not want a crackhead to represent them, just to give your agenda or mine(a city dweller) one more vote on this or that issue of the moment. To your "let's give Wyoming's seats to DC or PR" or whatever other silly scheme I say; grow up. And to anyone who thinks bringing up the crakhead mayor issue is a cheap shot, I say; study the history of DC "home rule." It's not such an unfair representation.

Posted by T | November 13, 2006 7:42 PM