Yes, normal people hate Republicans-- but not enough to prevent them from taking over? This morning at the Washington Post, Aaron Blake didn't mince words: "People freaking hate the Republican Party. Poll after poll shows President Obama is unpopular and the Democratic Party is a little more unpopular. Neither, though, can touch the GOP, whose congressional contingent has a whopping 72 percent disapproval rating in the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. Nearly half of Americans-- 47 percent-- say they 'strongly' disapprove of the GOP." So why do they control the House and why are they likely to win control of the Senate in November? Blake doesn't go into the Steve Israel problem or talk about Harry Reid's feud with Tom Daschle or any of the grotesque dysfunction that has come to define the Democratic Party in DC. His point is that party approval ratings are "overrated."
Yes, the GOP's brand definitely hurts it. But when voters head to the polls, are they really thinking about the practical impact of sending another Republican to empower the other Republicans who are already in Washington?As it turns out, not really. The same WaPo-ABC poll shows strikingly few people are scared off by the idea of a GOP-controlled Senate. While 72 percent of Americans disapprove of the GOP, just 25 percent say it would be a "bad thing" if the GOP controlled the Senate. Significantly more (32 percent) say it would be a "good thing," while half (51 percent) say it would make no difference....And it's too bad for Democrats, because opposition to a GOP Senate is a very good motivator. Among those who say they support Democrats and also say that a GOP Senate would be a bad thing, 78 percent say they are absolutely certain to vote. Among Democratic supporters who don't fear a GOP Senate, that number drops to 58 percent.The GOP certainly has its problems, but in a lot of ways, disgust with the GOP is like disgust with Congress. While people hate Congress, they are much more likely to hold a favorable view of their own member of it. And if a Republican candidate can run a good campaign and avoid being too closely associated with the less-savory elements of his or her national party, that "R" next to his or her name isn't really much of a burden.
Blake doesn't pretend to be anything other than a plain vanilla reporter and isn't known for being very analytical or profound... but, the NY Times' Thomas Edsall is. Tuesday night he came closer to hitting the nail on the head in exploring how a party brand so tarnished in the minds of most people can still come out ahead. Edsall delves into somewhat more abstract realms and heads off in the direction of the death of political transparency, engineered by the corrupt political elites and careerists. Follow the money:
Tax-exempt “social welfare” organizations, the new political weapons of choice, are widening the gap between the rich people who control campaign financing and the economically anxious voters targeted by their ads.We don’t know who the contributors are to Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS because they can hide behind provisions in federal tax law designed to protect donors to “social welfare” charities, but we do know how much each gave, and we do know generally, from Crossroads’ annual 990 filings with the I.R.S., how the money was spent. In 2012, according to its own statement, Crossroads GPS spent $74.2 million not on commonly understood social welfare objectives but on direct political activities.Crossroads raised the money for its 2012 tax-exempt activities from 291 unnamed men and women who wrote checks for a total of $179.7 million, an average contribution of $617,525-- nearly 12 times the 2012 median household income in the United States of $53,046, and 22 times the 2012 per capita income of $28,051.The financial resources of the anonymous donors to Crossroads are striking, according to the organization’s 990 filing. Among the donors were 53 who contributed at least $1 million. Even more generously, one donor gave $22.5 million, another gave $18 million, and two gave $10 million each.…The emergence since 2008 of politically adroit, highly partisan so-called social welfare organizations has resulted in qualitative changes in the system of campaign finance.In its 990 filing for 2012, which describes its total expenses and receipts, Crossroads reported to federal tax authorities that it spent a total of $188.9 million, of which $112 million was “on activities related to social welfare,” including $35 million in grants to tax-exempt organizations “that share Crossroad GPS’s goals.” Crossroads also reported that it “spent $74.2 million on direct political activities.”Jonathan Collegio, who was then the spokesman for Crossroads GPS, noted that the “ratio of social welfare spending to political spending was 60.2 percent to 38.8 percent,” putting the political spending well below the 49 percent level.The lion’s share of grants made by Crossroads to other 501(c)(4)s went to Americans for Tax Reform, which got $26.4 million. Americans for Tax Reform describes its mission as working to see that “taxes are simpler, flatter, more visible, and lower than they are today.” Indeed, it advertises its goal as opposing “all tax increases as a matter of principle,” adding that “ATR was founded in 1985 by Grover Norquist at the request of President Reagan.” The Crossroads grant provided 86 percent of A.T.R.'s total funds raised, which in 2012, were $30.98 million, according to A.T.R.'s 990 filing.…If the operations and financing of Crossroads GPS and Americans for Tax Reform are less than transparent, they fit well in the world of labyrinthine secrecy characteristic of the $400 million network of 17 interlocking advocacy groups that coexist under the aegis of the Koch brothers.“The political network spearheaded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch has expanded into a far-reaching operation of unrivaled complexity, built around a maze of groups that cloaks its donors,” the Washington Post reported at the beginning of this year.“It is a very sophisticated and complicated structure,” Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School, told The Post. “It’s designed to make it opaque as to where the money is coming from and where the money is going. No layperson thought this up. It would only be worth it if you were spending the kind of dollars the Koch brothers are, because this was not cheap.”…The steady deregulation of election financing has disenfranchised ordinary voters. Part of their disenfranchisement comes from the capacity of donors to remain unaccountable to the electorate at large. The combination of lax regulation by the F.E.C., weak oversight by the I.R.S. and a Supreme Court majority blind to the corrosive power of money in politics has created a system of campaign finance dominated by those with vast fortunes answerable to no one but themselves.A two-class structure of election financing is emerging. The first is the traditional system of federally regulated individual contributions in which the small donor has become increasingly important. The second is the combination of “super PACs” and tax-exempt independent expenditure groups, including 501(c)(4)s, which together operate without limits and cater almost exclusively to those at the very top of the economic pyramid. Policing the hodgepodge of regulations, statutes and rulings governing elections has become virtually impossible. A kind of lawlessness prevails that is incompatible with the goals of democracy.
Source