Scott Lemieux

Scott Lemieux is an assistant professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose. He contributes to the blogs Lawyers, Guns, and Money and Vox Pop.

Recent Articles

WHAT COUNTERMOBILIZATION? ...

WHAT COUNTERMOBILIZATION? Remember all the speculation about how the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision requiring civil unions was going to create a major, pro-Republican backlash because the courts were "getting ahead of the people"? Strange how we're hearing less about that today, now that this seems to have had about as much impact on the election as the botched Kerry joke that obsessed the conservative blogosphere but apparently not the electorate. At any rate, this should be yet another reminder that arguments about litigation inherently generating greater levels of opposition than other forms of policy change are generally characterized by a surfeit of assertion and a paucity of evidence . --Scott Lemieux

"THE VOTES ARE IN AND WE WON."

"THE VOTES ARE IN AND WE WON." Spencer is happily prescient. Conservative Democrat or not, it's nice to have a Democrat in a crucial race who understands politics . In a recount, you have to seize the initiative and establish the right narrative: Webb did it. Good for him. --Scott Lemieux

EVEN SOUTH DAKOTA HAS POSTIVE NEWS

EVEN SOUTH DAKOTA HAS POSTIVE NEWS : Not only is the draconian aboriton ban heading for defeat , but the ridiculous initiative to impose retrocative legal liability on judges is going down by an 80-point margin. --Scott Lemieux

NOT WORTH THE...

NOT WORTH THE PAPER THEY'RE NOT PRINTED ON, BUT... While I take Addie 's (and Bob Somerby 's) point about predicting election outcomes, I can't resist saying something. I'm actually inclined to stick with Dems +5 for the Senate, which seemed pessimistic last week but now seems a little optimistic. Although Sam seems to buy the claims about Steele that are also popular at the otherwise gloomy (from their perspective) Weekly Standard , I don't see it, partly owing to my political scientist's belief that the effects of campaigning are overrated. Well, looking at the marginal seats (and I think PA and OH are certain Dem pickups, of course), I'd group them like this: Confident about Democratic chances: MD, NJ, RI Tentatively think Dems will win: MO, MT Tentatively think Dems will lose: VA Dems Deader than The Santa Clause 3 's Oscar chances: TN Hmm. well, I guess that's not fully optimistic. On the one hand, I think that +5 is the most likely scenario. On the other hand, +2 or +3 is a lot...

FRAUDULENT ROBO-CALLS V....

FRAUDULENT ROBO-CALLS V. DEMOCRACY : Hilzoy has more on the Republicans investing $2 million in fraudulent, harassing robocalls intended to suppress Democratic turnout, which Josh Marshall has been doing terrific work on. What deserves emphasis here is that this isn't rogue local campaigns, or over-enthusiastic volunteers -- most of them are apparently part of a national, co-ordinated effort funded by the National Republican Congressional Committee . As Hilzoy says: The people who do this are antidemocratic. They don't believe in making their case and letting the voters decide. They don't care about democracy, or citizens' right to choose the candidate who best reflects their views, or fair play or honesty or decency or moral values. They care about power, and they will undermine our democracy before they let the voters pry the reins of power out of their claws. Indeed. And if this doesn't work, there's always racism to fall back on . --Scott Lemieux

Pages