![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogOr, "And another thing ..."
It’s old news by now that the US Senate managed to vote in favor of new gun legislation – but not by a big enough margin for it to actually pass.
Much has been said about it. But the main talking point seems to be how the Senate not only managed to reject a bill that anywhere from 85% to 95% of the country supports, but also – as Jon Stewart demonstrates here – did it by making some fairly dumb-ass arguments against it.
So the question people are asking now is: what’s going to be the political cost of rejecting universal background checks that most people support?
Gun-control proponents are expecting a bloodbath in 2014. And we’re already seeing some political damage – at least in New Hampshire, where Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte’s approval rating is down 15 points.
On the other hand, we’re a good 18 months away from the mid-terms, which is forever in political time.
The other thing, oddly, is that if you believe this poll from Pew Research Center and the Washington Post, America isn't all that upset about the vote. In fact, only 15% said they were “angry” the bill was shot down (so to speak), and another 32% said they were “disappointed”. That adds up to 47%, but compared to the 85-95% who supposedly supported the bill, that’s a major shortfall of anger/disappointment.
The lesson, of course, is that polls don’t mean a whole lot, which is probably why Congress generally feels free to ignore them when it’s politically feasible to do so. And make no mistake, Congresspeople tend to base their legislative votes on the likely political pros and cons, not whether the bill is the right or wrong thing to do, and certainly not on what the opinion polls say.
It’s also worth remembering that between the legislation proposal and the vote, the Boston bombings happened, which probably took priority in terms of emotional investment for a lot of people than some old gun bill. Or maybe unlimited access to guns seemed like a good idea all of a sudden.
So all up, I don’t think the bill’s failure is really going to cost any Congressperson his/her job. Not by itself, anyway. And I think the GOP Senators (and three Demos) that voted it down knew that, just as they knew that even a watered-down compromise bill like this one was never going to pass in a Senate where the Demos have the slim majority they do.
Odds are even Pat Toomey (R-PA) knew that when he helped craft the thing. Indeed, it’s even possible he only agreed to co-sponsor the bill so that when it failed, he could say it’s all Obama’s fault for being a divisive president.
Which, of course, he did. “Hey, it’s not like we want to oppose every single thing Obama proposes! He’s dividing the country by wanting things we don’t want! It’s like he’s in a whole different political party on purpose! You'd totally have universal background checks now if he didn't make us hate him so much!”
What a rube.
And you wonder why I don’t take the gun debate seriously anymore.
Unpopular demand,
This is dF
It’s old news by now that the US Senate managed to vote in favor of new gun legislation – but not by a big enough margin for it to actually pass.
Much has been said about it. But the main talking point seems to be how the Senate not only managed to reject a bill that anywhere from 85% to 95% of the country supports, but also – as Jon Stewart demonstrates here – did it by making some fairly dumb-ass arguments against it.
So the question people are asking now is: what’s going to be the political cost of rejecting universal background checks that most people support?
Gun-control proponents are expecting a bloodbath in 2014. And we’re already seeing some political damage – at least in New Hampshire, where Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte’s approval rating is down 15 points.
On the other hand, we’re a good 18 months away from the mid-terms, which is forever in political time.
The other thing, oddly, is that if you believe this poll from Pew Research Center and the Washington Post, America isn't all that upset about the vote. In fact, only 15% said they were “angry” the bill was shot down (so to speak), and another 32% said they were “disappointed”. That adds up to 47%, but compared to the 85-95% who supposedly supported the bill, that’s a major shortfall of anger/disappointment.
The lesson, of course, is that polls don’t mean a whole lot, which is probably why Congress generally feels free to ignore them when it’s politically feasible to do so. And make no mistake, Congresspeople tend to base their legislative votes on the likely political pros and cons, not whether the bill is the right or wrong thing to do, and certainly not on what the opinion polls say.
It’s also worth remembering that between the legislation proposal and the vote, the Boston bombings happened, which probably took priority in terms of emotional investment for a lot of people than some old gun bill. Or maybe unlimited access to guns seemed like a good idea all of a sudden.
So all up, I don’t think the bill’s failure is really going to cost any Congressperson his/her job. Not by itself, anyway. And I think the GOP Senators (and three Demos) that voted it down knew that, just as they knew that even a watered-down compromise bill like this one was never going to pass in a Senate where the Demos have the slim majority they do.
Odds are even Pat Toomey (R-PA) knew that when he helped craft the thing. Indeed, it’s even possible he only agreed to co-sponsor the bill so that when it failed, he could say it’s all Obama’s fault for being a divisive president.
Which, of course, he did. “Hey, it’s not like we want to oppose every single thing Obama proposes! He’s dividing the country by wanting things we don’t want! It’s like he’s in a whole different political party on purpose! You'd totally have universal background checks now if he didn't make us hate him so much!”
What a rube.
And you wonder why I don’t take the gun debate seriously anymore.
Unpopular demand,
This is dF
