Maybe the story the political class is missing is not “They don’t like the Republican field,” or “They don’t like Obama.” Maybe the story is that people are tuning out altogether. Maybe they’re bored with politics, and most especially with politicians. Maybe they don’t think our government can’t (sic) solve anything. Maybe, even, our political class has done such a good job depicting the crisis we’re in that the American people, with their low faith in institutions, think nothing, really, can be done about it. So let’s check out. Let’s watch the game.

Businesses that treat their customers as badly as the Republican and Democratic parties treat theirs tend to go out of business. This may be exactly what we’re seeing.

(via Tim Cavanaugh)

That’s why, if I were a partisan Democrat, I would be upset with my party over the recall elections in Wisconsin. Millions of dollars are being taken away from close races around the country to go towards unseating a governor who will be up for re-election in two years anyway.

The recall may well succeed; one measure of enthusiasm is the roughly one million signatures on the recall petition, twice what was needed. But the most this expensive campaign would buy is two years in the governor’s mansion.

And this campaign will be spectacularly expensive. Labor interests view their livelihood as being at stake. That’s hyperbole in my opinion, but people do feel that way. And they will be pouring millions into the race. Tempers are running high, and strategists for the blue team have to be disappointed that so many on their side have lost theirs.

Activists are so passionate about unseating Walker that they fired before they aimed. There is no Democratic candidate to unify behind, giving Republicans a built-in advantage. Not only will there be a bruising (and expensive) primary, but many Democratic voters will be on the wrong side of the enthusiasm gap if their preferred candidate loses the primary or the nominee has low name recognition.

No one knows how it will play out yet. But even if it succeeds, this particular temper tantrum could well cost Democrats a few Congressional seats. Maybe even the White House, if it takes enough resources away from the ground game in swing states.

Political markets are different than economic ones, but duopolies still have many of the same qualities — particularly regarding customer abuse. That’s why I was pleased to see a writeup in this morning’s Politico that the percentage of political independents is at an all-time high in a long-running Gallup poll. A full 40 percent of Americans have now opted out of the Republican-Democrat duopoly.

Associate Director of Technology Policy Studies and Iowa native Ryan Radia takes a look at how the different strains of Republican voters are deciding on their party’s presidential nominee. In the years to come, Radia believes that the GOP will need to reinvent itself ideologically if it is to remain politically relevant.

Modeling your re-election strategy on an obnoxious authoritarian’s failed third-party run for the presidency a hundred years ago is an interesting choice, but not necessarily a wise one. It’s a move of desperation, unlikely to work.

GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich calls himself “a Theodore Roosevelt Republican.” Despite (or because of?) T.R.’s many flaws, politicians from both parties have long found something irresistible about our pulpit-pounding 26th president.

But T.R.’s enduring appeal is an enduring mystery. What’s so attractive about Roosevelt’s political philosophy? A loudmouthed cult of manliness? A warped belief that war is a good tonic for whatever ails the national spirit? A contemptuous attitude toward limits on presidential power?

John McCain, the 2008 GOP nominee, also suffers from a Teddy Roosevelt complex, as Matt Welch details in his book McCain: The Myth of a Maverick. If there’s any lesson to be learned from presidential candidates’ shared T.R. fetish, it’s that only those truly in love with power can endure the the hell of the campaign trail to acquire it.

“With Rick Perry suddenly pushing a flat tax and Herman Cain substantively revising his 9-9-9 revenue plan, GOP candidates may finally relinquish their feverish immigration obsession — one that’s destructive, distracting, demented, and downright dumb. Why spend a wildly disproportionate amount of energy exploring an issue that few voters consider a top priority, and where all Republican candidates fundamentally agree, rather than emphasizing real differences on the economic problems that will decide the election?

“Listening to the toxic trash talk at the Las Vegas debate, or watching attack ads that are already polluting the Internet, one might assume that the public viewed illegal immigration as the greatest challenge facing our civilization and believed the fate of the republic hinged on Mitt Romney’s past reliance on a lawn-service company that hired undocumented workers.

“Actually, no major poll of the last year — no, not one of them — showed robust public interest in immigration. This month, CBS News asked respondents to name ‘the most important problem facing this country today.’ Less than 2 percent came up with ‘illegal immigration,’ while a dozen other concerns, led by ‘the economy and jobs,’ of course, finished higher on the list. Over the summer, surveys from Bloomberg and Fox News found 3 percent and 2 percent, respectively, who identified immigration as a priority, with gas prices, the war in Afghanistan, health care, the deficit, education, and even nebulous concerns like ‘partisan politics’ and ‘moral values’ more frequently mentioned by the public” — syndicated columnist Michael Medved writing at thedailybeast.com on Oct. 24.

Republicans are even worse than Democrats on immigration issues. Medved is right. It would be nice if the GOP candidates would just stop talking about it. I don’t care if doing so would help them at the polls or not; I just think that economically illiterate anti-foreign bias is an ugly thing to behold.

This bold stance garnered national headlines.

Wouldn’t it be more newsworthy if a professional vote-scrounger like Huntsman told an audience something they didn’t want to hear?

A new Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that so-called “low-information voters” — those who watch a lot of TV but who aren’t up-to-date on policy issues — are most likely vote for a candidate based on looks alone.