Relaunching Comments 24 Feb 2014 6:32 AM (11 years ago)
Not sure if anyone is still looking over here, but just in case: I'm doing what I think of as a relaunch of comments over at Bloomberg today. I'm going to begin zapping, pretty aggressively at first.
If any of the old readers (and commenters) from Plain Blog have given up commenting or reading the comments over there, this is a good week to give it another try. I can't promise that it'll be just like it was here...but I'm going to see what I can do. At least I'll give it a try for a while, and see what happens.
On another front...no, the rss feed for the new place isn't ready yet. Yes, it's still planned. They're doing a site redesign, and they've assured me that when the redesign is ready, the rss feed will be. And that's supposed to be? Soon.
Recently at Bloomberg View 13 Jan 2014 7:52 AM (11 years ago)
I suppose I'll start a new post, and update it throughout the week, with links to current posts over there. As always with these, I may or may not update here in a timely way; your best bet is just to go over to my main page there.
Here are the weekend links:
Friday Baseball Post
What Mattered?
Sunday Question for Conservatives
Sunday Question for Liberals
And Monday, January 13:
Read Stuff, You Should
Why Campaign Finance Laws Make Things Worse
George Miller and the Ruling Class of 1974
Will High Court Trim Presidential Power?
Tuesday, January 14:
Read Stuff, You Should
Catch of the Day
Obamacare Isn't a Success -- or a Failure
Parties Dominate Their Presidential Nominees
Wednesday, January 15:
Read Stuff, You Should
News Media Fudge Unemployment Aid Filibuster
Looking For Me? I'm Over At Bloomberg View 9 Jan 2014 9:18 AM (11 years ago)
First post is up:
Will Scandal Cost Christie the Invisible Primary?
Yes, I got "party actors" and who they are into my first post...just worked out that way. More to come!
Again, my general page over there is also up (will get you first paragraphs of each post, click through for full thing...alas, true blogs just aren't happening any more).
Also yesterday:
Catch of the Day
And today, beginning with...yeah, still same name and format:
Read Stuff, You Should
What's So Bad About Political Polarization?
Obama Finally Getting His Act Together on Nominations
Republicans Aren't Too Conservative. They're Too Newt.
There were a few requests for keeping links here to posts there, at least until the rss feed shows up (in a few weeks, after their site redesign is launched)...I haven't decided yet, but I'll try to do them today at least, probably by updating this post.
So what are you doing here? Go over and check it out...
Moving Day 8 Jan 2014 9:56 AM (11 years ago)
Yes, boxes are being packed and unpacked at Plain Blog world headquarters today for the big move...well, figuratively at least. But in fact the big day is tomorrow.
Bloomberg View is here. And they already have a page for me, here. Empty now, but by late morning tomorrow there should be something there. I'm afraid at first there won't be a dedicated rss feed, but they're actually a few weeks away from a redesign, and among other things one of the benefits will be rss feeds for the authors. I'll have all of that easy to find here once it happens. Meanwhile, you can use that bio page for all new posts, and of course I'll be tweeting out new posts.
Other than that, I think this site is going to go dormant, most likely, although I haven't made any final decisions. I suppose I could use it for any off-topic or personal posting, but I don't really do that sort of thing (and the View folks have assured me every time I bring it up that anything I've written here would be on-topic there).
For regulars: I know you've expressed some concerns about comments. I don't really have a sense yet of how that will go -- but I'm willing to give it an initial try to keep the comments section over there a value-added portion of the blog, as I very much think it has been here. I hate to say it, but probably the best way for that to happen is if some of the regulars here flood the zone at first...but, again, I don't really have a sense of how it will go.
Also for regulars: I'm keeping the morning links posts, pretty much as-is, but I'm thinking about coming up with a new name. I know some of you hate "Read Stuff," and I don't mind taking the opportunity to switch it at this point...but I've come up blank so far. I'm thinking about song titles/lyrics... The Beatles' "Good Morning" seems trite, Tim Armstrong's "Wake up, you son of a bitch" too nasty. I can't say that Colin Moulding's "Wake Up" is one of my favorites...there sure are a lot of songs called "Wake Up," aren't there? I could always go with New Day Rising. I can't think of a good one from Kristin Hersch, or even from Elvis Costello...what am I missing? At any rate, I'm taking suggestions.
One way or another, it's time for the big move. So see you all over there tomorrow!
Sunday Question for Liberals 5 Jan 2014 3:54 PM (11 years ago)
Same one that I did for conservatives: who was your rookie of the year for the first session of Congress? Of those first elected in 2012, who impressed you?
(Fine. I know you all are going to say Elizabeth Warren. So if you have runner-up, add that one, too).
Sunday Question for Conservatives 5 Jan 2014 3:26 PM (11 years ago)
Looking back on the first session of Congress -- who is your rookie of the year? Who is the best of those newly elected in 2012?
What Mattered This Week? 4 Jan 2014 10:25 AM (11 years ago)
Last time here before the big move...
Friday Baseball Post 3 Jan 2014 9:48 PM (11 years ago)
It's Hall of Fame time. Can't miss this one.
As we all know, this year's ballot for the real voters is unlike any normal one: instead of being about which marginal guys deserve to be in, it's about dealing with the strategy of what to do with far more deserving players than the rules allow. There was a bit of this last year, but now it's getting silly.
So. Some sorting is in order. Last year I had nine easy choices: Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Piazza, Schilling, McGwire, Raines, Trammell, and Bagwell, all of whom are back this year. Then I had three bubble guys, and said I would have voted for Palmiero for strategic reasons.
That's not going to work this time, because the nine easy ones all return, joined by Maddux, Mussina, Thomas, and Glavine. So that's thirteen guys who, to me, are obvious HOFers. There's also Jeff Kent, who for now I'll say joins the bubbles, with Palmiero, Sosa, and Edgar Martinez (and McGriff, although last year I concluded that he was a stretch).
What do we do with it?
There's no good solution. One way to go after it would be to forget strategic issues and just pick the best ten. Another way, and I think the way to go, is to worry mostly about ballot strategy.
There are really, I think, three issues. One is to support guys who are in danger of falling off the ballot: that would be, I think, Palimiero, Sosa, McGwire, and Kent. I've said in the past that I think Palmiero and McGwire are over my line; I haven't really decided on Sosa or, now, Kent.
The second is to support the guys who are relatively undervalued by HOF votes. For me, that's McGwire, Trammell, Bonds, Clemens, Raines, and maybe Piazza and Schilling -- all (to me) clear, easy, HOFers, but all having trouble with the voters.
The third is to put guys over the top in order to help clear the gridlock. Who is going to be right around the line this year? Biggio, I think, is the only obvious one. I'm guessing that Maddux makes it easily, and that the other three new ones fall short, although maybe the Hurt comes close.
Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, strategies two and three conflict with each other.
Still, I think that organizes things enough. Drop Maddux, who gets in anyway. Drop Bagwell -- he's not going to make it this year, but he's in the safe zone. And then drop...I don't know, Mussina, I guess, on the theory that he's less likely to make it this year than Glavine.
And, reluctantly, drop the bubble guys. Maybe I'd feel differently if I had a real ballot...I'm awfully tempted to include Palmiero, Sosa, Kent, and maybe even Edgar just to make sure they all stay on the ballot, although I suspect that Kent and Martinez are relatively safe.
So that gets me: McGwire, Trammell, Bonds, Clemens, Raines, Piazza, Schilling, Glavine, Biggio, Thomas.
And one main point: if you think that McGwire (or Palmiero or Sosa) is a clear HOFer, then you really should find room for them on your ballot this year.
Note too that at least as far as leaving Maddux off is concerned, this would be strategic voting which depends on other voters following different logic. As far as I'm aware (and I've seen Hank Schulman's ballot, but otherwise I missed most of the debates while I've been on vacation), no one is thinking of leaving Maddux off for strategic reasons, but if I was a real voter I'd be paying closer attention and, if I thought Maddux was going to have a close call for induction this time, switch to him (over, I suppose, Glavine).
By the way, leaving Maddux off is not intended as a comment on his surgical enhancement.
Update (OK, not technically an update since I hadn't posted yet, but I don't feel like going back and editing): it seems that I was probably correct on Maddux, but that McGwire is probably safe.
Oh, also, might as well link to Joe Sheehan on the HOF electorate. I hadn't really thought about the demographic issues he raises...my general sense is that the HOF has been pretty happy using the BBWAA, and that they're unlikely to change -- instead, what they'll do, as they've always done, is resort to ad hoc rules changes and special committees (and both) to rectify problems that arise, which (as Bill James pointed out) for the BBWAA basically means any interruption of a steady flow of new inductions. But Sheehan makes some good points about why the current system may not prove stable over time.
Obviously, I'm skipping the part where I argue about why the 13 easy picks are actually clear HOFers, and why the bubble guys are bubble guys, and why the rest shouldn't be in. I've argued all of this in the past except for the new guys, so my apologies for skipping it (if you really want to know, click the link above to last year's post, and work back from there). Anyway, my basic view is that I prefer a fairly generous HOF size, and I really don't think any of these guys are close calls at all; better to focus on the more interesting stuff.
Sunday Question for Everyone 29 Dec 2013 7:16 PM (11 years ago)
What's a realistic policy outcome you are particularly hoping for in 2014?
What Mattered This Week? 29 Dec 2013 9:50 AM (11 years ago)
Okay, I know, I'm a day late, and I'm not sure if any of you are around anyway, and even worse I've really been on full vacation this week and can't even suggest anything...but let's do What Mattered anyway.
So anyway: what have you noticed? What do you think mattered this week?
Sunday Question for Everyone 22 Dec 2013 3:44 AM (11 years ago)
What's a gift you would like to give to a politician you like? This is for sincere, not sarcastic, gifts, but creative ones if you can think of them.
What Mattered This Week? 21 Dec 2013 9:41 AM (11 years ago)
Sure, why not do this one?
Let's see...I'll go with the nominations that made it through the Senate. Yes, there was some foot-dragging that successfully delayed others, but nothing that's really a big deal, and the ones that got through are now done. Plus there were new judicial nominations this week. Both the number of judicial vacancies and vacancies without nominees -- most of them blue slip issues -- remain stubbornly high, but things are better than they were.
Obviously this week's silliness -- Pajama Boy, White Santa Claus, Duck Dynasty, whatever else -- didn't matter, and once again you don't need me to tell you that.
What else? What do you think mattered this week?
Housekeeping 20 Dec 2013 6:53 AM (11 years ago)
Well, this is a big one.
I've accepted a position as political blogger for Bloomberg View. I'm consolidating all my stuff over there. Yup, after four plus years, I'll be your Plain Blogger no more.
Or at least, not over here. The plan is basically to do what I've been doing since I started: same topics, same regular items, same everything. I won't, at least at first, be doing columns there (or elsewhere). Just the blogging, all back under the same roof, as it was when I started here. It all kicks off a little after New Year's. I'm very excited about it; it's exactly what I've wanted, having all my stuff together again (and, yes, to get paid for it, too). I'm very impressed with the folks over at Bloomberg View; all I can tell you is that every time I asked any of them about whether they wanted more of this or less of that, they basically had the same answer: we like what you've done, so keep doing it. So that's what you can expect when I get over there.
What do I want to do now? I want to thank a whole lot of people. John Sides and Seth Masket, for linking to me and making me surface-respectable right away. Andrew Sullivan was very generous with his support from very early on. Ezra Klein has been terribly important in boosting the meeting of political scientists and journalists, both publicly with links and other support and behind the scenes. Both Andrew and Ezra trusted me with guest-blogging gigs well before I was anyone's obvious choice for that sort of thing. Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum, and Jonathan Cohn have been very generous, again from early on, with both links and with occasional advice when I asked. And certainly Greg Sargent has done more for me than I can ever hope to repay.
More: the people at The New Republic, Salon, and the Prospect who picked up my stuff. Paul Glastris, too, at Washington Monthly, and Fred Hiatt at the Post. Also the editors who I've worked with and taught me how to write columns...quite a few good ones, but especially Seyward Darby, Gabriel Arana, and Jaime Fuller.
I'm missing a lot, and I apologize to those I'm leaving out. If anyone is still reading: what I need to impress on people is that really without exception bloggers have been extremely open and generous towards me the whole time I've been doing this.They may bring the snark, but what's important is that they act as colleagues, not competitors.
And thanks so much to all of you for reading Plain Blog, and especially to the commenters who made this a really nice place to hang out. I hope you all follow me over to Bloomberg.
As far as this place...
I'm off on vacation beginning Sunday and going through New Year's. After that, I'll have a couple of days, and then start the new gig. I'm really not sure what, if any, posting I'll be doing in the interim. Not much, for sure, but I may do the occasional item...haven't even decided whether to put What Mattered and Sunday Questions up this weekend (we're driving to Phoenix on Sunday, so I'm not exactly going to be plugged in very much).
After that, I really don't know about the old blog. I'll certainly be leaving the site up for the old posts...as of now, I'm not aware of anything that I do here that they don't think fits over there. But we'll see. All I really know is that most of my stuff will be over at Bloomberg View. I'll see you there!
Elsewhere 19 Dec 2013 5:29 PM (11 years ago)
I know there hasn't been much here lately, but I've been busy as usual over at PP, plus a bit at Greg's place.
I'm really skeptical about the "Obamacare rollout hurt Obama's approval ratings" story. It just doesn't match the numbers, as far as I can tell. Part of which is that it's a bit difficult to know what to make of the shutdown. Since I'm inclined to think the shutdown hurt Obama's approval, I see less movement from the ACA fiasco than those who believe the shutdown helped him.
Here's some others from the last week or so:
Return of the Huck.
A big lesson from the HealthCare.gov fiasco
Polling? Interviews? Just get it right.
No, don’t shut up the minority on judges
More Senate drama
Once More on Judicial Strategic Retirements 19 Dec 2013 2:04 PM (11 years ago)
I one of those who have been writing for quite a while that if Breyer and Ginsburg care primarily about advancing the positions they've fought for on the Court, the best thing for them to do is to retire. Now. Or at least, pending confirmations of their replacements. But before the 2014 midterms, and certainly before the 2016 elections.
Ginsburg has been firing back. But the best case I've seen for resisting strategic retirements comes from Linda Greenhouse, who channels Ginsburg to Emily Bazelon:
I think from her perspective she is taking a long view of history, not a case by case one, or a term by term one. She has to believe that justice will win out in the end—or that, if it doesn't, her departure at one point or another couldn't be the major factor. I agree with her and I think people ought to give this issue a rest and concentrate on electing Democrats to the White House and the Senate. ... I think the issue is serving as kind of a displacement for the liberals’ general sense of powerlessness—they seem to feel that getting Ruth to resign would be something concrete they could accomplish when all else is failing.It's a nice sounding argument, but it won't wash. "Justice will win out in the end?" Politics doesn't have an "end." It just has a series of "nows." Nor is there any certainty about any of it. Political events are incredible contingent, and path dependent; it's very, very, easy to tell counterfactual stories involving slightly different election results and the implications that spin out from there.
Of course, not all events begin new paths of their own. And sometimes, the path is overwhelmed by other factors, whether they are technological, or demographic, or whatever. But Supreme Court Justices, right now, in this extremely partisan era, and in a closely divided court? I don't know anything about "in the end," but it's very easy to see how a flip or two in who serves on the Court could make very large changes which would matter very much for a whole lot of people for decades.
Now, for most political actors, it's certainly true that there's more they can do about House and Senate elections than there is about changing the mind of two individuals. So, sure, if you're a liberal, don't get mad as Ginsburg or Breyer; help a Democrat win a Senate seat.
But I'm not talking about what Democratic activists want -- after all, many of them don't care very much (whether they should or not) about what SCOTUS does. At best, most activists and most voters care about one or two Court outcomes. After all, they have plenty of competing issues, and no particular reason to believe that the Court should be at the top of their list. The people who do care about what the Court does, passionately -- at least, we suspect they care passionately -- are the Justices themselves. So this is on them, not on anyone else.
None of which is to say what Ginsburg or Breyer should do in any absolute sense. It's a great job, and both are clearly -- now -- able to do it at the highest level. As I've said before, giving that up in order to better fight for their principles is a lot to ask. If either of them believes that it's not worth it...it's not up to any of us to pick their priorities. All I'm saying, and I think it's just clearly true, is that if their top priority is fighting for the legal principles and the outcomes they prefer, then resignation is the best way to ensure that priority.
Read Stuff, You Should 19 Dec 2013 5:25 AM (11 years ago)
Happy Birthday to Tim Reid, 69.
I keep thinking that some blogging will happen, but it doesn't seem to be (here; regular posts at PP all week). With any luck, this won't be the third day in a row with only the good stuff:
1. Ta-Nehisi Coates, always.
2. Good analysis from Greg Sargent on Obama, John Podesta, and executive action on climate. One additional point: a normal opposition party would consider, given the possibility of significant action, cutting a deal to protect party-aligned interest groups as much as possible (while, perhaps, securing some other policy gains in return). That's essentially the story, for example of Bush's early administration education initiative. It might not end that way; the administration could reject a deal that the out-party was willing to make, or the out-party might ultimately decide that the substantive changes they could purchase wouldn't be worth it. But at any rate, with the current GOP, it's just a non-starter.
3. Brad DeLong, over at his new digs, brings us Christina Romer and more on Bernanke.
4. Stan Collender on Paul Ryan.
Read Stuff, You Should 18 Dec 2013 5:14 AM (11 years ago)
Happy Birthday to Alan Rudolph, 70.
Travel day yesterday, so I hardly saw any good stuff, but there are these:
1. Andrew Sprung, as usual, listens to Obama better than most of us.
2. Keith Bentele and Erin O’Brien track black voting and restrictions on voting.
3. And really, no more (blogging) Dan Drezner?
Read Stuff, You Should 17 Dec 2013 4:31 AM (11 years ago)
Happy Birthday to Bob Ojeda, 56. Mainly because he always reminds me of Blue Sox hero Steve Olin, who would have been 48 now. Sad. Also, because in the 30+ years I've known her, my wife really cared about baseball for about a two week stretch: Mets vs. Astros, Mets vs. Red Sox.
The good stuff:
Jon Krasno and Gregory Robinson make the case for shifting the filibuster burden from the majority (needing 60) to the minority (needing 41). I'm okay with this, but I've never really believed that it would make much difference. Nor do I think it's a likely compromise position and more. So not much hope for it, but it does make sense.
Greg Sargent with two of his smart focuses: that the way to judge how Healthcare.gov is doing is by watching the insurance companies; and that Republicans are utterly convinced that the ACA has already failed, past tense.
And I haven't read it yet, but very much looking forward to Jon Ralston on Harry Reid.
Glitch Gloating? Good 16 Dec 2013 8:12 AM (11 years ago)
I'm not sure whether it was in response to my earlier item or not, but Andrew Sprung tweets:
So constructive to have all hands in a major political party poised to highlight & gloat over every glitch in major new gov service.Presumably he's being sarcastic, but you know what? It is constructive! It's absolutely a good thing to have a major political party poised to highlight every glitch in what government is up to. Not so much the gloating, but that's not doing any harm. The highlighting is definitely a good thing. One of the strong points of the two-party system is that it leaves an out party with every incentive to identify everything that's going wrong. Not just in government, but in the nation as a whole.
The problem isn't highlighting the glitches, or even gloating about them. The problem is that the current radical GOP is actively opposed to fixing ACA problems, to the point of obstructing attempted fixes. That's a problem. But it's also not normal at all. A healthy party would either promote fixes in order to get more mileage out of their claim that the administration botched thing, or at the very least use glitches and needed fixes as an opportunity to get its own policies adopted. Flat-out rejectionism is definitely a problem, but it only comes up because the normal party incentives of winning elections and enacting public policy don't seem to be working as well as they should for the radical GOP.
But seeking out poor public policy and calling attention to it? That's extremely healthy for the system.
Blame Obamacare/Disappearing Obamacare 16 Dec 2013 6:48 AM (11 years ago)
Kevin Drum notes that everyone is blaming Obamacare for things that would happen anyway, and that the incentive structure calls for this to continue, for a while at least. Sam Baker had a longer, and also good, item about this last week.
I'm gonna be churlish and say: Called it! Way back when I was a wee baby blogger, and months before the ACA passed:
On health care, it's safe to predict (if the bill passes) that even though few provisions will go into effect before the 2010 and 2012 election, Obama and the Democrats will totally own health care, at least for high-information GOP primary voters. We can expect lots of medical horror stories (true ones -- there are always true medical horror stories) that are attributed to Obamacare. On top of that, there will be death panels; not real ones, of course, but newly invented scary future effects of the newly passed bill. Any Republican who cut a deal and voted for that bill will be risking the blame, along with all Democrats, for every medical horror story that happens for the rest of their careers, but especially over the next couple election cycles (I should note that Republicans are hardly alone in that; for the past forty years Democrats have pinned all medical horror stories on reform-blocking GOP candidates. The special genius of the 2010 and 2012 cycles is that the responsibility will flip, at least for GOP primary voters, even though reform won't yet be implemented).Okay, so I should have added the 2014 cycle, too, and probably 2016 as well.
I still believe, by the way, that "Obamacare" will eventually disappear, at least assuming it's reasonably successful. Of course, the fiasco in October wasn't good for making "Obamacare" disappear; I've always said that it disappears if it succeeds. It's possible, too, that the conservative information bubble is so obsessed with the law that they'll still be blaming everything up to and including the common cold on Obamacare decades from now. On the other hand, sooner or later there will be another Democratic president, and once that happens Fox News and all are sure to compare the radical socialist leftism of that new president to the reasonable moderation of Obama. Will "Obamacare" survive that? Hard to guess.
I'd really love to know what percentage of people who have new insurance through the exchanges think it's "Obamacare." Whatever that is -- and it's surely lower than 100% -- it's certain to decline over time. And I'm guessing that only a small fraction of those with new expanded Medicaid insurance think of it as Obamacare (or ACA). Hardly anyone with employer-based insurance thinks of it as related in any way to Obamacare, I'd assume; nor do they think it has anything to do with government policy.
Back to the blame thing...the point isn't whether ACA is a success or not; the point is that it's going to be blamed for lots of things, many of which it has nothing to do with, whether it's a success or a failure. That's just the nature of the thing.
Read Stuff, You Should 16 Dec 2013 5:33 AM (11 years ago)
Happy Birthday to Steven Bochco, 70.
I'm traveling and in meetings early this week, so posting may be sporadic, but that's no excuse for skipping the good stuff:
1. I mostly blame the mainstream conservatives who make up the bulk of the GOP conference for the shutdown; here's a perspective that puts Speaker Boehner at fault. I disagree, but plausible!
2. Josh Huder on the future of the filibuster.
3. And Dan Drezner: Yankees, or North Korea?
Sunday Question for Liberals 15 Dec 2013 11:53 AM (11 years ago)
Same question, plus a bit more. What's the general consensus of neutral experts going to be by, oh, the end of March on how the ACA is working? Series of disasters? Surprisingly successful, given the fiasco in October? Too soon to know? Or something else?
And what of Barack Obama's job in implementing the law. Presumably he'll still be knocked for October, but among liberals, will it look not so bad in retrospect? Sign of all that is wrong with his presidency? Demonstration that he makes at least his share of mistakes, but is good at recovering from them? Or something else?
Sunday Question for Conservatives 15 Dec 2013 11:21 AM (11 years ago)
What's the general consensus of neutral experts going to be by, oh, the end of March on how the ACA is working? Series of disasters? Surprisingly successful, given the fiasco in October? Too soon to know? Or something else?
What Mattered This Week? 14 Dec 2013 8:42 AM (11 years ago)
The confirmations. I think I said this before, but put aside the drama (and real importance) of the Senate rules fight: the nominations at stake, especially those three DC Circuit picks, are quite important.
Of course the various Mandela memorial flaps don't matter, but you all knew that.
What else? It was a pretty newsy week, seemed to me. What do you have? What do you think mattered this week?
Yeah, Bipartisanship Isn't About To Break Out 13 Dec 2013 7:58 AM (11 years ago)
Brian Beutler has this right:
Ever since he became speaker, Boehner has been reluctant to forge coalitions with Democrats, particularly when Democrats end up controlling the policy and supplying the overwhelming majority of votes. As a rule he’s only done this when sticking with the right would send the country past some deadline or over some cliff, and even then he’s acted reluctantly.See also Jamelle Bouie.
The bottom-line context underlying the temporary (and it's certainly temporary) emergence of bipartisan peace in the House is the one I keep pounding on: at the end of the day, whether before or after a shutdown, John Boehner knows that eventually he and Barack Obama are going to wind up on the same side of something that funds the government going forward. That's an absolute, unavoidable fact of appropriations deadlines. Which means that at the end of the day, whatever he does on the way there, Boehner is going to be a sellout and a RINO for agreeing with the Kenyan socialist in the White House.
Given that context, a shutdown was, and is, an almost certain disaster for the Speaker (and for whatever Republicans would wind up voting for the eventual measure that ends the shutdown). I'm still not sure why the House went down that road in October, but having done it once and (believing they) paid the price, it was even more unlikely that they would do it a second time.
But there's no reason at all to believe that this means anything for those issues -- most issues -- in which there is no certainty that they end in agreement between Obama and Boehner.
Which means, for all those other issues, what matters is whether mainstream House Republicans want bills to pass (or, for GOP priorities, whether Obama and mainstream Senate Democrats want something to pass).
The rest, such as Boehner lashing out at conservative groups? It's mostly, or entirely, window dressing. This is one that fits perfectly into a story of clear incentives -- and the same incentives just aren't there on many other issues.