Mark Kleiman wonders if the assault weapons ban is ready for a political comeback. This is ironic, considering that in the past he's suggested that "even a highly popular anti-gun law such as the ban on 'assault weapons' is probably a net loser on election day. I think Kleiman's earlier sentiments, which are more in line with "blogospheric conventional wisdom", are more on the mark.
The conventional wisdom here is that there are few pro-gun control voters for whom this is a voting issue; that is, while 60% of the public supports gun control laws, very few voters consider this their most important or second most important issue. It's probably not even the most important crime control issue ... promises to add more police or increase prison sentences are probably more effective. But lots of voters will use a gun-control position as a reason to vote against a candidate. The main reason for supporting the ban was to help get the Police Officers' union on the side of the Ds and increase support in the suburbs, which at the time voted a bit more Republican than they to today. This also had a stronger effect when many states with large, high crime cities were swing states, at a time when the overall crime level was much higher. Today, overall crime levels are lower, and most of the increase in crime has occured in medium size towns, primarily in California and the Rust Belt. The only big cities in purple states that have seen a rise in crime are Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Denver. I suspect that gun control is still a net loser, since these states have substantial pro-gun rural & small town populations.
In addition, the political instutions that supported gun control have withered away. Ceasefire and the Brady Campaign once had large membership rolls and could produce lots of campaign volunteers. Today that's no longer true. The NRA, however, remains a political force.
In short, there are four factors that make the AWB a political non-starter:
A changing political map, putting fewer big-city high-crime states in play and more pro-gun states in play (the shift is even more dramatic at the House level).
The decline of pro-gun control institutions.
A slight blue trend in many suburbs, meaning Dems don't need to cater as much to suburban fears.
Crime increases isolated in uncompetitive states.
So, leave the AWB alone for now. Jon Tester's not going to want to see it come to the floor any time soon.
With the conclusion of the World Series, it's time for an After Action Report on the Braves' season.
What went better than expected?
Jeff Francoeur improved his plate discipline. Walks were up from 23 in 2005 to 42 in 2006, putting him on par with Alfonso Soriano after his third full year in the majors. This helped Frenchy improve his batting average from .260 to .293, and his total extra-base hits went up. This means he really only needs marginal improvements, a bit more plate discipline here, a tiny bit of power ther, to have a break out year
Edgar Renteria, when healthy, had an amazing year.
The decision to trade him made sense, but it's going to be tough to replace his production. Yunel Escobar better be as good as his half-season suggests.
Chipper Jones had one of the three best years of his career. Only his MVP year and 2001 were significantly better.
The Atlanta Braves got Mark Teixeira, who promptly hit the cover off the ball
In general, GM Schuerholz made effective, bold moves at the deadline, picking up Teixeira and Dotel. Saltalamacchia was a big price to pay, but the Braves really were in a position to make a run at the division title, and if you played the season over again, Tex might have made the difference.
The bench mostly carried its weight. Traditionally a source of weakness for Atlanta, the Braves substitutes did an admiral job filling in. Matt Diaz had a good half-year in left field, though his left-right platoon suggests he won't be an every day player. Yunel Escobar was effective enough in the infield that the Braves decided to trade Renteria (definitely a "sell high" move, as well as a chance to free up salary for Tex). Even Willie Harris had a couple of good months before turning into a pumpkin.
What went as expected?
Jarrod Saltalamacchia did adequately in his midseason call-up. .266/.310/.422 is decent performance if Salty can play catcher, and he's very young, but at first base it's not clear if he will be a perennial All-Star. He was expendable with McCann signed to such a cheap long-term deal. But he may be a player the team misses sorely in the coming years.
The bullpen was decent. ESPN says the bullpen era was second in the league, though it sure didn't seem like it was that good.
The Kelly Johnson-to-second-base experiment worked. Defensive statistics are imperfect, but Zone Rating suggests KJ was a slightly below average defender, which is about all one can expect. Coupled with his impressive plate discipline and substantial power for a 2nd baseman (3rd in the NL in OPS), it was definitely the right decision.
What went worse than expected?
Brian McCann took a step backward. This has to be the biggest concern for the Braves. McCann has already had a couple of oddball injuries, which is fine if they don't affect his performance too much, but this year they seemed to have an impact. His walks were down, his strikeouts were up, and his power dropped considerably.
Andruw Jones had an awful year at the plate. Bad enough that the Braves didn't make any real attempt to sign him, though they might not have in any circumstances given the asking price. But .222/.311/.413 is not a good way to make friends. Andruw's getting close to the age where he may totally crater. I hope he doesn't, but the team doesn't seem interested in bearing the risk at Scott Boras' asking price.
Scott Thorman was a total zero. .216/.258/.394 is a line you might see from your backup shortstop, but not your left-handed hitting first baseman.
Bobby Cox kept giving at-bats to players that were hot in May but ice cold in August. See Harris, Willie.
All in all, the Braves' luck tended to average out in terms of player performance. But based on their record they underperformed, which means they might be back in contention again next year.
It's that time of the year again. You haven't turned in your ballot?!? Get to the polls! The biggest race in the Seattle area is almost certainly the contest to fund Prop 1. But here are a few others:
If you haven't already, Vote No on I-960, with extreme prejudice. Every time Tim Eyman fails to deliver on a right-wing initiative, his credibility sinks a little bit further.
Also approve R-67. This is consistent with my practice of not second-guessing legislators' individual decisionsthrough initiative or referendum. The original measure in Olympia passed; R-67 is an attempt to reject the decisions of the legislature, so let's let it stand.
As for Prop 1, I'm voting yes. In the short term it should provide some congestion relief in Bellevue, as well as South King and Pierce County. In the medium term it should lead to a healthy increase in transit usage and encourage Seattle and its inner suburbs to become more dense. For my own self-interest, the transit line should free up some buses to increase peak hour service on the 11.
|
Last
updated by Nicholas Beaudrot on 08:44 14 January 2008
