As I have mentioned earlier, the Lame Duck session of Congress is the period of several weeks in between the November elections (in which Republicans scored huge victories) and the swearing in of the newly elected Congress in January. Some politicians are opposed to any action during the Lame Duck for those who have been 'thrown out', but none-the-less, most politicians are happy to use the last bit of muscle they have left to push through pet projects or partisan legislation to their heart's content.
Democrats still hold their strong majorities in the Senate and House for the Lame Duck session, but because of their electoral victories, Republicans are in a great bargaining position to demand certain legislative priorities, and they know stalling will only improve their situation.
The major situation facing the Lame Duck session is that on January 1st 2011, tax breaks passed by then President George W. Bush will expire, and this will amount to a tax hike on all income levels. In reality it would just make taxes go back to their levels under President Clinton. Since his campaign in 2008, President Obama has consistently advocated for letting the tax cuts for the rich expire; this would cause tax rates for those making $250,000 a year or more to increase, but keeping the same tax rates in place for those under this bracket.
According to the CBO, the non-partisan budget rating system for Congress, increasing tax rates for the rich would take 700 billion dollars off of the deficit over the course of 10 years, which is not trivial, but also not the one-time solution to budget needs (I hope to have an article out this week about deficit spending under Obama). Meanwhile economists almost universally argue that very little money ends up trickling down from the rich into the US economy, so the stimulative effects of continuing tax breaks on the rich are small. These have been Obama's talking points for months now, leading up to a change of tenor in the last several weeks.
Beginning in the Lame Duck session, Republicans in the Senate came out right away with a letter stating their intention to block all legislation (by refusing to vote for cloture which allows bills to come up for a vote; cloture can be blocked with only 41 Senators- the GOP has 42) until the tax cut issue is resolved... in their favor. Republicans in the House and Senate demanded, based on their perceived mandate from voters in November, that tax cuts be extended for all people, regardless of income level.
Democrats, including the President, immediately shot back that Republicans were holding middle class tax cuts hostage to their desire to see multi-millionaires get a break as well. Republicans shrugged and dared Democrats to defy them.
See, this is where the public generally stands on the issue. Most people, roughly around 60%, would like to see the tax cuts extended for the middle class only, and these figures increase when voters are asked about higher and higher income levels, such that about 75% (cumulatively) would like to see the tax cuts extended for those making less than 1,000,000 dollars a year. Only about 15% actually want to see all the tax cuts ended. Republicans also know that the general public doesn't feel very strongly about whether or not the super rich get tax cuts, as long as the middle class does. So any proposal that includes a continuing tax break for the middle class will (almost certainly be shown to) be generally supported, regardless of how people feel about their ideal situation.
Thus, although the one issue that Republicans and Democrats agree on is tax breaks for those making less than $250,000, Republicans refuse to allow the tax cut bill to be broken up into two separate bills. Democrats have long believed this to be the most fair way to approach the issue- the result would be that Republicans and Democrats would approve the lower income tax break! And even better for Democrats, Republicans would be shown for who they really are, since they would then be forced to cast a Yea vote for extending the tax cuts for the rich as well, a generally unpopular position by itself. Democrats would vote against keeping taxes low for the super rich, it would result in failure of the rich tax cut bill, and Democrats would feel mighty good about themselves- since this is the first time public opinion has been with them on a major issue in quite a long time.
This is what Democrats mean by Republicans taking the middle class tax cuts hostage: Republicans refuse to have the tax cuts broken up into two bills because they know that they will lose the rich tax cuts. Republicans also know, as mentioned earlier, that Democrats want middle class tax cuts extended more than they oppose extending tax cuts for the rich. Republicans, therefore, are using smart and effective strategy.
This strategy has been so effective in fact, that last week the President announced that a compromise had been reached with Republicans on the tax cut issue in which Democrats would give Republicans everything they demanded. Well, at least Obama is calling it a compromise to put a positive spin on the situation. I'm being a little flip here; Republicans have gotten only most of what they wanted, and that's where Obama's strategy comes in. (I'll talk about that in a sec)
Liberals are, to put it lightly, incensed. This was an issue that Obama had campaigned on, and it strikes at a serious backbone position of the liberal philosophy: the rich are under-taxed, the poor are over taxed. The PCCC (Progressive Change Campaign Committee) a liberal lobbying PAC (Political Action Committee) and other progressive organizations like MoveOn have decried the compromise as one step too far and have taken to trying to get the compromise rejected by the House of Representatives. Amazingly, the PCCC actually has been airing ads AGAINST President Obama in light of this situation, in Iowa and D.C.; to get a sense, watch it here.
(One of the reasons I've taken a little while to come out with an article on this is that it's been, up till recently, unclear what kind of bill would ultimately come out of Congress, but it is looking increasingly likely that both the Senate and the House will pass the tax cut extensions, possibly this week. I will have an update and analysis on the content of the bill when it gets finished.)
On the other hand, some Democratic activists (probably not the majority) have been steadfastly standing behind the President's decision, defending him from attacks on the left. Bill Clinton decided to personally defend the tax cuts from the White House briefing room this week. Positions essentially comprised of that stated by the article here are the ones used most to defend the President. Essentially the argument goes, Obama tricked Republicans into 1. sounding moderate, 2. a temporary stimulus, and 3. when the tax cuts come back up for renewal, Obama will be in a much better position to strip the rich tax cuts from the bill. These arguments note the one primary thing that Republicans did NOT get from the tax cut extensions: making them permanent. Instead they will be extended for 2 years only, and come up at the end of the Presidential campaign during 2012. At this time, Obama and these Democrats argue, the country will be out of this recession and Republicans will not have the excuse of "we can't raise taxes on anyone during a recession". Thus, this stimulus will actually cause the country to get out of the recession faster, and for those who believe the unpopularity of Democrats is tied to the bad economy rather than the policies they've enacted, this can only help the Democrats. Add this to the fact that Obama was able to bind the tax cut bill with an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months. Apparently, this makes Republicans 'suckers'.
Obama loyalists aren't the only ones joining the 'Republicans are suckers' chorus. Some notable conservatives are blasting the tax cut deal because it adds about a trillion additional dollars to the deficit (over 10 years), includes additional spending in the form of extending unemployment benefits, and doesn't even hint at paying for itself. Mitt Romney, aspiring Presidential candidate for 2012 (polling alongside with or ahead of Palin, Gingrich, and Huckabee, and with the most money in the warchest) has written an op-ed that pretty well defines the Republican criticism here.
And you know, something only truly becomes bipartisan when both the left and the right hate it, so congratulations President Obama, now you're a moderate! I haven't heard cries of "socialist" in awhile.
Overall though, most political observers will probably agree that the tax cut compromise hits more Republican talking points than it does Democratic ones. This will be evidenced in the House and in the Senate, where it's likely in both chambers that more Democrats will vote against the bill than Republicans. As I mentioned earlier, the White House and Democratic leaders are confident that the bill will pass both chambers, but the House version may include some goodies like green energy credits to make the pill easier to swallow for the Democratic caucus.
I have had a few requests for my personal opinion on the whole issue, especially since the label "very liberal" applies to me in a lot of circumstances. Generally, I like to leave personal politics out of main page articles, but I will briefly state my position here, for sake of full disclosure. I think it's dubious to believe that the President will be in a better position to argue the tax cut issue in 2 years, particularly because he may himself be a Lame Duck. Congress will be much more Red than Blue in 2 years, and it's unlikely that Republicans will fail to vote for tax cuts for the rich simply because their argument will be weaker. That's not been a problem for them in the past. We will have to see. But as far as the content of the bill itself, I am frustrated that tax cuts were extended for all tax brackets, mostly because taxing the rich hurts the economy a lot less than Republicans would have you believe. Still, this is really a question of what the best tax rate should be overall; maybe it should be lower, maybe it should be higher, but I think we shouldn't be deficit spending if we can help it. Maybe this means letting all the tax cuts expire.
Yet, on the level, it doesn't matter to me that much because I'm not an economist and I don't really understand the dynamics of the effects these kind of things have on the economy. I'd much rather leave it up to people who seem to know what they're talking about, and if they say this deal will continue to pull us out of the recession, regardless of deficit spending, I'm for it. And in the whole package of things which bother me about what Obama has done in the last two years, this issue ranks very low on my priorities, mainly because the battle hasn't been fought for the final time yet. If all tax cuts become permanent in 2 years, I will probably have a bigger problem. Of course, maybe the real solution is spending less, not taxing more; it's taboo to mention, but we spend more on defense than the rest of the world's countries combined. And a lot of those countries are our allies, so we could probably afford to cut some here and there, particularly when it comes to infinite multi-billion dollar wars in other countries.
In the end, I'm a patient guy; I'm willing to wait and see what happens, and I think most Democratic voters will come around to this position soon enough. But the anger on the left for now is real, and some will spill over into the Presidential campaign. Does this mean that Obama has opened himself up to a Primary challenge? Probably. Will it amount to anything? Probably not. Challenging a sitting President has not historically provided successful results. Ultimately, will most Democrats really care about this small issue when they see the kind of Republicans who are in the playing field in the next several months? Absolutely not.
Say what you want about the President, he's smart, and he's surrounded by smart people. Every move is calculated and recalculated. He's keeping his cards close, and he has a plan. But most of all, he knows that his Party won't abandon him, because he's been the closest thing to what liberals have been wishing for since FDR or Kennedy. Right? Oh, and also, at least he's not the other guy.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Housekeeping, and Informal Thoughts on Wikileaks
Apologies to all the readers for the extended hiatus in new posting; I've been working on securing two new temporary contributors, and taking a short vacation from blogging, as politics season had taken a short break period after the frantic pace of the pre-election information. But we're well moving into the short Lame Duck session of Congress and there's a lot to talk about. So here I am again, humbly at your service!
I also want to thank the many dedicated readers for their interest in P.L. vs:; thanks to you we had over 300(!) individual page views in the month of November, averaging more than 10 pageviews per day. Keep up the reading, and in return I'll try to keep us growing with more fresh insights and general political news!
But for now, to get things rolling, I feel compelled to comment on the Wikileaks controversy that is swirling amongst the political sphere.
As you all probably know, Wikileaks is the controversial site which has been, well, leaking, here and there, confidential government information and classified military documents. At the moment, it's been dropped from all US servers and is now temporarily operating out of the one country which never takes a side- (you guessed it!) Switzerland, with the generous help of the Swiss Pirate Party. On a side note, the world wide Pirate Party phenomenon is an interesting read, and yes it is a real thing; start here if you want to know more. Oh, it's all so fun!
Anyway, the Wikileaks site can now be accessed at Wikileaks.cn, or the specific IP address: http://213.251.145.96/. The reason for it's drop has to do with a combination of it's hyper controversial nature and vigilante cyber attacks in the nature of DDoS and DoS which have periodically shut down the site.
It's really not surprising that Wikileaks has come under such attack. The non-profit organization has released documents not intended for release on a scale that has never been done before, including documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and international governments are still trying to cope with the fallout from the most recent release: 250,000 individual US diplomatic cables (conversations between diplomats and officials). Some Republicans have been calling for Wikileaks to be designated a terrorist organization for its release of these documents that could potentially put active diplomats and armed service members in harms way. And most Democrats and virtually the rest of the Republicans favor taking serious legal action against Wikileaks or it's founder Julian Assange, if nothing else, simply on the basis of the embarrassment to world leaders and the US government, and the dysfunction, disruption, and international mistrust it has supposedly caused. We could be talking about a charge on the level of treason, or something relative in nature to that charge. Of course, complicating things on the legal front is the First Amendment of the Constitution, the fact the Assange is an Australian citizen, the fact that Assange seems to be hiding out somewhere in the UK, the fact that the servers of Wikileaks are operating out of France and Sweden, or the fact that the domain name is now hosted in Switzerland. Also logistically complicating the removal of Wikileaks servers is that, well, they're in a bomb shelter... bunker... cave. I'm just saying, these Wikileaks guys are ready for anything.
No, wait, it gets better. Assange is now wanted by Interpol; oh yes there he is up on the site, for an alleged sex crime or two in Sweden. The timing of the release of this notice by Interpol is certainly convenient for the United States and many countries of the world which would love to see Assange behind bars. Again, whether or not these sex crime allegations are related to Wikileaks or not is unclear, but the timing of the Red Notice put out by Interpol is suspicious, to say the least.
Most political commentators have leveled varying degrees of condemnation at Assange, most of whom have echoed what Secretary of State Clinton said Monday at the beginning of this week: "The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems." A few bold souls have actually praised the release of these documents, and Clinton addresses these people in the same speech to which I linked above. Her argument against this praise comes at 4:45 in the youtube video. Clinton essentially argues that state diplomacy requires exceptional discretion for it to be effective. A similar argument is made in this article by Paul Schroeder, shared with me by a friend.
My initial reaction to the whole thing was guarded praise for the release of these documents, since I am always in favor of more transparency in our governmental systems. Public servants, in some ways, lose the privilege of privacy when they represent a collective body of citizens, and unless those citizens can make informed decisions about what is going on in their world, not just what the officials want us to know, but what is actually happening, the better we can elect leaders who can carry out the kind of diplomacy in which we believe. The more I have thought about this issue, the more my position has become solidified, again with cautious praise for the Wikileaks release. There are some caveats to this praise however. To address it, I recommend you read the Schroeder article above and then my response to it, which is below.
The article's comments, which surmise most of the major criticisms of Wikileaks, are ultimately not convincing to me. I'm unsatisfied with the explanation that secrecy is necessary, for the sake of secrecy, when secrecy is all we've had. In other words, the argument that states require secret diplomacy to run correctly and effectively may be true, but this argument ignores the question of whether or not the fact that this secrecy is necessary is actually a good thing! It seems to me that secrecy in the public service often has a dubious foundation. Perhaps if we stop treating the public like children unable to professionally analyze the data released in massive leaks, or confidential material in general, the public will become used to such otherwise 'scandalous' materials and use the information to be better knowledgeable about our world's foreign relations situation. As I said earlier, this information can be used in advocacy or in the ballot box.
Meanwhile, the argument that other foreign leaders would be insulted by the information coming out, and it therefore hurts the relations between the US and other countries requires additional questions be asked. I have a hard time believing that foreign leaders are so naiive that they don't already know how our diplomats and foreign officials feel about them, and either way I don't think that the leader of a nation would honestly be so self conscious as to care about what US diplomats or officials think. But the embarrassment really comes from the fact that now the public knows of the humiliation they've received in confidential cables, and it may hurt the pride of these leaders. Well, if public humiliation makes these people more aware of their own shortcomings (both the giver and receiver of the insult) then I am in favor of it.
From my standpoint, these diplomats and foreign officials are a product a concept of prestige based on the power (military of economic) they are representing, of the country from which they come, and that prestige is based upon our unnecessary sociological and cognitive retention of the proud nation state in our world understanding. It doesn't surprise me that the establishment within the government in both parties are condemning the release of these documents, because they lower the prestige of the socially constructed entity for which they work. Power and prestige aren't ideological issues or party issues so why disagree? I have written at length of the major problems in assuming that the nation state is the best or only form of governance, and I think everyone would be a little better off if they remembered that institutions such as the nation (and this includes the officials whose jobs depend on representing that nation) exist only as long as the people continue to tolerate the socialized existence of such things. If leaks of this sort expose the nation-state for the inadequate governing system that it is, then I approve. And I'll reiterate that the cables at the very least raise the question of whether or not it is a good thing that secrecy is required for the system to work in the first place. What, exactly, is preventing our nations from working with complete transparency? And why?
And still, through all of this, I have some major reservations regarding an outright endorsement of the activities by Wikileaks. The final argument made by critics of the organization, to which I am much more amenable, is this: that there is sometimes a time and a place for the release of confidential documents, and that releasing documents without discretion in a huge 'dump' is perhaps ill-advised, particularly as it puts in danger individuals who are trying to anonymously or confidentially warn US officials about anything from genocide to asymmetrical political violence, to discrete forms of oppression. Perhaps Wikileaks should have taken a fine tooth comb through these documents, using a professional who could evaluate them, and blacked out the names of people who might be put in serious actionable danger from the release of these documents. No nuclear wars are about to be started because of these documents that Wikileaks released (and the pride of nations deserves to be checked every once in awhile), but I'm sure the US does possess documents which might provoke a major regional conflict or even a world war, and I think that these kinds of documents should be handled with utmost care.
And yet the major problem with the above suggestion for an approach is that the people best qualified to help Wikileaks determine the difference between information that is seriously and immediately dangerous and information which would just hurt the pride of national figures, are US Government officials. It's unclear that the US Government would have cooperated with Wikileaks in an honest way, or even at all, and it's also unclear that Wikileaks wouldn't have somewhat compromised the press power of the 'document dump' by warning the US of what the organization possessed. But I think it's about time that Wikileaks showed it's commitment to the careful release of documents and proved that the organization is not just dumping these documents for the sake of media attention and controversy. They could do this by reaching out to the US Government and requesting cooperation on subsequent releases.
This is what I meant earlier by cautious praise. I like the general idea of what Wikileaks is trying to accomplish through transparency, revealing the kinks in the system and shedding light on that which the US Government, for reasons of pride (or maybe shame), wants to keep in the dark. But just releasing confidential documents without any discretion seems irresponsible to me as well, and in the future I would ask more from Wikileaks in terms of the acknowledgment of the dangerous potential that the release of some documents may pose. It's very hard to know where, exactly, to draw the line between what is responsible and irresponsible in these situations, but instead of just outright condemnation of Assange and Wikileaks from commentators, I want to hear more of where to draw this line, and why. In the end, anything that provokes discussion of the merits of our current system should be given some praise; methods of provocation, however, might be reasonably and fairly subject to a little condemnation as well.
I want to end by saying that I am NOT a foreign policy expert, and I am ignorant of many aspects which may be present in a larger and more complex argument. Therefore I am very open to additional arguments going both ways in this discussion. What do you think?
I also want to thank the many dedicated readers for their interest in P.L. vs:; thanks to you we had over 300(!) individual page views in the month of November, averaging more than 10 pageviews per day. Keep up the reading, and in return I'll try to keep us growing with more fresh insights and general political news!
But for now, to get things rolling, I feel compelled to comment on the Wikileaks controversy that is swirling amongst the political sphere.
As you all probably know, Wikileaks is the controversial site which has been, well, leaking, here and there, confidential government information and classified military documents. At the moment, it's been dropped from all US servers and is now temporarily operating out of the one country which never takes a side- (you guessed it!) Switzerland, with the generous help of the Swiss Pirate Party. On a side note, the world wide Pirate Party phenomenon is an interesting read, and yes it is a real thing; start here if you want to know more. Oh, it's all so fun!
Anyway, the Wikileaks site can now be accessed at Wikileaks.cn, or the specific IP address: http://213.251.145.96/. The reason for it's drop has to do with a combination of it's hyper controversial nature and vigilante cyber attacks in the nature of DDoS and DoS which have periodically shut down the site.
It's really not surprising that Wikileaks has come under such attack. The non-profit organization has released documents not intended for release on a scale that has never been done before, including documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and international governments are still trying to cope with the fallout from the most recent release: 250,000 individual US diplomatic cables (conversations between diplomats and officials). Some Republicans have been calling for Wikileaks to be designated a terrorist organization for its release of these documents that could potentially put active diplomats and armed service members in harms way. And most Democrats and virtually the rest of the Republicans favor taking serious legal action against Wikileaks or it's founder Julian Assange, if nothing else, simply on the basis of the embarrassment to world leaders and the US government, and the dysfunction, disruption, and international mistrust it has supposedly caused. We could be talking about a charge on the level of treason, or something relative in nature to that charge. Of course, complicating things on the legal front is the First Amendment of the Constitution, the fact the Assange is an Australian citizen, the fact that Assange seems to be hiding out somewhere in the UK, the fact that the servers of Wikileaks are operating out of France and Sweden, or the fact that the domain name is now hosted in Switzerland. Also logistically complicating the removal of Wikileaks servers is that, well, they're in a bomb shelter... bunker... cave. I'm just saying, these Wikileaks guys are ready for anything.
No, wait, it gets better. Assange is now wanted by Interpol; oh yes there he is up on the site, for an alleged sex crime or two in Sweden. The timing of the release of this notice by Interpol is certainly convenient for the United States and many countries of the world which would love to see Assange behind bars. Again, whether or not these sex crime allegations are related to Wikileaks or not is unclear, but the timing of the Red Notice put out by Interpol is suspicious, to say the least.
Most political commentators have leveled varying degrees of condemnation at Assange, most of whom have echoed what Secretary of State Clinton said Monday at the beginning of this week: "The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems." A few bold souls have actually praised the release of these documents, and Clinton addresses these people in the same speech to which I linked above. Her argument against this praise comes at 4:45 in the youtube video. Clinton essentially argues that state diplomacy requires exceptional discretion for it to be effective. A similar argument is made in this article by Paul Schroeder, shared with me by a friend.
My initial reaction to the whole thing was guarded praise for the release of these documents, since I am always in favor of more transparency in our governmental systems. Public servants, in some ways, lose the privilege of privacy when they represent a collective body of citizens, and unless those citizens can make informed decisions about what is going on in their world, not just what the officials want us to know, but what is actually happening, the better we can elect leaders who can carry out the kind of diplomacy in which we believe. The more I have thought about this issue, the more my position has become solidified, again with cautious praise for the Wikileaks release. There are some caveats to this praise however. To address it, I recommend you read the Schroeder article above and then my response to it, which is below.
The article's comments, which surmise most of the major criticisms of Wikileaks, are ultimately not convincing to me. I'm unsatisfied with the explanation that secrecy is necessary, for the sake of secrecy, when secrecy is all we've had. In other words, the argument that states require secret diplomacy to run correctly and effectively may be true, but this argument ignores the question of whether or not the fact that this secrecy is necessary is actually a good thing! It seems to me that secrecy in the public service often has a dubious foundation. Perhaps if we stop treating the public like children unable to professionally analyze the data released in massive leaks, or confidential material in general, the public will become used to such otherwise 'scandalous' materials and use the information to be better knowledgeable about our world's foreign relations situation. As I said earlier, this information can be used in advocacy or in the ballot box.
Meanwhile, the argument that other foreign leaders would be insulted by the information coming out, and it therefore hurts the relations between the US and other countries requires additional questions be asked. I have a hard time believing that foreign leaders are so naiive that they don't already know how our diplomats and foreign officials feel about them, and either way I don't think that the leader of a nation would honestly be so self conscious as to care about what US diplomats or officials think. But the embarrassment really comes from the fact that now the public knows of the humiliation they've received in confidential cables, and it may hurt the pride of these leaders. Well, if public humiliation makes these people more aware of their own shortcomings (both the giver and receiver of the insult) then I am in favor of it.
From my standpoint, these diplomats and foreign officials are a product a concept of prestige based on the power (military of economic) they are representing, of the country from which they come, and that prestige is based upon our unnecessary sociological and cognitive retention of the proud nation state in our world understanding. It doesn't surprise me that the establishment within the government in both parties are condemning the release of these documents, because they lower the prestige of the socially constructed entity for which they work. Power and prestige aren't ideological issues or party issues so why disagree? I have written at length of the major problems in assuming that the nation state is the best or only form of governance, and I think everyone would be a little better off if they remembered that institutions such as the nation (and this includes the officials whose jobs depend on representing that nation) exist only as long as the people continue to tolerate the socialized existence of such things. If leaks of this sort expose the nation-state for the inadequate governing system that it is, then I approve. And I'll reiterate that the cables at the very least raise the question of whether or not it is a good thing that secrecy is required for the system to work in the first place. What, exactly, is preventing our nations from working with complete transparency? And why?
And still, through all of this, I have some major reservations regarding an outright endorsement of the activities by Wikileaks. The final argument made by critics of the organization, to which I am much more amenable, is this: that there is sometimes a time and a place for the release of confidential documents, and that releasing documents without discretion in a huge 'dump' is perhaps ill-advised, particularly as it puts in danger individuals who are trying to anonymously or confidentially warn US officials about anything from genocide to asymmetrical political violence, to discrete forms of oppression. Perhaps Wikileaks should have taken a fine tooth comb through these documents, using a professional who could evaluate them, and blacked out the names of people who might be put in serious actionable danger from the release of these documents. No nuclear wars are about to be started because of these documents that Wikileaks released (and the pride of nations deserves to be checked every once in awhile), but I'm sure the US does possess documents which might provoke a major regional conflict or even a world war, and I think that these kinds of documents should be handled with utmost care.
And yet the major problem with the above suggestion for an approach is that the people best qualified to help Wikileaks determine the difference between information that is seriously and immediately dangerous and information which would just hurt the pride of national figures, are US Government officials. It's unclear that the US Government would have cooperated with Wikileaks in an honest way, or even at all, and it's also unclear that Wikileaks wouldn't have somewhat compromised the press power of the 'document dump' by warning the US of what the organization possessed. But I think it's about time that Wikileaks showed it's commitment to the careful release of documents and proved that the organization is not just dumping these documents for the sake of media attention and controversy. They could do this by reaching out to the US Government and requesting cooperation on subsequent releases.
This is what I meant earlier by cautious praise. I like the general idea of what Wikileaks is trying to accomplish through transparency, revealing the kinks in the system and shedding light on that which the US Government, for reasons of pride (or maybe shame), wants to keep in the dark. But just releasing confidential documents without any discretion seems irresponsible to me as well, and in the future I would ask more from Wikileaks in terms of the acknowledgment of the dangerous potential that the release of some documents may pose. It's very hard to know where, exactly, to draw the line between what is responsible and irresponsible in these situations, but instead of just outright condemnation of Assange and Wikileaks from commentators, I want to hear more of where to draw this line, and why. In the end, anything that provokes discussion of the merits of our current system should be given some praise; methods of provocation, however, might be reasonably and fairly subject to a little condemnation as well.
I want to end by saying that I am NOT a foreign policy expert, and I am ignorant of many aspects which may be present in a larger and more complex argument. Therefore I am very open to additional arguments going both ways in this discussion. What do you think?
Monday, November 22, 2010
Palin's Gunna Run
I'm going to go ahead and call it before it happens: Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential nominee from 2008 is planning a run for President, and it'll almost certainly be for 2012. Begin mentally preparing yourself for the possibility of America having another glass ceiling shattered : an Alaskan in the White House.
The buzz around Palin has been growing for months, since she quit her job as Governor of Alaska and got a new job going on book tours in the Lower 48, promoting her two books (that's right, two in two years!). Her profile increased even more dramatically with the beginning of the Tea Party, to which, within weeks, Palin had clearly attached herself. Now she is seen by many to be the defacto leader of the Tea Party Movement. Wow that was fast. And finally, she made herself quite well known in the Midterms of 2010, campaigning across the country for (almost exclusively) Tea Party-backed candidates and helping most of them win election. Some of these candidates were picked and singled out by Palin: in almost any state, an endorsement from Palin practically ensured victory in a Republican Primary.
As her profile has grown, so has her power, her number of friends, and the number of those indebted to her for their election fortunes. This was no accident by Sarah Palin, it was a part of a calculated move probably going all the way back to 2008, as it became clear that she would lose to then Senator Barack Obama- she likely decided then that she would carefully sow the seeds of her own power base. She's consistently showered the sunshine of her personality down on the media, primarily Fox News where she is employed as a commentator, and the Tea Party movement has added the final saturation needed for the seeds of her candidacy to grow and flourish.
And before you shrug let me point out: she's no joke either. Although her negatives remain notably high amongst the American public as a whole (52% unfavorability); amongst Republicans she has high favorability, around 80%. Polls of possible Republican contenders for 2012 have consistently shown her either leading the pack or up close and personal with Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich all of whom are polling between 10 and 20%. Now certainly she's not the clear front runner like Clinton was in 2007, but her star power is hard to match. The media LOVES them some Palin, she's pretty, young, dynamic, controversial... the shear weight of her media exposure will be nearly impossible for any other prospective candidate to overcome. Why else might Mike Huckabee host his own show on Fox News?
Palin is notorious at this point for being a flagrant tease, so many in the media feel uncomfortable calling her likelihood of running. It's true that she'd stand a good and maybe better chance in 2016 when an incumbent isn't on the ticket, but I think there's something to be said for the current energy in the Tea Party movement right now, and Palin can capitalize on that. Other than the fact that she is currently making millions, I can't find a good reason for her NOT to run in 2012, it might be her best shot. And I will go ahead and say that she's probably the favorite right now to capture the nomination.
I think the question now is more about when she'll declare, not whether.
The buzz around Palin has been growing for months, since she quit her job as Governor of Alaska and got a new job going on book tours in the Lower 48, promoting her two books (that's right, two in two years!). Her profile increased even more dramatically with the beginning of the Tea Party, to which, within weeks, Palin had clearly attached herself. Now she is seen by many to be the defacto leader of the Tea Party Movement. Wow that was fast. And finally, she made herself quite well known in the Midterms of 2010, campaigning across the country for (almost exclusively) Tea Party-backed candidates and helping most of them win election. Some of these candidates were picked and singled out by Palin: in almost any state, an endorsement from Palin practically ensured victory in a Republican Primary.
As her profile has grown, so has her power, her number of friends, and the number of those indebted to her for their election fortunes. This was no accident by Sarah Palin, it was a part of a calculated move probably going all the way back to 2008, as it became clear that she would lose to then Senator Barack Obama- she likely decided then that she would carefully sow the seeds of her own power base. She's consistently showered the sunshine of her personality down on the media, primarily Fox News where she is employed as a commentator, and the Tea Party movement has added the final saturation needed for the seeds of her candidacy to grow and flourish.
And before you shrug let me point out: she's no joke either. Although her negatives remain notably high amongst the American public as a whole (52% unfavorability); amongst Republicans she has high favorability, around 80%. Polls of possible Republican contenders for 2012 have consistently shown her either leading the pack or up close and personal with Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich all of whom are polling between 10 and 20%. Now certainly she's not the clear front runner like Clinton was in 2007, but her star power is hard to match. The media LOVES them some Palin, she's pretty, young, dynamic, controversial... the shear weight of her media exposure will be nearly impossible for any other prospective candidate to overcome. Why else might Mike Huckabee host his own show on Fox News?
Palin is notorious at this point for being a flagrant tease, so many in the media feel uncomfortable calling her likelihood of running. It's true that she'd stand a good and maybe better chance in 2016 when an incumbent isn't on the ticket, but I think there's something to be said for the current energy in the Tea Party movement right now, and Palin can capitalize on that. Other than the fact that she is currently making millions, I can't find a good reason for her NOT to run in 2012, it might be her best shot. And I will go ahead and say that she's probably the favorite right now to capture the nomination.
I think the question now is more about when she'll declare, not whether.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Why do we never talk about Ageism?
What follows is a short essay on Ageism in society. Because it is a little longer than a normal post, it will be truncated part way down on the home page. Please click the "Read More" button at the bottom to read the full article. Also I have no idea why the font changes. Please bear with it...
Ageism is the most prolific kind of discrimination, period. I am hard pressed to think of a time in history when this was not the case. Most cultures have it hard wired into themselves to be ageist, that is, the treatment of someone of a certain age differently than someone of another age. Particularly in East Asian cultures, the elderly are revered at the expense of the young; in some other cultures the old are discarded as invaluable and a strain on society.
But the reality is, ageism is more important than ANY OTHER KIND OF DISCRIMINATION, mostly because it is so ingrained into the fabric of our society that it is never challenged and we never seem to talk about it. So let’s talk about it!
Now I understand that Ageism goes multiple ways, but I think there is a substantial argument that the main disadvantaged group with regard to age discrimination is those of young age. This is not to diminish the ageist struggles of the elderly, but I feel that young person discrimination is more often ignored. I write from the standpoint of a young person, so I can only argue what I know and have experienced.
Let’s start off with the basics.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Thought of the Day: A Smaller World is not a Scarier World!
We're growing more and more interconnected on our little planet; supposedly we are increasingly aware of the number of other people that make up humanity. Their disasters and diseases are on our television, their culture pops up in our fashion or video games, their opinions appear across the internet, their money and debt intermingles with our own like great tides washing back and forth across the surface of the Earth, and their fates, we learn; their fates are tied to ours.
Every action that we take on this little planet has a significant ripple effect, be it conservation of resources, or a donation to a world food program, or becoming a politician who one day decides whether we go to war... or not. Little things; the food we buy, the people we talk to, the way we enrich our own lives with knowledge-- these things matter to the little girl in Kyrgyzstan or Brunei or Lesotho more than she'll ever know; and her actions matter to you too.
And yet in our increasingly connected world, our national boundaries seem more striking than ever, standing out on maps and cutting us all to pieces. The stronger these boundaries, the more we seem to forget that they are no more than human creations; the real Earth has no lines, but many wrinkles. Nation lines are no different in principle than the lines connecting constellations. How can we seem to forget that all of us pursue the same things, to eat, breathe, strive, seek happiness; survive. When I look up at the sky, I see stars. The false divisions of nationality make me sick. We're all doing what we think is best; none of us is evil, and we're all a little confused. And we're all trying to make the best of it, whatever it is, while we have it, because we're all at least a little afraid of death, too. Our needs don't need to come at the expense of other people's needs, and most of the time they don't. Most of the time we've found a way to live in relative harmony, despite divisions of religion, race, and class. And most of us seem to think that's the best way to do it.
Our nation's 'ideology' may be diametrically opposed to another nation's 'ideology', but the very idea of a nation is the figment. China and Russia have the same diversity of views that the United States has-- we may grow up with different traditions, but we as people control how we apply those traditions to our lives. The people of any given country are never the enemy of another people of another given country. You think most people have the time to hate people they don't even know?
But just as most of us can't help but recognize "Orion's Belt", the nation state is a part of our social consciousness, and thus it is a part of our world. We are all a part of a nation; a group of people, whether or not we like it.
And still nation states allow us to group people into ideologies that often don't even represent those people, and nationalism makes us think that our nation's survival depends on defining itself against every other nation, and dominating the others if possible
So it seems as though the nation state seems to be quickly outgrowing its usefulness as a grouping mechanism of humanity. First we had hunter-gatherer groups; clans and tribes. Then we had agricultural societies and city-states loosely unified by Empires and Monarchs. And now we have the nation state. As the world shrinks, perhaps we need a new, larger imagined grouping mechanism that helps us view ourselves as the "planet collective" alongside the rest of the organisms of the Earth...
I'd like you to take a second and watch this video. It is the reason for this blog post. It is a symptom of the reason why people seem to forget everyone's common humanity. Seriously, watch it. Why doesn't this kind of hyper-nationalist sentiment terrify all of us who desire peace and prosperity on this world?
The part I mind the most is at the end. When the entire class laughs at the United States. The suggestion of course is that the Chinese people as a whole hate the US or would mock the US. Not the Chinese government, but the everyday students in China. You, as a US citizen are mocked by people you don't even know and these people are trying to 'own' you.
If people of all nations can't get past this kind of petty divisiveness that ignores our common humanity and our common interests as humans, we will never be able to live in peace with one another. Because we will forever live in fear of differences that, for the most part do not exist. Because those differences are embodied by the ideals of the nation state. Which also does not exist. ...But individual people DO exist. We never go to war with a nation, we go to war with a nation's people. We never trade with a nation, we trade with a nation's people. Barack Obama may have a nice 'title', the weight of his 'office', and the strength of 'representation', but when he shakes hands with Indonesian President Yudhoyono, it is person to person, human to human.
No one is, or must be, opposed to anyone, simply by what nation in which they happen to have been born. We all have the same struggles, and we must cooperate as a world to stand up to them together.
Every action that we take on this little planet has a significant ripple effect, be it conservation of resources, or a donation to a world food program, or becoming a politician who one day decides whether we go to war... or not. Little things; the food we buy, the people we talk to, the way we enrich our own lives with knowledge-- these things matter to the little girl in Kyrgyzstan or Brunei or Lesotho more than she'll ever know; and her actions matter to you too.
And yet in our increasingly connected world, our national boundaries seem more striking than ever, standing out on maps and cutting us all to pieces. The stronger these boundaries, the more we seem to forget that they are no more than human creations; the real Earth has no lines, but many wrinkles. Nation lines are no different in principle than the lines connecting constellations. How can we seem to forget that all of us pursue the same things, to eat, breathe, strive, seek happiness; survive. When I look up at the sky, I see stars. The false divisions of nationality make me sick. We're all doing what we think is best; none of us is evil, and we're all a little confused. And we're all trying to make the best of it, whatever it is, while we have it, because we're all at least a little afraid of death, too. Our needs don't need to come at the expense of other people's needs, and most of the time they don't. Most of the time we've found a way to live in relative harmony, despite divisions of religion, race, and class. And most of us seem to think that's the best way to do it.
Our nation's 'ideology' may be diametrically opposed to another nation's 'ideology', but the very idea of a nation is the figment. China and Russia have the same diversity of views that the United States has-- we may grow up with different traditions, but we as people control how we apply those traditions to our lives. The people of any given country are never the enemy of another people of another given country. You think most people have the time to hate people they don't even know?
But just as most of us can't help but recognize "Orion's Belt", the nation state is a part of our social consciousness, and thus it is a part of our world. We are all a part of a nation; a group of people, whether or not we like it.
And still nation states allow us to group people into ideologies that often don't even represent those people, and nationalism makes us think that our nation's survival depends on defining itself against every other nation, and dominating the others if possible
So it seems as though the nation state seems to be quickly outgrowing its usefulness as a grouping mechanism of humanity. First we had hunter-gatherer groups; clans and tribes. Then we had agricultural societies and city-states loosely unified by Empires and Monarchs. And now we have the nation state. As the world shrinks, perhaps we need a new, larger imagined grouping mechanism that helps us view ourselves as the "planet collective" alongside the rest of the organisms of the Earth...
I'd like you to take a second and watch this video. It is the reason for this blog post. It is a symptom of the reason why people seem to forget everyone's common humanity. Seriously, watch it. Why doesn't this kind of hyper-nationalist sentiment terrify all of us who desire peace and prosperity on this world?
The part I mind the most is at the end. When the entire class laughs at the United States. The suggestion of course is that the Chinese people as a whole hate the US or would mock the US. Not the Chinese government, but the everyday students in China. You, as a US citizen are mocked by people you don't even know and these people are trying to 'own' you.
If people of all nations can't get past this kind of petty divisiveness that ignores our common humanity and our common interests as humans, we will never be able to live in peace with one another. Because we will forever live in fear of differences that, for the most part do not exist. Because those differences are embodied by the ideals of the nation state. Which also does not exist. ...But individual people DO exist. We never go to war with a nation, we go to war with a nation's people. We never trade with a nation, we trade with a nation's people. Barack Obama may have a nice 'title', the weight of his 'office', and the strength of 'representation', but when he shakes hands with Indonesian President Yudhoyono, it is person to person, human to human.
No one is, or must be, opposed to anyone, simply by what nation in which they happen to have been born. We all have the same struggles, and we must cooperate as a world to stand up to them together.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Should News Personalitites be Able to Make Donations to Partisan Candidates?
It's a fair question to ask, especially in light of the (indefinite, but actually just 2 day) suspension of MSNBC anchor and host of "Countdown" Keith Olbermann. Either way, MSNBC seems to be sending mixed messages. Just a few weeks ago MSNBC launched an ad campaign intended to 'subtly' highlight it's position as the more progressive news organization between CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Their new tag-line is "Lean Forward" and these series of ads showcase MSNBC's nighttime lineup of news shows. You can see an example of a less partisan branch of this ad here and here and a more partisan branch here.
CNN responded to this ad campaign in an attempt to solidify itself as the only news organization which is 'unleaning', using the slogan "Moving Truth Forward". You can see this ad here.
To my knowledge Fox News hasn't entered the fray, hopefully because they are already aware of how partisan their news has become. Or maybe because they're still delusionally stuck on "Fair and Balanced". I wrote an extensive post decrying Fox News for not explicitly stating their partisan tilt, and I will use this post to call on MSNBC to do the same. The people over at Fox News are probably gleeful that MSNBC has embraced it's leftist side, because it only reinforces Fox's argument that every other news station is partisan, and only Fox is balanced. The whole thing is sickening to anyone who's concerned about the difference between rhetoric and truth.
The idea behind not allowing commentators on the news to donate to political candidates is that it jeopardizes the journalistic integrity of that news station. That makes sense, to a degree. According to this CNN article, Fox News already has 30 hosts and contributors who have donated to political candidates, and CNN and MSNBC have both tried very hard to distinguish themselves from Fox by maintaining journalistic excellence.
So should Keith Olbermann and others from MSNBC be allowed to donate to political candidates? Absolutely.
Wait, what? Why you ask? Because Keith Olbermann is not a real journalist! At least not in the sense for which MSNBC is giving him credit! It's not his job to report the news, it's his job to put a liberal spin on the news. The same is true for Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly. They are not unbiased. That's the point! MSNBC's suspension of Olbermann is an attempt to legitimize him as a news source, suggesting that he was somehow an example of unbiased journalistic excellence to begin with. He is NOT! Absolutely not! This doesn't make Olbermann not valuable. Just not unbiased news.
What news organizations need to do, therefore, is to recognize and fully own their partisan leans! It isn't exactly journalism when MSNBC's commentators are disparaging Republicans all election night, or when Chris Matthews goes at it with Michelle Bachmann, calling her "hypnotized". It's funny for sure, and yes, Bachmann was dodging Matthews' question, but it seemed uniquely partisan to me, for him to take that tone with her.
And it's not as if I have a problem with left leaning or right leaning news organizations; I'm not a believer in news that's completely unbiased. It's dishonest to suggest that there is a such thing as unbiased or unleaning news. That's why the introduction to my blog states clearly that "To be fair, I fall decidedly on the left side of the political spectrum- however I have made it a point to look at issues in a scholarly/journalistic manner since the September 2010 rebirth of the blog. It is impossible to remove bias from writing, and trying to do so almost completely removes, in my opinion, the essential character from a work. Instead it should be prudent to approach all issues with genuine honesty and reasonable fairness as much as possible."
I make clear where I stand on issues, so you can decide whether or not I'm advocating that perspective or an unbiased one. I like to think that, for the most part, this blog gives an evenhanded approach to news and politics. But MSNBC and Fox News, and sometimes, yes, even for you CNN... all three of these organizations have failed to make clear their anchors' stances on politics.
So, of course, let Olbermann and Beck and Shultz and O'Reilly make contributions to candidates financially; they're already making those contributions in the press, why not allow them to be 'activists' when THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE. Trying to pretend that these personalities are not activists is, again, very dishonest. Therefore I hereby make this suggestion to the three news networks:
Just as there is a disclaimer for "adult content" in late night comedy central or adult swim that essentially warns the audience to be prepared for a certain type of material, there should also be a disclaimer before news shows that show a distinct bias, and you know who you are. "Countdown is not a regular news program at MSNBC, it is a commentator program. It represents viewpoints which are to the left of the political spectrum and does not represent evenhanded news coverage. These viewpoints do not reflect upon regular news programming at MSNBC which takes place between ___ and ___" could be the simplest way to accomplish this. An insult to Olbermann? It shouldn't be, unless he's deluded himself into thinking that his show isn't leftist leaning. And just to be clear, Fox News should have the same exact disclaimer before their commentary shows.
And if these commentary shows' views have spilled into regular news programming at these networks, (and there is some suggestion that they have), these views and objectives should be purged from the regular news programming at the network or else the network itself should have a constant disclaimer up at every change of anchor. That is how one pursues journalistic excellence. Own who you are. Be fair and honest, including as many perspectives as you can. And report on facts and the truth, as they are presented to you.
And then these inherently biased programs become both honest AND useful to the public again. As a liberal, I love Countdown, it's great fun to watch, but I know it for what it is. When you want a spin on news, you should be able to get it. But you should be reminded that it is still spin.
CNN responded to this ad campaign in an attempt to solidify itself as the only news organization which is 'unleaning', using the slogan "Moving Truth Forward". You can see this ad here.
To my knowledge Fox News hasn't entered the fray, hopefully because they are already aware of how partisan their news has become. Or maybe because they're still delusionally stuck on "Fair and Balanced". I wrote an extensive post decrying Fox News for not explicitly stating their partisan tilt, and I will use this post to call on MSNBC to do the same. The people over at Fox News are probably gleeful that MSNBC has embraced it's leftist side, because it only reinforces Fox's argument that every other news station is partisan, and only Fox is balanced. The whole thing is sickening to anyone who's concerned about the difference between rhetoric and truth.
The idea behind not allowing commentators on the news to donate to political candidates is that it jeopardizes the journalistic integrity of that news station. That makes sense, to a degree. According to this CNN article, Fox News already has 30 hosts and contributors who have donated to political candidates, and CNN and MSNBC have both tried very hard to distinguish themselves from Fox by maintaining journalistic excellence.
So should Keith Olbermann and others from MSNBC be allowed to donate to political candidates? Absolutely.
Wait, what? Why you ask? Because Keith Olbermann is not a real journalist! At least not in the sense for which MSNBC is giving him credit! It's not his job to report the news, it's his job to put a liberal spin on the news. The same is true for Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly. They are not unbiased. That's the point! MSNBC's suspension of Olbermann is an attempt to legitimize him as a news source, suggesting that he was somehow an example of unbiased journalistic excellence to begin with. He is NOT! Absolutely not! This doesn't make Olbermann not valuable. Just not unbiased news.
What news organizations need to do, therefore, is to recognize and fully own their partisan leans! It isn't exactly journalism when MSNBC's commentators are disparaging Republicans all election night, or when Chris Matthews goes at it with Michelle Bachmann, calling her "hypnotized". It's funny for sure, and yes, Bachmann was dodging Matthews' question, but it seemed uniquely partisan to me, for him to take that tone with her.
And it's not as if I have a problem with left leaning or right leaning news organizations; I'm not a believer in news that's completely unbiased. It's dishonest to suggest that there is a such thing as unbiased or unleaning news. That's why the introduction to my blog states clearly that "To be fair, I fall decidedly on the left side of the political spectrum- however I have made it a point to look at issues in a scholarly/journalistic manner since the September 2010 rebirth of the blog. It is impossible to remove bias from writing, and trying to do so almost completely removes, in my opinion, the essential character from a work. Instead it should be prudent to approach all issues with genuine honesty and reasonable fairness as much as possible."
I make clear where I stand on issues, so you can decide whether or not I'm advocating that perspective or an unbiased one. I like to think that, for the most part, this blog gives an evenhanded approach to news and politics. But MSNBC and Fox News, and sometimes, yes, even for you CNN... all three of these organizations have failed to make clear their anchors' stances on politics.
So, of course, let Olbermann and Beck and Shultz and O'Reilly make contributions to candidates financially; they're already making those contributions in the press, why not allow them to be 'activists' when THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE. Trying to pretend that these personalities are not activists is, again, very dishonest. Therefore I hereby make this suggestion to the three news networks:
Just as there is a disclaimer for "adult content" in late night comedy central or adult swim that essentially warns the audience to be prepared for a certain type of material, there should also be a disclaimer before news shows that show a distinct bias, and you know who you are. "Countdown is not a regular news program at MSNBC, it is a commentator program. It represents viewpoints which are to the left of the political spectrum and does not represent evenhanded news coverage. These viewpoints do not reflect upon regular news programming at MSNBC which takes place between ___ and ___" could be the simplest way to accomplish this. An insult to Olbermann? It shouldn't be, unless he's deluded himself into thinking that his show isn't leftist leaning. And just to be clear, Fox News should have the same exact disclaimer before their commentary shows.
And if these commentary shows' views have spilled into regular news programming at these networks, (and there is some suggestion that they have), these views and objectives should be purged from the regular news programming at the network or else the network itself should have a constant disclaimer up at every change of anchor. That is how one pursues journalistic excellence. Own who you are. Be fair and honest, including as many perspectives as you can. And report on facts and the truth, as they are presented to you.
And then these inherently biased programs become both honest AND useful to the public again. As a liberal, I love Countdown, it's great fun to watch, but I know it for what it is. When you want a spin on news, you should be able to get it. But you should be reminded that it is still spin.
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Lame Duck, Tax Cuts, Another Note on the Tea Party, Latinos in Nevada, and Haiti
Alright, time to see what happens next!
Tea Party candidates won across America this week and already there's some suggestion that these candidates are going to be resistant to Republican leadership if that leadership intends to compromise with the President. If Boehner and McConnell aren't careful, Republicans will be viewed as "too Tea Party" and too obstructionist, wasting the time of the American people. Most Americans still view the Tea Party in a non-positive light, particularly young voters.
Wait, young voters? But I thought the Tea Party movement started off with a lot of young support; remember all the young faces at Ron Paul rallies in 2008? Once again I'll go back to a post I wrote several weeks ago on the Tea Party Coalition. The two central groups of the Tea Party are Libertarians and recently, the Religious Right. On fiscal issues, these groups have been able to temporarily compromise, but new information seems to suggest that the Libertarian arm of the group is becoming disenfranchised and particularly young people are shaking their head at the Tea Party.
I'm delighted to find another news organization talking about the divisions within the Tea Party, instead of focusing on divisions between the Tea Party and Republican Party. This article from the Huffington Post is basically contending the same thing that I was arguing in that article on the Tea Party Coalition. We'll see if the trend of Libertarian dissatisfaction with the Tea Party continues. Re-read my article, and read the Huff article and see what you think.
Now we enter the Lame Duck session of Congress, which essentially is the legislative period between the election and the swearing-in of the new Congress. Democrats still have their majorities for now, and may or may not act on those majorities while they have them. The main issue facing the Lame Duck session seems to be whether or not to extend the Bush Tax Cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Not doing so would add 700 billion dollars to the budget over 10 years and theoretically help to pay down the debt, and Obama supports this. Republicans feel very strongly that the Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans, and contend that it'll help stimulate the economy. I'll keep you updated on how that process will work, but there is some suggestion that Obama will be forced to compromise on the Tax Cut issue. It's unclear exactly what form this compromise will take; it's possible that the tax cuts will be temporarily extended for all Americans, but after a couple years a higher tax for wealthy Americans would kick into effect. I'll keep you updated.
I want to make another quick note on an article that Nate Silver wrote right after the election on the question of an underestimation of the Latino vote in Nevada. I made a note of this as well election morning. Anyway the argument seems to be solidifying.
And finally I want to direct my readers to a worsening situation in Haiti, where tropical storm Tomas threatens to make even MORE terrible the situation for those living in tent camps and suffering from Cholera. Please consider another donation to help out Haitians in need who still are struggling after the earthquake. I like these groups: The Lambi Fund, Partners in Health, and The American Red Cross. You can read more about Tomas and the storm's effects here.
Tea Party candidates won across America this week and already there's some suggestion that these candidates are going to be resistant to Republican leadership if that leadership intends to compromise with the President. If Boehner and McConnell aren't careful, Republicans will be viewed as "too Tea Party" and too obstructionist, wasting the time of the American people. Most Americans still view the Tea Party in a non-positive light, particularly young voters.
Wait, young voters? But I thought the Tea Party movement started off with a lot of young support; remember all the young faces at Ron Paul rallies in 2008? Once again I'll go back to a post I wrote several weeks ago on the Tea Party Coalition. The two central groups of the Tea Party are Libertarians and recently, the Religious Right. On fiscal issues, these groups have been able to temporarily compromise, but new information seems to suggest that the Libertarian arm of the group is becoming disenfranchised and particularly young people are shaking their head at the Tea Party.
I'm delighted to find another news organization talking about the divisions within the Tea Party, instead of focusing on divisions between the Tea Party and Republican Party. This article from the Huffington Post is basically contending the same thing that I was arguing in that article on the Tea Party Coalition. We'll see if the trend of Libertarian dissatisfaction with the Tea Party continues. Re-read my article, and read the Huff article and see what you think.
Now we enter the Lame Duck session of Congress, which essentially is the legislative period between the election and the swearing-in of the new Congress. Democrats still have their majorities for now, and may or may not act on those majorities while they have them. The main issue facing the Lame Duck session seems to be whether or not to extend the Bush Tax Cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Not doing so would add 700 billion dollars to the budget over 10 years and theoretically help to pay down the debt, and Obama supports this. Republicans feel very strongly that the Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans, and contend that it'll help stimulate the economy. I'll keep you updated on how that process will work, but there is some suggestion that Obama will be forced to compromise on the Tax Cut issue. It's unclear exactly what form this compromise will take; it's possible that the tax cuts will be temporarily extended for all Americans, but after a couple years a higher tax for wealthy Americans would kick into effect. I'll keep you updated.
I want to make another quick note on an article that Nate Silver wrote right after the election on the question of an underestimation of the Latino vote in Nevada. I made a note of this as well election morning. Anyway the argument seems to be solidifying.
And finally I want to direct my readers to a worsening situation in Haiti, where tropical storm Tomas threatens to make even MORE terrible the situation for those living in tent camps and suffering from Cholera. Please consider another donation to help out Haitians in need who still are struggling after the earthquake. I like these groups: The Lambi Fund, Partners in Health, and The American Red Cross. You can read more about Tomas and the storm's effects here.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Election Morning Analysis
When all's said and done, Democrats have done better in the Senate than expected, at this point favored to win 53 total seats with their two caucusing independents, and worse in the House, where they are expected at this point to lose about 65 total seats.
My predictions held up well! That's another piece of good news for this fledgling blogger. In the House, I predicted that Dems would lose between 30 and 80 seats. I also noted in my forecast that since Renee Ellmers DID win in NC-02, knocking off Bob Etheridge, you could expect greater than 54 seats gained in the House by Republicans. And Heath Shuler held out against his opponent in NC-11, as did Price in NC-04, which indicated that Republicans were not destined for an overwhelming victory, and were likely to stay under 70 seats won. This isn't good news for Democrats, and the likely makeup of the new House will be something like 245(R)-190(D). For perspective, this is a huge turn-over, largest in a century. Also for perspective, before this election the House was apportioned like this: 180(R)-255(D). So for all practical purposes the Democrats and Republicans switched places.
In the Senate, all of the races I called turned out as expected. The four races I did not call ended up being the closest of the evening: Washington, Colorado, Illinois, and Nevada. Well there are actually two exceptions to that point. First, as I hinted at in my Senate forecast, Angle's(R) numbers in Nevada were being overstated by polls. Still, I don't think anyone predicted Harry Reid would win so handily, and we'll be wondering for awhile exactly why that occurred in defiance of the +2 or +3 point victory polls were predicting for Angle. Illinois leaned toward Kirk, as expected and Washington looks good for Dems right now, also as expected. In the last week, Colorado seemed to be leaning toward Buck in the polls, but I felt dubious about predicting that he would win, since the Governor's race was likely to depress Republican turnout. It has been suggested by various pundits that Nevada, and perhaps Colorado (not yet, but looking promising) Democratic victories would point to a successful turnout of the Latino populations in those areas. Perhaps that's true.
Overall Dems will end up with 52 or 53 seats in the Senate, it's looking like. This is 1 seat greater than I thought, but then again, that's how coin-flips manifest themselves. I also admittedly gave myself some wiggle room with disclaimers, but overall it was a good night for forecasting.
The biggest surprise for me besides Nevada was the Senate race in Pennsylvania. Democrats had long thought this battle was promising for them, with a strong voter contact and turnout operation, but I never really thought Joe Sestak(D) had a chance in this one. The eventual margin of Toomey(R) +2 is much narrower than most polls were showing, and frankly much narrower than I expected, considering how confident I was that Pennsylvania would go the other way. Everyone seems to be talking about Nevada, but I hope to be able to answer the question of why Sestak performed so well soon in the future.
And in Alaska, we shall soon see if Murkowski can pull it out in the end. Defying the write-in stigma.
John Boehner will be the new Speaker of the House. This will set up an interesting dynamic between him, Reid, and Obama. But for now it'll be interesting to see what Democrats do with the Lame Duck Session.
My predictions held up well! That's another piece of good news for this fledgling blogger. In the House, I predicted that Dems would lose between 30 and 80 seats. I also noted in my forecast that since Renee Ellmers DID win in NC-02, knocking off Bob Etheridge, you could expect greater than 54 seats gained in the House by Republicans. And Heath Shuler held out against his opponent in NC-11, as did Price in NC-04, which indicated that Republicans were not destined for an overwhelming victory, and were likely to stay under 70 seats won. This isn't good news for Democrats, and the likely makeup of the new House will be something like 245(R)-190(D). For perspective, this is a huge turn-over, largest in a century. Also for perspective, before this election the House was apportioned like this: 180(R)-255(D). So for all practical purposes the Democrats and Republicans switched places.
In the Senate, all of the races I called turned out as expected. The four races I did not call ended up being the closest of the evening: Washington, Colorado, Illinois, and Nevada. Well there are actually two exceptions to that point. First, as I hinted at in my Senate forecast, Angle's(R) numbers in Nevada were being overstated by polls. Still, I don't think anyone predicted Harry Reid would win so handily, and we'll be wondering for awhile exactly why that occurred in defiance of the +2 or +3 point victory polls were predicting for Angle. Illinois leaned toward Kirk, as expected and Washington looks good for Dems right now, also as expected. In the last week, Colorado seemed to be leaning toward Buck in the polls, but I felt dubious about predicting that he would win, since the Governor's race was likely to depress Republican turnout. It has been suggested by various pundits that Nevada, and perhaps Colorado (not yet, but looking promising) Democratic victories would point to a successful turnout of the Latino populations in those areas. Perhaps that's true.
Overall Dems will end up with 52 or 53 seats in the Senate, it's looking like. This is 1 seat greater than I thought, but then again, that's how coin-flips manifest themselves. I also admittedly gave myself some wiggle room with disclaimers, but overall it was a good night for forecasting.
The biggest surprise for me besides Nevada was the Senate race in Pennsylvania. Democrats had long thought this battle was promising for them, with a strong voter contact and turnout operation, but I never really thought Joe Sestak(D) had a chance in this one. The eventual margin of Toomey(R) +2 is much narrower than most polls were showing, and frankly much narrower than I expected, considering how confident I was that Pennsylvania would go the other way. Everyone seems to be talking about Nevada, but I hope to be able to answer the question of why Sestak performed so well soon in the future.
And in Alaska, we shall soon see if Murkowski can pull it out in the end. Defying the write-in stigma.
John Boehner will be the new Speaker of the House. This will set up an interesting dynamic between him, Reid, and Obama. But for now it'll be interesting to see what Democrats do with the Lame Duck Session.
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010
Instead of commenting on the current state of the election results for now, I'd like to leave you with this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S2Ps8OMj8Y&feature=player_embedded
Think for a minute about our elections process, and why in the world we vote on a Tuesday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S2Ps8OMj8Y&feature=player_embedded
Think for a minute about our elections process, and why in the world we vote on a Tuesday.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
(11/2) Election Forecasts 2010: Senate
I'm not going to do a Governor race forecast, but don't think they're not important. I just don't have the resources. Watch Connecticut to see if Foley(R) will have a come-from-behind win, watch Ohio to see if Strickland(D) can hold his ground and RI, CO, and ME will be interesting. Among others.
In the Senate I've been watching Washington, California, Nevada, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, and Illinois-- these were the "competitive" races. Since my last forecast, some polls have diverged, and some polls have tightened; some haven't moved at all.
Remember that Republicans almost certainly will gain 3 Senate seats from Democrats to begin with. North Dakota, Arkansas, and Indiana. But one Republican seat is being added to the "competitive" list. Thus, Republicans need to win 8 more from the competitive list in order to take control of the Senate. Therefore we will begin with a baseline of 42 Republican seats and 48 Democrat seats; I see almost no viable way that either party could end up with less than this number of seats.
I have some hesitancy about this, but given a recent poll out of Alaska, I have re-evaluated the race in a post a few hours ago, and on the virtue of it being a 3-way race, I'll add it to the competitive list.
I will now note very likely Republican gains from the competitive list. I predict with confidence that these three races will end up in Republican hands. Florida (Rubio), Wisconsin (Johnson), and Pennsylvania (Toomey). You can tell your Democratic friends that these races are pretty much a lost cause.
And very likely Democratic gains include California. You can confidently tell your Republican friends that California is basically out of their hands.
That leaves us with a new baseline of 45 Republicans and 49 Democrats.
Here's how the rest break down. I wouldn't make a bet on this, but evidence points to these results: Republicans gain Alaska (Murkowski or Miller). Democrats gain West Virginia (Manchin).
The final four races are just too hard to predict from my standpoint. Republicans are favored in Illinois, Nevada, and Colorado albeit by small percentages. Democrats are favored in Washington. I think it's just as reasonable to allocate these seats 3-1 as it is to allocate them 2-2. They all might be very close.
I tend to want to call Washington to Murray(D) and Illinois for Kirk(R). Nevada and Colorado are even harder for me. Nevada's polling option to select "none of these candidates" may end up helping Reid(D), or... Angle(R). Angle may win, but if so, I think there's a good chance it'll be more narrowly than about 2 points, as polls now show. Democrats are going to be desperate to win Nevada as a symbolic victory, though I think politically it would help them to have a change in the face of leadership. I tend to think Tancredo's rise in Colorado might un-motivate more moderate Republican voters, which might help Bennet(D). But all of this is conjecture.
I think Dems will end up with 51 or 52 seats. This is consistent with my other forecasts. The margin will be between 50D-50R and 54D-46R (worst and best case scenarios, depending on your position). Thus, I confidently predict Democrats will retain the Senate absent a defection or two from more moderate Democratic caucus members.
On the other hand, Democrats will very likely lose in between 5 and 9 seats, probably closer to the latter number.
I want to make a quick note about the NC Senate race as well. Watch Burr's(R) winning margin. Marshall(D) has run a weak campaign, but Burr hasn't run much of a campaign at all. If Burr wins by less than 11 points then it will be a sign that Democrats may be doing better than expected. If he wins by much more, brace for significant Democratic losses in NC and elsewhere.
In the Senate I've been watching Washington, California, Nevada, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, and Illinois-- these were the "competitive" races. Since my last forecast, some polls have diverged, and some polls have tightened; some haven't moved at all.
Remember that Republicans almost certainly will gain 3 Senate seats from Democrats to begin with. North Dakota, Arkansas, and Indiana. But one Republican seat is being added to the "competitive" list. Thus, Republicans need to win 8 more from the competitive list in order to take control of the Senate. Therefore we will begin with a baseline of 42 Republican seats and 48 Democrat seats; I see almost no viable way that either party could end up with less than this number of seats.
I have some hesitancy about this, but given a recent poll out of Alaska, I have re-evaluated the race in a post a few hours ago, and on the virtue of it being a 3-way race, I'll add it to the competitive list.
I will now note very likely Republican gains from the competitive list. I predict with confidence that these three races will end up in Republican hands. Florida (Rubio), Wisconsin (Johnson), and Pennsylvania (Toomey). You can tell your Democratic friends that these races are pretty much a lost cause.
And very likely Democratic gains include California. You can confidently tell your Republican friends that California is basically out of their hands.
That leaves us with a new baseline of 45 Republicans and 49 Democrats.
Here's how the rest break down. I wouldn't make a bet on this, but evidence points to these results: Republicans gain Alaska (Murkowski or Miller). Democrats gain West Virginia (Manchin).
The final four races are just too hard to predict from my standpoint. Republicans are favored in Illinois, Nevada, and Colorado albeit by small percentages. Democrats are favored in Washington. I think it's just as reasonable to allocate these seats 3-1 as it is to allocate them 2-2. They all might be very close.
I tend to want to call Washington to Murray(D) and Illinois for Kirk(R). Nevada and Colorado are even harder for me. Nevada's polling option to select "none of these candidates" may end up helping Reid(D), or... Angle(R). Angle may win, but if so, I think there's a good chance it'll be more narrowly than about 2 points, as polls now show. Democrats are going to be desperate to win Nevada as a symbolic victory, though I think politically it would help them to have a change in the face of leadership. I tend to think Tancredo's rise in Colorado might un-motivate more moderate Republican voters, which might help Bennet(D). But all of this is conjecture.
I think Dems will end up with 51 or 52 seats. This is consistent with my other forecasts. The margin will be between 50D-50R and 54D-46R (worst and best case scenarios, depending on your position). Thus, I confidently predict Democrats will retain the Senate absent a defection or two from more moderate Democratic caucus members.
On the other hand, Democrats will very likely lose in between 5 and 9 seats, probably closer to the latter number.
I want to make a quick note about the NC Senate race as well. Watch Burr's(R) winning margin. Marshall(D) has run a weak campaign, but Burr hasn't run much of a campaign at all. If Burr wins by less than 11 points then it will be a sign that Democrats may be doing better than expected. If he wins by much more, brace for significant Democratic losses in NC and elsewhere.
(11/2) Election Forecasts 2010: House
This will represent my final election projection of the 2010 Midterms, and I'll make it brief.
In the House of Representatives, Democrats will likely lose between 30 and 80 seats. It will either be deafening or reasonably significant, but either way, Dems are in for it. I'm not going to make specific number projections because there just isn't enough robust polling on which to make accurate predictions. Generic House Ballots range from R+15 to R+0 and it's probably somewhere in between. I think most pollsters are beginning to settle on in between 50 and 70 seats lost for the Democrats. Which, if true, would make this the most significant turnover in 100 years.
I like watching NC races for many reasons, so I want to direct your attention to three different contests in NC that I think will represent indicator contests for what kind of gains Republicans are probably going to make in the House. We'll begin to know what these look like starting at 7:30 when polls close. I make these predictions partially with the help of Fivethirtyeight's own House indicators.
In NC-02 (Raleigh suburbs and east), Incumbent Democrat Bob Etheridge is facing what I consider to be a poor Republican opponent and a Libertarian. Recent polling has Republican Renee Ellmers up, but I find a win by her to be unlikely. If Ellmers wins by anything but the slimmest of margins, expect 55+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Etheridge has about a 65% chance of victory.
In NC-11 (Mountains), Incumbent Democrat Heath Shuler is facing what I consider to be a very generic and relatively inexperienced opponent. If Jeff Miller were to squeak out a win, expect 70+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Shuler has about an 80% chance of victory
And in NC-04 (Durham, Chapel Hill and west Raleigh), Incumbent Democrat David Price is facing what I consider to be a circumstantially spirited campaign by (C4L endorsed) William Lawson. But if Lawson were to overturn this formidable Incumbent, expect total chaos in the House, upwards of 80 seat turnover. I think Price has about a 95% chance of victory. If all three of these races go south for Dems, we could be looking at up to 100 seats changing hands.
Now if none of these Incumbents is taken out, Republicans could still be on their way to a strong finish, but I expect it to be under 55 seats. Remember, I'm not a professional, and I wouldn't bet anything substantial on any of what I have written above.
In the House of Representatives, Democrats will likely lose between 30 and 80 seats. It will either be deafening or reasonably significant, but either way, Dems are in for it. I'm not going to make specific number projections because there just isn't enough robust polling on which to make accurate predictions. Generic House Ballots range from R+15 to R+0 and it's probably somewhere in between. I think most pollsters are beginning to settle on in between 50 and 70 seats lost for the Democrats. Which, if true, would make this the most significant turnover in 100 years.
I like watching NC races for many reasons, so I want to direct your attention to three different contests in NC that I think will represent indicator contests for what kind of gains Republicans are probably going to make in the House. We'll begin to know what these look like starting at 7:30 when polls close. I make these predictions partially with the help of Fivethirtyeight's own House indicators.
In NC-02 (Raleigh suburbs and east), Incumbent Democrat Bob Etheridge is facing what I consider to be a poor Republican opponent and a Libertarian. Recent polling has Republican Renee Ellmers up, but I find a win by her to be unlikely. If Ellmers wins by anything but the slimmest of margins, expect 55+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Etheridge has about a 65% chance of victory.
In NC-11 (Mountains), Incumbent Democrat Heath Shuler is facing what I consider to be a very generic and relatively inexperienced opponent. If Jeff Miller were to squeak out a win, expect 70+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Shuler has about an 80% chance of victory
And in NC-04 (Durham, Chapel Hill and west Raleigh), Incumbent Democrat David Price is facing what I consider to be a circumstantially spirited campaign by (C4L endorsed) William Lawson. But if Lawson were to overturn this formidable Incumbent, expect total chaos in the House, upwards of 80 seat turnover. I think Price has about a 95% chance of victory. If all three of these races go south for Dems, we could be looking at up to 100 seats changing hands.
Now if none of these Incumbents is taken out, Republicans could still be on their way to a strong finish, but I expect it to be under 55 seats. Remember, I'm not a professional, and I wouldn't bet anything substantial on any of what I have written above.
Shakeup in Alaska?
I keep mentioning three way races in my posts, and it's because they're just so fascinating this cycle.
The one race that I have pretty much ignored in my Senate forecasts is Alaska, except to mention that it represents an unprecedented historical situation because Lisa Murkowski is trying to win as a write-in candidate. Write-in candidates just simply don't win historically, so much that many politicians wouldn't even try, as embarrassing as it would be.
But Murkowski represents a real possibility for the write-in candidacy, as she has consistently been polling right up next to Joe Miller, the Republican.
And yet I have been ignoring Alaska in my forecasts because it has, until recently, seemed almost certain that either Murkowski or Miller would win, and both candidates are running as Republicans.
Ok. It's really really dangerous to try to make an argument off of a single poll, particularly when its a weekend poll, but because the argument I am about to make has been around for awhile, I'll draw your attention to a PPP poll of the Alaska Senate election. PPP makes the assertion with this poll that, instead of McAdams, the Democrat, being the spoiler for Murkowski, Murkowski may end up being the spoiler for McAdams. Three way races are hard to predict, and three-way races in which there is a write-in candidate don't have a lot of precedent. Joe Miller AND Lisa Murkowski both have dismal approval ratings in the 30s, while McAdams is approved of by 50%. Will Murkowski voters, encountering the difficulty of writing in her name (which is not the easiest to spell) cast their ballots for McAdams, if they can't figure out the write-in process? There is a good argument that this could be the case.
With this poll showing Miller at 37% and McAdams at 30%, it's certainly Miller's race to lose, but there really may be movement at the last moment here in Alaska, with counting of write-ins going well into this week. Can't wait to find out if McAdams or Murkowski will be the exciting upset of this election.
The one race that I have pretty much ignored in my Senate forecasts is Alaska, except to mention that it represents an unprecedented historical situation because Lisa Murkowski is trying to win as a write-in candidate. Write-in candidates just simply don't win historically, so much that many politicians wouldn't even try, as embarrassing as it would be.
But Murkowski represents a real possibility for the write-in candidacy, as she has consistently been polling right up next to Joe Miller, the Republican.
And yet I have been ignoring Alaska in my forecasts because it has, until recently, seemed almost certain that either Murkowski or Miller would win, and both candidates are running as Republicans.
Ok. It's really really dangerous to try to make an argument off of a single poll, particularly when its a weekend poll, but because the argument I am about to make has been around for awhile, I'll draw your attention to a PPP poll of the Alaska Senate election. PPP makes the assertion with this poll that, instead of McAdams, the Democrat, being the spoiler for Murkowski, Murkowski may end up being the spoiler for McAdams. Three way races are hard to predict, and three-way races in which there is a write-in candidate don't have a lot of precedent. Joe Miller AND Lisa Murkowski both have dismal approval ratings in the 30s, while McAdams is approved of by 50%. Will Murkowski voters, encountering the difficulty of writing in her name (which is not the easiest to spell) cast their ballots for McAdams, if they can't figure out the write-in process? There is a good argument that this could be the case.
With this poll showing Miller at 37% and McAdams at 30%, it's certainly Miller's race to lose, but there really may be movement at the last moment here in Alaska, with counting of write-ins going well into this week. Can't wait to find out if McAdams or Murkowski will be the exciting upset of this election.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Should we switch to Instant Runoff Voting?
The question in the title comes up from time to time in the political discourse, usually when there are three-way races in which two groups with majority opinion split the vote. In my post yesterday on three-way races, I noted that some of these political contests might provide a more acceptable result for the population and stave off strategic voting, if IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) was implemented.
The Florida electorate is 23% Unaffiliated, 41% Democratic, and 36% Republican. Most Republicans and some Unaffiliateds are backing Marco Rubio, the very conservative Tea Party-backed Republican nominee, but Rubio's campaign has stalled out in its numbers, consistently failing to reach above about 45% of the vote. The assumption, therefore, is that 55% of the electorate does NOT want Rubio elected. These people are a few disaffected Republicans, many Unaffiliateds, and almost all Democrats. And yet Rubio is projected to win the election because Charlie Crist, the Independent, and Kendrick Meek, the Democrat are splitting the "anti-Rubio" vote.Why should Rubio win if most people don't want him elected?
For that matter, why should any candidate win when the MAJORITY of the electorate does NOT want him or her elected? This seems anti-democratic! And yet this is one of the major problems with the "plurality" voting method in the United States. You could win with 5% of the vote as long as no one else receives a higher number.
Normally, the plurality method penalizes the moderate in the election. But because of strategic voting, many people decide to vote for a candidate whom they do NOT prefer in order to prevent a candidate they prefer even less from winning. This is why Crist could win in Florida; there aren't enough Unaffiliateds to win him the election so he needs major defections from Democrats. But this is "dishonest" voting!
In Instant Runoff Voting, voters rank candidates first choice through third choice on the ballot. Let's simulate IRV for the Florida race:
Meek gets 20% of the vote, Crist receives 35% and Rubio receives 45% in this simulation. In plurality, Rubio wins. In IRV, Meek gets dropped from the ballot. Then all the second choices of the Meek voters are counted. It's almost certain that all Meek voters chose Crist as their second choice, since Crist is more moderate. Thus Crist is awarded 55% of the total vote and wins against Rubio who still has 45%! Perfect!
This allowed Meek voters to speak their mind, but also prevented Rubio from winning at the same time. It allowed Crist to be recognized as the overall favorite, even if he wasn't the individual favorite of all voters. This kind of method would also allow other third party candidates to be recognized by voters otherwise afraid of "wasting" a vote on them, like Libertarians or Green Partiers who poll at around 5% in some elections.
Of course, it's not that easy. Despite the proponents of IRV, there are some risks with implementing an IRV method in US elections. I found several sites that spell out the problems of IRV, but the most fascinating and disturbing from a common-sense standpoint is that under certain conditions IRV has the tendency to show chaotic patterns that are nonmonotonic. According to Ka-Ping Yee, who has published some extensive voting system research online, in the mathematics of elections, nonmonotonicity essentially means that "a shift of public opinion toward a candidate can cause the candidate to lose, and a shift of public opinion away from a candidate can cause the candidate to win". That's right, there are scenarios in 3-way IRV where Candidate X could actually cause him/herself to lose... by GAINING support. What?
That doesn't make logical sense for most of us, and rather than trying to explain it myself, I would strongly encourage you to play with this really really cool election simulation feature by Ka-Ping Yee. Click on "Hare (IRV)" at the bottom, and it'll highlight the areas where each candidate will win. Drag out three or four candidates (triangles) and play with their positions until you notice the nonmonotonicity. It's unmistakable because you might suddenly find that an electorate which most sympathizes with "yellow candidate" will consistently elect "green candidate" in IRV. The stats are noted above if you don't understand the graph. And if that's not working or you're still confused, that's fine, please read this nice visual explanation of the "pathological" behavior of IRV. I want to thank Ka-Ping Yee for his work on this, the visualizations are helpful!
If you were playing with those pages, I'm sure you noticed that five different voting systems are profiled. The ones I find most satisfactory are the Condorcet method, the Approval method, and the Range method (which is not mentioned but is similar in some ways to approval voting). Every system seems to have its form of strategic voting, but some have more problems than others. Please read about some of these systems. What is the best? What do you think we should switch to? Range certainly seems to be the most fun to me.
So, is IRV better than Plurality overall? Yes I'd have to say for the majority of situations it is. But I think it would be easiest to switch to one of the three above mentioned methods, particularly Approval voting, since it's not difficult to understand. Or Disapproval voting might be an interesting switch, though not in the interest of toning down the vicious nature of the political arena. Regardless of what form we choose, it seems clear that we need a serious overhaul of the voting system to become a major political priority in the United States.
The Florida electorate is 23% Unaffiliated, 41% Democratic, and 36% Republican. Most Republicans and some Unaffiliateds are backing Marco Rubio, the very conservative Tea Party-backed Republican nominee, but Rubio's campaign has stalled out in its numbers, consistently failing to reach above about 45% of the vote. The assumption, therefore, is that 55% of the electorate does NOT want Rubio elected. These people are a few disaffected Republicans, many Unaffiliateds, and almost all Democrats. And yet Rubio is projected to win the election because Charlie Crist, the Independent, and Kendrick Meek, the Democrat are splitting the "anti-Rubio" vote.Why should Rubio win if most people don't want him elected?
For that matter, why should any candidate win when the MAJORITY of the electorate does NOT want him or her elected? This seems anti-democratic! And yet this is one of the major problems with the "plurality" voting method in the United States. You could win with 5% of the vote as long as no one else receives a higher number.
Normally, the plurality method penalizes the moderate in the election. But because of strategic voting, many people decide to vote for a candidate whom they do NOT prefer in order to prevent a candidate they prefer even less from winning. This is why Crist could win in Florida; there aren't enough Unaffiliateds to win him the election so he needs major defections from Democrats. But this is "dishonest" voting!
In Instant Runoff Voting, voters rank candidates first choice through third choice on the ballot. Let's simulate IRV for the Florida race:
Meek gets 20% of the vote, Crist receives 35% and Rubio receives 45% in this simulation. In plurality, Rubio wins. In IRV, Meek gets dropped from the ballot. Then all the second choices of the Meek voters are counted. It's almost certain that all Meek voters chose Crist as their second choice, since Crist is more moderate. Thus Crist is awarded 55% of the total vote and wins against Rubio who still has 45%! Perfect!
This allowed Meek voters to speak their mind, but also prevented Rubio from winning at the same time. It allowed Crist to be recognized as the overall favorite, even if he wasn't the individual favorite of all voters. This kind of method would also allow other third party candidates to be recognized by voters otherwise afraid of "wasting" a vote on them, like Libertarians or Green Partiers who poll at around 5% in some elections.
Of course, it's not that easy. Despite the proponents of IRV, there are some risks with implementing an IRV method in US elections. I found several sites that spell out the problems of IRV, but the most fascinating and disturbing from a common-sense standpoint is that under certain conditions IRV has the tendency to show chaotic patterns that are nonmonotonic. According to Ka-Ping Yee, who has published some extensive voting system research online, in the mathematics of elections, nonmonotonicity essentially means that "a shift of public opinion toward a candidate can cause the candidate to lose, and a shift of public opinion away from a candidate can cause the candidate to win". That's right, there are scenarios in 3-way IRV where Candidate X could actually cause him/herself to lose... by GAINING support. What?
That doesn't make logical sense for most of us, and rather than trying to explain it myself, I would strongly encourage you to play with this really really cool election simulation feature by Ka-Ping Yee. Click on "Hare (IRV)" at the bottom, and it'll highlight the areas where each candidate will win. Drag out three or four candidates (triangles) and play with their positions until you notice the nonmonotonicity. It's unmistakable because you might suddenly find that an electorate which most sympathizes with "yellow candidate" will consistently elect "green candidate" in IRV. The stats are noted above if you don't understand the graph. And if that's not working or you're still confused, that's fine, please read this nice visual explanation of the "pathological" behavior of IRV. I want to thank Ka-Ping Yee for his work on this, the visualizations are helpful!
If you were playing with those pages, I'm sure you noticed that five different voting systems are profiled. The ones I find most satisfactory are the Condorcet method, the Approval method, and the Range method (which is not mentioned but is similar in some ways to approval voting). Every system seems to have its form of strategic voting, but some have more problems than others. Please read about some of these systems. What is the best? What do you think we should switch to? Range certainly seems to be the most fun to me.
So, is IRV better than Plurality overall? Yes I'd have to say for the majority of situations it is. But I think it would be easiest to switch to one of the three above mentioned methods, particularly Approval voting, since it's not difficult to understand. Or Disapproval voting might be an interesting switch, though not in the interest of toning down the vicious nature of the political arena. Regardless of what form we choose, it seems clear that we need a serious overhaul of the voting system to become a major political priority in the United States.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Oddness of Three-way Races
I promise, after the election on Nov. 2 we'll be back to talking about policies, dirty deals, and everything wrong in the news cycle, but for now it seems worthwhile to discuss more regarding the upcoming midterms. But for now let's talk about a few (normally rare in American elections) three-way races that have proved interesting.
In my most recent post last week, I made a note at the bottom that it is difficult to predict the outcome of the Florida Senate race between Independent Governor Charlie Crist, Republican Marco Rubio, and Democrat Kendrick Meek. The news out of the New York Times on Thursday was that Matt McKenna, spokesperson for President Bill Clinton, who had be in Florida campaigning for longtime friend Meek, claimed that Clinton had urged Meek to drop out of the race and endorse Crist. Clinton has a political alliance and friendship with Meek since Meek, a police officer, was assigned to Clinton's detail during Clinton's travels in Florida when he was President. According to the NYT, the two politicians had even agreed upon a time for Meek to drop out and officially endorse the Governor. However, Meek had decided at the last minute not to drop out.
It makes sense that Clinton would urge Meek to drop out; at this point 50% of Florida's Democrats are planning on voting for Crist as opposed to only 10% of Florida's Republicans. If Crist were to win, it seems reasonably likely that he would caucus with the Democrats who got him elected, and there is almost no way for Crist to win unless he were to receive near unanimous Democratic support. Meek dropping out, which has been implicitly or explicitly urged by some Democrats, including Clinton and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., would facilitate this opportunity for Crist.
Interestingly, Meek's campaign has strongly contested this whole story, saying the Mr. Meek had never planned on dropping out and intends to become the next US Senator from Florida. Still, the whole debacle may end up working in Crist's favor, if Democrats can be convinced that a vote for Meek is a vote for Rubio. It is this strategic vote aspect that I have consistently mentioned makes three way races extremely volatile.
Or I should say CAN make them volatile. It may be too soon to say whether there will be a major shift to Crist, but despite all this hullabaloo and pushing back and forth between all three candidates, the Florida race has maintained a relatively static stature in polls with little change for weeks. 6 weeks ago it would have been reasonable to expect Rubio to receive about 40% of the vote, Crist to receive about 35% and Meek to receive about 20%. This same trend has held until now.
This is also true of the Alaska Senate race, in which Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski is mounting a write-in bid for her seat, after narrowly losing the Republican Primary in that state to Joe Miller. Similar to the Florida race, for the last 6 weeks Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski have polled about even at 35% while the Democrat, McAdams, has about 25% of the vote. There are dynamics in this race which complicate it, like the write-in process, and the fact that mounting a successful write-in candidacy is very unlikely in recent times. Still, something in the Florida and Alaska races is preventing normal strategic volatility that you'd expect in a three way race. Perhaps its the fact that no candidate has been perceived to be gaining ground in these races.
But I suspect the stalled polls are due to the unique situation of these contests. As is turns out, both Crist and Murkowski are well known Republicans who have tacked some to the center in order to fuel their "independent" bids for their respective seats. Both were also knocked off in their primaries by opponents who are seen as "too" conservative by the mainstream electorate. For these reasons it seems unlikely that Democrats would defect to a well known former Republican tacking to the center, unlikely that Tea Partiers and Republican Party regulars would defect to a perceived sore loser and moderate, and unlikely that moderates would defect to the Democrat (because he's likely to lose) or the Tea Party-backed "super" conservative because he's too extreme. The result is a static electorate in polls.
The situation is different in three other notable races this year, all for the Governorship.
I've already discussed the interesting dynamics of the Colorado race in my profile of American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo. In this three party race, strategic voting is evident. Key in the use of strategic voting is the perception that any of the candidates is becoming a "wasted vote". So let's see... First, Tancredo is actually running a campaign a little to the right of Republican Dan Maes. Second, Dan Maes has proved to be a relatively weak candidate and has shown a real ineptitude for campaigning. So as soon as Republicans began to realize that Maes and Tancredo were splitting the vote, many people defected in the polls to Tancredo, which fueled even more support for the independent candidate. Over the last several weeks, Maes has seen his support drop to dismal levels, consistently below 10% and Tancredo is finding himself within striking distance of the Democrat, Hickenlooper. This all occurred because people began to watch polls, which showed Maes in a weak position and after hitting a tipping point, all voters interested in preventing Hickenlooper from attaining the Governorship knew that Tancredo was their man. Interestingly, I'll point out again that this effect would probably not have occurred (or at least not to that degree) except for the modern era of polling.
Another example of this "strategic voting" effect is in Rhode Island, where Democrat Frank Caprio is running against former Senator Linc Chafee who is an independent. In a campaign stop to Rhode Island, Barack Obama (now famously) withheld an endorsement for Caprio, citing a buddy-buddy relationship with Chafee from the President's work in the Senate. As support for Robitaille the Republican has increased (now above 25%), many progressives seem to be concerned that their candidate, Caprio (especially absent an endorsement from the President), might not have enough support to take down both Chafee and Robitaille. Since Chafee is left leaning anyway, he has become the favored candidate between Chafee and Caprio and is now polling around 35%, essentially switching places with Caprio. My guess is this is the beginning of the tipping point, and that Chafee will end up with a respectable lead, now that Caprio is increasingly seen as a candidate who cannot win. This kind of volatility can happen quickly, even within a week, and can seriously change elections, as seems to be the case in RI.
The final race of interest is the Maine Governor's contest, where Paul LePage, the Republican, has been in a neck-and-neck fight with Democrat Libby Mitchell for weeks, and it began to look like Mitchell's campaign had plateaued. Recently however, third-party candidate Eliot Cutler has been gaining ground, drawing even with Mitchell, and desperate to prevent the tea-party-backed LePage from winning, Democrats seem to be abandoning Mitchell's campaign to vote for Cutler. The more polls show that Cutler is drawing closer to LePage, the more there will be defections from the Mitchell campaign because she will be seen as a non-viable candidate. It will be interesting to see how much ground Cutler can make up at the last minute. At this point in the election, it may be too little too late, but a last minute swing is not out of the question.
These kind of last-minute fluctuations are exactly what makes three-way races hard to predict. Any sign of weakness on the part of any candidate can have disastrous results. Right now it can be reasonably expected that Hickenlooper(D) will win in Colorado because Tancedo and Maes are splitting the vote. In Rhode Island, Chafee(I) seems the favorite for victory. And in Maine, LePage(R) seems well on his way to success. Were each of these races between just two candidates, all three would likely be turning out very differently. In Colorado, it's likely that a Republican candidate would be winning (in this environment). Rhode Island would likely elect a Democrat, not an Independent. And Maine would almost certainly reject Tea Party values and elect a Democrat as well.
Some have suggested that the solution to the problem of three way contests, strategic voting, and a candidate winning with less than 50% of the vote, is a different voting system than our current "first past the post" or "plurality" method. Ideally, we should have a method that protects people from feeling as though they need to strategically vote, and can just express support for the candidate they think is best for the job.
One option to address this problem is the Instant Runoff Voting method, which is being piloted in a number of cities and states including North Carolina this Midterm election. In light of the challenges posed by these three-way races, I'll have a post examining IRV and other election options soon.
In my most recent post last week, I made a note at the bottom that it is difficult to predict the outcome of the Florida Senate race between Independent Governor Charlie Crist, Republican Marco Rubio, and Democrat Kendrick Meek. The news out of the New York Times on Thursday was that Matt McKenna, spokesperson for President Bill Clinton, who had be in Florida campaigning for longtime friend Meek, claimed that Clinton had urged Meek to drop out of the race and endorse Crist. Clinton has a political alliance and friendship with Meek since Meek, a police officer, was assigned to Clinton's detail during Clinton's travels in Florida when he was President. According to the NYT, the two politicians had even agreed upon a time for Meek to drop out and officially endorse the Governor. However, Meek had decided at the last minute not to drop out.
It makes sense that Clinton would urge Meek to drop out; at this point 50% of Florida's Democrats are planning on voting for Crist as opposed to only 10% of Florida's Republicans. If Crist were to win, it seems reasonably likely that he would caucus with the Democrats who got him elected, and there is almost no way for Crist to win unless he were to receive near unanimous Democratic support. Meek dropping out, which has been implicitly or explicitly urged by some Democrats, including Clinton and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., would facilitate this opportunity for Crist.
Interestingly, Meek's campaign has strongly contested this whole story, saying the Mr. Meek had never planned on dropping out and intends to become the next US Senator from Florida. Still, the whole debacle may end up working in Crist's favor, if Democrats can be convinced that a vote for Meek is a vote for Rubio. It is this strategic vote aspect that I have consistently mentioned makes three way races extremely volatile.
Or I should say CAN make them volatile. It may be too soon to say whether there will be a major shift to Crist, but despite all this hullabaloo and pushing back and forth between all three candidates, the Florida race has maintained a relatively static stature in polls with little change for weeks. 6 weeks ago it would have been reasonable to expect Rubio to receive about 40% of the vote, Crist to receive about 35% and Meek to receive about 20%. This same trend has held until now.
This is also true of the Alaska Senate race, in which Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski is mounting a write-in bid for her seat, after narrowly losing the Republican Primary in that state to Joe Miller. Similar to the Florida race, for the last 6 weeks Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski have polled about even at 35% while the Democrat, McAdams, has about 25% of the vote. There are dynamics in this race which complicate it, like the write-in process, and the fact that mounting a successful write-in candidacy is very unlikely in recent times. Still, something in the Florida and Alaska races is preventing normal strategic volatility that you'd expect in a three way race. Perhaps its the fact that no candidate has been perceived to be gaining ground in these races.
But I suspect the stalled polls are due to the unique situation of these contests. As is turns out, both Crist and Murkowski are well known Republicans who have tacked some to the center in order to fuel their "independent" bids for their respective seats. Both were also knocked off in their primaries by opponents who are seen as "too" conservative by the mainstream electorate. For these reasons it seems unlikely that Democrats would defect to a well known former Republican tacking to the center, unlikely that Tea Partiers and Republican Party regulars would defect to a perceived sore loser and moderate, and unlikely that moderates would defect to the Democrat (because he's likely to lose) or the Tea Party-backed "super" conservative because he's too extreme. The result is a static electorate in polls.
The situation is different in three other notable races this year, all for the Governorship.
I've already discussed the interesting dynamics of the Colorado race in my profile of American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo. In this three party race, strategic voting is evident. Key in the use of strategic voting is the perception that any of the candidates is becoming a "wasted vote". So let's see... First, Tancredo is actually running a campaign a little to the right of Republican Dan Maes. Second, Dan Maes has proved to be a relatively weak candidate and has shown a real ineptitude for campaigning. So as soon as Republicans began to realize that Maes and Tancredo were splitting the vote, many people defected in the polls to Tancredo, which fueled even more support for the independent candidate. Over the last several weeks, Maes has seen his support drop to dismal levels, consistently below 10% and Tancredo is finding himself within striking distance of the Democrat, Hickenlooper. This all occurred because people began to watch polls, which showed Maes in a weak position and after hitting a tipping point, all voters interested in preventing Hickenlooper from attaining the Governorship knew that Tancredo was their man. Interestingly, I'll point out again that this effect would probably not have occurred (or at least not to that degree) except for the modern era of polling.
Another example of this "strategic voting" effect is in Rhode Island, where Democrat Frank Caprio is running against former Senator Linc Chafee who is an independent. In a campaign stop to Rhode Island, Barack Obama (now famously) withheld an endorsement for Caprio, citing a buddy-buddy relationship with Chafee from the President's work in the Senate. As support for Robitaille the Republican has increased (now above 25%), many progressives seem to be concerned that their candidate, Caprio (especially absent an endorsement from the President), might not have enough support to take down both Chafee and Robitaille. Since Chafee is left leaning anyway, he has become the favored candidate between Chafee and Caprio and is now polling around 35%, essentially switching places with Caprio. My guess is this is the beginning of the tipping point, and that Chafee will end up with a respectable lead, now that Caprio is increasingly seen as a candidate who cannot win. This kind of volatility can happen quickly, even within a week, and can seriously change elections, as seems to be the case in RI.
The final race of interest is the Maine Governor's contest, where Paul LePage, the Republican, has been in a neck-and-neck fight with Democrat Libby Mitchell for weeks, and it began to look like Mitchell's campaign had plateaued. Recently however, third-party candidate Eliot Cutler has been gaining ground, drawing even with Mitchell, and desperate to prevent the tea-party-backed LePage from winning, Democrats seem to be abandoning Mitchell's campaign to vote for Cutler. The more polls show that Cutler is drawing closer to LePage, the more there will be defections from the Mitchell campaign because she will be seen as a non-viable candidate. It will be interesting to see how much ground Cutler can make up at the last minute. At this point in the election, it may be too little too late, but a last minute swing is not out of the question.
These kind of last-minute fluctuations are exactly what makes three-way races hard to predict. Any sign of weakness on the part of any candidate can have disastrous results. Right now it can be reasonably expected that Hickenlooper(D) will win in Colorado because Tancedo and Maes are splitting the vote. In Rhode Island, Chafee(I) seems the favorite for victory. And in Maine, LePage(R) seems well on his way to success. Were each of these races between just two candidates, all three would likely be turning out very differently. In Colorado, it's likely that a Republican candidate would be winning (in this environment). Rhode Island would likely elect a Democrat, not an Independent. And Maine would almost certainly reject Tea Party values and elect a Democrat as well.
Some have suggested that the solution to the problem of three way contests, strategic voting, and a candidate winning with less than 50% of the vote, is a different voting system than our current "first past the post" or "plurality" method. Ideally, we should have a method that protects people from feeling as though they need to strategically vote, and can just express support for the candidate they think is best for the job.
One option to address this problem is the Instant Runoff Voting method, which is being piloted in a number of cities and states including North Carolina this Midterm election. In light of the challenges posed by these three-way races, I'll have a post examining IRV and other election options soon.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
(10/21) Election Forecasts 2010: Senate and House
In a previous post on 9/29 I developed my election forecasts for the 2010 Senate Election; this is an update to that post. But first, let's talk the U.S. House.
For those of you who are tuning in late to politics, remember that there are 435 House seats, apportioned to states according to population; all 435 seats are up for election every 2 years. This makes the House a volatile and sometimes rapidly changing group of people. Unlike other major forecast sites, (see CQ Politics, Cook Political Report, Real Clear Politics, Pollster, Fivethirtyeight/NYT, etc) I don't have the resources to make forecasts on individual House races. But I do have the time to make general statements about the House based on these forecasts, where it's likely Democrats will lose somewhere between 25 and 75 "net" seats. That may seem like a huge margin of error, but there are substantial issues with forecasting House races this year, as has been mentioned and reiterated almost constantly by Nate Silver; his argument is hard to refute. Still, Republicans need to take 40 seats from their current position to obtain a majority, which seems increasingly likely. Of the 150 or so House seats that are being "seriously" contested this election, 90% are Democratic incumbents or Democratic seats. This really gives some perspective on why Democrats have such a problem this year in the House; it may turn out to be the greatest turnover of House seats in history.
The Senate race actually tells us a slightly different story. Democrats are actually well positioned in the Senate comparative to the House, meaning that they are at this time very unlikely to lose control of the Senate chamber. Again, for those of you who are coming into politics late, remember, each state gets 2 Senate seats, each Senator serves for a 6 year term, and only 1/3 of the Senate gets elected every 2 years. Thus only 2/3 of states have senate elections every 2 years, in this case there are 37 Senators being elected (2 from NY). Republicans now at 41 seats, need to have a net gain of 10 seats in order to be reasonably confident of taking control of the Senate with 51 seats. (In the case of a tie, 50-50, Democrats would still be considered "in control" because Vice President Joe Biden would cast any tie-breaking votes).
In the coming paragraphs, I use the term "competitive" to mean that either party has a chance of winning, and the term "almost certain" to mean that I am as certain as is possible, under the circumstances of prediction. I use the term "tossup" to mean that based on polling, spending, and state specifics it is virtually impossible to predict a winner- it might as well be a coin toss. In this update, Democrats have made some slight gains since my last forecast; let's take a look.
Last time I pointed out that Democrats "almost certainly" will not take any Republican-held seats (Florida is a possible exception that I will discuss at the end), so every "competitive" seat is Democratically held (Democrats have everything to lose, nothing to gain this election). This factor is unchanged. Moreover, I pointed out that Republicans were "almost certainly" going to win North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, turning those states Red. Pennsylvania has been removed from this column in this update. This leaves us with a baseline of 48 Democrats and 43 Republicans. I am "almost certain" that Democrats will not have less than 48 seats, and that Republicans will not have less than 43 seats after this election.
Last time I also established that there were 9 seats that I considered "competitive", where either party has a notable chance of winning. These seats were Washington, California, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Florida, and Connecticut. Since that time, Connecticut has proven non-competitive; an apparent surge by Republican Linda McMahon has evaporated (it may have just been coincidental polling noise, media attention, or a temporary effect of McMahon's sizable personal contributions to her own race), leaving Democrat Richard Blumenthal with a commanding lead.
Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, I would like to add 1 new state to the "competitive" list: Pennsylvania, which was formerly an "almost certain" win by Republicans.This leaves us with 9 "competitive" Senate seats.
Washington and California have been polling Democratic, so we'll put them in the D column. Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have been polling Republican, so we'll put them in the R column. This leaves Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and West Virginia as "tossups". I gave Republicans a 2/3 edge amongst the tossups last time; this time, coin-flips as these races are, I'll assign these seats half and half for this forecast. This leaves us with 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans, a one-seat gain for Democrats since my last forecast. Remember, though, I still think there is a reasonable margin of error with this forecast of four seats, which means the numbers could range from 50D-50R to 54D-46R. This good news for Democrats, but not great news- still, it seems highly unlikely that Republicans will take control of the Senate at this time.
I want to make an additional note on a few individual races.
First, Wisconsin has shown stronger and stronger polling for Russ Feingold's (D) opponent Ron Johnson (R). If Johnson continues in this fashion, I will remove Wisconsin from the "competitive" races, despite my tendency to give an incumbent Senator the benefit of the doubt.
Second, Pennsylvania has shown some very good numbers recently for Democratic candidate Joe Sestak. Since Pat Toomey (R) has held such a strong lead for so long, I am dubious about these numbers. I'll be paying close attention to this race in the future.
Third, Kentucky's race has seemed to be tightening recently. Kentucky is the one Republican-held seat that might seriously be vulnerable this year, besides Florida which I'll discuss below. Despite Rand Paul's (R) libertarian-leaning positions on a lot of issues, I have remained highly skeptical that conservative Democrat Attorney General Jack Conway can beat him. While RCP continues to consider Kentucky to be a tossup, and other forecasters say it only leans Republican, I haven't been convinced by the polling or the other dynamics of the race. Thus I still do not consider Kentucky in my list of "competitive" races. The same remains true for my forecast on Missouri, which is considered by most to be less close than Kentucky, but still in the running. I am not convinced by Robin Carnahan's (D) numbers either.
Fourth, Colorado, California, and Washington have consistently shown very close numbers. Despite some reservations, I have moved Colorado into the "tossup" section because the race seems to have tightened even further. California and Washington's numbers are not so different from Colorado, but due to the incumbency effect, deep respect for Fivethirtyeight's methods, and some local dynamics like, say, Prop 19 in California, and mail-in voting in Washington, I have retained these West coast states' positions on the D side.
Fifth, and finally, Florida has shown a consistent double-digit lead for Republican Marco Rubio for many weeks now. Florida's race is interesting because popular incumbent Republican Governor Charlie Crist has entered the race as an Independent. Crist (I) has been polling around 30%, Rubio (R) around 40% and Kendrick Meek, the Democrat at around 20%. Polls have shown that at this point Crist is getting a lot of his support from Democrats, rather than Republicans, with about 50% of Democrats supporting him, and only 10% of Republicans. Three-way races are hard to predict, as people tend to vote strategically, rather than with their conscience, and it's hard to reflect this in polls. Also with three-way races, just a little gain at the expense of one candidate can cause another candidate to spring, suddenly, into the lead. It is for these reasons that I have kept Florida on the list of possible Democratic takeovers. It is highly unlikely that Meek can beat Rubio, but Crist still might be able to beat Rubio if a lot of Meek voters defect from him at the last moment and vote for Crist in order to keep Rubio, seen as an ultra-conservative, from winning. It's hard to know if, and to what degree, this might happen. Right now it doesn't look likely. But if it were to happen, and Crist won, he would have to decide to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. Since, at that point, it would have been Democrats who had propelled him into office, I think there's a good chance that Crist would caucus with the Democrats, thus sending Florida into the D column. There are a lot of "what-ifs" in this scenario, which is why I keep Florida on the "competitive" list, but I also still assume it'll go Republican for now, since the chances are slim.
For those of you who are tuning in late to politics, remember that there are 435 House seats, apportioned to states according to population; all 435 seats are up for election every 2 years. This makes the House a volatile and sometimes rapidly changing group of people. Unlike other major forecast sites, (see CQ Politics, Cook Political Report, Real Clear Politics, Pollster, Fivethirtyeight/NYT, etc) I don't have the resources to make forecasts on individual House races. But I do have the time to make general statements about the House based on these forecasts, where it's likely Democrats will lose somewhere between 25 and 75 "net" seats. That may seem like a huge margin of error, but there are substantial issues with forecasting House races this year, as has been mentioned and reiterated almost constantly by Nate Silver; his argument is hard to refute. Still, Republicans need to take 40 seats from their current position to obtain a majority, which seems increasingly likely. Of the 150 or so House seats that are being "seriously" contested this election, 90% are Democratic incumbents or Democratic seats. This really gives some perspective on why Democrats have such a problem this year in the House; it may turn out to be the greatest turnover of House seats in history.
The Senate race actually tells us a slightly different story. Democrats are actually well positioned in the Senate comparative to the House, meaning that they are at this time very unlikely to lose control of the Senate chamber. Again, for those of you who are coming into politics late, remember, each state gets 2 Senate seats, each Senator serves for a 6 year term, and only 1/3 of the Senate gets elected every 2 years. Thus only 2/3 of states have senate elections every 2 years, in this case there are 37 Senators being elected (2 from NY). Republicans now at 41 seats, need to have a net gain of 10 seats in order to be reasonably confident of taking control of the Senate with 51 seats. (In the case of a tie, 50-50, Democrats would still be considered "in control" because Vice President Joe Biden would cast any tie-breaking votes).
In the coming paragraphs, I use the term "competitive" to mean that either party has a chance of winning, and the term "almost certain" to mean that I am as certain as is possible, under the circumstances of prediction. I use the term "tossup" to mean that based on polling, spending, and state specifics it is virtually impossible to predict a winner- it might as well be a coin toss. In this update, Democrats have made some slight gains since my last forecast; let's take a look.
Last time I pointed out that Democrats "almost certainly" will not take any Republican-held seats (Florida is a possible exception that I will discuss at the end), so every "competitive" seat is Democratically held (Democrats have everything to lose, nothing to gain this election). This factor is unchanged. Moreover, I pointed out that Republicans were "almost certainly" going to win North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, turning those states Red. Pennsylvania has been removed from this column in this update. This leaves us with a baseline of 48 Democrats and 43 Republicans. I am "almost certain" that Democrats will not have less than 48 seats, and that Republicans will not have less than 43 seats after this election.
Last time I also established that there were 9 seats that I considered "competitive", where either party has a notable chance of winning. These seats were Washington, California, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Florida, and Connecticut. Since that time, Connecticut has proven non-competitive; an apparent surge by Republican Linda McMahon has evaporated (it may have just been coincidental polling noise, media attention, or a temporary effect of McMahon's sizable personal contributions to her own race), leaving Democrat Richard Blumenthal with a commanding lead.
Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, I would like to add 1 new state to the "competitive" list: Pennsylvania, which was formerly an "almost certain" win by Republicans.This leaves us with 9 "competitive" Senate seats.
Washington and California have been polling Democratic, so we'll put them in the D column. Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have been polling Republican, so we'll put them in the R column. This leaves Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and West Virginia as "tossups". I gave Republicans a 2/3 edge amongst the tossups last time; this time, coin-flips as these races are, I'll assign these seats half and half for this forecast. This leaves us with 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans, a one-seat gain for Democrats since my last forecast. Remember, though, I still think there is a reasonable margin of error with this forecast of four seats, which means the numbers could range from 50D-50R to 54D-46R. This good news for Democrats, but not great news- still, it seems highly unlikely that Republicans will take control of the Senate at this time.
I want to make an additional note on a few individual races.
First, Wisconsin has shown stronger and stronger polling for Russ Feingold's (D) opponent Ron Johnson (R). If Johnson continues in this fashion, I will remove Wisconsin from the "competitive" races, despite my tendency to give an incumbent Senator the benefit of the doubt.
Second, Pennsylvania has shown some very good numbers recently for Democratic candidate Joe Sestak. Since Pat Toomey (R) has held such a strong lead for so long, I am dubious about these numbers. I'll be paying close attention to this race in the future.
Third, Kentucky's race has seemed to be tightening recently. Kentucky is the one Republican-held seat that might seriously be vulnerable this year, besides Florida which I'll discuss below. Despite Rand Paul's (R) libertarian-leaning positions on a lot of issues, I have remained highly skeptical that conservative Democrat Attorney General Jack Conway can beat him. While RCP continues to consider Kentucky to be a tossup, and other forecasters say it only leans Republican, I haven't been convinced by the polling or the other dynamics of the race. Thus I still do not consider Kentucky in my list of "competitive" races. The same remains true for my forecast on Missouri, which is considered by most to be less close than Kentucky, but still in the running. I am not convinced by Robin Carnahan's (D) numbers either.
Fourth, Colorado, California, and Washington have consistently shown very close numbers. Despite some reservations, I have moved Colorado into the "tossup" section because the race seems to have tightened even further. California and Washington's numbers are not so different from Colorado, but due to the incumbency effect, deep respect for Fivethirtyeight's methods, and some local dynamics like, say, Prop 19 in California, and mail-in voting in Washington, I have retained these West coast states' positions on the D side.
Fifth, and finally, Florida has shown a consistent double-digit lead for Republican Marco Rubio for many weeks now. Florida's race is interesting because popular incumbent Republican Governor Charlie Crist has entered the race as an Independent. Crist (I) has been polling around 30%, Rubio (R) around 40% and Kendrick Meek, the Democrat at around 20%. Polls have shown that at this point Crist is getting a lot of his support from Democrats, rather than Republicans, with about 50% of Democrats supporting him, and only 10% of Republicans. Three-way races are hard to predict, as people tend to vote strategically, rather than with their conscience, and it's hard to reflect this in polls. Also with three-way races, just a little gain at the expense of one candidate can cause another candidate to spring, suddenly, into the lead. It is for these reasons that I have kept Florida on the list of possible Democratic takeovers. It is highly unlikely that Meek can beat Rubio, but Crist still might be able to beat Rubio if a lot of Meek voters defect from him at the last moment and vote for Crist in order to keep Rubio, seen as an ultra-conservative, from winning. It's hard to know if, and to what degree, this might happen. Right now it doesn't look likely. But if it were to happen, and Crist won, he would have to decide to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. Since, at that point, it would have been Democrats who had propelled him into office, I think there's a good chance that Crist would caucus with the Democrats, thus sending Florida into the D column. There are a lot of "what-ifs" in this scenario, which is why I keep Florida on the "competitive" list, but I also still assume it'll go Republican for now, since the chances are slim.
People Worth Knowing: Tom Tancredo
Tom Tancredo is a former Colorado Congressperson who represented Colorado's 6th Congressional District, the rural areas stretching south of Denver. He came onto the national scene in a major way during the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary in which he took perhaps the strongest stances of any of the candidates on immigration issues.
Since then, he's used the clout he has gained as an advocate for an extremely strict conservative approach to immigration reform to keep his political profile nationally relevant, particularly to conservative voters. Many saw (and still see) Mr. Tancredo as a single issue politician; he has built his political career on making the illegal immigration issue of foremost importance to the Republican Party. He has advocated taking away any state-sponsored advantages for illegal immigrant peoples and those who support them, including severely penalizing so called "sanctuary cities" that have more liberal immigration policies, giving new powers to law enforcement to detain and remove illegal immigrants like the Arizona law, removing any in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants, and other such policies. In 2006, he published a book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security exposing what he felt were the major flaws in American immigration policy. Tancredo lost the Republican nomination, relatively handily, but he continued his immigration activism, and his support of highly right-wing values within the Republican Party.
His relevance today is in the 2010 Colorado Governor race. During the Republican primary for Governor, he delivered an ultimatum to the candidates: if the Republican nominee polled worse than the Democratic nominee after the primary, he would enter the race as a third party candidate under the American Constitution Party. Well, true to form, seeing major weaknesses in the Republican nominee, Dan Maes, Tancredo did enter the race.
Ordinarily a third party candidate would have almost no chance in a major state-wide election, but this is an uncommon election year. Several third party and independent candidates are polling very well in national races, and Colorado is no exception. Maes is suffering from several high-profile controversies, and Tancredo has surged in the polls, coming within striking distance of Democratic candidate John Hickenlooper. At this point it is clear that the race is between Hickenlooper and Tancredo; Maes is languishing near single digit support, but has not dropped out of the race for at least one obvious reason. A perhaps unintended consequence of Tancredo's surge is that the Republican Party in Colorado could be legally relegated to "minority party" status, (thanks to 538 for link) which might hurt Republican chances in the state in future elections. If Maes fails to gain at least 10 percent of the vote, this situation may occur.
Regardless of the secondary effect of Tancredo's running, his successful come-from-behind candidacy may tell us something about how major parties are not as impregnable as they often seem. If Tancredo wins, certainly expect him to be one of the most watched Governors in the nation, especially as he adds fuel to the fire of immigration fears. Whether or not his success is a result of Maes' failures, Tancredo's draw, or a new opening in the American electorate for a third party is unclear. But certainly be on the lookout for additional runs from third parties in the future, particularly look out for a possible third party "Tea Party" candidate in the 2012 election. I'll have an additional post on the chances of a new emergent third party in the near future.
Since then, he's used the clout he has gained as an advocate for an extremely strict conservative approach to immigration reform to keep his political profile nationally relevant, particularly to conservative voters. Many saw (and still see) Mr. Tancredo as a single issue politician; he has built his political career on making the illegal immigration issue of foremost importance to the Republican Party. He has advocated taking away any state-sponsored advantages for illegal immigrant peoples and those who support them, including severely penalizing so called "sanctuary cities" that have more liberal immigration policies, giving new powers to law enforcement to detain and remove illegal immigrants like the Arizona law, removing any in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants, and other such policies. In 2006, he published a book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security exposing what he felt were the major flaws in American immigration policy. Tancredo lost the Republican nomination, relatively handily, but he continued his immigration activism, and his support of highly right-wing values within the Republican Party.
His relevance today is in the 2010 Colorado Governor race. During the Republican primary for Governor, he delivered an ultimatum to the candidates: if the Republican nominee polled worse than the Democratic nominee after the primary, he would enter the race as a third party candidate under the American Constitution Party. Well, true to form, seeing major weaknesses in the Republican nominee, Dan Maes, Tancredo did enter the race.
Ordinarily a third party candidate would have almost no chance in a major state-wide election, but this is an uncommon election year. Several third party and independent candidates are polling very well in national races, and Colorado is no exception. Maes is suffering from several high-profile controversies, and Tancredo has surged in the polls, coming within striking distance of Democratic candidate John Hickenlooper. At this point it is clear that the race is between Hickenlooper and Tancredo; Maes is languishing near single digit support, but has not dropped out of the race for at least one obvious reason. A perhaps unintended consequence of Tancredo's surge is that the Republican Party in Colorado could be legally relegated to "minority party" status, (thanks to 538 for link) which might hurt Republican chances in the state in future elections. If Maes fails to gain at least 10 percent of the vote, this situation may occur.
Regardless of the secondary effect of Tancredo's running, his successful come-from-behind candidacy may tell us something about how major parties are not as impregnable as they often seem. If Tancredo wins, certainly expect him to be one of the most watched Governors in the nation, especially as he adds fuel to the fire of immigration fears. Whether or not his success is a result of Maes' failures, Tancredo's draw, or a new opening in the American electorate for a third party is unclear. But certainly be on the lookout for additional runs from third parties in the future, particularly look out for a possible third party "Tea Party" candidate in the 2012 election. I'll have an additional post on the chances of a new emergent third party in the near future.
New Contributor!
After a long hiatus (that's right, one week is a long hiatus), I'm back to work again, ready to keep everyone updated on the political news of this cycle.
But tonight I'd like to make a fantastic announcement for the future of this blog. One of the best ways to grow the base of a blog is to add new contributors, it helps to keep unique and relevant information at the hands of the readers.
So I'd like to announce now that we'll be adding a resident economist to the PL vs: community; I won't announce his name yet, but he'll be researching and commenting on the important economic issues of our time, including the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Fair Tax proposals, the income tax, GINI coefficients, micro vs macro economic theories including Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, and Neoclassical perspectives, the economic side of foreign policy, this current "recession", and if you read his posts religiously, much much more, I'm sure.
More on that will come forth in the coming couple of weeks, and I hope you're interested in seeing more economics in this blog!
But tonight I'd like to make a fantastic announcement for the future of this blog. One of the best ways to grow the base of a blog is to add new contributors, it helps to keep unique and relevant information at the hands of the readers.
So I'd like to announce now that we'll be adding a resident economist to the PL vs: community; I won't announce his name yet, but he'll be researching and commenting on the important economic issues of our time, including the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Fair Tax proposals, the income tax, GINI coefficients, micro vs macro economic theories including Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, and Neoclassical perspectives, the economic side of foreign policy, this current "recession", and if you read his posts religiously, much much more, I'm sure.
More on that will come forth in the coming couple of weeks, and I hope you're interested in seeing more economics in this blog!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
There is no such thing as "Clean Coal"
Seriously people, can we have an honest dialogue about this? I know there are legitimate reasons for us to continue to use coal for economic, strategic, and basic common-sense arguments, but there is not, I repeat, there is not an environmental argument in favor of the use of coal.
Anyone who says otherwise is trying to feed you a lie. And the lie is conveniently labeled as "clean coal". Politicians like this term because it makes a good economic and strategic resource seem good for the environment too. Companies and people with interests in coal like this term because it makes the basis of their livelihood (or obscene profit) look as natural as the green trees that are mowed down for mountaintop removal mining.
"Capture and Sequestration Technology" might be a term that you have heard recently. You likely have heard it in a commercial, since politicians tend to avoid big complex words. It's this capture and sequestration that would make coal... clean, so to speak. First of all, there is no example of successful capture and sequestration in full swing right now. So it doesn't exist. It would, if implemented, capture the CO2 emissions from a coal plant and store that gas as a solid underground. Sounds sweet! But the technology for capture and sequestration is not economically viable right now, and maybe even more important, the technology for capture and sequestration, well, like a lot of these things... well, turns out... it also doesn't exist.
Anyone see a pattern?
Ok so this is what we have been able to do. Coal isn't pure, it turns out, and burning it lets off these dangerous poisonous chemicals like sulfur which can form sulfuric acid and turn into acid rain and kill off more green trees and well- let's just say we have had limited success in removing sulfur from burned coal, along with NOx's and particulates. But its very expensive to do this. It would be prohibitively expensive to remove even a portion of the CO2 emissions from burned coal through the theoretical technology that represents capture and sequestration. And even if a significant portion of CO2 is successfully removed sometime in the far future, it will not really make coal "clean" by any stretch of the imagination. Resources dedicated to "clean coal technology" would probably do more to prevent global warming if these resources were used instead for funding other alternative energy projects. Coal is the dirtiest-burning widely used fossil fuel, period. I will go out on a 'limb' and say it is essentially impossible (with technology, infinite funds, magic, what have you), from a market standpoint, to make coal "clean" in the sense that wind or solar power is "clean".
So coal is not, nor will it ever be clean. Its about as clean as a cigarette and full of just about as many lies as smoking advertisements had 50 some years ago. The new "Marlboro Man" is this capture and sequestration technology: it's a fantasy.
There are good reasons to continue to use coal as an American energy resource. It's plentiful and abundant, it can be mined right here and instead of being bought abroad. It can be mined relatively cheaply, and it supports the employment of a lot of Americans. The infrastructure for its use in electricity production is already in place and transitioning to any other source for almost half of the American people would also be economically difficult. But one of these good reasons to use coal is NOT and simply cannot be environmental protection or even global warming prevention. Please, please don't accept these non-truths about coal. Be honest about coal, it has a dark side, literally, and we need to own the dirty reality of coal in order to continue to use it.
Anyone who says otherwise is trying to feed you a lie. And the lie is conveniently labeled as "clean coal". Politicians like this term because it makes a good economic and strategic resource seem good for the environment too. Companies and people with interests in coal like this term because it makes the basis of their livelihood (or obscene profit) look as natural as the green trees that are mowed down for mountaintop removal mining.
"Capture and Sequestration Technology" might be a term that you have heard recently. You likely have heard it in a commercial, since politicians tend to avoid big complex words. It's this capture and sequestration that would make coal... clean, so to speak. First of all, there is no example of successful capture and sequestration in full swing right now. So it doesn't exist. It would, if implemented, capture the CO2 emissions from a coal plant and store that gas as a solid underground. Sounds sweet! But the technology for capture and sequestration is not economically viable right now, and maybe even more important, the technology for capture and sequestration, well, like a lot of these things... well, turns out... it also doesn't exist.
Anyone see a pattern?
Ok so this is what we have been able to do. Coal isn't pure, it turns out, and burning it lets off these dangerous poisonous chemicals like sulfur which can form sulfuric acid and turn into acid rain and kill off more green trees and well- let's just say we have had limited success in removing sulfur from burned coal, along with NOx's and particulates. But its very expensive to do this. It would be prohibitively expensive to remove even a portion of the CO2 emissions from burned coal through the theoretical technology that represents capture and sequestration. And even if a significant portion of CO2 is successfully removed sometime in the far future, it will not really make coal "clean" by any stretch of the imagination. Resources dedicated to "clean coal technology" would probably do more to prevent global warming if these resources were used instead for funding other alternative energy projects. Coal is the dirtiest-burning widely used fossil fuel, period. I will go out on a 'limb' and say it is essentially impossible (with technology, infinite funds, magic, what have you), from a market standpoint, to make coal "clean" in the sense that wind or solar power is "clean".
So coal is not, nor will it ever be clean. Its about as clean as a cigarette and full of just about as many lies as smoking advertisements had 50 some years ago. The new "Marlboro Man" is this capture and sequestration technology: it's a fantasy.
There are good reasons to continue to use coal as an American energy resource. It's plentiful and abundant, it can be mined right here and instead of being bought abroad. It can be mined relatively cheaply, and it supports the employment of a lot of Americans. The infrastructure for its use in electricity production is already in place and transitioning to any other source for almost half of the American people would also be economically difficult. But one of these good reasons to use coal is NOT and simply cannot be environmental protection or even global warming prevention. Please, please don't accept these non-truths about coal. Be honest about coal, it has a dark side, literally, and we need to own the dirty reality of coal in order to continue to use it.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Let Republicans take control of Congress, PLEASE?
Do I speak heresy for a Democratic voter, or the first bit of common sense in a Republican wave year?
This post will contain clear and inherent bias, as it is intended as a suggested Democratic perspective on the Midterm elections.
Let me level with you. Republicans are going to win and they are going to win big this year. In the House, it would not be out of possibility for them to sweep the system, taking out 70 incumbent Democrats. In the Senate it is conceivable for them to overturn as many as 10 seats, a roughly equivalent proportion as wins in the House. And while those numbers represent very worst case scenarios, Democrats are playing defense and right now and it'll be considered a significant UPSET if Democrats are able to hold onto simple majorities in both the House and the Senate.
I can already hear the leagues of Democratic voters wailing in self-righteous desperation. Must think! Who's to blame? Right! Its all the fault of those perennial enthusiasts, those formerly loyal Obama supporters who have the nerve to abandon the Party when they're really needed. Damn those pollsters and their likely voter models! Fools! All of them!
But wait! Before you torch the house of the nearest racial minority or young adult who you think is too lazy or uninformed to go to the polls, hear me out! There are hate crime statues to consider!
Instead look at it this way: If Republicans want Congress, let's give it to 'em. But just barely. Or just in one chamber of Congress as its looking to become currently. Fight for seats, yes, but hold off some of that strategic money till 2012.
How about this instead? It's about damn time that the American people see what kinds of proposals Republicans have to put forward. Obama is still President for the next 2 years, let him use his bully pulpit to show Republicans up for how hypocritical most of their debt-reducing-yet-tax-reducing proposals are. To expose on a National stage the extreme positions of Tea Partiers and the chaos of a truly gridlocked government.
In the meantime, let's keep Democrats in the best non-majority position that we can, and use that magic filibuster tactic against the Republicans who seem to like it so much. Or, even better, just let Obama veto anything that comes across his desk that he can't take explicit credit for. If Republicans do pass anything, make sure its branded "Obama" so strongly that the American people begin seeing the President as the great uniter that he promised to be.
Meanwhile, all fingers crossed, the economy is getting better, helped in no small part by increased confidence in legislative stability with Republicans in control and (quite honestly) the historically relative cyclical nature of these recessions. Obama can take credit for the economy rebounding as well, if he likes; who cares whether or not the Recovery Act was actually what swung America out of a downturn, the point is that the economy arrow went up during the Obama Administration. Tout, tout, tout! If Clinton could get through it in 1995, Obama can handle it in 2011. And good news for Dems: Clinton went on to get re-elected; Obama's got a good shot at that too.
Of course if Democrats stay in control, Republicans can continue to use the same stalling tactics and blame an even weaker Democratic Party for not getting anything done. They'll likely have the momentum in 2012, telling voters to send 'em all packin', including the President so that the Government works again. If Republicans take some control, it's possible the Government will also come to a standstill, but this time, Republicans get their share of the blame.
But hold on a minute. If things are made so good by Democrats "letting" Republicans take some control, why isn't that the Democratic strategy, at least secretly?
Well there is a lot of conventional wisdom in trying to maintain Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. Regardless of what the Government does at this point, the economy is liable to get better, as is the way with these things. Democrats are reasonably confident that they can take credit for the good economy if they can just hold on long enough for the economy to actually improve. Then there's the incumbency factor. The same reason that Obama is already nominally favored to win the 2012 election, as mentioned above, also favors all currently sitting politicians. Name recognition is already higher with incumbents, not to mention the great fundraising platform incumbency affords. This Democrats figure they'll have a lot of hurdles to overcome in the next 3 election cycles if they lose the incumbency factor in this one election. And finally there's the policy considerations. With less power, Democrats have less control over policy, Republican proposals are more likely to be adopted and signed into law.
The point of this article is to recognize some serious advantages on which Democrats might be able to capitalize if Republicans take control of either the House, or Senate, or both. Since at least one of those scenarios is likely, it will be interesting to see if Democrats use any of the strategies outlined in this piece.
I'll have a different discussion on Republican strategies in the near future.
This post will contain clear and inherent bias, as it is intended as a suggested Democratic perspective on the Midterm elections.
Let me level with you. Republicans are going to win and they are going to win big this year. In the House, it would not be out of possibility for them to sweep the system, taking out 70 incumbent Democrats. In the Senate it is conceivable for them to overturn as many as 10 seats, a roughly equivalent proportion as wins in the House. And while those numbers represent very worst case scenarios, Democrats are playing defense and right now and it'll be considered a significant UPSET if Democrats are able to hold onto simple majorities in both the House and the Senate.
I can already hear the leagues of Democratic voters wailing in self-righteous desperation. Must think! Who's to blame? Right! Its all the fault of those perennial enthusiasts, those formerly loyal Obama supporters who have the nerve to abandon the Party when they're really needed. Damn those pollsters and their likely voter models! Fools! All of them!
But wait! Before you torch the house of the nearest racial minority or young adult who you think is too lazy or uninformed to go to the polls, hear me out! There are hate crime statues to consider!
Instead look at it this way: If Republicans want Congress, let's give it to 'em. But just barely. Or just in one chamber of Congress as its looking to become currently. Fight for seats, yes, but hold off some of that strategic money till 2012.
How about this instead? It's about damn time that the American people see what kinds of proposals Republicans have to put forward. Obama is still President for the next 2 years, let him use his bully pulpit to show Republicans up for how hypocritical most of their debt-reducing-yet-tax-reducing proposals are. To expose on a National stage the extreme positions of Tea Partiers and the chaos of a truly gridlocked government.
In the meantime, let's keep Democrats in the best non-majority position that we can, and use that magic filibuster tactic against the Republicans who seem to like it so much. Or, even better, just let Obama veto anything that comes across his desk that he can't take explicit credit for. If Republicans do pass anything, make sure its branded "Obama" so strongly that the American people begin seeing the President as the great uniter that he promised to be.
Meanwhile, all fingers crossed, the economy is getting better, helped in no small part by increased confidence in legislative stability with Republicans in control and (quite honestly) the historically relative cyclical nature of these recessions. Obama can take credit for the economy rebounding as well, if he likes; who cares whether or not the Recovery Act was actually what swung America out of a downturn, the point is that the economy arrow went up during the Obama Administration. Tout, tout, tout! If Clinton could get through it in 1995, Obama can handle it in 2011. And good news for Dems: Clinton went on to get re-elected; Obama's got a good shot at that too.
Of course if Democrats stay in control, Republicans can continue to use the same stalling tactics and blame an even weaker Democratic Party for not getting anything done. They'll likely have the momentum in 2012, telling voters to send 'em all packin', including the President so that the Government works again. If Republicans take some control, it's possible the Government will also come to a standstill, but this time, Republicans get their share of the blame.
But hold on a minute. If things are made so good by Democrats "letting" Republicans take some control, why isn't that the Democratic strategy, at least secretly?
Well there is a lot of conventional wisdom in trying to maintain Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. Regardless of what the Government does at this point, the economy is liable to get better, as is the way with these things. Democrats are reasonably confident that they can take credit for the good economy if they can just hold on long enough for the economy to actually improve. Then there's the incumbency factor. The same reason that Obama is already nominally favored to win the 2012 election, as mentioned above, also favors all currently sitting politicians. Name recognition is already higher with incumbents, not to mention the great fundraising platform incumbency affords. This Democrats figure they'll have a lot of hurdles to overcome in the next 3 election cycles if they lose the incumbency factor in this one election. And finally there's the policy considerations. With less power, Democrats have less control over policy, Republican proposals are more likely to be adopted and signed into law.
The point of this article is to recognize some serious advantages on which Democrats might be able to capitalize if Republicans take control of either the House, or Senate, or both. Since at least one of those scenarios is likely, it will be interesting to see if Democrats use any of the strategies outlined in this piece.
I'll have a different discussion on Republican strategies in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)