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.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
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.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Thought of the Day: Snyder v. Phelps
Snyder v. Phelps is a case currently before the Supreme Court, but depending on the ruling, it might be one of those landmark cases that is discussed in your High School Civics and and Economics class. Fred Phelps is the leader/pastor/patriarch of the Westboro Baptist Church, and his Church has strained the use of the First Amendment to its limit, according to some. The Church is famous for its "God Hates Fags" marches in which the members of the church picket and protest outside of organizations which they consider to be pro-gay.
On a side note, it will be interesting to see if the ACLU has taken a stand on this issue, considering that the director, Anthony Romero is gay himself, and because there is almost no support for the Westboro Baptist Church's freedom of speech, even amongst liberals.
The Church has also taken to protesting at Military Memorial Services for both openly gay and openly not gay members of the armed forces. According to the Phelps theology, America is doomed unless it repents for its open and affirming culture for homosexuality. While I know quite a few of the LGBTQ community which might take issue with the idea that we in America really are open and accepting of the gay lifestyle, the point is moot because this issue is about whether or not the Church has a First Amendment Right to spread their theology in a way that some consider to be a violation of privacy. This is why it's a problem: they publicize their protests outside of military funerals, claiming that any dead soldiers are God's punishment for America's homosexuality, and the resulting press that the Church acquires is painful to mourning family members. It's valuable to keep in mind that the Westboro Congregation is not protesting illegally, they get permits and stay on sidewalks and do all the "right things" by law, but some people still believe that their message of hate borders on harassment.
This issue is a slippery slope: at best the Church is distasteful and at worst it is just cruel, but if the Supreme Court hands down anything but a ruling of First Amendment protection, I am seriously concerned about what other "distasteful" kinds of speech the Government will decide to sensor. These people are, in a twisted way, exactly what America is about, and as much pain as they cause, I hope they continue to have the right to keep on doing it, for as long as they see the need. On the other hand, I also hope they could somehow learn that words of kindness and understanding are sometimes the real best ways to get across a point and to increase respect all around. I'll keep you updated.
On a side note, it will be interesting to see if the ACLU has taken a stand on this issue, considering that the director, Anthony Romero is gay himself, and because there is almost no support for the Westboro Baptist Church's freedom of speech, even amongst liberals.
People Worth Knowing: David Axelrod
For those who don't know him, David Axelrod is probably the most visible of three Senior Advisers to President Obama. "Senior Adviser" is a malleable official position in the White House with various unspecified responsibilities and duties which are relative to the person carrying them out. Axelrod has been with the President since at least 2003 when he worked as a top adviser on Obama's Senate Campaign. He is a shrewd campaigner, maintaining a high profile during the 2008 elections and is credited for helping to build the machine that put Obama in the White House. Many pundits agree that Axelrod is Obama's "Message" man, with high influence with regard to the Administration's strategy on interface with the public. To put it in West Wing terms, he's like a combination of Toby Ziegler and Josh Lyman, dealing with policy craft and advising White House communications.
Monday, October 11, 2010
New Sections: "Thought of the Day" and "People Worth Knowing"
I'm unveiling two new "sections" in the next few days that will transform this blog into an even more fascinating thing to read. I call them "sections" because they will be a little different than my usual in-depth investigation posts.
The first is "Thought of the Day" which will be updated very regularly and will be a paragraph or two on my thoughts on the politics or world events of the day.
The second is "People Worth Knowing" and it will briefly introduce to the reader a person or persons in politics worth knowing and will make you more versed in the importance of knowing who is who when discussing our national government.
For those of you who don't like the long investigative posts, this will be a welcome addition. Also, I'm working on connecting this blog to a Facebook Page which will allow those without Google accounts to know when the blog is being updated and stay connected. The "Like" option will be on the upper right of the page, and all posts on this blog will be linked to the Facebook Page as well.
Thanks for continuing to read!
The first is "Thought of the Day" which will be updated very regularly and will be a paragraph or two on my thoughts on the politics or world events of the day.
The second is "People Worth Knowing" and it will briefly introduce to the reader a person or persons in politics worth knowing and will make you more versed in the importance of knowing who is who when discussing our national government.
For those of you who don't like the long investigative posts, this will be a welcome addition. Also, I'm working on connecting this blog to a Facebook Page which will allow those without Google accounts to know when the blog is being updated and stay connected. The "Like" option will be on the upper right of the page, and all posts on this blog will be linked to the Facebook Page as well.
Thanks for continuing to read!
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Is there an anti-war party?
This post is intended to be an extension of the subject brought up in the previous post on the "Unstoppable Growth of Government" and a preview to another post I intend to write for the 9th anniversary for the start of the War in Afghanistan which is tomorrow.
One thing that was visibly apparent in examining the current positions of the two political parties with regard to government growth is that on national security issues, both parties are reasonably pro-government growth. What this means for foreign policy is that both parties are in favor of prosecuting wars abroad and in favor of fighting the "War on Terror".
According to Ron Paul, the Republican Party used to be the anti-war party, and that Nixon was elected to end the Vietnam War. History tells us a little bit different story, but the reality is that there has been some traditional conservatives in the Republican Party that have been historically anti-war, anti foreign military intervention, anti foreign aid. That has not been the case with the mainstream Republican Party, as Republican Presidents have been great proponents of military escalation and interventionism in the modern period since WWII.
So what about the Democratic Party? Well in the same modern period, Democrats have also tended to favor military escalation and intervention as well. Like the Republican Party, there is also a stream (a stronger stream in this case) of anti-war sentiment in the Democratic Party. Democrats historically have been more anti-war, and more anti military spending than Republicans in the modern period, but this has not meant that Democrats collectively have really espoused an anti-war stance. Even though President Obama was elected to end the Iraq War, he has continued to prosecute the War in Afganistan and to some degree has continued military intervention in Iraq, even after the end of "combat operations". If you take a look at modern military altercations and spending, you can see that both Democrats and Republicans have been very pro-military; Democrats perhaps a bit less so.
Major US military altercations:
Korean War- (D) Truman
Vietnam War- (D) Johnson and (R) Nixon
Persian Gulf War- (R) George H.W. Bush
War in Afghanistan- (R) George W. Bush and (D) Obama
Iraq War- (R) George W. Bush and (D) Obama
Notable increases in Defense spending since 1966. (From this graph and this):
1951-1953 - (D) Truman
1966-1969 - (R) Nixon
1982-1990 - (R) Reagan and (R) George H.W. Bush
2000-2010 - (R) George W. Bush and (D) Obama
Given this information, people considering themselves anti-war have had to vote according to which party will be less pro-war, and recently that has been the Democratic Party. But it is shown over and over again that voting Democrat is not an anti-war vote, and certainly voting Republican is not either.
Some people have rectified this situation by voting third party candidates; although this often amounts to "throwing away your vote" in the sense that third party and independent candidates almost never win, particularly in states where there is little precedent for such action.
These days, I would argue that the strongest third party in the United States is the Libertarian Party, as it represents a group of people virtually outside the purview of the two other parties, and because it consistently performs better than the Green Party, Constitution Party, (Now, the Reform Party is basically defunct) and other third parties in national elections voting and funding. (See 2000, 2004, 2008). It also tends to have the highest count of ballot access of the major third parties (45 states as of the 2008 election). I'm mentioning this because of a recent comment made by Mike Beitler, NC Senate Candidate for the Libertarian Party. He said, “The Libertarian Party is the last anti-war party.”
Recently the Libertarian Party has made attempts to court the liberal anti-war vote (they have a history of anti-war sentiment), and this statement by Dr. Beitler is no exception. Certainly the Libertarian Party is not the only or last anti-war party, as the Green Party in particular has been clear in its stances on non-violence. But at this point in elections, the Libertarian Party can almost certainly be considered the strongest anti-war party, especially because of the Party's ability to bring together a relatively wide coalition of freedom loving voters.
In certain districts where libertarians are running, they poll well, sometimes as high as 10 or 15 percent. There are some districts where the Green Party also polls well in the same manner. Despite this, it is highly unlikely that third party candidates ever win elections. Thus people who consider themselves to be anti-war have a serious dilemma. Should they vote for a third party candidate and almost certainly "throw their vote away" or should they vote for the Democratic Party, knowing that this party (on the whole) is marginally less pro-war than the Republican Party? Should progressives who believe in economic justice, and who consider themselves anti-war, vote for a libertarian candidate, even if they disagree with libertarian positions opposing government assistance of the needy? On economic (and some other) policies, Libertarians are perhaps best described as radical Republicans; how can an anti-war progressive vote in good conscience for less gun restrictions, less environmental regulation, and a repeal of major progressive taxes like the income tax?
For those who wish, perhaps naively, for world peace through non-violence, there are sadly no clear answers or solutions.
In the meantime... the Libertarian Party wants your vote.
One thing that was visibly apparent in examining the current positions of the two political parties with regard to government growth is that on national security issues, both parties are reasonably pro-government growth. What this means for foreign policy is that both parties are in favor of prosecuting wars abroad and in favor of fighting the "War on Terror".
According to Ron Paul, the Republican Party used to be the anti-war party, and that Nixon was elected to end the Vietnam War. History tells us a little bit different story, but the reality is that there has been some traditional conservatives in the Republican Party that have been historically anti-war, anti foreign military intervention, anti foreign aid. That has not been the case with the mainstream Republican Party, as Republican Presidents have been great proponents of military escalation and interventionism in the modern period since WWII.
So what about the Democratic Party? Well in the same modern period, Democrats have also tended to favor military escalation and intervention as well. Like the Republican Party, there is also a stream (a stronger stream in this case) of anti-war sentiment in the Democratic Party. Democrats historically have been more anti-war, and more anti military spending than Republicans in the modern period, but this has not meant that Democrats collectively have really espoused an anti-war stance. Even though President Obama was elected to end the Iraq War, he has continued to prosecute the War in Afganistan and to some degree has continued military intervention in Iraq, even after the end of "combat operations". If you take a look at modern military altercations and spending, you can see that both Democrats and Republicans have been very pro-military; Democrats perhaps a bit less so.
Major US military altercations:
Korean War- (D) Truman
Vietnam War- (D) Johnson and (R) Nixon
Persian Gulf War- (R) George H.W. Bush
War in Afghanistan- (R) George W. Bush and (D) Obama
Iraq War- (R) George W. Bush and (D) Obama
Notable increases in Defense spending since 1966. (From this graph and this):
1951-1953 - (D) Truman
1966-1969 - (R) Nixon
1982-1990 - (R) Reagan and (R) George H.W. Bush
2000-2010 - (R) George W. Bush and (D) Obama
Given this information, people considering themselves anti-war have had to vote according to which party will be less pro-war, and recently that has been the Democratic Party. But it is shown over and over again that voting Democrat is not an anti-war vote, and certainly voting Republican is not either.
Some people have rectified this situation by voting third party candidates; although this often amounts to "throwing away your vote" in the sense that third party and independent candidates almost never win, particularly in states where there is little precedent for such action.
These days, I would argue that the strongest third party in the United States is the Libertarian Party, as it represents a group of people virtually outside the purview of the two other parties, and because it consistently performs better than the Green Party, Constitution Party, (Now, the Reform Party is basically defunct) and other third parties in national elections voting and funding. (See 2000, 2004, 2008). It also tends to have the highest count of ballot access of the major third parties (45 states as of the 2008 election). I'm mentioning this because of a recent comment made by Mike Beitler, NC Senate Candidate for the Libertarian Party. He said, “The Libertarian Party is the last anti-war party.”
Recently the Libertarian Party has made attempts to court the liberal anti-war vote (they have a history of anti-war sentiment), and this statement by Dr. Beitler is no exception. Certainly the Libertarian Party is not the only or last anti-war party, as the Green Party in particular has been clear in its stances on non-violence. But at this point in elections, the Libertarian Party can almost certainly be considered the strongest anti-war party, especially because of the Party's ability to bring together a relatively wide coalition of freedom loving voters.
In certain districts where libertarians are running, they poll well, sometimes as high as 10 or 15 percent. There are some districts where the Green Party also polls well in the same manner. Despite this, it is highly unlikely that third party candidates ever win elections. Thus people who consider themselves to be anti-war have a serious dilemma. Should they vote for a third party candidate and almost certainly "throw their vote away" or should they vote for the Democratic Party, knowing that this party (on the whole) is marginally less pro-war than the Republican Party? Should progressives who believe in economic justice, and who consider themselves anti-war, vote for a libertarian candidate, even if they disagree with libertarian positions opposing government assistance of the needy? On economic (and some other) policies, Libertarians are perhaps best described as radical Republicans; how can an anti-war progressive vote in good conscience for less gun restrictions, less environmental regulation, and a repeal of major progressive taxes like the income tax?
For those who wish, perhaps naively, for world peace through non-violence, there are sadly no clear answers or solutions.
In the meantime... the Libertarian Party wants your vote.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Why we need a President who's a little more OCD
The first image that comes to mind is Barack Obama, sitting in the Oval Office, agonizing about whether that picture on his desk of Michelle, Sasha, and Malia had been 'put back right' after David Axelrod, on his exit from the President's office, had bumped the little frame two inches to the left.
That's not quite what I mean. The TV series Monk has probably acquainted audiences in the United States the most accurately with the more humorous aspects of this sometimes debilitating disease, and the movie "The Aviator" ups the hilarity even more, showing what silly innocent quirkiness Leo can manage to get himself into!
But what actually I'm referring to is a concept of an 'Office of the President' who is 'OCD' about the larger house we all live in-- the Nation. On an evening pulling into a campaign stop in rural North Carolina for one of those down-home back-yard cook-out photo-ops, (like those hyphens? One of them doesn't belong...) an irritated Head of State is gritting his (or her!) teeth together after a bumpy ride down a crumbling state highway. I can just imagine the President ordering his or her Chief of Staff to tabulate exactly how many rough roads there are in this country; breaking bridges, cracked concrete, disintegrating dams, atrophying airstrips-- to hell with partisanship and rhetoric. Everything needs to be 'put back right'.
We have an infrastructure in our Nation which often dates back to the 1940s or 50s- sometimes earlier. And while we often give our interstate highway systems a makeover, there really are plenty of roads out there that need fixing. Perhaps more important are our sewage and water delivery systems, leaking, breaking, and poisoning us while the political big-wigs discuss whether evolution should be taught in our schools. What if we don't have any schools, because they start, literally, falling down?
But yes, even the concept of a President that just gets the little stuff done because (s)he's too OCD to allow it any other way can be applied to other National problems, like weening the US off of oil imports. If the President felt that need, like an itch that couldn't be scratched, wouldn't it have been done by now? I mean, who really disagrees with this stuff? Isn't this the 'little' stuff that everyone thinks the Government should be doing? If the President, or dare I say, more members of Congress, felt more 'OCD' about the state of our Country, wouldn't they want to make sure it was 'put back right' the way it was? Not enough just to notice that the picture frame of this Country might be leaning a little right or left (oh yes, pun intended), but OCD enough to look into the details and question whether the nail holding up the picture frame was about to fall out? Shall we ask scarier questions like: what if our electricity grid is so old that one overloaded line in Ohio (or somewhere else on the grid) can cause a chain-reaction blackout for all of NYC ...and 30 million other people?
Disagree about the higher ideals of political rhetoric if you want, but you can't drive a car on a broken road, or without gas, you can't cook a dinner with contaminated water, you can't teach a child how to use a computer without a computer and maybe an internet connection, a bridge just might not hold the weight of that train for the 50th year in a row, and yes, you can't turn on the lights without a secure means of getting the electricity to you and your neighbors.
Ok, maybe the OCD thing was a bad analogy, or even one in bad taste, but the point I'm making here is that it's these kind of infrastructure things that the US needs to keep going for, well, the US to keep going. And recession or no, while we've been lucky on these issues so far (no catastrophic infrastructure failures), these issues will continue to affect all of us. So let's get some funding out to infrastructure projects, create some jobs, and make sure we avoid a problem that might really (slowly or suddenly) bring our 'way of life' to a frustrating, frightening, or screeching halt.
And let's seriously hope Monk doesn't become President. It would be funny for the first day, and then annoying after that when he insists that he won't sign any bill unless it has exactly 1,185 pages. And an average of 17.3 commas per paragraph.
That's not quite what I mean. The TV series Monk has probably acquainted audiences in the United States the most accurately with the more humorous aspects of this sometimes debilitating disease, and the movie "The Aviator" ups the hilarity even more, showing what silly innocent quirkiness Leo can manage to get himself into!
But what actually I'm referring to is a concept of an 'Office of the President' who is 'OCD' about the larger house we all live in-- the Nation. On an evening pulling into a campaign stop in rural North Carolina for one of those down-home back-yard cook-out photo-ops, (like those hyphens? One of them doesn't belong...) an irritated Head of State is gritting his (or her!) teeth together after a bumpy ride down a crumbling state highway. I can just imagine the President ordering his or her Chief of Staff to tabulate exactly how many rough roads there are in this country; breaking bridges, cracked concrete, disintegrating dams, atrophying airstrips-- to hell with partisanship and rhetoric. Everything needs to be 'put back right'.
We have an infrastructure in our Nation which often dates back to the 1940s or 50s- sometimes earlier. And while we often give our interstate highway systems a makeover, there really are plenty of roads out there that need fixing. Perhaps more important are our sewage and water delivery systems, leaking, breaking, and poisoning us while the political big-wigs discuss whether evolution should be taught in our schools. What if we don't have any schools, because they start, literally, falling down?
But yes, even the concept of a President that just gets the little stuff done because (s)he's too OCD to allow it any other way can be applied to other National problems, like weening the US off of oil imports. If the President felt that need, like an itch that couldn't be scratched, wouldn't it have been done by now? I mean, who really disagrees with this stuff? Isn't this the 'little' stuff that everyone thinks the Government should be doing? If the President, or dare I say, more members of Congress, felt more 'OCD' about the state of our Country, wouldn't they want to make sure it was 'put back right' the way it was? Not enough just to notice that the picture frame of this Country might be leaning a little right or left (oh yes, pun intended), but OCD enough to look into the details and question whether the nail holding up the picture frame was about to fall out? Shall we ask scarier questions like: what if our electricity grid is so old that one overloaded line in Ohio (or somewhere else on the grid) can cause a chain-reaction blackout for all of NYC ...and 30 million other people?
Disagree about the higher ideals of political rhetoric if you want, but you can't drive a car on a broken road, or without gas, you can't cook a dinner with contaminated water, you can't teach a child how to use a computer without a computer and maybe an internet connection, a bridge just might not hold the weight of that train for the 50th year in a row, and yes, you can't turn on the lights without a secure means of getting the electricity to you and your neighbors.
Ok, maybe the OCD thing was a bad analogy, or even one in bad taste, but the point I'm making here is that it's these kind of infrastructure things that the US needs to keep going for, well, the US to keep going. And recession or no, while we've been lucky on these issues so far (no catastrophic infrastructure failures), these issues will continue to affect all of us. So let's get some funding out to infrastructure projects, create some jobs, and make sure we avoid a problem that might really (slowly or suddenly) bring our 'way of life' to a frustrating, frightening, or screeching halt.
And let's seriously hope Monk doesn't become President. It would be funny for the first day, and then annoying after that when he insists that he won't sign any bill unless it has exactly 1,185 pages. And an average of 17.3 commas per paragraph.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)