I'm going to go ahead and call it before it happens: Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential nominee from 2008 is planning a run for President, and it'll almost certainly be for 2012. Begin mentally preparing yourself for the possibility of America having another glass ceiling shattered : an Alaskan in the White House.
The buzz around Palin has been growing for months, since she quit her job as Governor of Alaska and got a new job going on book tours in the Lower 48, promoting her two books (that's right, two in two years!). Her profile increased even more dramatically with the beginning of the Tea Party, to which, within weeks, Palin had clearly attached herself. Now she is seen by many to be the defacto leader of the Tea Party Movement. Wow that was fast. And finally, she made herself quite well known in the Midterms of 2010, campaigning across the country for (almost exclusively) Tea Party-backed candidates and helping most of them win election. Some of these candidates were picked and singled out by Palin: in almost any state, an endorsement from Palin practically ensured victory in a Republican Primary.
As her profile has grown, so has her power, her number of friends, and the number of those indebted to her for their election fortunes. This was no accident by Sarah Palin, it was a part of a calculated move probably going all the way back to 2008, as it became clear that she would lose to then Senator Barack Obama- she likely decided then that she would carefully sow the seeds of her own power base. She's consistently showered the sunshine of her personality down on the media, primarily Fox News where she is employed as a commentator, and the Tea Party movement has added the final saturation needed for the seeds of her candidacy to grow and flourish.
And before you shrug let me point out: she's no joke either. Although her negatives remain notably high amongst the American public as a whole (52% unfavorability); amongst Republicans she has high favorability, around 80%. Polls of possible Republican contenders for 2012 have consistently shown her either leading the pack or up close and personal with Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich all of whom are polling between 10 and 20%. Now certainly she's not the clear front runner like Clinton was in 2007, but her star power is hard to match. The media LOVES them some Palin, she's pretty, young, dynamic, controversial... the shear weight of her media exposure will be nearly impossible for any other prospective candidate to overcome. Why else might Mike Huckabee host his own show on Fox News?
Palin is notorious at this point for being a flagrant tease, so many in the media feel uncomfortable calling her likelihood of running. It's true that she'd stand a good and maybe better chance in 2016 when an incumbent isn't on the ticket, but I think there's something to be said for the current energy in the Tea Party movement right now, and Palin can capitalize on that. Other than the fact that she is currently making millions, I can't find a good reason for her NOT to run in 2012, it might be her best shot. And I will go ahead and say that she's probably the favorite right now to capture the nomination.
I think the question now is more about when she'll declare, not whether.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Why do we never talk about Ageism?
What follows is a short essay on Ageism in society. Because it is a little longer than a normal post, it will be truncated part way down on the home page. Please click the "Read More" button at the bottom to read the full article. Also I have no idea why the font changes. Please bear with it...
Ageism is the most prolific kind of discrimination, period. I am hard pressed to think of a time in history when this was not the case. Most cultures have it hard wired into themselves to be ageist, that is, the treatment of someone of a certain age differently than someone of another age. Particularly in East Asian cultures, the elderly are revered at the expense of the young; in some other cultures the old are discarded as invaluable and a strain on society.
But the reality is, ageism is more important than ANY OTHER KIND OF DISCRIMINATION, mostly because it is so ingrained into the fabric of our society that it is never challenged and we never seem to talk about it. So let’s talk about it!
Now I understand that Ageism goes multiple ways, but I think there is a substantial argument that the main disadvantaged group with regard to age discrimination is those of young age. This is not to diminish the ageist struggles of the elderly, but I feel that young person discrimination is more often ignored. I write from the standpoint of a young person, so I can only argue what I know and have experienced.
Let’s start off with the basics.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Thought of the Day: A Smaller World is not a Scarier World!
We're growing more and more interconnected on our little planet; supposedly we are increasingly aware of the number of other people that make up humanity. Their disasters and diseases are on our television, their culture pops up in our fashion or video games, their opinions appear across the internet, their money and debt intermingles with our own like great tides washing back and forth across the surface of the Earth, and their fates, we learn; their fates are tied to ours.
Every action that we take on this little planet has a significant ripple effect, be it conservation of resources, or a donation to a world food program, or becoming a politician who one day decides whether we go to war... or not. Little things; the food we buy, the people we talk to, the way we enrich our own lives with knowledge-- these things matter to the little girl in Kyrgyzstan or Brunei or Lesotho more than she'll ever know; and her actions matter to you too.
And yet in our increasingly connected world, our national boundaries seem more striking than ever, standing out on maps and cutting us all to pieces. The stronger these boundaries, the more we seem to forget that they are no more than human creations; the real Earth has no lines, but many wrinkles. Nation lines are no different in principle than the lines connecting constellations. How can we seem to forget that all of us pursue the same things, to eat, breathe, strive, seek happiness; survive. When I look up at the sky, I see stars. The false divisions of nationality make me sick. We're all doing what we think is best; none of us is evil, and we're all a little confused. And we're all trying to make the best of it, whatever it is, while we have it, because we're all at least a little afraid of death, too. Our needs don't need to come at the expense of other people's needs, and most of the time they don't. Most of the time we've found a way to live in relative harmony, despite divisions of religion, race, and class. And most of us seem to think that's the best way to do it.
Our nation's 'ideology' may be diametrically opposed to another nation's 'ideology', but the very idea of a nation is the figment. China and Russia have the same diversity of views that the United States has-- we may grow up with different traditions, but we as people control how we apply those traditions to our lives. The people of any given country are never the enemy of another people of another given country. You think most people have the time to hate people they don't even know?
But just as most of us can't help but recognize "Orion's Belt", the nation state is a part of our social consciousness, and thus it is a part of our world. We are all a part of a nation; a group of people, whether or not we like it.
And still nation states allow us to group people into ideologies that often don't even represent those people, and nationalism makes us think that our nation's survival depends on defining itself against every other nation, and dominating the others if possible
So it seems as though the nation state seems to be quickly outgrowing its usefulness as a grouping mechanism of humanity. First we had hunter-gatherer groups; clans and tribes. Then we had agricultural societies and city-states loosely unified by Empires and Monarchs. And now we have the nation state. As the world shrinks, perhaps we need a new, larger imagined grouping mechanism that helps us view ourselves as the "planet collective" alongside the rest of the organisms of the Earth...
I'd like you to take a second and watch this video. It is the reason for this blog post. It is a symptom of the reason why people seem to forget everyone's common humanity. Seriously, watch it. Why doesn't this kind of hyper-nationalist sentiment terrify all of us who desire peace and prosperity on this world?
The part I mind the most is at the end. When the entire class laughs at the United States. The suggestion of course is that the Chinese people as a whole hate the US or would mock the US. Not the Chinese government, but the everyday students in China. You, as a US citizen are mocked by people you don't even know and these people are trying to 'own' you.
If people of all nations can't get past this kind of petty divisiveness that ignores our common humanity and our common interests as humans, we will never be able to live in peace with one another. Because we will forever live in fear of differences that, for the most part do not exist. Because those differences are embodied by the ideals of the nation state. Which also does not exist. ...But individual people DO exist. We never go to war with a nation, we go to war with a nation's people. We never trade with a nation, we trade with a nation's people. Barack Obama may have a nice 'title', the weight of his 'office', and the strength of 'representation', but when he shakes hands with Indonesian President Yudhoyono, it is person to person, human to human.
No one is, or must be, opposed to anyone, simply by what nation in which they happen to have been born. We all have the same struggles, and we must cooperate as a world to stand up to them together.
Every action that we take on this little planet has a significant ripple effect, be it conservation of resources, or a donation to a world food program, or becoming a politician who one day decides whether we go to war... or not. Little things; the food we buy, the people we talk to, the way we enrich our own lives with knowledge-- these things matter to the little girl in Kyrgyzstan or Brunei or Lesotho more than she'll ever know; and her actions matter to you too.
And yet in our increasingly connected world, our national boundaries seem more striking than ever, standing out on maps and cutting us all to pieces. The stronger these boundaries, the more we seem to forget that they are no more than human creations; the real Earth has no lines, but many wrinkles. Nation lines are no different in principle than the lines connecting constellations. How can we seem to forget that all of us pursue the same things, to eat, breathe, strive, seek happiness; survive. When I look up at the sky, I see stars. The false divisions of nationality make me sick. We're all doing what we think is best; none of us is evil, and we're all a little confused. And we're all trying to make the best of it, whatever it is, while we have it, because we're all at least a little afraid of death, too. Our needs don't need to come at the expense of other people's needs, and most of the time they don't. Most of the time we've found a way to live in relative harmony, despite divisions of religion, race, and class. And most of us seem to think that's the best way to do it.
Our nation's 'ideology' may be diametrically opposed to another nation's 'ideology', but the very idea of a nation is the figment. China and Russia have the same diversity of views that the United States has-- we may grow up with different traditions, but we as people control how we apply those traditions to our lives. The people of any given country are never the enemy of another people of another given country. You think most people have the time to hate people they don't even know?
But just as most of us can't help but recognize "Orion's Belt", the nation state is a part of our social consciousness, and thus it is a part of our world. We are all a part of a nation; a group of people, whether or not we like it.
And still nation states allow us to group people into ideologies that often don't even represent those people, and nationalism makes us think that our nation's survival depends on defining itself against every other nation, and dominating the others if possible
So it seems as though the nation state seems to be quickly outgrowing its usefulness as a grouping mechanism of humanity. First we had hunter-gatherer groups; clans and tribes. Then we had agricultural societies and city-states loosely unified by Empires and Monarchs. And now we have the nation state. As the world shrinks, perhaps we need a new, larger imagined grouping mechanism that helps us view ourselves as the "planet collective" alongside the rest of the organisms of the Earth...
I'd like you to take a second and watch this video. It is the reason for this blog post. It is a symptom of the reason why people seem to forget everyone's common humanity. Seriously, watch it. Why doesn't this kind of hyper-nationalist sentiment terrify all of us who desire peace and prosperity on this world?
The part I mind the most is at the end. When the entire class laughs at the United States. The suggestion of course is that the Chinese people as a whole hate the US or would mock the US. Not the Chinese government, but the everyday students in China. You, as a US citizen are mocked by people you don't even know and these people are trying to 'own' you.
If people of all nations can't get past this kind of petty divisiveness that ignores our common humanity and our common interests as humans, we will never be able to live in peace with one another. Because we will forever live in fear of differences that, for the most part do not exist. Because those differences are embodied by the ideals of the nation state. Which also does not exist. ...But individual people DO exist. We never go to war with a nation, we go to war with a nation's people. We never trade with a nation, we trade with a nation's people. Barack Obama may have a nice 'title', the weight of his 'office', and the strength of 'representation', but when he shakes hands with Indonesian President Yudhoyono, it is person to person, human to human.
No one is, or must be, opposed to anyone, simply by what nation in which they happen to have been born. We all have the same struggles, and we must cooperate as a world to stand up to them together.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Should News Personalitites be Able to Make Donations to Partisan Candidates?
It's a fair question to ask, especially in light of the (indefinite, but actually just 2 day) suspension of MSNBC anchor and host of "Countdown" Keith Olbermann. Either way, MSNBC seems to be sending mixed messages. Just a few weeks ago MSNBC launched an ad campaign intended to 'subtly' highlight it's position as the more progressive news organization between CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Their new tag-line is "Lean Forward" and these series of ads showcase MSNBC's nighttime lineup of news shows. You can see an example of a less partisan branch of this ad here and here and a more partisan branch here.
CNN responded to this ad campaign in an attempt to solidify itself as the only news organization which is 'unleaning', using the slogan "Moving Truth Forward". You can see this ad here.
To my knowledge Fox News hasn't entered the fray, hopefully because they are already aware of how partisan their news has become. Or maybe because they're still delusionally stuck on "Fair and Balanced". I wrote an extensive post decrying Fox News for not explicitly stating their partisan tilt, and I will use this post to call on MSNBC to do the same. The people over at Fox News are probably gleeful that MSNBC has embraced it's leftist side, because it only reinforces Fox's argument that every other news station is partisan, and only Fox is balanced. The whole thing is sickening to anyone who's concerned about the difference between rhetoric and truth.
The idea behind not allowing commentators on the news to donate to political candidates is that it jeopardizes the journalistic integrity of that news station. That makes sense, to a degree. According to this CNN article, Fox News already has 30 hosts and contributors who have donated to political candidates, and CNN and MSNBC have both tried very hard to distinguish themselves from Fox by maintaining journalistic excellence.
So should Keith Olbermann and others from MSNBC be allowed to donate to political candidates? Absolutely.
Wait, what? Why you ask? Because Keith Olbermann is not a real journalist! At least not in the sense for which MSNBC is giving him credit! It's not his job to report the news, it's his job to put a liberal spin on the news. The same is true for Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly. They are not unbiased. That's the point! MSNBC's suspension of Olbermann is an attempt to legitimize him as a news source, suggesting that he was somehow an example of unbiased journalistic excellence to begin with. He is NOT! Absolutely not! This doesn't make Olbermann not valuable. Just not unbiased news.
What news organizations need to do, therefore, is to recognize and fully own their partisan leans! It isn't exactly journalism when MSNBC's commentators are disparaging Republicans all election night, or when Chris Matthews goes at it with Michelle Bachmann, calling her "hypnotized". It's funny for sure, and yes, Bachmann was dodging Matthews' question, but it seemed uniquely partisan to me, for him to take that tone with her.
And it's not as if I have a problem with left leaning or right leaning news organizations; I'm not a believer in news that's completely unbiased. It's dishonest to suggest that there is a such thing as unbiased or unleaning news. That's why the introduction to my blog states clearly that "To be fair, I fall decidedly on the left side of the political spectrum- however I have made it a point to look at issues in a scholarly/journalistic manner since the September 2010 rebirth of the blog. It is impossible to remove bias from writing, and trying to do so almost completely removes, in my opinion, the essential character from a work. Instead it should be prudent to approach all issues with genuine honesty and reasonable fairness as much as possible."
I make clear where I stand on issues, so you can decide whether or not I'm advocating that perspective or an unbiased one. I like to think that, for the most part, this blog gives an evenhanded approach to news and politics. But MSNBC and Fox News, and sometimes, yes, even for you CNN... all three of these organizations have failed to make clear their anchors' stances on politics.
So, of course, let Olbermann and Beck and Shultz and O'Reilly make contributions to candidates financially; they're already making those contributions in the press, why not allow them to be 'activists' when THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE. Trying to pretend that these personalities are not activists is, again, very dishonest. Therefore I hereby make this suggestion to the three news networks:
Just as there is a disclaimer for "adult content" in late night comedy central or adult swim that essentially warns the audience to be prepared for a certain type of material, there should also be a disclaimer before news shows that show a distinct bias, and you know who you are. "Countdown is not a regular news program at MSNBC, it is a commentator program. It represents viewpoints which are to the left of the political spectrum and does not represent evenhanded news coverage. These viewpoints do not reflect upon regular news programming at MSNBC which takes place between ___ and ___" could be the simplest way to accomplish this. An insult to Olbermann? It shouldn't be, unless he's deluded himself into thinking that his show isn't leftist leaning. And just to be clear, Fox News should have the same exact disclaimer before their commentary shows.
And if these commentary shows' views have spilled into regular news programming at these networks, (and there is some suggestion that they have), these views and objectives should be purged from the regular news programming at the network or else the network itself should have a constant disclaimer up at every change of anchor. That is how one pursues journalistic excellence. Own who you are. Be fair and honest, including as many perspectives as you can. And report on facts and the truth, as they are presented to you.
And then these inherently biased programs become both honest AND useful to the public again. As a liberal, I love Countdown, it's great fun to watch, but I know it for what it is. When you want a spin on news, you should be able to get it. But you should be reminded that it is still spin.
CNN responded to this ad campaign in an attempt to solidify itself as the only news organization which is 'unleaning', using the slogan "Moving Truth Forward". You can see this ad here.
To my knowledge Fox News hasn't entered the fray, hopefully because they are already aware of how partisan their news has become. Or maybe because they're still delusionally stuck on "Fair and Balanced". I wrote an extensive post decrying Fox News for not explicitly stating their partisan tilt, and I will use this post to call on MSNBC to do the same. The people over at Fox News are probably gleeful that MSNBC has embraced it's leftist side, because it only reinforces Fox's argument that every other news station is partisan, and only Fox is balanced. The whole thing is sickening to anyone who's concerned about the difference between rhetoric and truth.
The idea behind not allowing commentators on the news to donate to political candidates is that it jeopardizes the journalistic integrity of that news station. That makes sense, to a degree. According to this CNN article, Fox News already has 30 hosts and contributors who have donated to political candidates, and CNN and MSNBC have both tried very hard to distinguish themselves from Fox by maintaining journalistic excellence.
So should Keith Olbermann and others from MSNBC be allowed to donate to political candidates? Absolutely.
Wait, what? Why you ask? Because Keith Olbermann is not a real journalist! At least not in the sense for which MSNBC is giving him credit! It's not his job to report the news, it's his job to put a liberal spin on the news. The same is true for Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly. They are not unbiased. That's the point! MSNBC's suspension of Olbermann is an attempt to legitimize him as a news source, suggesting that he was somehow an example of unbiased journalistic excellence to begin with. He is NOT! Absolutely not! This doesn't make Olbermann not valuable. Just not unbiased news.
What news organizations need to do, therefore, is to recognize and fully own their partisan leans! It isn't exactly journalism when MSNBC's commentators are disparaging Republicans all election night, or when Chris Matthews goes at it with Michelle Bachmann, calling her "hypnotized". It's funny for sure, and yes, Bachmann was dodging Matthews' question, but it seemed uniquely partisan to me, for him to take that tone with her.
And it's not as if I have a problem with left leaning or right leaning news organizations; I'm not a believer in news that's completely unbiased. It's dishonest to suggest that there is a such thing as unbiased or unleaning news. That's why the introduction to my blog states clearly that "To be fair, I fall decidedly on the left side of the political spectrum- however I have made it a point to look at issues in a scholarly/journalistic manner since the September 2010 rebirth of the blog. It is impossible to remove bias from writing, and trying to do so almost completely removes, in my opinion, the essential character from a work. Instead it should be prudent to approach all issues with genuine honesty and reasonable fairness as much as possible."
I make clear where I stand on issues, so you can decide whether or not I'm advocating that perspective or an unbiased one. I like to think that, for the most part, this blog gives an evenhanded approach to news and politics. But MSNBC and Fox News, and sometimes, yes, even for you CNN... all three of these organizations have failed to make clear their anchors' stances on politics.
So, of course, let Olbermann and Beck and Shultz and O'Reilly make contributions to candidates financially; they're already making those contributions in the press, why not allow them to be 'activists' when THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE. Trying to pretend that these personalities are not activists is, again, very dishonest. Therefore I hereby make this suggestion to the three news networks:
Just as there is a disclaimer for "adult content" in late night comedy central or adult swim that essentially warns the audience to be prepared for a certain type of material, there should also be a disclaimer before news shows that show a distinct bias, and you know who you are. "Countdown is not a regular news program at MSNBC, it is a commentator program. It represents viewpoints which are to the left of the political spectrum and does not represent evenhanded news coverage. These viewpoints do not reflect upon regular news programming at MSNBC which takes place between ___ and ___" could be the simplest way to accomplish this. An insult to Olbermann? It shouldn't be, unless he's deluded himself into thinking that his show isn't leftist leaning. And just to be clear, Fox News should have the same exact disclaimer before their commentary shows.
And if these commentary shows' views have spilled into regular news programming at these networks, (and there is some suggestion that they have), these views and objectives should be purged from the regular news programming at the network or else the network itself should have a constant disclaimer up at every change of anchor. That is how one pursues journalistic excellence. Own who you are. Be fair and honest, including as many perspectives as you can. And report on facts and the truth, as they are presented to you.
And then these inherently biased programs become both honest AND useful to the public again. As a liberal, I love Countdown, it's great fun to watch, but I know it for what it is. When you want a spin on news, you should be able to get it. But you should be reminded that it is still spin.
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Lame Duck, Tax Cuts, Another Note on the Tea Party, Latinos in Nevada, and Haiti
Alright, time to see what happens next!
Tea Party candidates won across America this week and already there's some suggestion that these candidates are going to be resistant to Republican leadership if that leadership intends to compromise with the President. If Boehner and McConnell aren't careful, Republicans will be viewed as "too Tea Party" and too obstructionist, wasting the time of the American people. Most Americans still view the Tea Party in a non-positive light, particularly young voters.
Wait, young voters? But I thought the Tea Party movement started off with a lot of young support; remember all the young faces at Ron Paul rallies in 2008? Once again I'll go back to a post I wrote several weeks ago on the Tea Party Coalition. The two central groups of the Tea Party are Libertarians and recently, the Religious Right. On fiscal issues, these groups have been able to temporarily compromise, but new information seems to suggest that the Libertarian arm of the group is becoming disenfranchised and particularly young people are shaking their head at the Tea Party.
I'm delighted to find another news organization talking about the divisions within the Tea Party, instead of focusing on divisions between the Tea Party and Republican Party. This article from the Huffington Post is basically contending the same thing that I was arguing in that article on the Tea Party Coalition. We'll see if the trend of Libertarian dissatisfaction with the Tea Party continues. Re-read my article, and read the Huff article and see what you think.
Now we enter the Lame Duck session of Congress, which essentially is the legislative period between the election and the swearing-in of the new Congress. Democrats still have their majorities for now, and may or may not act on those majorities while they have them. The main issue facing the Lame Duck session seems to be whether or not to extend the Bush Tax Cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Not doing so would add 700 billion dollars to the budget over 10 years and theoretically help to pay down the debt, and Obama supports this. Republicans feel very strongly that the Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans, and contend that it'll help stimulate the economy. I'll keep you updated on how that process will work, but there is some suggestion that Obama will be forced to compromise on the Tax Cut issue. It's unclear exactly what form this compromise will take; it's possible that the tax cuts will be temporarily extended for all Americans, but after a couple years a higher tax for wealthy Americans would kick into effect. I'll keep you updated.
I want to make another quick note on an article that Nate Silver wrote right after the election on the question of an underestimation of the Latino vote in Nevada. I made a note of this as well election morning. Anyway the argument seems to be solidifying.
And finally I want to direct my readers to a worsening situation in Haiti, where tropical storm Tomas threatens to make even MORE terrible the situation for those living in tent camps and suffering from Cholera. Please consider another donation to help out Haitians in need who still are struggling after the earthquake. I like these groups: The Lambi Fund, Partners in Health, and The American Red Cross. You can read more about Tomas and the storm's effects here.
Tea Party candidates won across America this week and already there's some suggestion that these candidates are going to be resistant to Republican leadership if that leadership intends to compromise with the President. If Boehner and McConnell aren't careful, Republicans will be viewed as "too Tea Party" and too obstructionist, wasting the time of the American people. Most Americans still view the Tea Party in a non-positive light, particularly young voters.
Wait, young voters? But I thought the Tea Party movement started off with a lot of young support; remember all the young faces at Ron Paul rallies in 2008? Once again I'll go back to a post I wrote several weeks ago on the Tea Party Coalition. The two central groups of the Tea Party are Libertarians and recently, the Religious Right. On fiscal issues, these groups have been able to temporarily compromise, but new information seems to suggest that the Libertarian arm of the group is becoming disenfranchised and particularly young people are shaking their head at the Tea Party.
I'm delighted to find another news organization talking about the divisions within the Tea Party, instead of focusing on divisions between the Tea Party and Republican Party. This article from the Huffington Post is basically contending the same thing that I was arguing in that article on the Tea Party Coalition. We'll see if the trend of Libertarian dissatisfaction with the Tea Party continues. Re-read my article, and read the Huff article and see what you think.
Now we enter the Lame Duck session of Congress, which essentially is the legislative period between the election and the swearing-in of the new Congress. Democrats still have their majorities for now, and may or may not act on those majorities while they have them. The main issue facing the Lame Duck session seems to be whether or not to extend the Bush Tax Cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Not doing so would add 700 billion dollars to the budget over 10 years and theoretically help to pay down the debt, and Obama supports this. Republicans feel very strongly that the Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans, and contend that it'll help stimulate the economy. I'll keep you updated on how that process will work, but there is some suggestion that Obama will be forced to compromise on the Tax Cut issue. It's unclear exactly what form this compromise will take; it's possible that the tax cuts will be temporarily extended for all Americans, but after a couple years a higher tax for wealthy Americans would kick into effect. I'll keep you updated.
I want to make another quick note on an article that Nate Silver wrote right after the election on the question of an underestimation of the Latino vote in Nevada. I made a note of this as well election morning. Anyway the argument seems to be solidifying.
And finally I want to direct my readers to a worsening situation in Haiti, where tropical storm Tomas threatens to make even MORE terrible the situation for those living in tent camps and suffering from Cholera. Please consider another donation to help out Haitians in need who still are struggling after the earthquake. I like these groups: The Lambi Fund, Partners in Health, and The American Red Cross. You can read more about Tomas and the storm's effects here.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Election Morning Analysis
When all's said and done, Democrats have done better in the Senate than expected, at this point favored to win 53 total seats with their two caucusing independents, and worse in the House, where they are expected at this point to lose about 65 total seats.
My predictions held up well! That's another piece of good news for this fledgling blogger. In the House, I predicted that Dems would lose between 30 and 80 seats. I also noted in my forecast that since Renee Ellmers DID win in NC-02, knocking off Bob Etheridge, you could expect greater than 54 seats gained in the House by Republicans. And Heath Shuler held out against his opponent in NC-11, as did Price in NC-04, which indicated that Republicans were not destined for an overwhelming victory, and were likely to stay under 70 seats won. This isn't good news for Democrats, and the likely makeup of the new House will be something like 245(R)-190(D). For perspective, this is a huge turn-over, largest in a century. Also for perspective, before this election the House was apportioned like this: 180(R)-255(D). So for all practical purposes the Democrats and Republicans switched places.
In the Senate, all of the races I called turned out as expected. The four races I did not call ended up being the closest of the evening: Washington, Colorado, Illinois, and Nevada. Well there are actually two exceptions to that point. First, as I hinted at in my Senate forecast, Angle's(R) numbers in Nevada were being overstated by polls. Still, I don't think anyone predicted Harry Reid would win so handily, and we'll be wondering for awhile exactly why that occurred in defiance of the +2 or +3 point victory polls were predicting for Angle. Illinois leaned toward Kirk, as expected and Washington looks good for Dems right now, also as expected. In the last week, Colorado seemed to be leaning toward Buck in the polls, but I felt dubious about predicting that he would win, since the Governor's race was likely to depress Republican turnout. It has been suggested by various pundits that Nevada, and perhaps Colorado (not yet, but looking promising) Democratic victories would point to a successful turnout of the Latino populations in those areas. Perhaps that's true.
Overall Dems will end up with 52 or 53 seats in the Senate, it's looking like. This is 1 seat greater than I thought, but then again, that's how coin-flips manifest themselves. I also admittedly gave myself some wiggle room with disclaimers, but overall it was a good night for forecasting.
The biggest surprise for me besides Nevada was the Senate race in Pennsylvania. Democrats had long thought this battle was promising for them, with a strong voter contact and turnout operation, but I never really thought Joe Sestak(D) had a chance in this one. The eventual margin of Toomey(R) +2 is much narrower than most polls were showing, and frankly much narrower than I expected, considering how confident I was that Pennsylvania would go the other way. Everyone seems to be talking about Nevada, but I hope to be able to answer the question of why Sestak performed so well soon in the future.
And in Alaska, we shall soon see if Murkowski can pull it out in the end. Defying the write-in stigma.
John Boehner will be the new Speaker of the House. This will set up an interesting dynamic between him, Reid, and Obama. But for now it'll be interesting to see what Democrats do with the Lame Duck Session.
My predictions held up well! That's another piece of good news for this fledgling blogger. In the House, I predicted that Dems would lose between 30 and 80 seats. I also noted in my forecast that since Renee Ellmers DID win in NC-02, knocking off Bob Etheridge, you could expect greater than 54 seats gained in the House by Republicans. And Heath Shuler held out against his opponent in NC-11, as did Price in NC-04, which indicated that Republicans were not destined for an overwhelming victory, and were likely to stay under 70 seats won. This isn't good news for Democrats, and the likely makeup of the new House will be something like 245(R)-190(D). For perspective, this is a huge turn-over, largest in a century. Also for perspective, before this election the House was apportioned like this: 180(R)-255(D). So for all practical purposes the Democrats and Republicans switched places.
In the Senate, all of the races I called turned out as expected. The four races I did not call ended up being the closest of the evening: Washington, Colorado, Illinois, and Nevada. Well there are actually two exceptions to that point. First, as I hinted at in my Senate forecast, Angle's(R) numbers in Nevada were being overstated by polls. Still, I don't think anyone predicted Harry Reid would win so handily, and we'll be wondering for awhile exactly why that occurred in defiance of the +2 or +3 point victory polls were predicting for Angle. Illinois leaned toward Kirk, as expected and Washington looks good for Dems right now, also as expected. In the last week, Colorado seemed to be leaning toward Buck in the polls, but I felt dubious about predicting that he would win, since the Governor's race was likely to depress Republican turnout. It has been suggested by various pundits that Nevada, and perhaps Colorado (not yet, but looking promising) Democratic victories would point to a successful turnout of the Latino populations in those areas. Perhaps that's true.
Overall Dems will end up with 52 or 53 seats in the Senate, it's looking like. This is 1 seat greater than I thought, but then again, that's how coin-flips manifest themselves. I also admittedly gave myself some wiggle room with disclaimers, but overall it was a good night for forecasting.
The biggest surprise for me besides Nevada was the Senate race in Pennsylvania. Democrats had long thought this battle was promising for them, with a strong voter contact and turnout operation, but I never really thought Joe Sestak(D) had a chance in this one. The eventual margin of Toomey(R) +2 is much narrower than most polls were showing, and frankly much narrower than I expected, considering how confident I was that Pennsylvania would go the other way. Everyone seems to be talking about Nevada, but I hope to be able to answer the question of why Sestak performed so well soon in the future.
And in Alaska, we shall soon see if Murkowski can pull it out in the end. Defying the write-in stigma.
John Boehner will be the new Speaker of the House. This will set up an interesting dynamic between him, Reid, and Obama. But for now it'll be interesting to see what Democrats do with the Lame Duck Session.
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010
Instead of commenting on the current state of the election results for now, I'd like to leave you with this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S2Ps8OMj8Y&feature=player_embedded
Think for a minute about our elections process, and why in the world we vote on a Tuesday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S2Ps8OMj8Y&feature=player_embedded
Think for a minute about our elections process, and why in the world we vote on a Tuesday.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
(11/2) Election Forecasts 2010: Senate
I'm not going to do a Governor race forecast, but don't think they're not important. I just don't have the resources. Watch Connecticut to see if Foley(R) will have a come-from-behind win, watch Ohio to see if Strickland(D) can hold his ground and RI, CO, and ME will be interesting. Among others.
In the Senate I've been watching Washington, California, Nevada, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, and Illinois-- these were the "competitive" races. Since my last forecast, some polls have diverged, and some polls have tightened; some haven't moved at all.
Remember that Republicans almost certainly will gain 3 Senate seats from Democrats to begin with. North Dakota, Arkansas, and Indiana. But one Republican seat is being added to the "competitive" list. Thus, Republicans need to win 8 more from the competitive list in order to take control of the Senate. Therefore we will begin with a baseline of 42 Republican seats and 48 Democrat seats; I see almost no viable way that either party could end up with less than this number of seats.
I have some hesitancy about this, but given a recent poll out of Alaska, I have re-evaluated the race in a post a few hours ago, and on the virtue of it being a 3-way race, I'll add it to the competitive list.
I will now note very likely Republican gains from the competitive list. I predict with confidence that these three races will end up in Republican hands. Florida (Rubio), Wisconsin (Johnson), and Pennsylvania (Toomey). You can tell your Democratic friends that these races are pretty much a lost cause.
And very likely Democratic gains include California. You can confidently tell your Republican friends that California is basically out of their hands.
That leaves us with a new baseline of 45 Republicans and 49 Democrats.
Here's how the rest break down. I wouldn't make a bet on this, but evidence points to these results: Republicans gain Alaska (Murkowski or Miller). Democrats gain West Virginia (Manchin).
The final four races are just too hard to predict from my standpoint. Republicans are favored in Illinois, Nevada, and Colorado albeit by small percentages. Democrats are favored in Washington. I think it's just as reasonable to allocate these seats 3-1 as it is to allocate them 2-2. They all might be very close.
I tend to want to call Washington to Murray(D) and Illinois for Kirk(R). Nevada and Colorado are even harder for me. Nevada's polling option to select "none of these candidates" may end up helping Reid(D), or... Angle(R). Angle may win, but if so, I think there's a good chance it'll be more narrowly than about 2 points, as polls now show. Democrats are going to be desperate to win Nevada as a symbolic victory, though I think politically it would help them to have a change in the face of leadership. I tend to think Tancredo's rise in Colorado might un-motivate more moderate Republican voters, which might help Bennet(D). But all of this is conjecture.
I think Dems will end up with 51 or 52 seats. This is consistent with my other forecasts. The margin will be between 50D-50R and 54D-46R (worst and best case scenarios, depending on your position). Thus, I confidently predict Democrats will retain the Senate absent a defection or two from more moderate Democratic caucus members.
On the other hand, Democrats will very likely lose in between 5 and 9 seats, probably closer to the latter number.
I want to make a quick note about the NC Senate race as well. Watch Burr's(R) winning margin. Marshall(D) has run a weak campaign, but Burr hasn't run much of a campaign at all. If Burr wins by less than 11 points then it will be a sign that Democrats may be doing better than expected. If he wins by much more, brace for significant Democratic losses in NC and elsewhere.
In the Senate I've been watching Washington, California, Nevada, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, and Illinois-- these were the "competitive" races. Since my last forecast, some polls have diverged, and some polls have tightened; some haven't moved at all.
Remember that Republicans almost certainly will gain 3 Senate seats from Democrats to begin with. North Dakota, Arkansas, and Indiana. But one Republican seat is being added to the "competitive" list. Thus, Republicans need to win 8 more from the competitive list in order to take control of the Senate. Therefore we will begin with a baseline of 42 Republican seats and 48 Democrat seats; I see almost no viable way that either party could end up with less than this number of seats.
I have some hesitancy about this, but given a recent poll out of Alaska, I have re-evaluated the race in a post a few hours ago, and on the virtue of it being a 3-way race, I'll add it to the competitive list.
I will now note very likely Republican gains from the competitive list. I predict with confidence that these three races will end up in Republican hands. Florida (Rubio), Wisconsin (Johnson), and Pennsylvania (Toomey). You can tell your Democratic friends that these races are pretty much a lost cause.
And very likely Democratic gains include California. You can confidently tell your Republican friends that California is basically out of their hands.
That leaves us with a new baseline of 45 Republicans and 49 Democrats.
Here's how the rest break down. I wouldn't make a bet on this, but evidence points to these results: Republicans gain Alaska (Murkowski or Miller). Democrats gain West Virginia (Manchin).
The final four races are just too hard to predict from my standpoint. Republicans are favored in Illinois, Nevada, and Colorado albeit by small percentages. Democrats are favored in Washington. I think it's just as reasonable to allocate these seats 3-1 as it is to allocate them 2-2. They all might be very close.
I tend to want to call Washington to Murray(D) and Illinois for Kirk(R). Nevada and Colorado are even harder for me. Nevada's polling option to select "none of these candidates" may end up helping Reid(D), or... Angle(R). Angle may win, but if so, I think there's a good chance it'll be more narrowly than about 2 points, as polls now show. Democrats are going to be desperate to win Nevada as a symbolic victory, though I think politically it would help them to have a change in the face of leadership. I tend to think Tancredo's rise in Colorado might un-motivate more moderate Republican voters, which might help Bennet(D). But all of this is conjecture.
I think Dems will end up with 51 or 52 seats. This is consistent with my other forecasts. The margin will be between 50D-50R and 54D-46R (worst and best case scenarios, depending on your position). Thus, I confidently predict Democrats will retain the Senate absent a defection or two from more moderate Democratic caucus members.
On the other hand, Democrats will very likely lose in between 5 and 9 seats, probably closer to the latter number.
I want to make a quick note about the NC Senate race as well. Watch Burr's(R) winning margin. Marshall(D) has run a weak campaign, but Burr hasn't run much of a campaign at all. If Burr wins by less than 11 points then it will be a sign that Democrats may be doing better than expected. If he wins by much more, brace for significant Democratic losses in NC and elsewhere.
(11/2) Election Forecasts 2010: House
This will represent my final election projection of the 2010 Midterms, and I'll make it brief.
In the House of Representatives, Democrats will likely lose between 30 and 80 seats. It will either be deafening or reasonably significant, but either way, Dems are in for it. I'm not going to make specific number projections because there just isn't enough robust polling on which to make accurate predictions. Generic House Ballots range from R+15 to R+0 and it's probably somewhere in between. I think most pollsters are beginning to settle on in between 50 and 70 seats lost for the Democrats. Which, if true, would make this the most significant turnover in 100 years.
I like watching NC races for many reasons, so I want to direct your attention to three different contests in NC that I think will represent indicator contests for what kind of gains Republicans are probably going to make in the House. We'll begin to know what these look like starting at 7:30 when polls close. I make these predictions partially with the help of Fivethirtyeight's own House indicators.
In NC-02 (Raleigh suburbs and east), Incumbent Democrat Bob Etheridge is facing what I consider to be a poor Republican opponent and a Libertarian. Recent polling has Republican Renee Ellmers up, but I find a win by her to be unlikely. If Ellmers wins by anything but the slimmest of margins, expect 55+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Etheridge has about a 65% chance of victory.
In NC-11 (Mountains), Incumbent Democrat Heath Shuler is facing what I consider to be a very generic and relatively inexperienced opponent. If Jeff Miller were to squeak out a win, expect 70+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Shuler has about an 80% chance of victory
And in NC-04 (Durham, Chapel Hill and west Raleigh), Incumbent Democrat David Price is facing what I consider to be a circumstantially spirited campaign by (C4L endorsed) William Lawson. But if Lawson were to overturn this formidable Incumbent, expect total chaos in the House, upwards of 80 seat turnover. I think Price has about a 95% chance of victory. If all three of these races go south for Dems, we could be looking at up to 100 seats changing hands.
Now if none of these Incumbents is taken out, Republicans could still be on their way to a strong finish, but I expect it to be under 55 seats. Remember, I'm not a professional, and I wouldn't bet anything substantial on any of what I have written above.
In the House of Representatives, Democrats will likely lose between 30 and 80 seats. It will either be deafening or reasonably significant, but either way, Dems are in for it. I'm not going to make specific number projections because there just isn't enough robust polling on which to make accurate predictions. Generic House Ballots range from R+15 to R+0 and it's probably somewhere in between. I think most pollsters are beginning to settle on in between 50 and 70 seats lost for the Democrats. Which, if true, would make this the most significant turnover in 100 years.
I like watching NC races for many reasons, so I want to direct your attention to three different contests in NC that I think will represent indicator contests for what kind of gains Republicans are probably going to make in the House. We'll begin to know what these look like starting at 7:30 when polls close. I make these predictions partially with the help of Fivethirtyeight's own House indicators.
In NC-02 (Raleigh suburbs and east), Incumbent Democrat Bob Etheridge is facing what I consider to be a poor Republican opponent and a Libertarian. Recent polling has Republican Renee Ellmers up, but I find a win by her to be unlikely. If Ellmers wins by anything but the slimmest of margins, expect 55+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Etheridge has about a 65% chance of victory.
In NC-11 (Mountains), Incumbent Democrat Heath Shuler is facing what I consider to be a very generic and relatively inexperienced opponent. If Jeff Miller were to squeak out a win, expect 70+ gains in the House by Republicans. I think Shuler has about an 80% chance of victory
And in NC-04 (Durham, Chapel Hill and west Raleigh), Incumbent Democrat David Price is facing what I consider to be a circumstantially spirited campaign by (C4L endorsed) William Lawson. But if Lawson were to overturn this formidable Incumbent, expect total chaos in the House, upwards of 80 seat turnover. I think Price has about a 95% chance of victory. If all three of these races go south for Dems, we could be looking at up to 100 seats changing hands.
Now if none of these Incumbents is taken out, Republicans could still be on their way to a strong finish, but I expect it to be under 55 seats. Remember, I'm not a professional, and I wouldn't bet anything substantial on any of what I have written above.
Shakeup in Alaska?
I keep mentioning three way races in my posts, and it's because they're just so fascinating this cycle.
The one race that I have pretty much ignored in my Senate forecasts is Alaska, except to mention that it represents an unprecedented historical situation because Lisa Murkowski is trying to win as a write-in candidate. Write-in candidates just simply don't win historically, so much that many politicians wouldn't even try, as embarrassing as it would be.
But Murkowski represents a real possibility for the write-in candidacy, as she has consistently been polling right up next to Joe Miller, the Republican.
And yet I have been ignoring Alaska in my forecasts because it has, until recently, seemed almost certain that either Murkowski or Miller would win, and both candidates are running as Republicans.
Ok. It's really really dangerous to try to make an argument off of a single poll, particularly when its a weekend poll, but because the argument I am about to make has been around for awhile, I'll draw your attention to a PPP poll of the Alaska Senate election. PPP makes the assertion with this poll that, instead of McAdams, the Democrat, being the spoiler for Murkowski, Murkowski may end up being the spoiler for McAdams. Three way races are hard to predict, and three-way races in which there is a write-in candidate don't have a lot of precedent. Joe Miller AND Lisa Murkowski both have dismal approval ratings in the 30s, while McAdams is approved of by 50%. Will Murkowski voters, encountering the difficulty of writing in her name (which is not the easiest to spell) cast their ballots for McAdams, if they can't figure out the write-in process? There is a good argument that this could be the case.
With this poll showing Miller at 37% and McAdams at 30%, it's certainly Miller's race to lose, but there really may be movement at the last moment here in Alaska, with counting of write-ins going well into this week. Can't wait to find out if McAdams or Murkowski will be the exciting upset of this election.
The one race that I have pretty much ignored in my Senate forecasts is Alaska, except to mention that it represents an unprecedented historical situation because Lisa Murkowski is trying to win as a write-in candidate. Write-in candidates just simply don't win historically, so much that many politicians wouldn't even try, as embarrassing as it would be.
But Murkowski represents a real possibility for the write-in candidacy, as she has consistently been polling right up next to Joe Miller, the Republican.
And yet I have been ignoring Alaska in my forecasts because it has, until recently, seemed almost certain that either Murkowski or Miller would win, and both candidates are running as Republicans.
Ok. It's really really dangerous to try to make an argument off of a single poll, particularly when its a weekend poll, but because the argument I am about to make has been around for awhile, I'll draw your attention to a PPP poll of the Alaska Senate election. PPP makes the assertion with this poll that, instead of McAdams, the Democrat, being the spoiler for Murkowski, Murkowski may end up being the spoiler for McAdams. Three way races are hard to predict, and three-way races in which there is a write-in candidate don't have a lot of precedent. Joe Miller AND Lisa Murkowski both have dismal approval ratings in the 30s, while McAdams is approved of by 50%. Will Murkowski voters, encountering the difficulty of writing in her name (which is not the easiest to spell) cast their ballots for McAdams, if they can't figure out the write-in process? There is a good argument that this could be the case.
With this poll showing Miller at 37% and McAdams at 30%, it's certainly Miller's race to lose, but there really may be movement at the last moment here in Alaska, with counting of write-ins going well into this week. Can't wait to find out if McAdams or Murkowski will be the exciting upset of this election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)