In February, 2006, I cited the famous quote from boxer Roberto Duran (when he quit in the 8th round of his rematch with Sugar Ray Leonard in 1980), suggesting that our mayor, Bobby Duran, give it a rest.
Duran failed to heed my advice and won a 20-vote victory that month over Gene Sanchez, giving him his first full term as Taos mayor.
Now Bobby has taken up the notion and announced he is quitting. "No mas!"
He has enjoyed being quoted saying that he always said he would stay in politics here as long as it was "fun, challenging, and I enjoy the people I'm working with--now two out of three are missing". I guess he's still challenged.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Obama Leadership--Early Impressions
There have been a number of editorials about whether Obama should lead our country to the center, the center-left, the left, or even the center-right. I think all those arguments are directionally challenged.
If we look at what Obama is doing in terms of his selections for Cabinet positions, his involvement in the Senate deliberations on punishing rogue Senator Joe Lieberman, and his policy positions and their more detailed elaborations, I would say that Obama is trying to get the largest amount of support possible, to lead the country where he wants to go, which is FORWARD.
This may not seem a very specifc azimuth, but compared to the direction of Bushite Misrule, which could be characterized as leading us backwards, multi-directionally confused, or just plain unrealistically (into Spaceland?), it is refreshing.
In terms of specific Cabinet appointments and who's been named (albeit through news reports only), the only one I've gotten right so far is today's news that Timothy Geithner is for Treasury. I think it's a great choice: after Hillary Clinton has been confirmed as destined for State, I wanted to say (but didn't) "basta!" with the Clintonistas. I preferred Bill Richardson for State, but I can live with HRC, as long as she promises to toe the Administration line (i.e., no "going rogue"), and I know she can if she wants, and that she will, as long as Obama's leadership is popular. If that condition no longer obtains, she will split and start preparing to run in a mindless, futile challenge in '12.
Bill Richardson for Commerce (I've also heard Penny Pritzker for it--perhaps Trade Rep?) seems a bit disappointing to me (perhaps to him, too) in terms of being one of the less critical and central positions, but it is one that this expert schmoozer should handle well. We should review his history of policy statements on trade; once again, he should be expected to follow Administration policy, unclear as it may be on this particular issue.
A few other comments on the selections: I very much buy the argument that Obama should get exactly the people he wants, as long as they can survive the vetting-and-confirmation gauntlet, and we should swallow our narrow criticism. I think Janet Napolitano was a very good choice for Homeland Security, Robert Gates (in the short-run) superb for Defense--he has really impressed with his willingness to be his own man in the unitary Bushite executive, and he should have whoever he trusts most as Attorney General (so, I guess that's Eric Holder). Chris Dodd should be near-disqualified for resigning and taking a Cabinet position because there's a Republican Governor in Connecticut.
Last Bits
My position on Joe Lieberman has been consistent for years: I don't mind Lieberman being considered a Democrat, as long as I don't have to listen to his boring speeches. Chairman of Homeland Security is probably a good place for him toward that purpose.
Obama needs to put forward his policy on exactly what type of auto bailout (from what I've seen, it's one heavily oriented toward demanding commitment from the automakers that they will move to a new paradigm of autos produced, featuring plug-in hybrids). If he does, he can still get it, sooner than his new Adminsitration, and it will help rally the markets. That is, of course, unless Dubya digs in his bootheels and vetoes it, to his everlasting shame.
If we look at what Obama is doing in terms of his selections for Cabinet positions, his involvement in the Senate deliberations on punishing rogue Senator Joe Lieberman, and his policy positions and their more detailed elaborations, I would say that Obama is trying to get the largest amount of support possible, to lead the country where he wants to go, which is FORWARD.
This may not seem a very specifc azimuth, but compared to the direction of Bushite Misrule, which could be characterized as leading us backwards, multi-directionally confused, or just plain unrealistically (into Spaceland?), it is refreshing.
In terms of specific Cabinet appointments and who's been named (albeit through news reports only), the only one I've gotten right so far is today's news that Timothy Geithner is for Treasury. I think it's a great choice: after Hillary Clinton has been confirmed as destined for State, I wanted to say (but didn't) "basta!" with the Clintonistas. I preferred Bill Richardson for State, but I can live with HRC, as long as she promises to toe the Administration line (i.e., no "going rogue"), and I know she can if she wants, and that she will, as long as Obama's leadership is popular. If that condition no longer obtains, she will split and start preparing to run in a mindless, futile challenge in '12.
Bill Richardson for Commerce (I've also heard Penny Pritzker for it--perhaps Trade Rep?) seems a bit disappointing to me (perhaps to him, too) in terms of being one of the less critical and central positions, but it is one that this expert schmoozer should handle well. We should review his history of policy statements on trade; once again, he should be expected to follow Administration policy, unclear as it may be on this particular issue.
A few other comments on the selections: I very much buy the argument that Obama should get exactly the people he wants, as long as they can survive the vetting-and-confirmation gauntlet, and we should swallow our narrow criticism. I think Janet Napolitano was a very good choice for Homeland Security, Robert Gates (in the short-run) superb for Defense--he has really impressed with his willingness to be his own man in the unitary Bushite executive, and he should have whoever he trusts most as Attorney General (so, I guess that's Eric Holder). Chris Dodd should be near-disqualified for resigning and taking a Cabinet position because there's a Republican Governor in Connecticut.
Last Bits
My position on Joe Lieberman has been consistent for years: I don't mind Lieberman being considered a Democrat, as long as I don't have to listen to his boring speeches. Chairman of Homeland Security is probably a good place for him toward that purpose.
Obama needs to put forward his policy on exactly what type of auto bailout (from what I've seen, it's one heavily oriented toward demanding commitment from the automakers that they will move to a new paradigm of autos produced, featuring plug-in hybrids). If he does, he can still get it, sooner than his new Adminsitration, and it will help rally the markets. That is, of course, unless Dubya digs in his bootheels and vetoes it, to his everlasting shame.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Palin in '12!
We be Palin'.
In the increasingly hostile internecine battle in the Republican Party--they look almost like Democrats, these days!--we have to side with the base purists who look to Sarah Palin as their standard-bearer for 2012.
A Palin-Huckabee ticket would be a very pure expression of social conservatism, and it would be a voter-friendly, not an angry, expression. It won't play well with the Bushite party Establishment, but they've earned their ticket to nowhere. As in, who cares what they think? Karl Rove, this means you.
Yes, it should lose--big time, 45-47% national vote kind of support, kind of Bob Dole-ish--unless the Obama Administration falls flat (and I see only one reason why it would: the impossible nature of the combined domestic and international challenges it will face).
I suppose there is some sort of moderate, 21st-century expression of opposition to the rampaging Democratic majority that could emerge, though I can't imagine why people of that persuasion would choose the Republican party as its vehicle. Nor do I see them taking on Obama & Co. in 2012; if they were really smart they'd wait until 2016.
In the increasingly hostile internecine battle in the Republican Party--they look almost like Democrats, these days!--we have to side with the base purists who look to Sarah Palin as their standard-bearer for 2012.
A Palin-Huckabee ticket would be a very pure expression of social conservatism, and it would be a voter-friendly, not an angry, expression. It won't play well with the Bushite party Establishment, but they've earned their ticket to nowhere. As in, who cares what they think? Karl Rove, this means you.
Yes, it should lose--big time, 45-47% national vote kind of support, kind of Bob Dole-ish--unless the Obama Administration falls flat (and I see only one reason why it would: the impossible nature of the combined domestic and international challenges it will face).
I suppose there is some sort of moderate, 21st-century expression of opposition to the rampaging Democratic majority that could emerge, though I can't imagine why people of that persuasion would choose the Republican party as its vehicle. Nor do I see them taking on Obama & Co. in 2012; if they were really smart they'd wait until 2016.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Bailout: FAQ Revisited
I thought I was done ranting about Bushite Misrule, but there's at least one more bone I have to pick and bonk them with.
Before (Sept. 23, the day after Secy. Paulson announced the outlines of the original bailout plan), we addressed these questions:
1) Who is to blame for this mess?--Answer: Originators, RATING AGENCIES (thoroughly confirmed through the hearings), Investment houses, Consumers of the securitized mortgage products, and all us folks chasing those extra 20 basis points of return.
2) What should be done to keep from blowing the taxpayers' huge investment? I argued that Treasury should spearhead a revolutionary change in the risk management of the practice of mortgage securitization, and that "what we can and should expect from this exercise is that there will be a functioning market for this stuff, that it will be priced properly for its risk and that the risk will be better understood. We can expect that the most egregious actions will be punished, and that our initiatives will make a recurrence impossible and that the Bile Bubble will not simply be pushed onto the next weak spot in the financial industry." More on this later.
3) What legislation should be passed right now? OK, I advocated for the bailout, and in the terms requested, though the amount of money to be spent by the Bushites needed to be severely limited.
Now, Hank comes back to us to say that actually buying the mortgage-backed security assets, the "toxic sludge", in order to build a market for them and allow the banks to eventually pass them through their constipated systems, was "too slow". Or too hard (as in, constipated hard and it would take too long to figure out the appropriate laxative).
Instead, Paulson listened to those who said the banks simply needed an infusion of capital. It's true that there were many leading economists (including our new Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman) who said this would do the job. I didn't get it, but I'm not expert on banks' capital structures (as I am on toxic sludge). The way I saw it, giving the banks more capital just meant they weren't so badly under-capitalized for the assets they had. Whatever; clearly--as we are seeing--it didn't clear out the hardened sludge blockage and get the banks' bowels moving again.
So, here we are. Paulson & Co. have picked their winners and losers--the winners get assistance, the losers are swallowed up. $300 billion later, and it's time to come back and note that their mission has changed. At least--I think--they won't be given license to spend the rest of it.
It will be left to Paulson's successors to apply the power of the federal government to force out the information and bring to bear the discipline necessary to crack this problem. It's still needed.
The Bile bubble hasn't moved on, but it has expanded--to the auto industry, to credit cards, and now it's moving to high-tech investment.
Note for the proposed auto bailout: I'm in favor of allocating $15 billion or so. It should have one--very thick--string attached: the money should be used, exclusively, for development and rollout of workable plug-in hybrid vehicles. If the auto companies don't want it, they don't have to (though they do have to make their fuel efficiency targets). We saw earlier this decade the huge bump Toyota and Honda got from coming out with improved fuel-efficient cars; this next bump could belong to one or more of the Big Three, if they've got the brains and guts. If they make satisfactory progress, the cash flow will take care of itself.
Before (Sept. 23, the day after Secy. Paulson announced the outlines of the original bailout plan), we addressed these questions:
1) Who is to blame for this mess?--Answer: Originators, RATING AGENCIES (thoroughly confirmed through the hearings), Investment houses, Consumers of the securitized mortgage products, and all us folks chasing those extra 20 basis points of return.
2) What should be done to keep from blowing the taxpayers' huge investment? I argued that Treasury should spearhead a revolutionary change in the risk management of the practice of mortgage securitization, and that "what we can and should expect from this exercise is that there will be a functioning market for this stuff, that it will be priced properly for its risk and that the risk will be better understood. We can expect that the most egregious actions will be punished, and that our initiatives will make a recurrence impossible and that the Bile Bubble will not simply be pushed onto the next weak spot in the financial industry." More on this later.
3) What legislation should be passed right now? OK, I advocated for the bailout, and in the terms requested, though the amount of money to be spent by the Bushites needed to be severely limited.
Now, Hank comes back to us to say that actually buying the mortgage-backed security assets, the "toxic sludge", in order to build a market for them and allow the banks to eventually pass them through their constipated systems, was "too slow". Or too hard (as in, constipated hard and it would take too long to figure out the appropriate laxative).
Instead, Paulson listened to those who said the banks simply needed an infusion of capital. It's true that there were many leading economists (including our new Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman) who said this would do the job. I didn't get it, but I'm not expert on banks' capital structures (as I am on toxic sludge). The way I saw it, giving the banks more capital just meant they weren't so badly under-capitalized for the assets they had. Whatever; clearly--as we are seeing--it didn't clear out the hardened sludge blockage and get the banks' bowels moving again.
So, here we are. Paulson & Co. have picked their winners and losers--the winners get assistance, the losers are swallowed up. $300 billion later, and it's time to come back and note that their mission has changed. At least--I think--they won't be given license to spend the rest of it.
It will be left to Paulson's successors to apply the power of the federal government to force out the information and bring to bear the discipline necessary to crack this problem. It's still needed.
The Bile bubble hasn't moved on, but it has expanded--to the auto industry, to credit cards, and now it's moving to high-tech investment.
Note for the proposed auto bailout: I'm in favor of allocating $15 billion or so. It should have one--very thick--string attached: the money should be used, exclusively, for development and rollout of workable plug-in hybrid vehicles. If the auto companies don't want it, they don't have to (though they do have to make their fuel efficiency targets). We saw earlier this decade the huge bump Toyota and Honda got from coming out with improved fuel-efficient cars; this next bump could belong to one or more of the Big Three, if they've got the brains and guts. If they make satisfactory progress, the cash flow will take care of itself.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Getting it Right on Missile Defense
CNN has just reported that Obama has rebuffed the argument that the rightist Polish PM made that he (Obama) will continue the missile defense system deployment in Poland.
Obama's spokesman stated that he has not changed his position: that he may deploy it once the technology is workable.
This is a good start toward defusing a ridiculous tempest about nothing that was developing with respect to Russia and this missile defense question.
I've posted on this before (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-will-defend-us-from-star-wars.html): the argument about protecting Europe from Iran is phony; it's a provocation to Russia, and an unnecessary one because everyone knows the damn thing don't work. And, even if it worked, it wouldn't work.
I suppose someone will criticize Obama for "letting the cat out of the bag" that it doesn't work. Unfortunately, the bag is wide open and the cat can get out anytime it wants. Poland shouldn't depend on it--for anything--Russia will no longer be able to use it as an excuse for provocations of its own, and--hopefully--we'll save a few billion a year that we'd otherwise totally waste.
Thank you, Mr. President-elect!
Obama's spokesman stated that he has not changed his position: that he may deploy it once the technology is workable.
This is a good start toward defusing a ridiculous tempest about nothing that was developing with respect to Russia and this missile defense question.
I've posted on this before (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-will-defend-us-from-star-wars.html): the argument about protecting Europe from Iran is phony; it's a provocation to Russia, and an unnecessary one because everyone knows the damn thing don't work. And, even if it worked, it wouldn't work.
I suppose someone will criticize Obama for "letting the cat out of the bag" that it doesn't work. Unfortunately, the bag is wide open and the cat can get out anytime it wants. Poland shouldn't depend on it--for anything--Russia will no longer be able to use it as an excuse for provocations of its own, and--hopefully--we'll save a few billion a year that we'd otherwise totally waste.
Thank you, Mr. President-elect!
Nebraska Pitches In One EV
I saw this tonight--click on title for link to the daily kos article.
One of Nebraska's Congressional Districts has been declared for Obama, which will earn him one additional electoral vote and bring him to 365.
Nebraska and Maine are the two states that allocate electoral votes to the winner of each Congressional district, with two going to the statewide winner.
I advocate this change for all states, particularly those that are not swing states, as an attempt to make Presidential elections a bit more democratic and less subject to manipulation by state election administration authorities. It's a small reform compared to what I really advocate, which is the abolition of the institution of the Electoral College in its entirety.
I posted on this previously--see "Anxious in NM", and a more lengthy discussion last month on 538.com: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/omaha-nebraskas-one-electoral-vote-is.html
One of Nebraska's Congressional Districts has been declared for Obama, which will earn him one additional electoral vote and bring him to 365.
Nebraska and Maine are the two states that allocate electoral votes to the winner of each Congressional district, with two going to the statewide winner.
I advocate this change for all states, particularly those that are not swing states, as an attempt to make Presidential elections a bit more democratic and less subject to manipulation by state election administration authorities. It's a small reform compared to what I really advocate, which is the abolition of the institution of the Electoral College in its entirety.
I posted on this previously--see "Anxious in NM", and a more lengthy discussion last month on 538.com: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/omaha-nebraskas-one-electoral-vote-is.html
State of Play
To start, here is an extract (I did my best to edit) from the Rasmussen Markets web site, showing the most actively traded issues today:
Issue Bid Ask Last Change
08.SENATE.DEM.51-55 32.0 40.0 32.0 0
AK.SENATE08.DEM 42.0 52.0 49.9 +4.9
08.SENATE.DEM.56-60 60.2 65.0 60.2 -7.7
MN.SENATE08.DEM 30.1 35.8 35.8 +0.9
08.VOTER.TURNOUT.>60% 10.4 11.4 10.4 0
MISSOURI.REP 95.1 98.0 95.2 -0.8
I will now interpret these.
The most interesting question is whether the number of Democrats in the new Senate will be between 51-55, or between 56-60. My interpretation of the status of the "independents"--Lieberman and Bernie Sanders--for this purpose is that they are not counted as Democrats, though there doesn't appear to be anything on the site that officially says, one way or the other. However, if either were considered a Democrat, they would definitely have 56 or more, what with the decision for Merkley in the Oregon race.
The quotes suggest that more people feel the probability is with 56-60 Dems, meaning that one of the remaining races (Georgia, Alaska, or Minnesota) will go to them.
In terms of my bets, I went with both in the stretch run to the election, about evenly, as I saw that 55-56 (as defined here) was right at the cusp of where things should come out. On Wednesday, I upped my stake on 51-55, and overall sentiment was shooting up on that one. It has since corrected downward, so I'm now in a slightly losing position on that one. I got whipsawed, a bit.
Turning to one of the cases, Minnesota Senate Dem at 35.8 (bid 30.1; ask 35.8; last trade 35.8) means that Al Franken is currently given about a one-third chance of winning. The large gap means that sentiment in his favor isn't that strong, though the last trade was on the high end of the gap--probably someone closing out his position against Al. On the other side of the fence, the less-traded one, the bid for Coleman's winning is 63.2 and the ask 69.9, last trade 69.8, which means roughly the same thing: there isn't a strong reason to take a position either way, because it's so close it's hard to be sure how it's going to come out.
I really sat on the fence on this one, on Rasmussen. I had a small position on each side (I bought a few shares of Coleman a week or two before the election, when sentiment was running very strong Franken would win--I didn't believe it), and was looking to perhaps make a buck by trying to buy low and trading off at some point. As far as guilt about "buying Coleman", frankly he isn't that awful, just kind of phony, and I thought Minnesotans would go for the guy they thought "more serious" in the end.
Voter turnout >60% was one that I did bet on, not too heavily, and looks like a loser. It's close enough to that total, or at least is perceived to be so, that the number is at 10, not way down at 0. I could close out my position and take my loss, but it's not significant for me. My expectations for a high turnout were not fully met.
Missouri Rep.--"the market" gives about 95% likelihood to the Republicans' winning that state. With about a 6000-vote margin right now, presumably just waiting to complete absentee ballots and so forth, that seems reasonable. I never had any skin in this game, at least since July or so, as I expected a Republican win and didn't want to profit from it.
As for the other two races of significance that could be bet upon--Alaska and Georgia--I never had any position. I didn't trust the Alaska voters to throw Stevens out--correctly--nor did I expect Georgia voters to throw out the nearly-as-infamous Saxbe Chambliss.
For the record, there's a huge bid-ask gap on Alaska Dem, 42 to 60 (except for one lonely seller at 52)--not much betting support for Begich at present, and there's some support on the Stevens side at 50-55% (and some resistance at 70% or so). It's close to 50-50, but the market is unstable. Georgia's a very different situation--stable at about 80-20 in favor of the Republican, but a runoff seems near-certain, so this one will not be resolved for a month or so.
If Alaska ends up with Stevens and Minnesota with Coleman, then the probabilities on the Dem 51-55/Dem 56-60 question will end up riding on the outcome of the Georgia runoff (and should switch toward 80-20 in favor of the lower number of Dem seats). Based on that expectation, I'm holding on to my longer position for the lower number.
The House may have several seats yet to be decided, but 95% of the probability on Rasmussen lies with the range 251-260 Democratic seats. That's the one I had bet on, actually.
Rasmussen will go on beyond the election and its aftermath, I think, though it may need to find some other items for people to bet on to maintain interest. My initial stake of $10k was halved back on Super Tuesday (poorly-timed bets by this newbie on the California and New Mexico primaries, as I recall), and I've gradually worked it back to near where I started. I had small wagers that won on states like Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina--I didn't believe but wanted to profit if Obama could pull them out--and a much larger, more successful one on Nevada, where I did believe. I made a bunch on Obama--mostly from early days, when I "bought him" at 30% or so, and betting against McCain--I was short on him averaging about 30-40% (I increased my stake in September when he briefly got up to 50% or so), but most of those gains were "marked to market" and showed up in my account a month or so ago.
My success on CNN's market game has been much greater--my $5k is up to $12k, and I'm in the top 3% of traders--but the interest level is lower. The markets there always had a heavy Democratic bias, so I was mostly reduced to shopping here and there for bargains (again, I did well betting on Nevada). I did OK on some of the individual House races, but missed a few as well. There are no open markets, so I suspect CNN may shut it down (rather than open betting on, say, who will get Cabinet posts).
Issue Bid Ask Last Change
08.SENATE.DEM.51-55 32.0 40.0 32.0 0
AK.SENATE08.DEM 42.0 52.0 49.9 +4.9
08.SENATE.DEM.56-60 60.2 65.0 60.2 -7.7
MN.SENATE08.DEM 30.1 35.8 35.8 +0.9
08.VOTER.TURNOUT.>60% 10.4 11.4 10.4 0
MISSOURI.REP 95.1 98.0 95.2 -0.8
I will now interpret these.
The most interesting question is whether the number of Democrats in the new Senate will be between 51-55, or between 56-60. My interpretation of the status of the "independents"--Lieberman and Bernie Sanders--for this purpose is that they are not counted as Democrats, though there doesn't appear to be anything on the site that officially says, one way or the other. However, if either were considered a Democrat, they would definitely have 56 or more, what with the decision for Merkley in the Oregon race.
The quotes suggest that more people feel the probability is with 56-60 Dems, meaning that one of the remaining races (Georgia, Alaska, or Minnesota) will go to them.
In terms of my bets, I went with both in the stretch run to the election, about evenly, as I saw that 55-56 (as defined here) was right at the cusp of where things should come out. On Wednesday, I upped my stake on 51-55, and overall sentiment was shooting up on that one. It has since corrected downward, so I'm now in a slightly losing position on that one. I got whipsawed, a bit.
Turning to one of the cases, Minnesota Senate Dem at 35.8 (bid 30.1; ask 35.8; last trade 35.8) means that Al Franken is currently given about a one-third chance of winning. The large gap means that sentiment in his favor isn't that strong, though the last trade was on the high end of the gap--probably someone closing out his position against Al. On the other side of the fence, the less-traded one, the bid for Coleman's winning is 63.2 and the ask 69.9, last trade 69.8, which means roughly the same thing: there isn't a strong reason to take a position either way, because it's so close it's hard to be sure how it's going to come out.
I really sat on the fence on this one, on Rasmussen. I had a small position on each side (I bought a few shares of Coleman a week or two before the election, when sentiment was running very strong Franken would win--I didn't believe it), and was looking to perhaps make a buck by trying to buy low and trading off at some point. As far as guilt about "buying Coleman", frankly he isn't that awful, just kind of phony, and I thought Minnesotans would go for the guy they thought "more serious" in the end.
Voter turnout >60% was one that I did bet on, not too heavily, and looks like a loser. It's close enough to that total, or at least is perceived to be so, that the number is at 10, not way down at 0. I could close out my position and take my loss, but it's not significant for me. My expectations for a high turnout were not fully met.
Missouri Rep.--"the market" gives about 95% likelihood to the Republicans' winning that state. With about a 6000-vote margin right now, presumably just waiting to complete absentee ballots and so forth, that seems reasonable. I never had any skin in this game, at least since July or so, as I expected a Republican win and didn't want to profit from it.
As for the other two races of significance that could be bet upon--Alaska and Georgia--I never had any position. I didn't trust the Alaska voters to throw Stevens out--correctly--nor did I expect Georgia voters to throw out the nearly-as-infamous Saxbe Chambliss.
For the record, there's a huge bid-ask gap on Alaska Dem, 42 to 60 (except for one lonely seller at 52)--not much betting support for Begich at present, and there's some support on the Stevens side at 50-55% (and some resistance at 70% or so). It's close to 50-50, but the market is unstable. Georgia's a very different situation--stable at about 80-20 in favor of the Republican, but a runoff seems near-certain, so this one will not be resolved for a month or so.
If Alaska ends up with Stevens and Minnesota with Coleman, then the probabilities on the Dem 51-55/Dem 56-60 question will end up riding on the outcome of the Georgia runoff (and should switch toward 80-20 in favor of the lower number of Dem seats). Based on that expectation, I'm holding on to my longer position for the lower number.
The House may have several seats yet to be decided, but 95% of the probability on Rasmussen lies with the range 251-260 Democratic seats. That's the one I had bet on, actually.
Rasmussen will go on beyond the election and its aftermath, I think, though it may need to find some other items for people to bet on to maintain interest. My initial stake of $10k was halved back on Super Tuesday (poorly-timed bets by this newbie on the California and New Mexico primaries, as I recall), and I've gradually worked it back to near where I started. I had small wagers that won on states like Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina--I didn't believe but wanted to profit if Obama could pull them out--and a much larger, more successful one on Nevada, where I did believe. I made a bunch on Obama--mostly from early days, when I "bought him" at 30% or so, and betting against McCain--I was short on him averaging about 30-40% (I increased my stake in September when he briefly got up to 50% or so), but most of those gains were "marked to market" and showed up in my account a month or so ago.
My success on CNN's market game has been much greater--my $5k is up to $12k, and I'm in the top 3% of traders--but the interest level is lower. The markets there always had a heavy Democratic bias, so I was mostly reduced to shopping here and there for bargains (again, I did well betting on Nevada). I did OK on some of the individual House races, but missed a few as well. There are no open markets, so I suspect CNN may shut it down (rather than open betting on, say, who will get Cabinet posts).
Thursday, November 06, 2008
What Now, My Love?
Now that the election is over, my blog will need to find a new focus (and I, for it).
I'm thinking about starting to rant on a regular basis about our litigious society. Forty years after George Wallace's third-party run and Nixon's own rants, we've got plenty of "Law and Order" (even a TV show by that name), but not much effort being expended toward justice.
Legal types typically confound the two (or three), and the government even has a Cabinet department by that name, but they are not the same thing. Justice is when equity prevails. What is prevailing now is the power of money and job security for lawyers. Also for correction officials, construction of jails, judges of various levels of seriousness and specializations, and, worst of all, TV programming about all this wasted effort.
I'm thinking about starting to rant on a regular basis about our litigious society. Forty years after George Wallace's third-party run and Nixon's own rants, we've got plenty of "Law and Order" (even a TV show by that name), but not much effort being expended toward justice.
Legal types typically confound the two (or three), and the government even has a Cabinet department by that name, but they are not the same thing. Justice is when equity prevails. What is prevailing now is the power of money and job security for lawyers. Also for correction officials, construction of jails, judges of various levels of seriousness and specializations, and, worst of all, TV programming about all this wasted effort.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
It's Over: Hurrah! and Hallelujah!
As often happens, the Electoral College magnified a narrow Popular Vote majority, so it looks like a landslide. Here are my predictions (posted as a comment for Huffington Post's competition) with the current state of affairs:
Obama 318 McCain 220
It looks as though Obama will end up winning 364-174. I missed on Ohio, for sure (was amazed it was called so early), Indiana (in the biggest surprise of the Presidential contest, a very narrow win) and, it looks like, North Carolina. The polls were surprisingly accurate, on the whole, and my discounting of them was punished a bit.
Popular Vote: Obama 51.3 McCain 46.7 (rounds to 51-47)
The number I'm seeing is rounded to 53-46. Approximately a five-percent shift--one in 20 voters--from 2004's 51-48 Republican edge, and it moved all these nine states: NM (15% win!), NV (12% win), IA (9%), CO (7%), VA (5%), OH (4%), FL (2%), IN (1%), and, if it holds, NC (0.4%).
Senate: 56-43-1 (Lieberman not counted as a Dem, Bernie Sanders yes)
The six-seat pickup for the Dems I predicted looks about as good as any estimate at this point. Definite wins were CO, NM, VA, NC (bigger win than expected!), and NH. Democrat Merkley has a microscopic lead in OR, but Franken trails by even a smaller margin in MN, GA will be a runoff but with Republican Chambliss the favorite, and AK somehow seems to be going for Stevens, very narrowly. It makes you wonder what a Republican has to do to lose in Alaska. Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell held on by a 52-48 margin in Kentucky, the sly dog.
House: 257-178
Right now, CNN has it 254-173, with 8 undecided, so that estimate also looks as good as any other. Our state of New Mexico went from 1 of 3 Democrats to all 3. The shocker was in the Southern district, heavily Republican, which had Democrat Harry Teague pull out a 10-point margin.
Minnesota Senate: Coleman 46 Franken 43 Barkley 11
It's likely, but not certain, that I at least picked the right winner. Current results round to 42-42-15.
Overall, a good night, in terms of results and of predictive accuracy. We are celebrating New Mexico's moving from a total swing state to a thoroughly blue state: Besides the 15-point win for Obama, we now have two Democratic Senators (Udall winning by 20+ percent), a Democratic Governor, and 3 of 3 Democratic Congressmen.
Locally, Taos County went 82-17 for Obama, 13,327 to 2,824, exceeding our expectations, and the highest percentage win for any county in the state. Yeah!
Obama 318 McCain 220
It looks as though Obama will end up winning 364-174. I missed on Ohio, for sure (was amazed it was called so early), Indiana (in the biggest surprise of the Presidential contest, a very narrow win) and, it looks like, North Carolina. The polls were surprisingly accurate, on the whole, and my discounting of them was punished a bit.
Popular Vote: Obama 51.3 McCain 46.7 (rounds to 51-47)
The number I'm seeing is rounded to 53-46. Approximately a five-percent shift--one in 20 voters--from 2004's 51-48 Republican edge, and it moved all these nine states: NM (15% win!), NV (12% win), IA (9%), CO (7%), VA (5%), OH (4%), FL (2%), IN (1%), and, if it holds, NC (0.4%).
Senate: 56-43-1 (Lieberman not counted as a Dem, Bernie Sanders yes)
The six-seat pickup for the Dems I predicted looks about as good as any estimate at this point. Definite wins were CO, NM, VA, NC (bigger win than expected!), and NH. Democrat Merkley has a microscopic lead in OR, but Franken trails by even a smaller margin in MN, GA will be a runoff but with Republican Chambliss the favorite, and AK somehow seems to be going for Stevens, very narrowly. It makes you wonder what a Republican has to do to lose in Alaska. Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell held on by a 52-48 margin in Kentucky, the sly dog.
House: 257-178
Right now, CNN has it 254-173, with 8 undecided, so that estimate also looks as good as any other. Our state of New Mexico went from 1 of 3 Democrats to all 3. The shocker was in the Southern district, heavily Republican, which had Democrat Harry Teague pull out a 10-point margin.
Minnesota Senate: Coleman 46 Franken 43 Barkley 11
It's likely, but not certain, that I at least picked the right winner. Current results round to 42-42-15.
Overall, a good night, in terms of results and of predictive accuracy. We are celebrating New Mexico's moving from a total swing state to a thoroughly blue state: Besides the 15-point win for Obama, we now have two Democratic Senators (Udall winning by 20+ percent), a Democratic Governor, and 3 of 3 Democratic Congressmen.
Locally, Taos County went 82-17 for Obama, 13,327 to 2,824, exceeding our expectations, and the highest percentage win for any county in the state. Yeah!
Monday, November 03, 2008
Alternative Futures, Echoes of Pasts
Some astute commentators have pointed out that McCain's campaign looks toward the past, while Obama's looks to the future; further, that the future-oriented Presidential campaigns win.
While all of that may be true, I'd like to look at the other side of the argument.
John McCain and Our Future
Beyond cutting pork out of our governmental diet, victory with honor in Iraq, and making permanent the Bushite tax cuts, what are the real proposals, and what is likely to happen if McCain wins?
There's the spending freeze, which I will give some credit to McCain for coming up with during the debate when both candidates were challenged to name something they would cut to deal with the economic crisis. The only two problems with that idea were that the exceptions (military, veterans, and a few other programs, not to mention the entitlements) pretty much cover all the major spending areas, and the second is that Congress is supposed to legislate expenditures. True, McCain could choose not to spend some money that was allocated on certain programs if their budget authorizations were not written such that the President was directed to spend all the money. Cosmetically, it's an attractive idea, but not one that is going to bring the budget into balance.
There's the health care initiative, which if I understand it right, would require a Congressional approval of a tax credit for purchase of health insurance, which would be offset for many by taxation of health care benefits received from employers. I can't see that one going anywhere.
Neither is there any chance for extending the Bushite tax cuts, barring some shocking reversal in 2010 putting the Republicans back in control in the House. My understanding is that legislative action would be required for them to persist, which is part of the beauty of Obama's promise to increase the taxes for the highest earners--he need do nothing for that part of the tax plan, and woe to those who oppose the tax cuts for the middle class.
In fact, there are hardly any initiatives John McCain would be able to get through a heavily-Democratic House or Senate. He would be in the position of reacting to legislation generated in Democratic-led committees. He could bring out that crusty old pen and veto everything, and most of those vetoes would stick--if, and it's a big if, he doesn't alienate his own party's Congressional caucus too much.
There might be a chance for a couple of bipartisan initiatives: a watered-down cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gases (in his version, polluters would be grandfathered to current levels), approval of defense budgets no one dares oppose, and supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan (similar argument, a la Bushite Misrule), maybe even a new stab at funding Social Security and Medicare (if he doesn't alienate either party's caucus).
This scenario--governance through lack of action--actually does appeal to many Americans as a way to restrain our elected representatives from going overboard. In a time of strong growth, when inflation might loom large, this would make more sense. With deep recession all around, though, this negative vision hardly excites anyone.
Obama and the Past
On daily kos I posted a poll, way back on September 14, on the closest parallel in US election history to the current one. The clear winner was 1932: FDR's win over Herbert Hoover was the election readers of my diary selected as the one most like this one in its framing and result. I was somewhat surprised by that result, but as the days passed the group's wisdom has become more apparent--both the severity of the economic crisis as backdrop, and the possibility of a landslide.
1992 also recommends itself--a Bush goes down, "it's the economy, stupid"--and it's recent enough that most of us may actually remember the event. Both 1992 and 1932 were wins over Republican incumbents, not the case here.
I remember 1976, where Carter defeated Ford. Technically, Ford was the incumbent, but like this election, the hapless Republican candidate was really only the repository of the anger at the failures of his predecessor. As I've said before, Obama would do really well to speak at length with Jimmy Carter. I understand why he wouldn't have done it before the election, but (assuming he wins, of course) now would be the time.
In 1828, there was a call for vindication after a stolen previous election: John Q. Adams had taken it from Andrew Jackson in the House of Representatives (basically, due to the assistance of the 3rd-place candidate in the general election, Henry Clay). If/when Obama wins, there will be a similar feeling of redemption to Jackson's landslide in 1828. The difference being, of course, that it was really the 2000 election that was stolen, the vindication should've been in 2004, and it should've been Al Gore (or maybe Hillary Clinton) running.
One election I omitted from my list of 10 or so elections to consider for comparison in my poll (including a couple that Republicans won) was 1860, when a lanky, transplanted Illinoisan came from political nowhere to capture first, the nomination, then the general election, in a bitterly divided nation. This one, I hope, will be different in the follow-up: though I do expect some nasty sentiments to be expressed among the supporters of the losing candidate, I don't expect immediate calls for secession from the Union.
For those who expect Obama to parallel Lincoln's Team of Rivals, I'd point out that the only Democrat named to his cabinet was Navy Secretary Gideon Welles, that he was basically a token, and it was mainly his rivals for the nomination that Lincoln invited in (still a break from tradition). Biden he's already taken care of--look for Richardson, Dodd, and Hillary to get invites (also Kucinich, maybe?), and a variety of Republicans. Most of the Republicans and Hillary will decline; I'm thinking Richard Lugar may take a senior job.
Finally, for those who believe in the parallels with the Roman Empire (I'm one, for sure), I recommend consideration of the ascension to the royal toga of Emperor Hadrian, the first non-Italian-born ruler of the Empire. OK, Obama was born in the US (contrary to some stupid rumor-mongering I've seen on the Web), but it was Hawaii, and he is ethnically quite different from all the white European males who've preceded him (again, I've seen some pretty crazy Internet postings suggesting there have been three or four predecessors with African-American blood). Hadrian was actually the third of "the good Emperors", whereas, at best, Obama would be the first (Nerva was the first "good one", according to the history books). What I'm hoping is that he won't be the last.
Poised at The Edge of History
That is our guy, for sure. Obama is in a position to make history, and he sure is poised. I feel he is entirely worthy of the position he is in, but I'm not quite as sure about what will be the content of the history which is to follow.
We are going to be disappointed, that is for certain. It's best we accept that now and come to terms with that reality.
If he doesn't win, though, there is going to be major strife. The effort to dampen expectations on the size of his lead has largely failed; our hope is that no one dares meddle with the result, not that no one is able to do so.
While all of that may be true, I'd like to look at the other side of the argument.
John McCain and Our Future
Beyond cutting pork out of our governmental diet, victory with honor in Iraq, and making permanent the Bushite tax cuts, what are the real proposals, and what is likely to happen if McCain wins?
There's the spending freeze, which I will give some credit to McCain for coming up with during the debate when both candidates were challenged to name something they would cut to deal with the economic crisis. The only two problems with that idea were that the exceptions (military, veterans, and a few other programs, not to mention the entitlements) pretty much cover all the major spending areas, and the second is that Congress is supposed to legislate expenditures. True, McCain could choose not to spend some money that was allocated on certain programs if their budget authorizations were not written such that the President was directed to spend all the money. Cosmetically, it's an attractive idea, but not one that is going to bring the budget into balance.
There's the health care initiative, which if I understand it right, would require a Congressional approval of a tax credit for purchase of health insurance, which would be offset for many by taxation of health care benefits received from employers. I can't see that one going anywhere.
Neither is there any chance for extending the Bushite tax cuts, barring some shocking reversal in 2010 putting the Republicans back in control in the House. My understanding is that legislative action would be required for them to persist, which is part of the beauty of Obama's promise to increase the taxes for the highest earners--he need do nothing for that part of the tax plan, and woe to those who oppose the tax cuts for the middle class.
In fact, there are hardly any initiatives John McCain would be able to get through a heavily-Democratic House or Senate. He would be in the position of reacting to legislation generated in Democratic-led committees. He could bring out that crusty old pen and veto everything, and most of those vetoes would stick--if, and it's a big if, he doesn't alienate his own party's Congressional caucus too much.
There might be a chance for a couple of bipartisan initiatives: a watered-down cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gases (in his version, polluters would be grandfathered to current levels), approval of defense budgets no one dares oppose, and supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan (similar argument, a la Bushite Misrule), maybe even a new stab at funding Social Security and Medicare (if he doesn't alienate either party's caucus).
This scenario--governance through lack of action--actually does appeal to many Americans as a way to restrain our elected representatives from going overboard. In a time of strong growth, when inflation might loom large, this would make more sense. With deep recession all around, though, this negative vision hardly excites anyone.
Obama and the Past
On daily kos I posted a poll, way back on September 14, on the closest parallel in US election history to the current one. The clear winner was 1932: FDR's win over Herbert Hoover was the election readers of my diary selected as the one most like this one in its framing and result. I was somewhat surprised by that result, but as the days passed the group's wisdom has become more apparent--both the severity of the economic crisis as backdrop, and the possibility of a landslide.
1992 also recommends itself--a Bush goes down, "it's the economy, stupid"--and it's recent enough that most of us may actually remember the event. Both 1992 and 1932 were wins over Republican incumbents, not the case here.
I remember 1976, where Carter defeated Ford. Technically, Ford was the incumbent, but like this election, the hapless Republican candidate was really only the repository of the anger at the failures of his predecessor. As I've said before, Obama would do really well to speak at length with Jimmy Carter. I understand why he wouldn't have done it before the election, but (assuming he wins, of course) now would be the time.
In 1828, there was a call for vindication after a stolen previous election: John Q. Adams had taken it from Andrew Jackson in the House of Representatives (basically, due to the assistance of the 3rd-place candidate in the general election, Henry Clay). If/when Obama wins, there will be a similar feeling of redemption to Jackson's landslide in 1828. The difference being, of course, that it was really the 2000 election that was stolen, the vindication should've been in 2004, and it should've been Al Gore (or maybe Hillary Clinton) running.
One election I omitted from my list of 10 or so elections to consider for comparison in my poll (including a couple that Republicans won) was 1860, when a lanky, transplanted Illinoisan came from political nowhere to capture first, the nomination, then the general election, in a bitterly divided nation. This one, I hope, will be different in the follow-up: though I do expect some nasty sentiments to be expressed among the supporters of the losing candidate, I don't expect immediate calls for secession from the Union.
For those who expect Obama to parallel Lincoln's Team of Rivals, I'd point out that the only Democrat named to his cabinet was Navy Secretary Gideon Welles, that he was basically a token, and it was mainly his rivals for the nomination that Lincoln invited in (still a break from tradition). Biden he's already taken care of--look for Richardson, Dodd, and Hillary to get invites (also Kucinich, maybe?), and a variety of Republicans. Most of the Republicans and Hillary will decline; I'm thinking Richard Lugar may take a senior job.
Finally, for those who believe in the parallels with the Roman Empire (I'm one, for sure), I recommend consideration of the ascension to the royal toga of Emperor Hadrian, the first non-Italian-born ruler of the Empire. OK, Obama was born in the US (contrary to some stupid rumor-mongering I've seen on the Web), but it was Hawaii, and he is ethnically quite different from all the white European males who've preceded him (again, I've seen some pretty crazy Internet postings suggesting there have been three or four predecessors with African-American blood). Hadrian was actually the third of "the good Emperors", whereas, at best, Obama would be the first (Nerva was the first "good one", according to the history books). What I'm hoping is that he won't be the last.
Poised at The Edge of History
That is our guy, for sure. Obama is in a position to make history, and he sure is poised. I feel he is entirely worthy of the position he is in, but I'm not quite as sure about what will be the content of the history which is to follow.
We are going to be disappointed, that is for certain. It's best we accept that now and come to terms with that reality.
If he doesn't win, though, there is going to be major strife. The effort to dampen expectations on the size of his lead has largely failed; our hope is that no one dares meddle with the result, not that no one is able to do so.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Filling the Straight
Several pundits have suggested that McCain's attempt to win Pennsylvania, and thereby the election, is the electoral equivalent of the losing poker play, trying to "fill the inside straight".
It's actually worse than that: McCain is trying to get a straight in draw poker with the 4, 6, 7, drawing two cards. Getting the unlikely "5"--Pennsylvania--would still require him to get a 3 or 8 to win.
Here's why, and starting from our 291-200, with 47 (FL/OH) toss-up scenario. McCain would have to do all the following, starting from the most likely:
1) Win all those states like MT, GA, ND that he should be winning and is narrowly ahead.
2) Win those three big perennially-red states that I call "leaning McCain"--IN, NC, and MO--but are polling about even.
3) Win both Ohio and Florida, the two (large) states that look like true toss-ups to me still today. They are historically close, both parties have fully mobilized, and the polls are consistently close this time around, too. Both have shown narrow leads for Obama in recent days, Ohio's maybe a tad larger, but somewhat more unreliably.
4) Win Pennsylvania. The polling gap has closed from safe Obama to slightly nervous Obama--a lead of about 7 points, just about the margin of error in these polls.
All four of these successes would leave McCain at 268 Electoral Votes, to Obama's 270. McCain would still need:
5) To steal a state which has a lead for Obama larger than the margin of error. Most likely candidates would be NV, VA, CO, or NH.
If it were just 5), this would hardly be impossible--probably a 25% chance for one of them. However, winning Pennsylvania is about like drawing a '5'--a 1-in-13 chance. Combined, a 1-in-52 chance, about 2%--it makes the 9-10% odds for McCain on Rasmussen or CNN Markets look way overstated.
As for the cards, getting a '5' and a '3' or '8' (independent of the cards already dealt out) would be a 1/13 * 2/13 * 2 (cause the order could be either). That's 4-in-169, or about 2.4%.
It's actually worse than that: McCain is trying to get a straight in draw poker with the 4, 6, 7, drawing two cards. Getting the unlikely "5"--Pennsylvania--would still require him to get a 3 or 8 to win.
Here's why, and starting from our 291-200, with 47 (FL/OH) toss-up scenario. McCain would have to do all the following, starting from the most likely:
1) Win all those states like MT, GA, ND that he should be winning and is narrowly ahead.
2) Win those three big perennially-red states that I call "leaning McCain"--IN, NC, and MO--but are polling about even.
3) Win both Ohio and Florida, the two (large) states that look like true toss-ups to me still today. They are historically close, both parties have fully mobilized, and the polls are consistently close this time around, too. Both have shown narrow leads for Obama in recent days, Ohio's maybe a tad larger, but somewhat more unreliably.
4) Win Pennsylvania. The polling gap has closed from safe Obama to slightly nervous Obama--a lead of about 7 points, just about the margin of error in these polls.
All four of these successes would leave McCain at 268 Electoral Votes, to Obama's 270. McCain would still need:
5) To steal a state which has a lead for Obama larger than the margin of error. Most likely candidates would be NV, VA, CO, or NH.
If it were just 5), this would hardly be impossible--probably a 25% chance for one of them. However, winning Pennsylvania is about like drawing a '5'--a 1-in-13 chance. Combined, a 1-in-52 chance, about 2%--it makes the 9-10% odds for McCain on Rasmussen or CNN Markets look way overstated.
As for the cards, getting a '5' and a '3' or '8' (independent of the cards already dealt out) would be a 1/13 * 2/13 * 2 (cause the order could be either). That's 4-in-169, or about 2.4%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
