Before we got totally distracted by the looming election, our last post on sports left off just before the beginning of the baseball playoffs. Our Reds incredibly failed to convert on a two-game lead over the Giants with three home games, providing just the boost the San Franciscans needed to go on and win the pennant and the world championship. My preseason pick, the Detroit Tigers, also went down meekly before the Giants; their key failure was somehow losing the first game of the World Series when they had the world's best pitcher, Justin Verlander, and faced retread #4 starter Barry Zito. Congratulations to the Giants--and their smoke and mirrors!
We are excited about the new college and NBA basketball seasons, we will ignore the absence once again of NHL games, and we are somewhat dismayed by Chelsea's recent form in Premier and Champions League play, but, inevitably, this time of year we have to talk about football (American) a little. I am watching more games this year and enjoying them more, though I have more than a few complaints about what I'm seeing.
The Luck of the Irish
I was preparing to write the article I usually prepare this time of year about how the BCS screwed up, once again, and how their championship game would be unfair to someone. In this year's case, it appeared to be Notre Dame. With Kansas State and Oregon unbeaten and clearly ranked 1-2, and Notre Dame and Alabama (the best team, in spite of their upset loss the previous week to Texas A&M) destined to be outside looking in on the BCS biggie, it appeared the expansion of the championship to four teams, announced earlier this fall, was going to be a year too late.
What I did not expect--what no one expected--was that Saturday night both K-State and Oregon would fall from the ranks of the unbeaten. Kansas St. was thoroughly trounced by an eager Baylor team, while Stanford proved that, while the Cardinal can't quite maintain the consistency needed for a top ranking, it can beat anybody on a given day.
So, Notre Dame--which is unbeaten, has played some tough teams but has had more than its share of narrow, even lucky, wins against teams both good and bad--is now the only major college team that is undefeated and bowl-eligible (Ohio State has chosen to take its postseason ban this year), and would look to play (and probably get beaten by) Alabama in the championship game. One hurdle remains for each: Notre Dame must defeat their perennial nemesis, USC, and Alabama will need to win its SEC championship game (against Georgia or Florida).
USC has had a very difficult season, falling from a high early season ranking, and most recently being shown up by crosstown rival UCLA, and their star quarterback Matt Barkley will not be playing vs. Notre Dame, but I would not exclude the possibility of a win by the Trojans. They will be at home, and Notre Dame has often come up short against USC, especially when they really needed to win. As for Alabama, usually they look like world-beaters, but they did not that day (at home!) against Texas A&M, a team that has just moved into the SEC and has a tangled history with Alabama, having to do with various sainted coaches like Bear Bryant who started out there. It looks like the beginning of a great, renewed rivalry.
A&M's move into the SEC is hardly the worst of the new conference shake-out moves; look at the Big East, which will have a Western division entirely made up of schools west of the Mississippi, or the Big 10, which now has 14 teams (so which are the small 4, I wonder?) committed to it, due to adding Midwestern powerhouses Rutgers and Maryland. The Big 12 (formerly the Big 8) is down to 10, so it loses its prized conference championship. Notre Dame has committed to the ACC for everything except football, though it will play five games a year against ACC teams (should be better for their record than tough games with teams like Michigan and Michigan State). It's hard to tell which conferences are gaining and which are losing out, really: I think the Pac-12 and SEC are doing well, but I'm not sure about the rest. The Big 10 might seem to be doing well, but between postseason bans for its best teams (Ohio State and Penn State) and switching around, they will have one of the worst representatives in a BCS spot reserved for their league. A pox on all of them!
NFL: Who's Left Standing, Conscious?
Comments about "the product": I see an arms race between a desperate effort to use rules to protect quarterbacks from blind-side hits and defenses getting better and better at all-out pass rush. I see the evolution of fumbles from ballcarriers dropping the ball to defensive strategies which feature "tacklers" who don't tackle but punch at the midsection of the ballcarriers to try to loosen their hold so they can rip the ball out of their hands. The efforts to try to reduce the damage from concussions look more like trying to reduce future lawsuit damages than anything resembling real concern for safety and health. The most important game situation these days is often the judgement of the official in the replay booth looking at the super-slow motion to figure out whether the ball was completely ripped out of the rusher's arms before his knee touched the ground.
Still, despite the developing problems with the product and the feeling that the whole enterprise is doomed, interest remains high. There is both enough parity to make the outcome of almost any game in doubt before it starts, but there is also enough quality that some teams rise above mediocrity. There will be some new teams in the playoffs (49ers and Texans would be the current favorites to meet in the Super Bowl) and plenty of familiar faces as well (Green Bay, New Orleans have overcome poor early-season records and look dangerous, while Peyton Manning has re-emerged with Denver). Ratings should be good.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Israel Hamas: Round X
The renewal of hostilities between Israel and Hamas, the bosses of the largely ungoverned Gaza territory, adds to the difficulty of a complex, intractable situation. Israel has put up with indiscriminate Hamas-sponsored rocket attacks on their homeland for too long. President Obama has tried to respond constructively--in particular, he has dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to try to seek a cease-fire. Obama is probably grateful to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for holding off until the election was over.
As for Netanyahu, no doubt the offensive will provide a little extra boost to his party's performance in upcoming Likud elections, though he already seemed to be headed for re-election. The Israeli military has had a good amount of time to prepare a set of targets for a limited campaign of shock and awe; there is no need to go forward with the actual threatened ground invasion, which would be counterproductive.
It is beyond the Israelis' power to eliminate Hamas from Gaza, much as they would like to do that. Hamas has deep roots in the suffering populace, and the more Israel demonizes them, the more the people will support them. The real danger to Hamas was continuation of the peace under the unfavorable conditions that prevail there, because it makes clear the limitations of their self-governance under the current scheme.
There are many other players with a stake in this game, though. The Israel-Hamas confrontation marginalizes the Al Fatah leadership which controls the West Bank, at least for the time being. Their big production, arranging for the U.N. General Assembly to recognize them as the representatives of a sovereign state, will not have the desired effect--focusing the world's attention on their bid for statehood--when their rivals are in active resistance against the Israelis. Egypt's new President Morsi has to back Hamas, which like his own party is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, by providing them humanitarian aid, at the least, but he must also strive for peace or lose the backing of the US, which provides billions of aid annually and has no doubt put continuation of that aid at stake on his cooperation.
The new regional powerhouse, Turkey, also has the capability to become involved, as they have relations with both parties. The Turks seem to have a role in all of the Mideast's issues, and they would no doubt like the world's attention to move from Israel-Hamas back to addressing the problems of Syria, as the civil war there affects Turkey much more directly.
I am optimistic that all this mess will lead somewhere, which is more than can be said for the stale impasse of the last couple of years. The US will need to find a new emissary: Secretary Clinton wants out and looks tired. Israel actually has a potential Palestinian party with which it could negotiate in the current Al Fatah leadership, though it has been reluctant to engage (the Israelis say, "we have been willing to negotiate without preconditions", but don't seem to have actually made any effort to do so). I feel that Hamas may agree to allow Egypt to represent them in direct negotiations with Al Fatah, and then with Israel. Bad as this current situation is, it at least broke up the stasis of the last couple of years.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/15/assassinate-first-invade-later.html
As for Netanyahu, no doubt the offensive will provide a little extra boost to his party's performance in upcoming Likud elections, though he already seemed to be headed for re-election. The Israeli military has had a good amount of time to prepare a set of targets for a limited campaign of shock and awe; there is no need to go forward with the actual threatened ground invasion, which would be counterproductive.
It is beyond the Israelis' power to eliminate Hamas from Gaza, much as they would like to do that. Hamas has deep roots in the suffering populace, and the more Israel demonizes them, the more the people will support them. The real danger to Hamas was continuation of the peace under the unfavorable conditions that prevail there, because it makes clear the limitations of their self-governance under the current scheme.
There are many other players with a stake in this game, though. The Israel-Hamas confrontation marginalizes the Al Fatah leadership which controls the West Bank, at least for the time being. Their big production, arranging for the U.N. General Assembly to recognize them as the representatives of a sovereign state, will not have the desired effect--focusing the world's attention on their bid for statehood--when their rivals are in active resistance against the Israelis. Egypt's new President Morsi has to back Hamas, which like his own party is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, by providing them humanitarian aid, at the least, but he must also strive for peace or lose the backing of the US, which provides billions of aid annually and has no doubt put continuation of that aid at stake on his cooperation.
The new regional powerhouse, Turkey, also has the capability to become involved, as they have relations with both parties. The Turks seem to have a role in all of the Mideast's issues, and they would no doubt like the world's attention to move from Israel-Hamas back to addressing the problems of Syria, as the civil war there affects Turkey much more directly.
I am optimistic that all this mess will lead somewhere, which is more than can be said for the stale impasse of the last couple of years. The US will need to find a new emissary: Secretary Clinton wants out and looks tired. Israel actually has a potential Palestinian party with which it could negotiate in the current Al Fatah leadership, though it has been reluctant to engage (the Israelis say, "we have been willing to negotiate without preconditions", but don't seem to have actually made any effort to do so). I feel that Hamas may agree to allow Egypt to represent them in direct negotiations with Al Fatah, and then with Israel. Bad as this current situation is, it at least broke up the stasis of the last couple of years.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/15/assassinate-first-invade-later.html
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Talking Them Down from the Cliff
Oftentimes when I see a great cliff giving a precipitous drop down to the sea, I am surprised to see people down by the water bathing or sunning in privacy--think of the Amalfi coast, or Big Sur, Hawaii, or Cabo. It turns out that there was a way down from the heights, after all--without jumping or falling. It just takes clear eyesight and the patience to work one's way down.
When the deal was made some 16 months ago which led ultimately to the current Federal government predicament, in which major tax increases and substantial, rather indiscriminate cuts in spending will occur unless there is some legislative remedy, I was not one of those who was particularly critical of President Obama for making the deal. I didn't remember being that harsh on the deal itself (though now that I re-read the post, I gave it a D-) . I anticipated that there would be no intervening agreement, that it would indeed come to this, but I didn't think the automatic spending cuts and tax increases it stipulated as the default, should there be no future agreement, would be that harmful--it would at least address the growing debt problem.
Now, though, it is clear that austerity is not the right solution for the country at this time. There is a recovery, somewhat fragile, that could be snuffed out by tax increases and spending cuts. There is the example of Europe, for which the austerity programs have brought only increased strife and recession, or at least the expectation of it. So, it is still appropriate to put off the tax cuts for a while yet again. I think that will be the part of a package to set fiscal policy for upcoming years that should be the easiest to approve.
Just when the tax cuts should end, and which should end sooner--that's the hard part. Obama laid down his marker today--just give me the extension of the tax cut for the middle class and I will sign it--and Speaker Boehner has laid down his: no tax increase for "small businesses" (read: high-income taxpayers), no "delinking" of the tax cuts between the middle class ones and the high-income ones. Obama claims that the voters ratified his policy of higher taxes for the wealthy, but not for the middle class; Boehner claims the voters returned his House majority for no tax increase for "job creators".
For any deal, Obama will need to thread the needle: pull together the Democrats, get a few Republican Senators to go along (it would be too much to try to get Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to agree to anything--he is watching his back for 2014 and will hold a hard line), and get Speaker John Boehner and enough Republican Representatives to ensure passage. The last will be the hardest part, as Boehner will have to tread a fine line between what can be agreed and what will undermine his leadership of his party's caucus.
There are two strategies Obama could use to try to resolve the impasse. The power play would be to insist on ending the tax cuts for the wealthy and preserving those for those less wealthy, going to the public to get support for his position. It wouldn't happen quickly, though: Obama would have to be willing to play to the brink, and let tax cuts end in January. Then, when the pain is visible throughout America in the reductions in take-home pay, if Obama has played his cards right, the outcry would force the Republicans to give ground. The finesse play is to maintain the tax rates, allow the payroll tax cuts to phase out over time, but try to achieve the necessary revenue increases through elimination of tax-favored income (such as capital gains, dividends, and the carry interest) and reducing deductions for upper-income taxpayers.
The latter approach is the one that will be more readily acceptable to Republicans in Congress, but it will be difficult to achieve the revenue increases that are needed for the "balanced approach" on which Obama will insist (roughly, $1 trillion over ten years, starting small and growing over time) purely through these methods. Also, there is a legitimate question whether increasing taxes on some of these investment-oriented "tax expenditures" like capital gains and dividends, or maintaining corporate tax rates at their current high level would be a healthy thing for the economy. For this reason, I would tend to go the other way, and urge the gradual relaxation of the tax cuts (increase in tax rates), even for the "middle class", but on different schedules for the wealthiest (over $1 million income), the upper-income, and the middle class. If Obama can achieve some agreement on this approach in the next two months, without going over the edge, it will be a huge victory for all.
Some deductions that serve no policy purpose (such as for the expenses of moving jobs overseas, a poster child for the need for tax reforms) and loopholes set up for a privileged few should be phased out or eliminated, but most deductions are there for a good reason and should be preserved. The mortgage interest deduction is not so well justified, but it will be impossible, and inadvisable given the beginning of recovery for the housing market, to do more than cut it a little around the edges (cap on the deductible interest, gradual reduction of the deduction for second homes, etc.) I am not in favor of any approach that tries to solve the problem by adding to the tax burden on the lower classes, such as a VAT or flatter tax. As for the end of the payroll tax reduction, that could be preserved through finesse, by eliminating the cap on the payroll tax for Social Security, which currently kicks in the low six-digit incomes.
Once the question of who gets gored when with additional taxes, the rest of the deal is not so hard to describe. The "sequestration" cuts across the board in social programs and defense will be replaced with specific cuts that can be identified and worked out. The big "entitlement programs"--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--can have cost improvements identified, but it will take years, not months, to work out how those would occur. The outlines of this deal can and should be worked out now, with the lame duck Congress, though many details will be sorted out in the next Congress. The key things for now are: agreement on the 3-to-1 cuts to revenue ratio, the dates when revenue increases will come, agreement on the debt ceiling for the next year or so, and agreement on the distribution of targeted cuts by department.
I am optimistic that some progress will be made over the next few weeks, and I am pulling for Speaker Boehner to succeed in his difficult task: if he gives too many accommodations to the Democrats, the Republican rank-and-file will overthrow him, and the resulting leadership (Eric Cantor & Paul Ryan), who are more than willing to take him down, would renew the impasse. For this reason, I think Obama should go slowly in attacking the Republicans, and the progressives who pushed Obama over the top once again this year should be patient--at least until it is clear that the "good cop" approach can not succeed.
When the deal was made some 16 months ago which led ultimately to the current Federal government predicament, in which major tax increases and substantial, rather indiscriminate cuts in spending will occur unless there is some legislative remedy, I was not one of those who was particularly critical of President Obama for making the deal. I didn't remember being that harsh on the deal itself (though now that I re-read the post, I gave it a D-) . I anticipated that there would be no intervening agreement, that it would indeed come to this, but I didn't think the automatic spending cuts and tax increases it stipulated as the default, should there be no future agreement, would be that harmful--it would at least address the growing debt problem.
Now, though, it is clear that austerity is not the right solution for the country at this time. There is a recovery, somewhat fragile, that could be snuffed out by tax increases and spending cuts. There is the example of Europe, for which the austerity programs have brought only increased strife and recession, or at least the expectation of it. So, it is still appropriate to put off the tax cuts for a while yet again. I think that will be the part of a package to set fiscal policy for upcoming years that should be the easiest to approve.
Just when the tax cuts should end, and which should end sooner--that's the hard part. Obama laid down his marker today--just give me the extension of the tax cut for the middle class and I will sign it--and Speaker Boehner has laid down his: no tax increase for "small businesses" (read: high-income taxpayers), no "delinking" of the tax cuts between the middle class ones and the high-income ones. Obama claims that the voters ratified his policy of higher taxes for the wealthy, but not for the middle class; Boehner claims the voters returned his House majority for no tax increase for "job creators".
For any deal, Obama will need to thread the needle: pull together the Democrats, get a few Republican Senators to go along (it would be too much to try to get Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to agree to anything--he is watching his back for 2014 and will hold a hard line), and get Speaker John Boehner and enough Republican Representatives to ensure passage. The last will be the hardest part, as Boehner will have to tread a fine line between what can be agreed and what will undermine his leadership of his party's caucus.
There are two strategies Obama could use to try to resolve the impasse. The power play would be to insist on ending the tax cuts for the wealthy and preserving those for those less wealthy, going to the public to get support for his position. It wouldn't happen quickly, though: Obama would have to be willing to play to the brink, and let tax cuts end in January. Then, when the pain is visible throughout America in the reductions in take-home pay, if Obama has played his cards right, the outcry would force the Republicans to give ground. The finesse play is to maintain the tax rates, allow the payroll tax cuts to phase out over time, but try to achieve the necessary revenue increases through elimination of tax-favored income (such as capital gains, dividends, and the carry interest) and reducing deductions for upper-income taxpayers.
The latter approach is the one that will be more readily acceptable to Republicans in Congress, but it will be difficult to achieve the revenue increases that are needed for the "balanced approach" on which Obama will insist (roughly, $1 trillion over ten years, starting small and growing over time) purely through these methods. Also, there is a legitimate question whether increasing taxes on some of these investment-oriented "tax expenditures" like capital gains and dividends, or maintaining corporate tax rates at their current high level would be a healthy thing for the economy. For this reason, I would tend to go the other way, and urge the gradual relaxation of the tax cuts (increase in tax rates), even for the "middle class", but on different schedules for the wealthiest (over $1 million income), the upper-income, and the middle class. If Obama can achieve some agreement on this approach in the next two months, without going over the edge, it will be a huge victory for all.
Some deductions that serve no policy purpose (such as for the expenses of moving jobs overseas, a poster child for the need for tax reforms) and loopholes set up for a privileged few should be phased out or eliminated, but most deductions are there for a good reason and should be preserved. The mortgage interest deduction is not so well justified, but it will be impossible, and inadvisable given the beginning of recovery for the housing market, to do more than cut it a little around the edges (cap on the deductible interest, gradual reduction of the deduction for second homes, etc.) I am not in favor of any approach that tries to solve the problem by adding to the tax burden on the lower classes, such as a VAT or flatter tax. As for the end of the payroll tax reduction, that could be preserved through finesse, by eliminating the cap on the payroll tax for Social Security, which currently kicks in the low six-digit incomes.
Once the question of who gets gored when with additional taxes, the rest of the deal is not so hard to describe. The "sequestration" cuts across the board in social programs and defense will be replaced with specific cuts that can be identified and worked out. The big "entitlement programs"--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--can have cost improvements identified, but it will take years, not months, to work out how those would occur. The outlines of this deal can and should be worked out now, with the lame duck Congress, though many details will be sorted out in the next Congress. The key things for now are: agreement on the 3-to-1 cuts to revenue ratio, the dates when revenue increases will come, agreement on the debt ceiling for the next year or so, and agreement on the distribution of targeted cuts by department.
I am optimistic that some progress will be made over the next few weeks, and I am pulling for Speaker Boehner to succeed in his difficult task: if he gives too many accommodations to the Democrats, the Republican rank-and-file will overthrow him, and the resulting leadership (Eric Cantor & Paul Ryan), who are more than willing to take him down, would renew the impasse. For this reason, I think Obama should go slowly in attacking the Republicans, and the progressives who pushed Obama over the top once again this year should be patient--at least until it is clear that the "good cop" approach can not succeed.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Warrior-Hero Petraeus Falls on His Sword
The resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus has provided a shock to post-election Washington today. Petraeus, who was the hero of the surge in Iraq, literally wrote the book on counter-terrorism for the US military, and led the Afghanistan effort for the allies as well before returning stateside to head the CIA, resigned because of an extra-marital affair that was about to become publicly known.
To me, there is something a little fishy about the resignation and its timing. Of course, a CIA Director should have impeccable behavior, so as not to attract trouble, attention, or, especially, blackmailers. That's exactly what's fishy about it, though: the blackmail threat depends on the CIA Director trying to keep the affair secret. Once it's out in the public, that danger is reduced. And, while we should all behave ourselves and obey our marriage vows, adultery is not sufficient ground--even in the shark tank of Washington--to force a powerful, popular military hero like Petraeus to have to resign his position.
What I have heard today is that his lover, a glamorous woman who is his official biographer, may have--I repeat, may have--had private access to classified documents. There is apparently an FBI investigation of this possibility. Actually, I don't find this very unusual, except for the fact that Petraeus, as CIA Director, is not supposed to have any life or privacy.
One could conclude that this is another case of how the fishbowl in Washington tends to make life in it untenable for normal people, but there is a wrinkle, a story that is not quite emerging. I got a hint of it in the days before the election, when I read in one of the blogs that compiles political news that Mitt Romney's silence on The Benghazi Affair in the last days was not due to his inability to make a coherent attack on the Administration's behavior before, during, or after it, but because he had been advised--in his confidential briefings on national security which he, as the nominee of a major party, had been receiving--that the Libya story would end up principally faulting Petraeus' CIA, rather than Obama and the State Department. Romney, according to the story, did not want to take on Petraeus, a presumed Republican (though that may not be correct) and certainly a figure of popular respect, so he had gone silent on the issue, though many in his party were eager for him to continue his attacks in the final days of the campaign.
I didn't credit the story at the time: Romney had backed off his hawkish critique of Obama at the foreign policy debate, and, after twice putting his foot in his mouth about Benghazi, it made sense to me for him to keep quiet, regardless of where the story was going. It now appears to me, though, that Petraeus knew his days were numbered because of Benghazi, and with his private behavior compromised, decided it was the right time to end his public service and avoid putting everyone through the wringer. That painful experience will apparently fall to Michael Morell, a long-time intelligence pro who will be the acting CIA Director and apparently is a good candidate for accountability. If Morell can successfully defend the Agency's actions in Libya, I'm guessing he would earn the job permanently.
I like the ring of this title--sounds like something from the Iliad.
To me, there is something a little fishy about the resignation and its timing. Of course, a CIA Director should have impeccable behavior, so as not to attract trouble, attention, or, especially, blackmailers. That's exactly what's fishy about it, though: the blackmail threat depends on the CIA Director trying to keep the affair secret. Once it's out in the public, that danger is reduced. And, while we should all behave ourselves and obey our marriage vows, adultery is not sufficient ground--even in the shark tank of Washington--to force a powerful, popular military hero like Petraeus to have to resign his position.
What I have heard today is that his lover, a glamorous woman who is his official biographer, may have--I repeat, may have--had private access to classified documents. There is apparently an FBI investigation of this possibility. Actually, I don't find this very unusual, except for the fact that Petraeus, as CIA Director, is not supposed to have any life or privacy.
One could conclude that this is another case of how the fishbowl in Washington tends to make life in it untenable for normal people, but there is a wrinkle, a story that is not quite emerging. I got a hint of it in the days before the election, when I read in one of the blogs that compiles political news that Mitt Romney's silence on The Benghazi Affair in the last days was not due to his inability to make a coherent attack on the Administration's behavior before, during, or after it, but because he had been advised--in his confidential briefings on national security which he, as the nominee of a major party, had been receiving--that the Libya story would end up principally faulting Petraeus' CIA, rather than Obama and the State Department. Romney, according to the story, did not want to take on Petraeus, a presumed Republican (though that may not be correct) and certainly a figure of popular respect, so he had gone silent on the issue, though many in his party were eager for him to continue his attacks in the final days of the campaign.
I didn't credit the story at the time: Romney had backed off his hawkish critique of Obama at the foreign policy debate, and, after twice putting his foot in his mouth about Benghazi, it made sense to me for him to keep quiet, regardless of where the story was going. It now appears to me, though, that Petraeus knew his days were numbered because of Benghazi, and with his private behavior compromised, decided it was the right time to end his public service and avoid putting everyone through the wringer. That painful experience will apparently fall to Michael Morell, a long-time intelligence pro who will be the acting CIA Director and apparently is a good candidate for accountability. If Morell can successfully defend the Agency's actions in Libya, I'm guessing he would earn the job permanently.
I like the ring of this title--sounds like something from the Iliad.
Electoral Recap
The 2012 election results were an eloquent response to the shellacking the Democrats suffered in the 2010 midterm elections. In terms of response to the legislative miasma that followed, and to the political challenge which the Republican resurgence presented, the needle on the political meter shifted back toward the historic 2008 result.
Which is not to say that all was restored. In voting for the House of Representatives, Democrats nationally had a small advantage, but the net result of the redistricting after 2010 and the census that year gave the Republicans a structural advantage in this election. Seven races remain undecided at this point, but the results indicate the final Republican advantage will be 235-200, a pickup of seven seats nationally for the Democrats, but far short of the objective.
In the Senate, it was the Republicans who fell short. Presented with a golden opportunity to reclaim control, the Republicans failed to capture Democratic seats in 22 of 23 seats (Nebraska was their only pickup), while the Democrats gained in 3 of 10 (Massachusetts, Indiana, and--if the independent Senator-elect Angus King follows expectation--Maine). Instead of gaining the 3-4 seats that they needed, the Republicans lost two. Tea party extremist positions cost them in Missouri and Indiana, but that was not universally the case: more moderate Republicans went down to defeat in Massachusetts and Wisconsin. Montana was perhaps the most striking result, as a mainstream (that is to say, a conservative establishment) Republican lost narrowly to the incumbent moderate Democrat.
In the main event, the Democrats had the better candidate, better execution of its strategy, and President Obama obtained a surprisingly clear victory. After 2008, I declared the Obama campaign to be the best in the history of electoral politics; if anything, this year's accomplishment was even more impressive. The key successes of the Obama campaign were as follows: 1) Spending money early and successfully defining Romney as an out-of-touch elitist; 2) Identifying a rich crop of new supporters and getting them to turn out on election day; and 3) Tactics in the swing states, which ensured the Electoral College victory.
I am most impressed by 3), as the Obama-Biden ticket won all of the nine swing states except North Carolina and, of those identified as crucial for the shortest route to the winning 270 electoral votes, all were won by several points. The four closest states (besides the 2-point win for Romney in NC) were Florida, 1 point; Ohio, 2 points; Virginia, 3 points; and Colorado, 4.5 points. Much was made of Ohio, and in the event, it was the call for Ohio which put Obama over the top, but actually the tipping point state --the closest state which Obama needed to win--was Colorado: even if Obama had lost Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, with Colorado he would have had 272 electoral votes. The other swing states were all won more easily, 5-6 point margins; that was quite an accomplishment.
The Republicans' many deficiencies were evident--the three largest were their failures to appeal to women and to Latinos, and a totally wrong-headed strategy to try to suppress votes in the swing states. Suppression totally backfired--they were defeated in every court case, and the effort backfired and got many additional African-Americans to show up, stand in line for whatever time was needed, and vote for Obama. In retrospect, I don't think Romney was that bad of a candidate for them--all of his competitors in the primaries were far worse in terms of their potential in a general election--though his campaign direction was not so good. Romney's Etch-a-Sketch approach to rewriting his positions in the latter stages of the campaign actually worked fairly well with low-information ndependents, who were somehow convinced by his moderate-sounding positions in the debates after much more radical positions in the primary. He suffered a little from conveying a general, and accurate, impression of untrustworthiness, of being an empty suit--what did he really believe?--but it didn't hurt him much with the party base at the end, as they had nowhere else to go.
At the end of the day, the Republicans and their supporters spent an incredible amount of money unwisely. That is encouraging on the one hand (more money does not equal victory), but, on the other, may make it harder to convince the public that this campaign financing system is unworkable.
First Look at 2016
For the Democrats, it will be Hillary Clinton's nomination if she wants it. She says she doesn't, but that kind of opportunity is hard to resist, particularly for someone who has tried for the golden ring in the past. If she doesn't run, it will probably be between Biden (who will be 73) and Gov. Cuomo of New York; I like Cuomo's chances in that race, as Democrats will want to continue the momentum of attracting post-Boomers and millennials, and Cuomo has been a successful governor.
For the Republicans, Chris Christie of New Jersey is one that many fancy, but I do not: the Republicans will not forgive his cozying up to Obama in the last days of the campaign on the relief effort, after Superstorm Sandy, and it will raise cynics' impression that Christie was already playing for '16 and was not a team player. I think they will be looking to change from both the establishment, Bushite candidates and the Tea Party-inflections of the past couple of years. I see Marco Rubio as the favorite, if personal issues with his past do not end up disqualifying him. Paul Ryan could be an effective challenger to Rubio, in a primary campaign which could be a huge improvement over this year's dismaying show.
Which is not to say that all was restored. In voting for the House of Representatives, Democrats nationally had a small advantage, but the net result of the redistricting after 2010 and the census that year gave the Republicans a structural advantage in this election. Seven races remain undecided at this point, but the results indicate the final Republican advantage will be 235-200, a pickup of seven seats nationally for the Democrats, but far short of the objective.
In the Senate, it was the Republicans who fell short. Presented with a golden opportunity to reclaim control, the Republicans failed to capture Democratic seats in 22 of 23 seats (Nebraska was their only pickup), while the Democrats gained in 3 of 10 (Massachusetts, Indiana, and--if the independent Senator-elect Angus King follows expectation--Maine). Instead of gaining the 3-4 seats that they needed, the Republicans lost two. Tea party extremist positions cost them in Missouri and Indiana, but that was not universally the case: more moderate Republicans went down to defeat in Massachusetts and Wisconsin. Montana was perhaps the most striking result, as a mainstream (that is to say, a conservative establishment) Republican lost narrowly to the incumbent moderate Democrat.
In the main event, the Democrats had the better candidate, better execution of its strategy, and President Obama obtained a surprisingly clear victory. After 2008, I declared the Obama campaign to be the best in the history of electoral politics; if anything, this year's accomplishment was even more impressive. The key successes of the Obama campaign were as follows: 1) Spending money early and successfully defining Romney as an out-of-touch elitist; 2) Identifying a rich crop of new supporters and getting them to turn out on election day; and 3) Tactics in the swing states, which ensured the Electoral College victory.
I am most impressed by 3), as the Obama-Biden ticket won all of the nine swing states except North Carolina and, of those identified as crucial for the shortest route to the winning 270 electoral votes, all were won by several points. The four closest states (besides the 2-point win for Romney in NC) were Florida, 1 point; Ohio, 2 points; Virginia, 3 points; and Colorado, 4.5 points. Much was made of Ohio, and in the event, it was the call for Ohio which put Obama over the top, but actually the tipping point state --the closest state which Obama needed to win--was Colorado: even if Obama had lost Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, with Colorado he would have had 272 electoral votes. The other swing states were all won more easily, 5-6 point margins; that was quite an accomplishment.
The Republicans' many deficiencies were evident--the three largest were their failures to appeal to women and to Latinos, and a totally wrong-headed strategy to try to suppress votes in the swing states. Suppression totally backfired--they were defeated in every court case, and the effort backfired and got many additional African-Americans to show up, stand in line for whatever time was needed, and vote for Obama. In retrospect, I don't think Romney was that bad of a candidate for them--all of his competitors in the primaries were far worse in terms of their potential in a general election--though his campaign direction was not so good. Romney's Etch-a-Sketch approach to rewriting his positions in the latter stages of the campaign actually worked fairly well with low-information ndependents, who were somehow convinced by his moderate-sounding positions in the debates after much more radical positions in the primary. He suffered a little from conveying a general, and accurate, impression of untrustworthiness, of being an empty suit--what did he really believe?--but it didn't hurt him much with the party base at the end, as they had nowhere else to go.
At the end of the day, the Republicans and their supporters spent an incredible amount of money unwisely. That is encouraging on the one hand (more money does not equal victory), but, on the other, may make it harder to convince the public that this campaign financing system is unworkable.
First Look at 2016
For the Democrats, it will be Hillary Clinton's nomination if she wants it. She says she doesn't, but that kind of opportunity is hard to resist, particularly for someone who has tried for the golden ring in the past. If she doesn't run, it will probably be between Biden (who will be 73) and Gov. Cuomo of New York; I like Cuomo's chances in that race, as Democrats will want to continue the momentum of attracting post-Boomers and millennials, and Cuomo has been a successful governor.
For the Republicans, Chris Christie of New Jersey is one that many fancy, but I do not: the Republicans will not forgive his cozying up to Obama in the last days of the campaign on the relief effort, after Superstorm Sandy, and it will raise cynics' impression that Christie was already playing for '16 and was not a team player. I think they will be looking to change from both the establishment, Bushite candidates and the Tea Party-inflections of the past couple of years. I see Marco Rubio as the favorite, if personal issues with his past do not end up disqualifying him. Paul Ryan could be an effective challenger to Rubio, in a primary campaign which could be a huge improvement over this year's dismaying show.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Election Night
5:00 p.m. Central time. No score.
I'll be switching back and forth between CNN and Fox News tonight. Fox will be covering the same set of facts, and I will be interested to hear what they say.
I kept busy most of the day to keep me from going crazy--went to the gym, slow lunch, etc. I did turn on CNN an hour ago--it was amusing, as always to see Carville and Matalin talk at and past each other. Matalin seems to be hinting that the CNN exit poll is showing strong (popular vote) for Romney--something they will not tell us. Nice hairdo, Mary--no, seriously.
5:10 p.m. Gergen made a good point, that the exit polls in 2004 suggested Kerry would win the election. This is one reason why they don't want to talk about what the total results of the Presidential contest are.
5:39 p.m. This is probably the toughest hour: the news teams are all "fired up and ready to go" (the Obama pep talk phrase), but they have nothing to say yet.
I am watching two things closely in the states of Kentucky and Indiana, which are reporting part of their results (split by time zones): the Donnelly-Mourdock race for Senate in Indiana, and the race of Ben Chandler (D) in the House, trying to hold onto a moderate district near Lexington, in a state that is going to go big for Romney.
Intrade.com has it at 70-30 Obama, which tells me that there has been no leak of meaningful information. No movement yet.
6:16 p.m.CNN: Romney 8, Obama 3; Fox: Romney 19, Obama 3. Kentucky, Vermont (and Indiana, on Fox) called. Still not much to say, but John King had a nice factoid about Vigo County, Indiana (where Terre Haute is): the county has been in accord with the winner of the Presidential race all but twice in the last 125 years; last time it was wrong was 1952. And it's 49-49 with 78% of the county's vote in!
6:44 p.m. Romney 33, Obama 3. South Carolina and West Virginia called for Romney. No surprises yet--Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, all too close to call, though it sounded as though North Carolina is close to being called (for Romney, I presume). I'm kind of surprised Georgia is taking a while to call--maybe theyre just slow.
Donnelly now leading Mourdock; that would be a wrong prediction by me, but I'll gladly take it.
In a few minutes, a number of states will close their polls, and the game will finally get underway.
7:01 a.m. Obama 78, Romney 71 (Fox). Fox likes to call them quickly, but they haven't even listed the ones they just called--it was 49-3 Romney two minutes ago (with Georgia). Obama: IL, MA, DE, DC, CT, MD, NJ, RI, 3 of 4 in ME (!); Romney: AL, MS, OK.
Obama 64, Romney 40 (CNN). They haven't called GA, NJ, MS, AL. They added AR at some point.
It's beginning to look as though the provisional ballot problem in Ohio (they won't be released for 10 days, and there's a lot of them) could mean the state will not be called tonight. If my prediction (290-248) is right, and that will probably depend in particular on the close race in Colorado, then he may still be anointed the winner regardless of Ohio's 18 EV.
7:27 p.m. Romney 82, Obama 78 (Fox). They called TN for Romney--no issue there. Rove is on there trying to make the argument that the fragmentary indications in VA, FL, OH all favor Romney. His argument is that the swing counties have swung to Romney; Obama will have to make it up with turnout in the areas where he is strong.
8:00 p.m. Romney 152, Obama 123 (CNN). Romney: KS, LA, NE (3 of 5 so far), ND, SD, TX, WY, Obama: MI, NY (and MS, NJ, which they should've called a long time ago).
Romney 149, Obama 127 (Fox). I think Nebraska and Maine are the discrepancies, with the potential for splitting their votes.
8:15 p.m. Fox went to 149-147, the extra 20 is Pennsylvania! The fact they called it quickly is a very good sign for Obama. The Fox commentators are beginning to accept that, unless they get Ohio, they will not win. The "smart blonde" on there, whatever her name, is carping about the auto bailout issue and how Romney lost it. CNN has not called PA.
8:26 p.m. Obama 157, Romney 149. Fox calls Wisconsin for Obama. I saw on CNN that the Exit Poll there was 52-46 for Obama; not enough for CNN to call. CNN is being good about showing their exit poll results in states, while Fox is showing itself considerably more aggressive in calling races based on them, which is fine if they don't end up walking any of the states back. Based on Fox, Obama should win this election.
CNN is at 152-123, Romney, because they haven't called PA, WI. (Fox is now at 153-153; I think the extra 4 EV for Obama was a mistake?) They have some key results from swing counties in CO (Arapahoe, near Denver), that suggests he may win there.
8:48 p.m. Fox still at 153-153, CNN at 152-143 (they called PA). Big news is the pickup of Senate seats by Donnelly in IN and Elizabeth Warren in MA! Intrade.com has shifted to 94% for Obama, due to the shift in sentiment for Ohio (90% for Obama) and Florida (82% for Obama). In particular, Ohio's quote on Intrade dropped from 30% to 10% in the last hour.
9:00 p.m. Florida and Ohio are on the verge of being called for Obama, though they may stay there for awhile. NH called for Obama, UT for Romney. 158-147 Romney on CNN, 162-157 Romney on Fox. (Wisconsin the main difference.) Popular vote a little to Romney, but could shift when CA comes in. Rove still believes in Ohio for Romney, but isn't speaking about Florida.
9:50 p.m. 169-157 Romney (CNN); 174-173 Romney (Fox). CNN has called AZ for Romney, MN for Obama. IA, MO are counting slow; haven't been called. CNN is so focused on the Presidential race, I have heard nothing about the House--ever. Fox just made an announcement a while ago that the Republicans would keep control, though they do cycle House race data fairly continuously, without any comment.
10:05 p.m Obama 244-203 (Fox), Fox has called NC, MO, MT for Romney, but CA, WA, HI for Obama. 10:12 p.m. 18 votes just popped into Obama's column on Fox--must be...Ohio?
Yes! It's all over but the shouting. A great feat for Obama's campaign and for him.
CNN calls it at 10:18 p.m.
As for the Senate, there is still some doubt: Heidi Heitkamp is holding a tiny lead over Rick Berg in ND, which would be a great upset. Tammy Baldwin is holding a narrow lead in Wisconsin; I was calling it the other way, though Baldwin had been favored in recent days. Montana has just begun to count; it won't be decided for hours. Right now, Shelly Berkley is leading in Nevada, which could be a major upset. Tim Kaine picked up a big victory in Virginia. So the Democrats should end up with 2-3 seats more than the 51 that I projected.
In terms of the predictions, I think I did very well on the popular vote, though we will see. Nate Silver should take credit: he has had the 332-206 as the most probable Electoral vote, consistently, for months, and it may end up being exactly right. My mistakes appear to be Florida and Virginia.
I'll be switching back and forth between CNN and Fox News tonight. Fox will be covering the same set of facts, and I will be interested to hear what they say.
I kept busy most of the day to keep me from going crazy--went to the gym, slow lunch, etc. I did turn on CNN an hour ago--it was amusing, as always to see Carville and Matalin talk at and past each other. Matalin seems to be hinting that the CNN exit poll is showing strong (popular vote) for Romney--something they will not tell us. Nice hairdo, Mary--no, seriously.
5:10 p.m. Gergen made a good point, that the exit polls in 2004 suggested Kerry would win the election. This is one reason why they don't want to talk about what the total results of the Presidential contest are.
5:39 p.m. This is probably the toughest hour: the news teams are all "fired up and ready to go" (the Obama pep talk phrase), but they have nothing to say yet.
I am watching two things closely in the states of Kentucky and Indiana, which are reporting part of their results (split by time zones): the Donnelly-Mourdock race for Senate in Indiana, and the race of Ben Chandler (D) in the House, trying to hold onto a moderate district near Lexington, in a state that is going to go big for Romney.
Intrade.com has it at 70-30 Obama, which tells me that there has been no leak of meaningful information. No movement yet.
6:16 p.m.CNN: Romney 8, Obama 3; Fox: Romney 19, Obama 3. Kentucky, Vermont (and Indiana, on Fox) called. Still not much to say, but John King had a nice factoid about Vigo County, Indiana (where Terre Haute is): the county has been in accord with the winner of the Presidential race all but twice in the last 125 years; last time it was wrong was 1952. And it's 49-49 with 78% of the county's vote in!
6:44 p.m. Romney 33, Obama 3. South Carolina and West Virginia called for Romney. No surprises yet--Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, all too close to call, though it sounded as though North Carolina is close to being called (for Romney, I presume). I'm kind of surprised Georgia is taking a while to call--maybe theyre just slow.
Donnelly now leading Mourdock; that would be a wrong prediction by me, but I'll gladly take it.
In a few minutes, a number of states will close their polls, and the game will finally get underway.
7:01 a.m. Obama 78, Romney 71 (Fox). Fox likes to call them quickly, but they haven't even listed the ones they just called--it was 49-3 Romney two minutes ago (with Georgia). Obama: IL, MA, DE, DC, CT, MD, NJ, RI, 3 of 4 in ME (!); Romney: AL, MS, OK.
Obama 64, Romney 40 (CNN). They haven't called GA, NJ, MS, AL. They added AR at some point.
It's beginning to look as though the provisional ballot problem in Ohio (they won't be released for 10 days, and there's a lot of them) could mean the state will not be called tonight. If my prediction (290-248) is right, and that will probably depend in particular on the close race in Colorado, then he may still be anointed the winner regardless of Ohio's 18 EV.
7:27 p.m. Romney 82, Obama 78 (Fox). They called TN for Romney--no issue there. Rove is on there trying to make the argument that the fragmentary indications in VA, FL, OH all favor Romney. His argument is that the swing counties have swung to Romney; Obama will have to make it up with turnout in the areas where he is strong.
8:00 p.m. Romney 152, Obama 123 (CNN). Romney: KS, LA, NE (3 of 5 so far), ND, SD, TX, WY, Obama: MI, NY (and MS, NJ, which they should've called a long time ago).
Romney 149, Obama 127 (Fox). I think Nebraska and Maine are the discrepancies, with the potential for splitting their votes.
8:15 p.m. Fox went to 149-147, the extra 20 is Pennsylvania! The fact they called it quickly is a very good sign for Obama. The Fox commentators are beginning to accept that, unless they get Ohio, they will not win. The "smart blonde" on there, whatever her name, is carping about the auto bailout issue and how Romney lost it. CNN has not called PA.
8:26 p.m. Obama 157, Romney 149. Fox calls Wisconsin for Obama. I saw on CNN that the Exit Poll there was 52-46 for Obama; not enough for CNN to call. CNN is being good about showing their exit poll results in states, while Fox is showing itself considerably more aggressive in calling races based on them, which is fine if they don't end up walking any of the states back. Based on Fox, Obama should win this election.
CNN is at 152-123, Romney, because they haven't called PA, WI. (Fox is now at 153-153; I think the extra 4 EV for Obama was a mistake?) They have some key results from swing counties in CO (Arapahoe, near Denver), that suggests he may win there.
8:48 p.m. Fox still at 153-153, CNN at 152-143 (they called PA). Big news is the pickup of Senate seats by Donnelly in IN and Elizabeth Warren in MA! Intrade.com has shifted to 94% for Obama, due to the shift in sentiment for Ohio (90% for Obama) and Florida (82% for Obama). In particular, Ohio's quote on Intrade dropped from 30% to 10% in the last hour.
9:00 p.m. Florida and Ohio are on the verge of being called for Obama, though they may stay there for awhile. NH called for Obama, UT for Romney. 158-147 Romney on CNN, 162-157 Romney on Fox. (Wisconsin the main difference.) Popular vote a little to Romney, but could shift when CA comes in. Rove still believes in Ohio for Romney, but isn't speaking about Florida.
9:50 p.m. 169-157 Romney (CNN); 174-173 Romney (Fox). CNN has called AZ for Romney, MN for Obama. IA, MO are counting slow; haven't been called. CNN is so focused on the Presidential race, I have heard nothing about the House--ever. Fox just made an announcement a while ago that the Republicans would keep control, though they do cycle House race data fairly continuously, without any comment.
10:05 p.m Obama 244-203 (Fox), Fox has called NC, MO, MT for Romney, but CA, WA, HI for Obama. 10:12 p.m. 18 votes just popped into Obama's column on Fox--must be...Ohio?
Yes! It's all over but the shouting. A great feat for Obama's campaign and for him.
CNN calls it at 10:18 p.m.
As for the Senate, there is still some doubt: Heidi Heitkamp is holding a tiny lead over Rick Berg in ND, which would be a great upset. Tammy Baldwin is holding a narrow lead in Wisconsin; I was calling it the other way, though Baldwin had been favored in recent days. Montana has just begun to count; it won't be decided for hours. Right now, Shelly Berkley is leading in Nevada, which could be a major upset. Tim Kaine picked up a big victory in Virginia. So the Democrats should end up with 2-3 seats more than the 51 that I projected.
In terms of the predictions, I think I did very well on the popular vote, though we will see. Nate Silver should take credit: he has had the 332-206 as the most probable Electoral vote, consistently, for months, and it may end up being exactly right. My mistakes appear to be Florida and Virginia.
Saturday, November 03, 2012
Getting Down to Cases, Pt. 3
In this post with detailed predictions for the Presidential race, we will basically just go down the list of the states that were not automatic locks for one party or the other from the beginning of the general election campaign, starting from those for which there is the least doubt and finishing with the ones which appear to be closest.
The starting point of the discussion are that there are 23 Republican states with 191 electoral votes and 17 Democratic states (plus the District of Columbia) with 217 electoral votes about which there is very little doubt. They include a few states, like Minnesota, New Mexico, and Michigan for the Democratic ticket, and Arizona and Indiana (which Obama won narrowly in 2008) for the Republicans, which may end up having fairly small margins, on the order of 5-7 percent. These states are not realistically in the plans of their opponents, though, and they have not been deluged with advertisements as the other 10 states have. So, we proceed from there, analyzing the other 130 electoral votes which will surely decide the election*:
North Carolina (15 Electoral votes) - It is a sign of the tightness of this election that this, the 10th closest state, is not a sure thing; the polls there have not universally had Romney leading, but most of them do, and both candidates are bypassing the state this weekend, suggesting they both know how it will end up--with Romney (3 pt. margin, about 100,000 votes). Obama, 217-206.
Pennsylvania (20 ) - If Superstorm Sandy is to have a meaningful impact on the Presidential election (apart from Obama's strong handling of the crisis or NYC Mayor Bloomberg's endorsement of Obama afterwards prompted by the storm), it will be in this state (none of the other ones in the affected area on the Eastern Seaboard are close), and that effect can only hurt Obama. It's close enough that a couple hundred thousand votes suppressed by the difficulty of getting to polling places, or by the disruption in people's lives, could turn this state in the Republicans' favor. I don't think it will be quite enough, though, and I think this will be viewed by the Republicans as the big missed opportunity if Romney loses: more effort, sooner, could have allowed him to take this state from Obama (3.5 pt margin, about 100,000 votes). Obama, 237-206.
Nevada (6 ) - This state is usually shown as a toss-up, but Obama is consistently polling narrowly ahead, and turnout--driven by Sen. Harry Reid's political machine--will favor the Democrats. (4 pt margin, about 20,000 votes). Obama 243-206.
Next come the two most consequential states in the election:
Florida (29) - This state is a must-win for Romney--winning is basically impossible for him without it--and would be a great trophy for Obama, the difference between a narrow Electoral college win and a safe one. Obama was leading in the polling at his peak, before the first debate; now he looks to be trailing. Romney (1.5 pt. margin, about 100,000 votes). Obama 243-235.
Ohio (18) - Winning the state is not equal to winning the election, but losing it would put either at the brink of defeat. Romney's biggest problem is that he has never led Obama in the state by any meaningful margin, although he was equal or near-equal at Obama's lowest point (before the second debate). Obama's efforts to help the auto industry, and the somewhat-related fact that its economy is doing relatively well at the present, mean this will not be the closest state Obama wins. (1.5 pt. margin, about 70,000 votes). Obama 261-235.
New Hampshire (4) - This state has gone back and forth, but Obama is leading fairly consistently in the last couple of weeks. (2 pt. margin, about 10,000 votes) Obama 265-235.
Iowa (6) - This state has polled extremely close. There hasn't been that much polling there, so there's considerable doubt, but this is not a particularly strong state for Romney (he narrowly lost the popular vote to Rick Santorum in the caucuses), and it has supported Obama well in the past. (1.5 pt margin, about 20,000 votes) Obama 271-235.
Wisconsin (10) - Obama is polling ahead by an average of 3-5 points in recent weeks, but I think this is one state in which the progressive forces are fatigued, perhaps a bit demoralized, by the continuing partisan battles within the state, which has come out most recently in favor of the Republicans (Gov. Scott Walker's surviving the recall). So, I think this may be the one swing state where turnout will favor the Republicans, closing Obama's margin to a very narrow one (0.7 pt margin, about 20,000 votes). Obama 281-235.
Virginia (13) - The polling has gone back and forth in this state, and no one has it as anything other than a toss-up if he/she has not forced himself/herself to call each state's outcome. Virginia is one of the earliest ones to begin to report its votes, and it does so very quickly. What we will see then, very quickly, is that the race in the state is too close to call. It may go late into the night, or it may not be decided until the next day, but I'm thinking the overall race will already be decided when it is called--for Romney (0.1 pt margin, about 3,000 votes). Obama 281-248.
Colorado (9) - I would say that the polling has been rather consistent for the past month or so in Colorado--it's a tie. Some are suggesting that this state leans Republican in 2012 (analysis of early voting there supports that thesis), but I think it will end up being the clearest case of Democratic turnout affecting the outcome. There is a ballot item to legalize possession of marijuana in the state, and I believe that will bring out additional young voters on election day, and that it will make the difference--for Obama--in an extremely close state. (1 pt. margin, about 20,000 votes). Obama 290-248.
So, that's my prediction--Obama 290 Electoral Votes, Romney 248.
Now, here's a tip for watching on Election Night. There will be some states--Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia--that we should expect will be too close to call even late into the night. Florida and Ohio may or may not be so close, but they are complex political puzzles with areas that are blue, red, and purple, and those may report their votes unevenly through the evening, so we may expect they will take a while to resolve. So, look at these two states instead, which are both generally put as "Leaning Democratic" rather than toss-ups: Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin could be a positive bellwether for Obama. If he wins there fairly comfortably (4 pts or more), that would indicate the turnout is working for him, the white working-class vote in the Upper Midwest is holding, and his firewall states should protect him in the end from any close losses in the nail-biters. Pennsylvania could be a bellwether in the opposite direction: If Obama can not win the state by 2-4 percent, which means that he is not clearly holding the suburban counties of Philadelphia, he could be in big trouble nationally with suburban voters. And, if he should lose the state, it will be very hard for him to win re-election-- Pennsylvania is about as much a must-win state for Obama as Florida is for Romney.
Finally, the question of the popular vote. The national tracking polls in the past two weeks, more often than not, are showing Romney either tied or leading by 1-2 points (sometimes more). It is certainly feasible that Romney could win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote, and I think that outcome would be justice (for 2000)--perhaps justice leading to a greater justice, in which the Electoral College is eliminated (needs a Constitutional amendment) or success of the legislative movement in which 270 or more electoral votes would be guaranteed to the winner of the popular vote.
I do not think that is going to happen this year, though; I think the intrade.com "market" for the event (different candidates win the popular and electoral votes) at 25% is a bit of a sucker bet; I think the chances are more like 10% (Nate Silver's simulations have it at about 5%). Instead, I think this will be one of those elections like 1960, or like 1968, in which a very small popular vote margin is magnified by the all-or-nothing nature of the Electoral College. I will predict a popular vote victory for Obama of about 0.5%, about 600,000 votes. If that is the case, it will go into the books as yet one more case in which the winner of the election receives less than 50% of the people's vote. For the record, I predict Obama 49.4%, Romney 48.9%, Others 1.7%.
*I don't want to forget the fine states of Nebraska and Maine, which award individual electoral votes based on the results of each Congressional district. One of the Nebraska Congressional districts in 2008 went, against the whole state, for Obama, so the state legislature tried to make more certain, through redistricting, that this wouldn't happen again. I think for this election at least they will be successful, and also that both of the Maine districts will go for the state-winner, Obama.
The starting point of the discussion are that there are 23 Republican states with 191 electoral votes and 17 Democratic states (plus the District of Columbia) with 217 electoral votes about which there is very little doubt. They include a few states, like Minnesota, New Mexico, and Michigan for the Democratic ticket, and Arizona and Indiana (which Obama won narrowly in 2008) for the Republicans, which may end up having fairly small margins, on the order of 5-7 percent. These states are not realistically in the plans of their opponents, though, and they have not been deluged with advertisements as the other 10 states have. So, we proceed from there, analyzing the other 130 electoral votes which will surely decide the election*:
North Carolina (15 Electoral votes) - It is a sign of the tightness of this election that this, the 10th closest state, is not a sure thing; the polls there have not universally had Romney leading, but most of them do, and both candidates are bypassing the state this weekend, suggesting they both know how it will end up--with Romney (3 pt. margin, about 100,000 votes). Obama, 217-206.
Pennsylvania (20 ) - If Superstorm Sandy is to have a meaningful impact on the Presidential election (apart from Obama's strong handling of the crisis or NYC Mayor Bloomberg's endorsement of Obama afterwards prompted by the storm), it will be in this state (none of the other ones in the affected area on the Eastern Seaboard are close), and that effect can only hurt Obama. It's close enough that a couple hundred thousand votes suppressed by the difficulty of getting to polling places, or by the disruption in people's lives, could turn this state in the Republicans' favor. I don't think it will be quite enough, though, and I think this will be viewed by the Republicans as the big missed opportunity if Romney loses: more effort, sooner, could have allowed him to take this state from Obama (3.5 pt margin, about 100,000 votes). Obama, 237-206.
Nevada (6 ) - This state is usually shown as a toss-up, but Obama is consistently polling narrowly ahead, and turnout--driven by Sen. Harry Reid's political machine--will favor the Democrats. (4 pt margin, about 20,000 votes). Obama 243-206.
Next come the two most consequential states in the election:
Florida (29) - This state is a must-win for Romney--winning is basically impossible for him without it--and would be a great trophy for Obama, the difference between a narrow Electoral college win and a safe one. Obama was leading in the polling at his peak, before the first debate; now he looks to be trailing. Romney (1.5 pt. margin, about 100,000 votes). Obama 243-235.
Ohio (18) - Winning the state is not equal to winning the election, but losing it would put either at the brink of defeat. Romney's biggest problem is that he has never led Obama in the state by any meaningful margin, although he was equal or near-equal at Obama's lowest point (before the second debate). Obama's efforts to help the auto industry, and the somewhat-related fact that its economy is doing relatively well at the present, mean this will not be the closest state Obama wins. (1.5 pt. margin, about 70,000 votes). Obama 261-235.
New Hampshire (4) - This state has gone back and forth, but Obama is leading fairly consistently in the last couple of weeks. (2 pt. margin, about 10,000 votes) Obama 265-235.
Iowa (6) - This state has polled extremely close. There hasn't been that much polling there, so there's considerable doubt, but this is not a particularly strong state for Romney (he narrowly lost the popular vote to Rick Santorum in the caucuses), and it has supported Obama well in the past. (1.5 pt margin, about 20,000 votes) Obama 271-235.
Wisconsin (10) - Obama is polling ahead by an average of 3-5 points in recent weeks, but I think this is one state in which the progressive forces are fatigued, perhaps a bit demoralized, by the continuing partisan battles within the state, which has come out most recently in favor of the Republicans (Gov. Scott Walker's surviving the recall). So, I think this may be the one swing state where turnout will favor the Republicans, closing Obama's margin to a very narrow one (0.7 pt margin, about 20,000 votes). Obama 281-235.
Virginia (13) - The polling has gone back and forth in this state, and no one has it as anything other than a toss-up if he/she has not forced himself/herself to call each state's outcome. Virginia is one of the earliest ones to begin to report its votes, and it does so very quickly. What we will see then, very quickly, is that the race in the state is too close to call. It may go late into the night, or it may not be decided until the next day, but I'm thinking the overall race will already be decided when it is called--for Romney (0.1 pt margin, about 3,000 votes). Obama 281-248.
Colorado (9) - I would say that the polling has been rather consistent for the past month or so in Colorado--it's a tie. Some are suggesting that this state leans Republican in 2012 (analysis of early voting there supports that thesis), but I think it will end up being the clearest case of Democratic turnout affecting the outcome. There is a ballot item to legalize possession of marijuana in the state, and I believe that will bring out additional young voters on election day, and that it will make the difference--for Obama--in an extremely close state. (1 pt. margin, about 20,000 votes). Obama 290-248.
So, that's my prediction--Obama 290 Electoral Votes, Romney 248.
Now, here's a tip for watching on Election Night. There will be some states--Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia--that we should expect will be too close to call even late into the night. Florida and Ohio may or may not be so close, but they are complex political puzzles with areas that are blue, red, and purple, and those may report their votes unevenly through the evening, so we may expect they will take a while to resolve. So, look at these two states instead, which are both generally put as "Leaning Democratic" rather than toss-ups: Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin could be a positive bellwether for Obama. If he wins there fairly comfortably (4 pts or more), that would indicate the turnout is working for him, the white working-class vote in the Upper Midwest is holding, and his firewall states should protect him in the end from any close losses in the nail-biters. Pennsylvania could be a bellwether in the opposite direction: If Obama can not win the state by 2-4 percent, which means that he is not clearly holding the suburban counties of Philadelphia, he could be in big trouble nationally with suburban voters. And, if he should lose the state, it will be very hard for him to win re-election-- Pennsylvania is about as much a must-win state for Obama as Florida is for Romney.
Finally, the question of the popular vote. The national tracking polls in the past two weeks, more often than not, are showing Romney either tied or leading by 1-2 points (sometimes more). It is certainly feasible that Romney could win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote, and I think that outcome would be justice (for 2000)--perhaps justice leading to a greater justice, in which the Electoral College is eliminated (needs a Constitutional amendment) or success of the legislative movement in which 270 or more electoral votes would be guaranteed to the winner of the popular vote.
I do not think that is going to happen this year, though; I think the intrade.com "market" for the event (different candidates win the popular and electoral votes) at 25% is a bit of a sucker bet; I think the chances are more like 10% (Nate Silver's simulations have it at about 5%). Instead, I think this will be one of those elections like 1960, or like 1968, in which a very small popular vote margin is magnified by the all-or-nothing nature of the Electoral College. I will predict a popular vote victory for Obama of about 0.5%, about 600,000 votes. If that is the case, it will go into the books as yet one more case in which the winner of the election receives less than 50% of the people's vote. For the record, I predict Obama 49.4%, Romney 48.9%, Others 1.7%.
*I don't want to forget the fine states of Nebraska and Maine, which award individual electoral votes based on the results of each Congressional district. One of the Nebraska Congressional districts in 2008 went, against the whole state, for Obama, so the state legislature tried to make more certain, through redistricting, that this wouldn't happen again. I think for this election at least they will be successful, and also that both of the Maine districts will go for the state-winner, Obama.
Getting Down to Cases, Pt. 2
At last! We can now--finally--address the question of who should be the President of the US for 2013-2017. And, more importantly, who it will be. Here, we examine the broad landscape under which the election will be held; then we will look at the key state elections which will decide the contest .
The US Economy
It has been a truism of this electoral campaign that the US economy is not what it should be, that Americans are justified in thinking that things should be better than what they are, which is a 1-2% annual GDP per capita growth, slow but steady increase in jobs, and very little inflation (apart from, sporadically, increase in certain energy products). The Republicans use this as the premise for arguing for a change in the Presidency; the Democrats accept it as a tenet it would be impolitic to deny.
I, on the other hand, disagree with this; I would call it an axiomatic falsehood. The fact that things may have (and I emphasize, may) been better in the past is no reason to assert that things will be/should be better in the future--it is not an entitlement that we, the richest nation in the world, should grow more than other nations. I question even whether this would be desirable, even if it were possible; it would suggest that the rest of the world's economies would not be able to keep up, which would bode ill for us all in the long term (lack of markets, lack of political or economic stability). I would deny that our rich are overtaxed, that small businesses are handcuffed by anything (except banks' unwillingness to lend to them), that there is too much uncertainty about tax policy. I would accept that we have an imbalance of work, in which many are underemployed while many others are overemployed, and that in general there is not enough work needed by our public and private employers to support the domestic cash-flow demands of our families.
I am extremely skeptical of the likelihood of the program of either major party's candidate making a significant difference in the employment level of the economy, so let's not get too hung up on the (minor) differences their policies would produce in that area. Instead, let's think about the substance of their economic policies, the chances they can get them done, and what their real effects would be.
Mitt Romney's domestic policies are more like suggestions, couched as they are in ambiguities and contradictions, but they come down to reducing the tax rates for the middle class and all above, reducing corporate taxes, reducing taxes that only affect the wealthy like dividends and capital gains, and reducing deductibility limits for higher income brackets--I think. He wants a package that is revenue neutral but can't get there with the deductions that he has--it seems--put off the table. He claims to have reductions in spending, but won't specify those, either: apparently they exclude defense, foreign aid (seemingly, and surprisingly, based on his last debate tack), and the safety net. Clearly, the cuts would have to include some of the agencies which limit the depredations of big business. He does seem inclined to conduct some kind of big negotiation and make a big deal, which might be OK if we had some idea what it was that he would, or would not, accept in such a deal. I would guarantee that his deal would be one acceptable to Grover Norquist and the tax reduction pledge to which most of his party is bound. Which means it's one that the Democrats of the Senate are unlikely to accept.
Barack Obama's plan is one that could achieve bipartisan support in a different political environment. Essentially it will promise benefits for most of the country in the form of needed investments in infrastructure, and I'm sure it will be well-distributed across the districts and states of the Senators and Represenatives who will support it. He would pay for it by agreeing to progressive cuts targeted to certain areas over time (replacing the across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending, including the military, that the sequestration plan currently in law would require) and some revenue increases that would also be phased in over time. The criticism of the package, which could prevent it even coming to a vote in the Republican House of Orange we expect to continue, will be that it does not do enough to reduce the deficit soon enough, and that it does not do anything to "fix" Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. A true fix of these programs--some kind of cuts in amount, timing, or extent of benefits, or increase in payroll taxes to pay for continuing current levels of benefit--is something that I think is beyond the capability of any likely form of Federal government in the next Congress. Maybe it could come in the 2015-2017 one, when the danger will be closer, the President weaker, and the Congressional makeup could be changed one way or the other from what I expect to be the continuation of the current power stalemate. In that regard, failure to give serious consideration to Obama's plan could cause the dam to break in the Democrats' direction, so I see there being a great deal of pressure on the Republican House leadership to allow the vote, and then to defeat it. I expect that the most Congress will end up passing in the next session is more stopgap spending with more improvised budget cuts.
The Rest of the World
Back to Romney for a moment. One clear aspect of his program is to increase exports, which sounds good and reasonable, but, in the event, might be a big failure. The reason is that the global economy, excluding the US now, seems perched on the edge of a significant growth recession. Europe's austerity programs are severely limiting possible growth there, while Asia's growth is slowing, as well. Labeling China a "serial currency manipulator on Day One", as Romney has pledged to do, will do nothing real but will trigger protectionist provisions from the US (so it would be counter to his program); it would antagonize the Chinese, who are sensitive to such symbolic slights, and it certainly won't result in increased exports to China. Though Obama has not made such a point of it, he also promises increased exports (if I remember correctly, double the 2009 level by 2016); though the global economy is not likely to be better or worse if he is elected, he would do a better job maintaining friendly relations with our trade partners, of that there should be little doubt.
In terms of foreign policy and the role of commander-in-chief of the military, Obama has been successful for the most part. He has done what the American people wanted (especially with regard to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by ignoring the Pakistani government to attack al Qaeda), worked well with our neighbors, and achieved much. There are some major pieces of unfinished business--clearing out Guantanamo, making progress in the Israeli-Palestinian standoff, and bringing Iran's nuclear program to some satisfactory resolution--but there is no reason to oppose him based on the results, and no reason to prefer Romney in this area. After making various hawkish criticisms of Obama in the primary campaign, Romney (or his advisers) realized as much before the final debate, and he ended up agreeing with Obama more often than not. In particular, Romney avoided the opportunity to put his foot in it a third time with regard to the tragic results in Benghazi on September 11--in this, he disappointed his loyal neo-con backers, who want him to poison relations with the governments emerging from the Arab Spring. I will credit Romney with eschewing such an approach and avoiding a disaster, at least on that occasion.
Government Beyond the White House
While I think that the first term of the Obama Administration deserves an overall grade somewhere in the "Very Good" range, there are big problems with all other parts of our government. Congress, of course, is totally ineffective; its greatest problems are due to the perennial campaign and unlimited campaign spending, but the difficulty of doing anything to reduce the potency of the filibuster also rates mention. Obama's political appointees are languishing in most or all Cabinet departments, with more problems on the way as first-termers depart, unless there is an agreement with the Senate to start giving nominations prompt consideration. The Supreme Court is a disaster area, and one can only imagine things getting worse unless Obama has a chance to nominate a replacement to one of the Far-Right Four or the unsound swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The governments in the worst shape are the state and local ones. It is fine to suggest more devolution of power from the central government to the periphery (as long as basic rights are protected when this is done); it is a completely different matter whether these local entities have the capacity, the talent, or the monetary resources to handle additional responsibilities. I see this as one of the key areas the next President will need to address, with something like President Nixon's (yes, his!) Revenue Sharing a likely solution.
Finally, our political environment is poisonously bad. I'm not saying this because of the partisan battles; that is the way of our republic, and the voters should be able to judge. The problem is the extremely high cost of bad quality in our political system, in which any damned fools with lots of money can say any sort of lie, and there is no possibility of penalizing the liars. The other problems are lack of progress in statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. or toward eliminating or emasculating the Electoral College, and lack of any consistent approach to issues of voter registration, decennial redistricting, and access to polls.
With regard to the very last point, let me leave you with a question: what would have happened if Hurricane Sandy had hit this weekend, not last weekend? I am not sure I can describe what the results would have been, but it is safe to say that our election would also have been a casualty of the calamity.
The US Economy
It has been a truism of this electoral campaign that the US economy is not what it should be, that Americans are justified in thinking that things should be better than what they are, which is a 1-2% annual GDP per capita growth, slow but steady increase in jobs, and very little inflation (apart from, sporadically, increase in certain energy products). The Republicans use this as the premise for arguing for a change in the Presidency; the Democrats accept it as a tenet it would be impolitic to deny.
I, on the other hand, disagree with this; I would call it an axiomatic falsehood. The fact that things may have (and I emphasize, may) been better in the past is no reason to assert that things will be/should be better in the future--it is not an entitlement that we, the richest nation in the world, should grow more than other nations. I question even whether this would be desirable, even if it were possible; it would suggest that the rest of the world's economies would not be able to keep up, which would bode ill for us all in the long term (lack of markets, lack of political or economic stability). I would deny that our rich are overtaxed, that small businesses are handcuffed by anything (except banks' unwillingness to lend to them), that there is too much uncertainty about tax policy. I would accept that we have an imbalance of work, in which many are underemployed while many others are overemployed, and that in general there is not enough work needed by our public and private employers to support the domestic cash-flow demands of our families.
I am extremely skeptical of the likelihood of the program of either major party's candidate making a significant difference in the employment level of the economy, so let's not get too hung up on the (minor) differences their policies would produce in that area. Instead, let's think about the substance of their economic policies, the chances they can get them done, and what their real effects would be.
Mitt Romney's domestic policies are more like suggestions, couched as they are in ambiguities and contradictions, but they come down to reducing the tax rates for the middle class and all above, reducing corporate taxes, reducing taxes that only affect the wealthy like dividends and capital gains, and reducing deductibility limits for higher income brackets--I think. He wants a package that is revenue neutral but can't get there with the deductions that he has--it seems--put off the table. He claims to have reductions in spending, but won't specify those, either: apparently they exclude defense, foreign aid (seemingly, and surprisingly, based on his last debate tack), and the safety net. Clearly, the cuts would have to include some of the agencies which limit the depredations of big business. He does seem inclined to conduct some kind of big negotiation and make a big deal, which might be OK if we had some idea what it was that he would, or would not, accept in such a deal. I would guarantee that his deal would be one acceptable to Grover Norquist and the tax reduction pledge to which most of his party is bound. Which means it's one that the Democrats of the Senate are unlikely to accept.
Barack Obama's plan is one that could achieve bipartisan support in a different political environment. Essentially it will promise benefits for most of the country in the form of needed investments in infrastructure, and I'm sure it will be well-distributed across the districts and states of the Senators and Represenatives who will support it. He would pay for it by agreeing to progressive cuts targeted to certain areas over time (replacing the across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending, including the military, that the sequestration plan currently in law would require) and some revenue increases that would also be phased in over time. The criticism of the package, which could prevent it even coming to a vote in the Republican House of Orange we expect to continue, will be that it does not do enough to reduce the deficit soon enough, and that it does not do anything to "fix" Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. A true fix of these programs--some kind of cuts in amount, timing, or extent of benefits, or increase in payroll taxes to pay for continuing current levels of benefit--is something that I think is beyond the capability of any likely form of Federal government in the next Congress. Maybe it could come in the 2015-2017 one, when the danger will be closer, the President weaker, and the Congressional makeup could be changed one way or the other from what I expect to be the continuation of the current power stalemate. In that regard, failure to give serious consideration to Obama's plan could cause the dam to break in the Democrats' direction, so I see there being a great deal of pressure on the Republican House leadership to allow the vote, and then to defeat it. I expect that the most Congress will end up passing in the next session is more stopgap spending with more improvised budget cuts.
The Rest of the World
Back to Romney for a moment. One clear aspect of his program is to increase exports, which sounds good and reasonable, but, in the event, might be a big failure. The reason is that the global economy, excluding the US now, seems perched on the edge of a significant growth recession. Europe's austerity programs are severely limiting possible growth there, while Asia's growth is slowing, as well. Labeling China a "serial currency manipulator on Day One", as Romney has pledged to do, will do nothing real but will trigger protectionist provisions from the US (so it would be counter to his program); it would antagonize the Chinese, who are sensitive to such symbolic slights, and it certainly won't result in increased exports to China. Though Obama has not made such a point of it, he also promises increased exports (if I remember correctly, double the 2009 level by 2016); though the global economy is not likely to be better or worse if he is elected, he would do a better job maintaining friendly relations with our trade partners, of that there should be little doubt.
In terms of foreign policy and the role of commander-in-chief of the military, Obama has been successful for the most part. He has done what the American people wanted (especially with regard to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by ignoring the Pakistani government to attack al Qaeda), worked well with our neighbors, and achieved much. There are some major pieces of unfinished business--clearing out Guantanamo, making progress in the Israeli-Palestinian standoff, and bringing Iran's nuclear program to some satisfactory resolution--but there is no reason to oppose him based on the results, and no reason to prefer Romney in this area. After making various hawkish criticisms of Obama in the primary campaign, Romney (or his advisers) realized as much before the final debate, and he ended up agreeing with Obama more often than not. In particular, Romney avoided the opportunity to put his foot in it a third time with regard to the tragic results in Benghazi on September 11--in this, he disappointed his loyal neo-con backers, who want him to poison relations with the governments emerging from the Arab Spring. I will credit Romney with eschewing such an approach and avoiding a disaster, at least on that occasion.
Government Beyond the White House
While I think that the first term of the Obama Administration deserves an overall grade somewhere in the "Very Good" range, there are big problems with all other parts of our government. Congress, of course, is totally ineffective; its greatest problems are due to the perennial campaign and unlimited campaign spending, but the difficulty of doing anything to reduce the potency of the filibuster also rates mention. Obama's political appointees are languishing in most or all Cabinet departments, with more problems on the way as first-termers depart, unless there is an agreement with the Senate to start giving nominations prompt consideration. The Supreme Court is a disaster area, and one can only imagine things getting worse unless Obama has a chance to nominate a replacement to one of the Far-Right Four or the unsound swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The governments in the worst shape are the state and local ones. It is fine to suggest more devolution of power from the central government to the periphery (as long as basic rights are protected when this is done); it is a completely different matter whether these local entities have the capacity, the talent, or the monetary resources to handle additional responsibilities. I see this as one of the key areas the next President will need to address, with something like President Nixon's (yes, his!) Revenue Sharing a likely solution.
Finally, our political environment is poisonously bad. I'm not saying this because of the partisan battles; that is the way of our republic, and the voters should be able to judge. The problem is the extremely high cost of bad quality in our political system, in which any damned fools with lots of money can say any sort of lie, and there is no possibility of penalizing the liars. The other problems are lack of progress in statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. or toward eliminating or emasculating the Electoral College, and lack of any consistent approach to issues of voter registration, decennial redistricting, and access to polls.
With regard to the very last point, let me leave you with a question: what would have happened if Hurricane Sandy had hit this weekend, not last weekend? I am not sure I can describe what the results would have been, but it is safe to say that our election would also have been a casualty of the calamity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
