We have a variety of topics to cover here, but a hard-and-fast deadline: the NCAA tournament (the real part, after the play-in games) begins in a couple of hours. Our ethics don't permit us to post "predictions" after the event has occurred, so that piece has to get out. So, I will split the spring sports post into two parts, with the second focusing on baseball and soccer.
There's a lot of noise in the sports pages about football (which I will refer to as "American football" in the future, so as not to confuse my international readership). This is not football season, so I will only make this comment: the NFL owners act as though they are horse breeders: inordinate pride of ownership (it's the horses doing the work), possessions that they can freely trade, send to the glue factory, or cosset like prized stallions (the "franchise tag"). Maybe it's more like in the middle ages, when they would prepare their cavalry charges to get armored and quite possibly slain in battle. I feel sorry for the people who play football at the highest level: they love the game, but they are treated like chattel--disposable, at that. It's becoming apparent that the several hundred million buyout proposal the league made for the concussed players was a lowball bid.
College Basketball (mostly Men's)
The great gem of college-level American sports is the March/April basketball tournament--the men's, but also the women's (which has largely the same format). Single-elimination and a deep tournament field (the men's has now expanded to 68 teams) provides for great drama, and lots of it, over a three-week period. It has gone down just to 64 teams today, but will go to 32 before Saturday, and to 16 after this weekend. So, now's the time to make predictions, though I will follow up with a couple of comments after 76% or so of the teams have been eliminated to validate the quality of my predictions for the first two rounds (I don't buy that the round of 64 is the "Second Round"--nice try, NCAA).
The Committee which finalizes the at-large invitations (about half the field, with the other half earning their spots through winning their conference tournaments, or in the case of the Ivy League, its regular season title--I think they are the only ones) and the seeding for the brackets has a complex and difficult job to do. Generally everyone defers to the Committee's judgment in the end, though there is a lot of huffing and puffing about the last ones in, the first ones out--the borderline of invitation is about team #45 in the rankings (depending on how many conference favorites win their tournaments)--this is so much better than any other sporting event that I don't have too many qualms about that, and those that don't quite make the cut shouldn't, either. Many factors are carefully considered--key wins, bad losses, strength of non-conference schedule, strength of conference, and recent performance.
It's this last one, though, that I think was not properly considered this year in the seedings and bracket assignments. I will accuse them of being lazy--they had more-or-less figured it all out before the last weekend, with a couple of contingencies built in--and they didn't make all the right adjustments. So, for example, they needed a fourth #1 seed (after Florida, Wichita St., and Arizona--the first two were clearly the stars of the regular season, while the latter had their spot locked up through strong conference play and a tough non-conference schedule, so their loss in the tourney final was discounted. That's OK, I think, though we all know teams from the Pac-12--or whatever they call themselves these days, I don't think they have 12 teams but that doesn't matter, as we know--we all know that Pac-12 teams haven't distinguished themselves much in the men's NCAA tournament since John Wooden left UCLA about 30 years ago). The Committee had penciled in for the fourth #1 something like "winner of a tournament: Big East, ACC, Big 10, or Big 8--or Big 12, or whatever that prairie-state conference which now includes West Virginia is called", but not just any winner: the possible choices were, respectively, Villanova, Virginia, Wisconsin, or Kansas. As it turned out, Virginia won, the other three got eliminated early, so Virginia got the #1. OK, but I question the #2 for two of the other three given their late-season fades (Wisconsin earned theirs, but its history in the NCAA--see Pac-12 above....)
Syracuse's fade was so bad and so obvious--they went from 25-0 to finish the pre-NCAA at 27-5--that it couldn't be ignored in their seedings: they saw that one coming and took the right actions (a #3). A couple of teams that look really dangerous, on the other hand, didn't really get rewarded for their late-season form: Louisville (won both a tough conference and their tourney, but got only a #4), Kentucky (overrated early, with a squad full of freshmen, they are rounding into form late and almost took out national #1 Florida in the tourney final, which would likely have wreaked havoc on the brackets--as it is they should have better than a #8), and my pet peeve, New Mexico. The Lobos have a very dangerous squad and battled (#4 seed) San Diego State to the end for the conference title, then beat them in the tourney, but got a #7 and tough matchups (Stanford in the first round, potentially Kansas in the next). One of my top rooting interests is for New Mexico to last longer than UCLA (#4, in the same regional)--Steve Alford deserted UNM to go to UCLA for more money. Both, though, are in a tough bracket--the South, with Florida as #1. New Mexico, to be fair, has a history of performing well going into the tourney and going out early, and the most probable outcome is something similar (but I'm going contrarian and picking them to beat Kansas in a significant second-round upset).
The big beef is that the brackets are lopsided, with two very tough ones full of strong finishers with proven NCAA credentials and two with fairly lame contenders. The tough ones are the South--with Florida, Syracuse, Kansas, and UCLA as seeds and strong lower-seeds like VCU, Ohio St., New Mexico, and Stanford) and the ridiculously packed Midwest (besides Wichita St. and their difficult second-round opponent, Kentucky or Kansas St., there are Michigan, Duke, St. Louis, Arizona St., and--Louisville, the defending national champion, a team I would rate in the top 5 nationally going into the tournament). Clearly, they wanted to pose a challenge to Wichita St., which is 34-0 and was basically untested during the season, but I think they went too far.
In the two weak brackets, there's the East (Virginia's), which has an obvious choice in perennial tourney over-performer Michigan State (President Obama's choice for national champion--the Spartans showed themselves in form by cruising to the Big 10 tourney championship); and the West (Arizona's), which is wide open with no proven tourney teams or world-beaters and a lot of pretty-good ones. I'm leaning toward the sentimental favorite, Creighton (now moved up into the Big East--geography note: Creighton is in Nebraska, but the vacuum of all the teams leaving the conference left a nice spot for it), with its All-American Doug McDermott, though I could see good arguments for Wisconsin or Arizona. The point is, someone will win the bracket, there will be lots of good first- and second-round games, and the NCAA Committee will seem to be vindicated, though the fact that there will be two great, proven teams and two that slipped through into the Final Four will not be viewed as a weakness but as a validation of the "democratic" nature of the tourney. It is, mostly, fair, but not without some blemishes this year--ones which probably only enhance the telegenic nature of the early round coverage, which arguably is what really matters.
NBA
We are heading toward the end of the regular season, and there is some jockeying for position but the outlook is fairly clear. As always, there is a hole at the bottom of the East, and some team will get into the playoffs with a winning percentage around 40%--but they will get the #1 team, either Indiana or Miami, for their troubles, and a quick exit. It would also be important not to finish #7 and get the other one of those two. There is a close contest for positions 3,4, and 5 in the East (Toronto, Brooklyn, and Chicago), but it probably doesn't matter so much--a competitive first-round match awaits 4 and 5, while any of the three can only look forward to a beatdown from numbers 1 and 2, one would presume. I do think that Brooklyn has the capability to pull off a surprise, though; they started poorly but have come on strong.
In the West, it's the usual: a lot of good teams, but two standout playoff performers (San Antonio and Oklahoma City) sit at the top and should be expected to make the Conference finals. The wild card is the LA Clippers, which have been erratic but are capable of beating everyone when their core--Chris Paul and Blake Griffin--is healthy and productive. There is a close contest for the #7 and #8 spots between three teams (Memphis, Phoenix, and Dallas), but the two winners get only some bragging rights and a really tough first-round matchup.
The expected Conference finals are Miami-Indiana and San Antonio-Oklahoma City, with Miami and San Antonio having the track record to make them favorites for the finals. I believe in those probabilities (maybe 20% of one of 7-8 other teams making one of the final spots, maybe 2% that two of them don't), but I'm not ready to make a prediction for the NBA Championship opponents or winner just yet--I want to see their playoff form (are the Big 3 all healthy for the Spurs? Dwayne Wade for the Heat?)
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Sunday, March 09, 2014
Three-Ring Circus in the US: the 2014 Elections Preview
This Tuesday the 2014 elections begin, in a way that actually counts. I have already received several hundred emails this year--I would guess, I certainly haven't counted, and they don't stay around long--asking me for money because of this or that deadline, from a couple of dozen people running for Congress (House or Senate) and from twenty or so various political organizations--just counting those specifically referring to the 2014 elections.*
For Openers:
I am saving my funds until later, with one exception. That is the special election next week to choose the new Representative in Florida's 13th House district (to fill the seat of Republican Bill Young, recently deceased). These "by-elections" get way too much attention and are considered much more significant than they usually are, but this one, though of course for only one House seat, is an unusually important one. I say this for the following reasons:
Is it conceivable that this will be the pattern for the whole nation, spending uncounted millions and hounding loyalists into madness with incessant, nagging appeals for money and focus group-tested ads? I predict the answer, this year, will be: "Yes, sort of." In high-profile contests in which the polls say the races are tight, the volume will be high and the frequency higher, but there will be many races in which probable victory will reduce the money arms race. I expect the major political organizations to spend strategically, and I recommend that the thinking political contributor do so, too.
I will go into each of the three Rings of Power and provide some analysis; after that, I promise to ignore them in this blog (follow-ups will go into comments on this one) for six months or so. I hope that formula pleases.
First Ring: The Senate
It's becoming apparent that this is the most critical battlefront this year. The Democrats could lose a lot politically by failing to retain control of a majority, and they have a great many seats to defend (it will be the reverse in 2016); worse, retirements have accentuated some major vulnerabilities for the Democrats. They can afford a net of -5 and still retain majority control (in a world of perfect party-line voting; we're not there yet but well on our way). Here are the most important races, with some oversimplified handicapping to indicate the degree of the challenge:
Probable Dem Losers: WV (open--formerly Jay Rockefeller), ARK (Pryor), SD (open--Tim Johnson)
Quite Likely Dem Losers: AK (Begich), MT (Walsh appointed to replace Baucus)
Quite Possible Dem Losers: NC (Hagan), LA (Landrieu)
Dems Better-Not Lose: MN (Franken), IA (open-Tom Harkin), NH (Shaheen), MI (open--Carl Levin), HI (Schatz appointed to replace Daniel Inouye), CO/NM (the Udalls)
Possible Dem Pickups: KY (McConnell), GA (open-Saxby Chambliss)
I hope that it is very clear that losing five seats will be the easy part for the Democrats. All those states in the first two categories are ones that have been voting decisively for Republicans in Presidential elections. The Democratic incumbents'/candidates' only hope is to dissociate themselves from the national party and keep a low profile, hoping they won't be blasted for supporting national party positions in the past. With incumbents Pryor and Begich, there is little of that in their voting history, but also little reason in it for me to care whether they win or lose. I swore, after their vote on background checks for guns, not to give them my support, directly or indirectly, unless they did something substantial to compensate for that damning vote--they have not done so.
Montana may be a different case: Max Baucus and Jon Tester have been able to run the gauntlet described above to win Senatorial elections, showing a possible path to victory. Obama lost the state in both Presidential elections, but not by a huge margin (which he did in the other four), and it has a Democratic governor, Steve Bullock. Bullock last month appointed his 2012 running mate, Lt. Gov. John Walsh, to the seat on an interim basis (Baucus resigned to become Ambassador to China), giving the Democrats an "incumbent", albeit one not elected to the position. Walsh has moved forcefully forward, making national appeals for money and issuing a strong statement after this week's (failed) cloture vote on Sen. Gillibrand's proposed legislation to remove military cases with rape allegations from the usual handling through the chain of command. Walsh came out in favor of Gillibrand's proposal and cited his experience as a military commander (one who had his difficulties with the military bureaucracy). It may be difficult to hold the seat--Walsh's opponent will be the well-financed at-large Representative (Montana has only one), Steve Daines--but it should at least be a competitive race with something meaningful at stake.
The next category holds two incumbent Democratic Senators, women who have moved fairly boldly to take votes in favor of national party positions in the past couple of years--those votes could put them at risk, in states that voted Republican in the 2012 Presidential election (NC went very narrowly for Obama in 2008), and the big money will be brought out against them in the search for that critical sixth pickup. Also, it will be brought out for them, assuming they remain competitive, by their national party organizations. These can be expected to be critical, high-stakes, high-spending contests, and Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu deserve our support.
Next is a large set of Senate seats which are either currently held by Democrats or have long been held by them; under the circumstances, the Democrats cannot afford to lose any of them. (Actually, there are more than those seven in that category, but I selected the ones in which I thought there was a significant danger.) I think Al Franken in MN, Jeanne Shaheen in NH, and the two Udalls (Mark and Tom, in CO and NM) are all strong and popular in their states and will be able to turn back concerted Republican efforts (even if Shaheen's opponent is the carpetbagging Scott Brown, the former MA Senator), but there is also the danger that having to spend resources to do that will reduce the national party's efforts in the three critical contests of MT, NC, and LA.
The ones which would cause more concern are MI, in which the Republicans have made recent gains with their Gov. Snyder and an anti-Detroit approach which has been popular in the rest of the state; IA, which is split evenly between the parties, but has a good candidate in Rep. Bruce Braley, who is running as a younger version of popular, retiring Sen. Harkins; and HI, which votes somewhat reliably Democratic in statewide elections except when there is a split--and, unfortunately, there is a split. Sen. Inouye, shortly before dying, had reportedly suggested that Gov. Abercrombie appoint Rep. Colleen Hanabusa to his seat, but Abercrombie did not do so, instead appointing state Atty. Gen. Brian Schatz. Schatz and Hanabusa are running against each other in a fairly heated primary contest, with a lot of people and organizations taking sides; when the primary ends (August 9), it will be essential for the Democrats to close ranks behind the winner. In the meantime, my advice is for the rest of us to stay out of it, as either would be a reasonable Democratic Senator.
Finally, there are two--and only two--states which have Republican Senators and competitive races. A pickup would be huge under the circumstances, and the races in these states are worth a look, even if the odds are unfavorable. First is Georgia, a state which the Democrats have targeted as a long-term target to turn-- "purple, if not blue". They have a strong candidate--Michelle Nunn, former CEO of a non-profit and daughter of longtime moderate Democratic Senator Sam Nunn--and a fair shot at an open seat, while the Republicans are in the middle of a protracted food fight with at least four candidates battling on the right side of the teeter-totter.
The other challenged Republican-held Senate seat is Kentucky's: Kentuckians tend strongly Republican in national elections, but Democratic in state elections. As this is a Federal election, one would think the Republicans have a strong advantage and the incumbent is the powerful Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, but McConnell is not as popular in Kentucky as one might think, nor is he perceived as having brought home the benefit one might expect from such a powerful position (the two facts may describe the same thing). The Democrats have an appealing candidate, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky's Secretary of State, who has been raising money for quite a while. This may not be a probable victory, but it is a possible one, and is a race that could divert Republican resources, in the same sense as the "better-not-lose" ones described above: the Republicans can not afford to lose this seat.
So, for my money, the key races are: NC, MT, KY, GA, and LA. The Democrats need to win two of these five races to hold the Senate. I will also give some money to my home-state Senator, Tom Udall, because he's great. I don't think I will be giving to the national campaign committee, the DSCC, for the reasons explained above.
Second Ring: Governors' Races
The picture for the Democrats with regard to the gubernatorial races is like that for the Republicans in the Senate, but reversed: lots of targets of opportunity to attack. The Republicans have a large advantage in state governments, much of it won in the 2010 elections. Whether by design or accident, it provides a counter to the Federal power structure: one party wins the Presidency, the other tends to gain in the states two years later. This trend went further than usual in 2010, with important results for House redistricting, but now the pendulum could swing back somewhat. The point for the Democrats is not the raw number of statehouses that it regains: there is no payoff in Congress, or even in the Presidential elections coming up in 2016, for the number of states controlled. Instead, the payoff will be in winning specific strategic elections, turning the trend of statewide control and bringing benefit to the residents of some of those states.
A good example of what's in play is the additional Medicaid assistance available through Obamacare (a/k/a the ACA) which the Supreme Court ruled the states would not have to accept. With the aim of frustrating the success of the ACA, some 20 states, ones with both the legislature and governorship controlled by Republicans, have opted out, thus depriving poor people in their states of healthcare assistance. It is hard to theorize any benefit these state governments have achieved for their constituents with this posture (killing off their poor, maybe?), though the political motivations are all too apparent. In 2014, the Democrats will seek to counter the perceived disadvantage of the ACA's implementation headaches with an attack on those governors and legislatures responsible for this policy.
Number one on the hit list is Rick Scott of Florida, the former for-profit hospital executive who won a narrow victory over Sink in 2010, spending some $70 million of his money, and has governed predictably, continuing to favor some of his healthcare friends and serving as a rallying point for the movement to refuse Medicaid in the states. His opponent in the general election will likely be former Gov. Charlie Crist, who served as Governor as a Republican, ran unsuccessfully as an independent for the Senate in 2010 (splitting the moderate vote, which allowed Marco Rubio to win the seat), but who has now joined the Democrats. In this case, we should be happy to support the turncoat's efforts, and we should expect a large portion of national contributions (for example, through the Democratic Governors' Association, which has been active in its fundraising efforts) will be funneled to him. So far, Crist leads in the polls, but Scott is a dangerous and deep-pocketed opponent and we should take nothing for granted in this critical race .
The second-most important target in governors' races would be Pennsylvania, a state that tends Democratic but that tendency is fragile, depending on turnout in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The incumbent Tom Corbett has low approval ratings, while the Democrats are expected to run a good candidate, Rep. Allyson Schwartz, and regaining control of Harrisburg would be important for future national elections (for example, preventing future attempts to make voting more difficult).
Then there are a few states among the many governors who took office in the wave of 2010, in which the Democrats may have a chance to knock off one or more of the Republicans' aspirants to the national stage. Two big targets are Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio; on the next level would be Suzanna Martinez in New Mexico and Rick Snyder in Michigan. All these states went for Obama in 2012, but these governors have largely sustained levels of popularity which will make dislodging them a challenge.
The last big target is Texas: Rick Perry is leaving the governors' office after 3+ terms (he succeeded to the office when George W. Bush moved to the White House in 2001), and the Republicans have identified Greg Abbott as the designated heir to the statehouse in Austin. Standing in the way is Wendy Davis, the state legislator who gained fame last year through a one-woman filibuster in an unsuccessful effort to block a restrictive anti-abortion law. Davis' hope is that she can add a greater number of women to support the 40-45% which Democratic coalitions have been getting in the state for the last 20 years or so and finally put the Democrats over the top in a statewide election. Clearly, hers is a difficult task but one that could mark a breakthrough in the partisan stalemate if she were to succeed.
The Republicans have a big-state target of their own in my sometime home state, Illinois. People of all parties and political persuasion seem united in their view that the state takes too much money and doesn't spend it well. The problem with the governor of IL--this one, the last two went to jail--appears to be ineffectiveness, not corruption or foreign political beliefs. Governor Pat Quinn has managed to fend off possible primary challengers, but several Republican candidates are practically falling over each other to get the opportunity to take him on.
Third Ring: The House
Unfortunately, in this contest there seems to be less than meets the eye at first glance. The Democrats need to gain 17 seats to gain control of the House, about 4% (the Republicans need to gain 6% to get control of the Senate). Despite the well-understood lack of legislative effectiveness from the Republican-led House, and the intensely low popularity levels of Congress, there remains the problem of identifying 17 House districts seats with voting demographics and candidates suited for Democratic gains.
In fact, despite the Democrats' being in the minority, there seem to be as many seats that are suited for Republican pickups as for Democratic ones. The nonpartisan U. of Virginia Center for Politics--I'd describe it as middle-of-the-road, low-risk in its previews of possible office turnover--has in its current ratings a grand total of two seats likely or leaning to change to the Democrats (Sink's race is one), and an equal number likely to change to the Republicans. When you throw in the six races rated "toss-up" currently held by the Democrats, and the six with the same rating held by the Republicans, you don't even get to 17 seats likely to change party in either direction. The current generic polls ("would you vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate in your House district") are basically a dead heat; the Democrats need a shift of 3-5% in their favor to move from what is basically a no-trend situation.
I'm getting fund-raising appeals from dozens of Congressional candidates all over the country. They are all upbeat, timely, and persuasive. Half of the candidates are completely unfamiliar to me. I'm going to hold off until I know more about the races that are viewed as highly competitive, or important, or both. I may even end up trusting the central House campaign committee (headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz) to make the decisions about where the money should go.
There is one common thread in all three rings: the Democrats' fates depend on their ability to get voters to turn out. In these mid-cycle elections, turnout drops sharply, but usually more for the Democratic voters than for Republican ones. The long-term demographic advantages of the Democrats--better shares among young people and minorities--become a relative liability in the midyear elections. So, that is one more reason to keep our expectations at reasonable levels.
*Thus, not counting the usual non-profit/charity groups, or those who are developing warchest funds for 2016 elections. Neither am I counting the constant appeals, coupled with topical commentary, from the Obama fundraising organization, OFA: It used to mean Obama for America--or, as I think to myself in my most malicious moments "the ofay organization"--it now means "organizing for america".)
ofay--Kiddies, if it's unfamiliar, ask your parents if they've heard this one: it's an old-fashioned derogatory term that was used by some segments of the African-American population to refer to white people. Its etymology as being Pig Latin for "foe" is dismissed by the online dictionaries, but I've never heard any other.
For Openers:
I am saving my funds until later, with one exception. That is the special election next week to choose the new Representative in Florida's 13th House district (to fill the seat of Republican Bill Young, recently deceased). These "by-elections" get way too much attention and are considered much more significant than they usually are, but this one, though of course for only one House seat, is an unusually important one. I say this for the following reasons:
1) This is a swing district in a critical swing state--it's Pinellas County (Tampa and some neighboring areas), some of the most vote-rich precincts along the critical "I-4 corridor" which usually decides the close statewide elections.The tone of the appeals for money (both from her and for other groups looking to provide her support, or to provide "candidates like her" with support) has been fairly desperate. At this point in the campaign it's not about building organization, it's about flooding the market with TV ads. I've had too much of that, though I do buy into the arguments for the significance of this particular early showdown, so I'm giving some here.
2) This "buy-election" is the test battleground to try out the weapons to be used nationwide in November (Democratic grassroots donations, Koch Bros.-based money dumps), or, if you like the circus metaphor of my title, this is the initial parade of the performing organizations which will be looking to get our attention later, so they can try out a couple of their tricks and see if the crowd applauds.
3) The Democrats' candidate is well-known--Alex Sink, former state Treasurer and "the woman who lost the election to Rick Scott" for governor of Florida. She is taking on a Tea Party-backed lobbyist named Mike Jolly. If the Democrats have any hope of picking up the net 17 seats they need to get control of the House back, the feeling is that they better start here, where they have a real chance.
Is it conceivable that this will be the pattern for the whole nation, spending uncounted millions and hounding loyalists into madness with incessant, nagging appeals for money and focus group-tested ads? I predict the answer, this year, will be: "Yes, sort of." In high-profile contests in which the polls say the races are tight, the volume will be high and the frequency higher, but there will be many races in which probable victory will reduce the money arms race. I expect the major political organizations to spend strategically, and I recommend that the thinking political contributor do so, too.
I will go into each of the three Rings of Power and provide some analysis; after that, I promise to ignore them in this blog (follow-ups will go into comments on this one) for six months or so. I hope that formula pleases.
First Ring: The Senate
It's becoming apparent that this is the most critical battlefront this year. The Democrats could lose a lot politically by failing to retain control of a majority, and they have a great many seats to defend (it will be the reverse in 2016); worse, retirements have accentuated some major vulnerabilities for the Democrats. They can afford a net of -5 and still retain majority control (in a world of perfect party-line voting; we're not there yet but well on our way). Here are the most important races, with some oversimplified handicapping to indicate the degree of the challenge:
Probable Dem Losers: WV (open--formerly Jay Rockefeller), ARK (Pryor), SD (open--Tim Johnson)
Quite Likely Dem Losers: AK (Begich), MT (Walsh appointed to replace Baucus)
Quite Possible Dem Losers: NC (Hagan), LA (Landrieu)
Dems Better-Not Lose: MN (Franken), IA (open-Tom Harkin), NH (Shaheen), MI (open--Carl Levin), HI (Schatz appointed to replace Daniel Inouye), CO/NM (the Udalls)
Possible Dem Pickups: KY (McConnell), GA (open-Saxby Chambliss)
I hope that it is very clear that losing five seats will be the easy part for the Democrats. All those states in the first two categories are ones that have been voting decisively for Republicans in Presidential elections. The Democratic incumbents'/candidates' only hope is to dissociate themselves from the national party and keep a low profile, hoping they won't be blasted for supporting national party positions in the past. With incumbents Pryor and Begich, there is little of that in their voting history, but also little reason in it for me to care whether they win or lose. I swore, after their vote on background checks for guns, not to give them my support, directly or indirectly, unless they did something substantial to compensate for that damning vote--they have not done so.
Montana may be a different case: Max Baucus and Jon Tester have been able to run the gauntlet described above to win Senatorial elections, showing a possible path to victory. Obama lost the state in both Presidential elections, but not by a huge margin (which he did in the other four), and it has a Democratic governor, Steve Bullock. Bullock last month appointed his 2012 running mate, Lt. Gov. John Walsh, to the seat on an interim basis (Baucus resigned to become Ambassador to China), giving the Democrats an "incumbent", albeit one not elected to the position. Walsh has moved forcefully forward, making national appeals for money and issuing a strong statement after this week's (failed) cloture vote on Sen. Gillibrand's proposed legislation to remove military cases with rape allegations from the usual handling through the chain of command. Walsh came out in favor of Gillibrand's proposal and cited his experience as a military commander (one who had his difficulties with the military bureaucracy). It may be difficult to hold the seat--Walsh's opponent will be the well-financed at-large Representative (Montana has only one), Steve Daines--but it should at least be a competitive race with something meaningful at stake.
The next category holds two incumbent Democratic Senators, women who have moved fairly boldly to take votes in favor of national party positions in the past couple of years--those votes could put them at risk, in states that voted Republican in the 2012 Presidential election (NC went very narrowly for Obama in 2008), and the big money will be brought out against them in the search for that critical sixth pickup. Also, it will be brought out for them, assuming they remain competitive, by their national party organizations. These can be expected to be critical, high-stakes, high-spending contests, and Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu deserve our support.
Next is a large set of Senate seats which are either currently held by Democrats or have long been held by them; under the circumstances, the Democrats cannot afford to lose any of them. (Actually, there are more than those seven in that category, but I selected the ones in which I thought there was a significant danger.) I think Al Franken in MN, Jeanne Shaheen in NH, and the two Udalls (Mark and Tom, in CO and NM) are all strong and popular in their states and will be able to turn back concerted Republican efforts (even if Shaheen's opponent is the carpetbagging Scott Brown, the former MA Senator), but there is also the danger that having to spend resources to do that will reduce the national party's efforts in the three critical contests of MT, NC, and LA.
The ones which would cause more concern are MI, in which the Republicans have made recent gains with their Gov. Snyder and an anti-Detroit approach which has been popular in the rest of the state; IA, which is split evenly between the parties, but has a good candidate in Rep. Bruce Braley, who is running as a younger version of popular, retiring Sen. Harkins; and HI, which votes somewhat reliably Democratic in statewide elections except when there is a split--and, unfortunately, there is a split. Sen. Inouye, shortly before dying, had reportedly suggested that Gov. Abercrombie appoint Rep. Colleen Hanabusa to his seat, but Abercrombie did not do so, instead appointing state Atty. Gen. Brian Schatz. Schatz and Hanabusa are running against each other in a fairly heated primary contest, with a lot of people and organizations taking sides; when the primary ends (August 9), it will be essential for the Democrats to close ranks behind the winner. In the meantime, my advice is for the rest of us to stay out of it, as either would be a reasonable Democratic Senator.
Finally, there are two--and only two--states which have Republican Senators and competitive races. A pickup would be huge under the circumstances, and the races in these states are worth a look, even if the odds are unfavorable. First is Georgia, a state which the Democrats have targeted as a long-term target to turn-- "purple, if not blue". They have a strong candidate--Michelle Nunn, former CEO of a non-profit and daughter of longtime moderate Democratic Senator Sam Nunn--and a fair shot at an open seat, while the Republicans are in the middle of a protracted food fight with at least four candidates battling on the right side of the teeter-totter.
The other challenged Republican-held Senate seat is Kentucky's: Kentuckians tend strongly Republican in national elections, but Democratic in state elections. As this is a Federal election, one would think the Republicans have a strong advantage and the incumbent is the powerful Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, but McConnell is not as popular in Kentucky as one might think, nor is he perceived as having brought home the benefit one might expect from such a powerful position (the two facts may describe the same thing). The Democrats have an appealing candidate, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky's Secretary of State, who has been raising money for quite a while. This may not be a probable victory, but it is a possible one, and is a race that could divert Republican resources, in the same sense as the "better-not-lose" ones described above: the Republicans can not afford to lose this seat.
So, for my money, the key races are: NC, MT, KY, GA, and LA. The Democrats need to win two of these five races to hold the Senate. I will also give some money to my home-state Senator, Tom Udall, because he's great. I don't think I will be giving to the national campaign committee, the DSCC, for the reasons explained above.
Second Ring: Governors' Races
The picture for the Democrats with regard to the gubernatorial races is like that for the Republicans in the Senate, but reversed: lots of targets of opportunity to attack. The Republicans have a large advantage in state governments, much of it won in the 2010 elections. Whether by design or accident, it provides a counter to the Federal power structure: one party wins the Presidency, the other tends to gain in the states two years later. This trend went further than usual in 2010, with important results for House redistricting, but now the pendulum could swing back somewhat. The point for the Democrats is not the raw number of statehouses that it regains: there is no payoff in Congress, or even in the Presidential elections coming up in 2016, for the number of states controlled. Instead, the payoff will be in winning specific strategic elections, turning the trend of statewide control and bringing benefit to the residents of some of those states.
A good example of what's in play is the additional Medicaid assistance available through Obamacare (a/k/a the ACA) which the Supreme Court ruled the states would not have to accept. With the aim of frustrating the success of the ACA, some 20 states, ones with both the legislature and governorship controlled by Republicans, have opted out, thus depriving poor people in their states of healthcare assistance. It is hard to theorize any benefit these state governments have achieved for their constituents with this posture (killing off their poor, maybe?), though the political motivations are all too apparent. In 2014, the Democrats will seek to counter the perceived disadvantage of the ACA's implementation headaches with an attack on those governors and legislatures responsible for this policy.
Number one on the hit list is Rick Scott of Florida, the former for-profit hospital executive who won a narrow victory over Sink in 2010, spending some $70 million of his money, and has governed predictably, continuing to favor some of his healthcare friends and serving as a rallying point for the movement to refuse Medicaid in the states. His opponent in the general election will likely be former Gov. Charlie Crist, who served as Governor as a Republican, ran unsuccessfully as an independent for the Senate in 2010 (splitting the moderate vote, which allowed Marco Rubio to win the seat), but who has now joined the Democrats. In this case, we should be happy to support the turncoat's efforts, and we should expect a large portion of national contributions (for example, through the Democratic Governors' Association, which has been active in its fundraising efforts) will be funneled to him. So far, Crist leads in the polls, but Scott is a dangerous and deep-pocketed opponent and we should take nothing for granted in this critical race .
The second-most important target in governors' races would be Pennsylvania, a state that tends Democratic but that tendency is fragile, depending on turnout in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The incumbent Tom Corbett has low approval ratings, while the Democrats are expected to run a good candidate, Rep. Allyson Schwartz, and regaining control of Harrisburg would be important for future national elections (for example, preventing future attempts to make voting more difficult).
Then there are a few states among the many governors who took office in the wave of 2010, in which the Democrats may have a chance to knock off one or more of the Republicans' aspirants to the national stage. Two big targets are Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio; on the next level would be Suzanna Martinez in New Mexico and Rick Snyder in Michigan. All these states went for Obama in 2012, but these governors have largely sustained levels of popularity which will make dislodging them a challenge.
The last big target is Texas: Rick Perry is leaving the governors' office after 3+ terms (he succeeded to the office when George W. Bush moved to the White House in 2001), and the Republicans have identified Greg Abbott as the designated heir to the statehouse in Austin. Standing in the way is Wendy Davis, the state legislator who gained fame last year through a one-woman filibuster in an unsuccessful effort to block a restrictive anti-abortion law. Davis' hope is that she can add a greater number of women to support the 40-45% which Democratic coalitions have been getting in the state for the last 20 years or so and finally put the Democrats over the top in a statewide election. Clearly, hers is a difficult task but one that could mark a breakthrough in the partisan stalemate if she were to succeed.
The Republicans have a big-state target of their own in my sometime home state, Illinois. People of all parties and political persuasion seem united in their view that the state takes too much money and doesn't spend it well. The problem with the governor of IL--this one, the last two went to jail--appears to be ineffectiveness, not corruption or foreign political beliefs. Governor Pat Quinn has managed to fend off possible primary challengers, but several Republican candidates are practically falling over each other to get the opportunity to take him on.
Third Ring: The House
Unfortunately, in this contest there seems to be less than meets the eye at first glance. The Democrats need to gain 17 seats to gain control of the House, about 4% (the Republicans need to gain 6% to get control of the Senate). Despite the well-understood lack of legislative effectiveness from the Republican-led House, and the intensely low popularity levels of Congress, there remains the problem of identifying 17 House districts seats with voting demographics and candidates suited for Democratic gains.
In fact, despite the Democrats' being in the minority, there seem to be as many seats that are suited for Republican pickups as for Democratic ones. The nonpartisan U. of Virginia Center for Politics--I'd describe it as middle-of-the-road, low-risk in its previews of possible office turnover--has in its current ratings a grand total of two seats likely or leaning to change to the Democrats (Sink's race is one), and an equal number likely to change to the Republicans. When you throw in the six races rated "toss-up" currently held by the Democrats, and the six with the same rating held by the Republicans, you don't even get to 17 seats likely to change party in either direction. The current generic polls ("would you vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate in your House district") are basically a dead heat; the Democrats need a shift of 3-5% in their favor to move from what is basically a no-trend situation.
I'm getting fund-raising appeals from dozens of Congressional candidates all over the country. They are all upbeat, timely, and persuasive. Half of the candidates are completely unfamiliar to me. I'm going to hold off until I know more about the races that are viewed as highly competitive, or important, or both. I may even end up trusting the central House campaign committee (headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz) to make the decisions about where the money should go.
There is one common thread in all three rings: the Democrats' fates depend on their ability to get voters to turn out. In these mid-cycle elections, turnout drops sharply, but usually more for the Democratic voters than for Republican ones. The long-term demographic advantages of the Democrats--better shares among young people and minorities--become a relative liability in the midyear elections. So, that is one more reason to keep our expectations at reasonable levels.
*Thus, not counting the usual non-profit/charity groups, or those who are developing warchest funds for 2016 elections. Neither am I counting the constant appeals, coupled with topical commentary, from the Obama fundraising organization, OFA: It used to mean Obama for America--or, as I think to myself in my most malicious moments "the ofay organization"--it now means "organizing for america".)
ofay--Kiddies, if it's unfamiliar, ask your parents if they've heard this one: it's an old-fashioned derogatory term that was used by some segments of the African-American population to refer to white people. Its etymology as being Pig Latin for "foe" is dismissed by the online dictionaries, but I've never heard any other.
Saturday, March 01, 2014
Europa 2014: Pt. 1
The lead for my planned post on European events in 2014 has been pre-empted by the crisis in the Ukraine. What does Ukraine have to do with Europe, you may ask? Well, actually, a lot. Aside from being physically part of what is generally considered the European continent (Europe's Eastern border is fuzzy but is generally considered to be the Ural Mountains, several hundred miles east of Ukraine's eastern border),Ukraine borders on current European Union members Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.
The current dispute developed as the re-emergence of an internal struggle for power between the pro-Russian and pro-European forces within the Ukraine. The first climax of this battle occurred in the so-called Orange Revolution of 2004-5 (called so because of Agent Orange, the dioxin-based chemical with which the pro-European candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned, but not killed). Protests overthrew the rigged election and Yushchenko won the rematch. The balance tipped in the other direction, though, and Yushchenko and his one-time ally Julia Timyoshenko fell from power. The other V.Y. of the 2005 election, the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich, won back the Presidency in 2010, Timyoshenko was imprisoned and Yushchenko marginalized.
Yanukovich negotiated with both the EU, who offered aid and a path toward eventual associate membership, and Russia, which offered debt relief and natural gas. It should come as no surprise that Yanukovich took Russian President Putin's best offer last fall, but the Ukrainian-speaking portion of the population (a narrow majority) took umbrage and began a continuous protest demonstration in Kiev, the capital. The demonstrators were led by Vitaly Klitschko, the former heavyweight boxing champion and one of the truly outstanding figures of the current era: Klitschko was probably the greatest heavyweight of the last 20 years--his only true rival was his brother, Wladimir, who's now the champ--he has a Ph.D. (the only boxing champion with that credential), and has acted thoroughly responsibly throughout the crisis. I would say it is a high probability that he will emerge from this crisis--assuming Ukraine retains its sovereignty--as the future leader of the country.
In the meantime, though, the demonstrations began to get violent, people began to get killed, and both sides took up arms in the capital. Yanukovich turned loose snipers who killed several dozen one day in an attempt to suppress his opponents, but it did the opposite. The people in Kiev rose up as one, chased Yanukovich's people out of town and into hiding, and put him on the run. The Ukrainian Parliament voted unanimously to strip Yanukovich of his position, there was discussion of trying him for crimes against humanity, and an interim government was set up.
In the aftermath of the coup, there was peace in Kiev, but an unstable security situation in the Eastern provinces, which are predominantly, or overwhelmingly, Russian-speaking. Both sides were calling the other fascists and other names. There was a faction there calling for splitting the country and reuniting the Russian part with Putin's country, but most were not going that far. Yanukovich made noises from Moscow, then started coming closer to the theater of action; the Russians announced military maneuvers on the Ukrainian border.
Crimea
Then things really heated up, with pro-Russian paratroopers appearing overnight and taking up positions to control both airports on the peninsula of Crimea. Crimea is the weak spot in the argument for Ukrainian sovereignty: the Russians have a legitimate lease for its navy to use the Crimean port of Sevastopol for decades to come. Timyoshenko has made noises in the past about revoking the lease--this and recent developments have made the Russians nervous. Crimea is also overwhelmingly Russian, and its being a part of the Ukraine is an artifact: a gift made from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian one back when Nikita Khrushchev (a Ukrainian) was the dictator of the USSR, something that was never reversed, survived the breakup of the Soviet Union, but now looks like a mistake.
Some things seem to stay the same, beyond the bounds of time. Crimea was the site of a two-year war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) from 1854-1856, with the French and British backing up the latter, over Russian access to warm water ports. * Ukraine was part Austria-Hungary, part Russia then--there was no Ukraine. I leave it to you to look up the history; preferably one that looks beyond just the British involvement. I will point out that the famous suicidal charge of the Light Brigade, immortalized by the English poet Lord Tennyson, was in Balaclava, which is the English word for the face masks worn by the Russian paratroopers this week.
Yes, the Russian ones. The Russian Parliament has given its backing to Russia's use of its military to defend its interests in Ukraine (after the fact). It is an aggression, probably modeled after the one in the former Soviet state of Georgia a couple of years ago when that country did not behave like one should within the Russian sphere of influence. As with Georgia, Russia has some legitimate claim to interest itself, though it has gone beyond that in its de facto takeover of the peninsula. Putin seems to be developing something of a Monroe-like Doctrine in asserting some right to interfere in the affairs of ex-Soviet republics (though Russia has let go completely of the Baltic Republics, for which the Soviets' claim was always suspect; the three Baltic states have already joined the EU). The US had the advantage of being the only power in the hemisphere when Monroe issued his, though, and in this case the EU is the counterforce in the neighborhood. The EU is acting in a coordinated fashion, and this episode may prove that the EU can successfully conduct a meaningful foreign policy. This is not a UN thing; though the Security Council may discuss it, heatedly, no resolution would ever get past a Russian veto.
The Ukrainians are tolerating the Russian presence in Crimea, so far, but will clearly look to draw the line there; they have ordered a general mobilization and look prepared to fight the Russians if necessary.The US has been a bit of a provocative influence, openly helping the pro-European side. I have seen more than a few nuts on the Internet talking about this sparking WWIII (and Obama handled one such person who sought to heckle his speech today). Those folks are so passionate in their opposition they wish for the worst, just because it will make Obama look bad. There is a real risk of US-Russian relations re-freezing into something like a new Cold War, if the Russians do not stop at Crimea, though I think they will. I presume that Yanukovich and his band mean nothing to Putin, and he would only lift a finger to help them if it's purely in his own interest. I could see the possibility of a referendum in Crimea, which would probably go the Russians' way, so they can probably get what is most important to them without further aggression, and there might even be a couple of other provinces that need to reconcile their Russian majorities to continued presence in the Ukrainian state. Meanwhile, the US should back off, except to offer natural gas (liquefied, in this case) at a decent price, so that the Ukrainians are less subject to Russian extortionist terms.
Speaking of Splitting Up Countries...
After the tumultuous series of events in the late Eighties and early Nineties which started with the Berlin Wall's fall and ended with the settlement of the conflict in Bosnia, Europe experienced a period of relative peace and stability of borders. As with Africa, it's generally considered to be better to let the borders be, even if they aren't sound from the point of view of politics, culture, or language, rather than open up Pandora's Box. In that regard, the splitting of Sudan and the creation of South Sudan in 2011 might signal a new round of shifting borders, with Crimea being the next.
There are more possible adjustments on the horizon. Most notably, the Scottish have a referendum this September on separation from Great Britain. Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron promised them the referendum in the last electoral campaign in 2010, and now that promise has come due. It is perhaps surprising that the drive for independence (after some 400 years of union) is so strong, but the British parties are all pleading to the Scots to stay around (Labour and the Liberal Democrats would lose significant ground nationally without them, while the Conservatives would be the goats, reviled through history for giving up Scotland)--and there is some threat about taking away their access to the British pound (of which they are very proud and fond). I think this is a good time for the Scottish nationalists to make a deal with the British, but they seem very stubborn about wanting their vote--which I think will fail in the end if it comes to that.
Then there is Catalonia--the Catalonians have been making noises about a referendum (the planning is for 2015) on splitting away from Spain, and there is currently a pro-independence majority in the Catalonian regional government. This does not mean that Catalonia is about to become a separate nation, though. The Spanish central government has said that it would not allow such a referendum, and it is not clear it would have a chance of passing. Most likely, Catalonia would be more than happy with an expanded degree of autonomy such as the Spanish Basques got--and appear to be more than happy with, after all that bombing and rebellion and such.
* I should acknowledge the article of my neighbor, the Corriere della Sera (their offices on via Solferino are about three blocks from my current home), which pointed out that the nascent Italian Kingdom under Count Cavour of Savoy also sent several thousand troops to the Crimean War during the tail end, which earned it a spot at the negotiating table and some prestige for their ongoing attempts at making a nation (English translation on the link is automatic, but weak).
The current dispute developed as the re-emergence of an internal struggle for power between the pro-Russian and pro-European forces within the Ukraine. The first climax of this battle occurred in the so-called Orange Revolution of 2004-5 (called so because of Agent Orange, the dioxin-based chemical with which the pro-European candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned, but not killed). Protests overthrew the rigged election and Yushchenko won the rematch. The balance tipped in the other direction, though, and Yushchenko and his one-time ally Julia Timyoshenko fell from power. The other V.Y. of the 2005 election, the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich, won back the Presidency in 2010, Timyoshenko was imprisoned and Yushchenko marginalized.
Yanukovich negotiated with both the EU, who offered aid and a path toward eventual associate membership, and Russia, which offered debt relief and natural gas. It should come as no surprise that Yanukovich took Russian President Putin's best offer last fall, but the Ukrainian-speaking portion of the population (a narrow majority) took umbrage and began a continuous protest demonstration in Kiev, the capital. The demonstrators were led by Vitaly Klitschko, the former heavyweight boxing champion and one of the truly outstanding figures of the current era: Klitschko was probably the greatest heavyweight of the last 20 years--his only true rival was his brother, Wladimir, who's now the champ--he has a Ph.D. (the only boxing champion with that credential), and has acted thoroughly responsibly throughout the crisis. I would say it is a high probability that he will emerge from this crisis--assuming Ukraine retains its sovereignty--as the future leader of the country.
In the meantime, though, the demonstrations began to get violent, people began to get killed, and both sides took up arms in the capital. Yanukovich turned loose snipers who killed several dozen one day in an attempt to suppress his opponents, but it did the opposite. The people in Kiev rose up as one, chased Yanukovich's people out of town and into hiding, and put him on the run. The Ukrainian Parliament voted unanimously to strip Yanukovich of his position, there was discussion of trying him for crimes against humanity, and an interim government was set up.
In the aftermath of the coup, there was peace in Kiev, but an unstable security situation in the Eastern provinces, which are predominantly, or overwhelmingly, Russian-speaking. Both sides were calling the other fascists and other names. There was a faction there calling for splitting the country and reuniting the Russian part with Putin's country, but most were not going that far. Yanukovich made noises from Moscow, then started coming closer to the theater of action; the Russians announced military maneuvers on the Ukrainian border.
Crimea
Then things really heated up, with pro-Russian paratroopers appearing overnight and taking up positions to control both airports on the peninsula of Crimea. Crimea is the weak spot in the argument for Ukrainian sovereignty: the Russians have a legitimate lease for its navy to use the Crimean port of Sevastopol for decades to come. Timyoshenko has made noises in the past about revoking the lease--this and recent developments have made the Russians nervous. Crimea is also overwhelmingly Russian, and its being a part of the Ukraine is an artifact: a gift made from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian one back when Nikita Khrushchev (a Ukrainian) was the dictator of the USSR, something that was never reversed, survived the breakup of the Soviet Union, but now looks like a mistake.
Some things seem to stay the same, beyond the bounds of time. Crimea was the site of a two-year war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) from 1854-1856, with the French and British backing up the latter, over Russian access to warm water ports. * Ukraine was part Austria-Hungary, part Russia then--there was no Ukraine. I leave it to you to look up the history; preferably one that looks beyond just the British involvement. I will point out that the famous suicidal charge of the Light Brigade, immortalized by the English poet Lord Tennyson, was in Balaclava, which is the English word for the face masks worn by the Russian paratroopers this week.
Yes, the Russian ones. The Russian Parliament has given its backing to Russia's use of its military to defend its interests in Ukraine (after the fact). It is an aggression, probably modeled after the one in the former Soviet state of Georgia a couple of years ago when that country did not behave like one should within the Russian sphere of influence. As with Georgia, Russia has some legitimate claim to interest itself, though it has gone beyond that in its de facto takeover of the peninsula. Putin seems to be developing something of a Monroe-like Doctrine in asserting some right to interfere in the affairs of ex-Soviet republics (though Russia has let go completely of the Baltic Republics, for which the Soviets' claim was always suspect; the three Baltic states have already joined the EU). The US had the advantage of being the only power in the hemisphere when Monroe issued his, though, and in this case the EU is the counterforce in the neighborhood. The EU is acting in a coordinated fashion, and this episode may prove that the EU can successfully conduct a meaningful foreign policy. This is not a UN thing; though the Security Council may discuss it, heatedly, no resolution would ever get past a Russian veto.
The Ukrainians are tolerating the Russian presence in Crimea, so far, but will clearly look to draw the line there; they have ordered a general mobilization and look prepared to fight the Russians if necessary.The US has been a bit of a provocative influence, openly helping the pro-European side. I have seen more than a few nuts on the Internet talking about this sparking WWIII (and Obama handled one such person who sought to heckle his speech today). Those folks are so passionate in their opposition they wish for the worst, just because it will make Obama look bad. There is a real risk of US-Russian relations re-freezing into something like a new Cold War, if the Russians do not stop at Crimea, though I think they will. I presume that Yanukovich and his band mean nothing to Putin, and he would only lift a finger to help them if it's purely in his own interest. I could see the possibility of a referendum in Crimea, which would probably go the Russians' way, so they can probably get what is most important to them without further aggression, and there might even be a couple of other provinces that need to reconcile their Russian majorities to continued presence in the Ukrainian state. Meanwhile, the US should back off, except to offer natural gas (liquefied, in this case) at a decent price, so that the Ukrainians are less subject to Russian extortionist terms.
Speaking of Splitting Up Countries...
After the tumultuous series of events in the late Eighties and early Nineties which started with the Berlin Wall's fall and ended with the settlement of the conflict in Bosnia, Europe experienced a period of relative peace and stability of borders. As with Africa, it's generally considered to be better to let the borders be, even if they aren't sound from the point of view of politics, culture, or language, rather than open up Pandora's Box. In that regard, the splitting of Sudan and the creation of South Sudan in 2011 might signal a new round of shifting borders, with Crimea being the next.
There are more possible adjustments on the horizon. Most notably, the Scottish have a referendum this September on separation from Great Britain. Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron promised them the referendum in the last electoral campaign in 2010, and now that promise has come due. It is perhaps surprising that the drive for independence (after some 400 years of union) is so strong, but the British parties are all pleading to the Scots to stay around (Labour and the Liberal Democrats would lose significant ground nationally without them, while the Conservatives would be the goats, reviled through history for giving up Scotland)--and there is some threat about taking away their access to the British pound (of which they are very proud and fond). I think this is a good time for the Scottish nationalists to make a deal with the British, but they seem very stubborn about wanting their vote--which I think will fail in the end if it comes to that.
Then there is Catalonia--the Catalonians have been making noises about a referendum (the planning is for 2015) on splitting away from Spain, and there is currently a pro-independence majority in the Catalonian regional government. This does not mean that Catalonia is about to become a separate nation, though. The Spanish central government has said that it would not allow such a referendum, and it is not clear it would have a chance of passing. Most likely, Catalonia would be more than happy with an expanded degree of autonomy such as the Spanish Basques got--and appear to be more than happy with, after all that bombing and rebellion and such.
* I should acknowledge the article of my neighbor, the Corriere della Sera (their offices on via Solferino are about three blocks from my current home), which pointed out that the nascent Italian Kingdom under Count Cavour of Savoy also sent several thousand troops to the Crimean War during the tail end, which earned it a spot at the negotiating table and some prestige for their ongoing attempts at making a nation (English translation on the link is automatic, but weak).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
