Cali Dreaming

These are the poll results so far this year in the key state of the Unofficial National Primary (-Democratic):

• Jan 22 EMC
  Clinton 39%, Obama 28%, Edwards 12% ...
• Jan 22 Field Poll
  Clinton 39%, Obama 27%, Edwards 10% ...
• Jan 17 Rasmussen
  Clinton 38%, Obama 33%, Edwards 12% ...
• Jan 14 SurveyUSA
  Clinton 50%, Obama 35%, Edwards 10% ...
• Jan 14 CNN
  Clinton 47%, Obama 31%, Edwards 10% ...

(from TPM's Poll Tracker--http://tpmelectioncentral.com/polltracker/capres_d/)
Some of it is methodology--how far to go in tabulating preferences, rather than firmly declared intention--but it seems to me that there is an unusually large undecided vote.

It seems quite possible that there is a large segment of "potential Edwards" voters; their intentions to vote for him have softened due to his primary results so far. South Carolina's result may influence how many of them end up forcing themselves to choose between Clinton and Obama (or sticking with "a protest vote" for Edwards, for Kucinich, or simply not voting--which would effectively be a vote for Clinton, as it's clear that high turnout should favor Obama).

Now that Obama's been slimed by the Clinton tag-team, it would seem that Obama's best chance is to take the high road once again, rising beyond the unfurled feral instincts of HRC and Hubby, and try to claim these change-seeking, vaguely anti-Clinton young and middle-aged white progressives. They will certainly be turned off by what they have seen and be looking for something better. Obama can still bring it to them.

The Big Ticket--Repunched

The debate now about Obama's gradual consolidation of African-American votes, and about state-by-state strategies of the leading candidates, reminds me of my post in March, 2007: The Big Ticket. I still feel that Obama has a better chance for a 40-40-20 (popular vote percentage) win than a 50-50 one (with Edwards out).

I stick by most of what I said ten months ago--for the nomination, Clinton 50% probability (to have it mostly assured on Feb. 5), Obama 40% (if he beats Clinton in CA), 10% all other possibilities (including a long battle in the primaries after the Unofficial National Primary). I had the winners of Iowa and NH backwards (though we tend to forget that the much bally-hooed NH win by Clinton was by 2%), but most of the dynamics correct.

Permutations 01/20/08

At the end of today's "Meet the Press", Tim Russert threw out a challenge to the panel: who would predict the name of the person to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009--exactly one year from today?

It was a bit of a red herring (there were only seconds left in the telecast), and of course no one dared to put out a name, proving Russert's implication that predicting the winner today would be impossible.

Of course, it was a challenge we dared take up.

To do our analysis, we relied on one BTH factoid--that Mike Bloomberg's best scenario, according to one, would be the Clinton-Huckabee matchup. This confirmed my hypothesis that Bloomberg's analysis of his chances looks at 1) a perception of managerial competence, and 2) ability to appeal to independents--these are the things he would bring to the table, and he will run only if he feels they are lacking among the major party nominees. I decided that a nomination for Obama (appeals to independents), Romney (also managerially competent), or McCain (possibly both?) would each tend to reduce the likelihood he would win, and thus that he would run.

I came up with this matrix of "Bloomberg In" probabilities:
Clinton-McCain 20%
Clinton-Huckabee 75%
Clinton-Romney 40%
Obama-McCain 5%
Obama-Huckabee 40%
Obama-Romney 20%


I focused on the 12 "canonical variations" of Clinton or Obama, vs. McCain, Huckabee, or Romney, and whether Bloomberg would run in each case. Then I factored in a subjective (but carefully considered) estimate of the probabilities of victory for each candidate in each of the matchup scenarios. The probabilities I assigned to nomination outcomes were as follows:
-- 50% Clinton, 40% Obama, 10% no decision indicated from the UNP outcomes;
--40% McCain, 30% Huckabee, 20% Romney, 5% Giuliani, and 5% "X"--someone else. (Here I'm still sticking with my age-old calculation of 40% McCain, 35% anti-Bushite Right-Winger, 25% "GPR"--Giuliani/Pataki/Romney.)
In the case of the first, I completed the probabilities recursively, i.e., the 10% remaining probability were divided up 50% Clinton* (late victory), 40% Obama late victory, and 10% Edwards or someone else (combined probability of 1%). In the case of the Republicans, I made no assumption as to when the decision would become clear. I reduced the probability of the Democrat winning if they didn't win decisively, and I also increased the probability of Bloomberg running for those outcomes.

I assumed that Bloomberg's decision was after the Democrats' and Republicans' nomination decisions, and that it would be informed by his chances of winning, consideration of whether his running would improve the chances of a "suitable" President winning, and a guess as to how much he valued the two outcomes (vs. the cost of his participation). His participation probability would rise sharply as the chances of winning increased, as long as his running didn't hurt the chances of a "suitable" outcome (I actually fixed the probabilities so they were never hurt by his running).

Finally, I looked at most variations of the two 10% extreme cases, going down to cases that had as low as 0.1% likelihood (e.g., Edwards, or some other Democrat vs. Giuliani or X)

Bottom line: I came up with about a 64% probability for two outcomes:

1. That a Democrat would win; and
   
2. That someone "suitable to Bloomberg" would win (i.e., Bloomberg himself, Obama, McCain, or Romney).

The probabilities for individual candidates being elected (covering 98.15% ; let's say the other 1.85% is of a Bushite coup preventing someone being nominated, or some other unlikely event such as a nominee assassination, accidental death, or Bloomberg defying his calculations and not running or something) were, in order, as follows:

• Obama 33.58%;
• Clinton 28.32% (Bloomberg took more of her chances away than he did from Obama, plus I like Obama's chances better in a straight-up race against McCain);
• McCain 15.00%;
• Bloomberg 10.39%;
• Huckabee 6.45%;
• Romney 3.17%;
• Giuliani 0.65%;
• X (some other Republican) 0.34%; and
  
• Edwards (or some other Democrat) 0.26%.

You can take this to the bank--I'm going to take it to the Rasmussen Markets trading floor.

UNP Preview--continued

Looking at the states besides California that are voting on Feb. 5, one is hard-pressed to name the second-most important. New York and Illinois are big, but each should be a big win for the favorite son/daughter. New Jersey would be significant if Obama managed to make it competitive, but I don't expect that. I come up with candidates for secondary focus on the state level on the key general election swing states Missouri and Colorado, followed by Minnesota, Massachusetts, and New Mexico.

Missouri and Colorado are critical states that the Democrats have a real chance of picking up (along with Ohio, which votes later), . Minnesota being a "Blue State" that is in some danger, it deserves special attentions from the candidates, and in the analysis the day after. I think Massachusetts--though a lock for the Democrats regardless--has a sizable delegate block and will be indicative of the overall national Democratic results.

Finally, New Mexico, which is the most probable 2004 "Red" state for the Democrats to pick up, will be a test of whether Obamania can overcome Clinton's entrenched advantages in this frantic early primary season. I do believe that Richardson will avoid direct endorsement before the misnamed caucuses, but the state machine seems to be lining up for Hillary. It matters, big time, here. Yet there is widespread support for Obama, too. I intend to be as involved as I can be on that day.

Fun & Games This Weekend

I'm not much of an NFL fan, but I do get interested when it comes time for the playoffs, particularly the second and third weekends (this is the third). The Super Bowl is hard to take, unless one times the day in order to turn the TV on for the opening kickoff (don't miss the first quarter, or it may be over!) This weekend was supposed to have the key game of the season, Colts-Patriots III (after last season's AFC Championship and this year's regular season game). Now that's off. Similarly with the NFC Championship, where the expected Cowboys-Packers showdown failed to materialize.

The Chargers look to be an extreme longshot, particularly with key players injured. Which is not to say that they have no chance, because the running-featured gameplan they figure to employ is the best shot available against the Patriots. I think the Giants, who timed their surge just right, are a serious threat to disrupt the last big story line, that of the Super Bowl matching the unbeaten Patriots and the Packers on Bret Favre's last run. They'd be a good upset pick.

I didn't realize Nevada had its caucuses early--seems like a good way to keep down turnout. Hillary's narrow win looks like a win to me, even if it's not the rout she expected on HRC's coronation tour. Obama should be examining how he can close the deal with black women and Hispanics before Feb. 5, or it's going to be hard to prevent a Clinton Perceived Victory. The Nevada test results suggest there's a long way to go.

South Carolina tonight should boil the Republican race down to McCain, Huckabee, and Romney (with Giuliani fading from sight and Thompson converting his campaign back to its prevailing comatose state). A McCain-Huckabee ticket looks more likely all the time and is probably their best bet, too.

That still doesn't mean I agree with Daily Kos' tactical support for Romney in Michigan: that was the US' chance to get him out of the race, and the Michigander Republicans (with their handful of benighted Democratic netroots voters) failed to accomplish that. A tactical vote for Paul would've been much more reasonable, in that it would create some havoc and help none of the leaders.

Let's Get This Straightened Out

I really like this Popular Vote/Delegate Count thing in the party nomination process, and the way it is working out this year (except for being too early in the year, of course); I really despise its equivalent (Electoral College/House of Representative, etc.) in the general election.

Here's the way it should really work, Larry Sabato: Parties would have to pay event-specific costs for primary elections or caucuses, if they have them. By Federal law, state legislatures would be prohibited for paying the expenses for national Presidential nomination-related party voting (actually makes sense under the constitution). To make up for that new restriction, government resources may be used for counting the votes (if you dare!), and local authorities are encouraged to make facilities available at reasonable costs or no costs, as they do for general elections.

To set the stage for each election cycle, the national party announces its preferred date for the Unofficial National Primary for its party (Dems same as Repubs, if they can work it out--that saves cost). National Dems will pay the costs for primary or caucus to any state party organizations that does its primary on that date or later. Presumably, a few states will decide it's worth their while to pay for the presumed extra attention. I'm really hoping the national parties will decide to put their UNP together, and in May or June, but I guess that's their choice.

The Other Shoe

The Presidential election process should be radically modified and simplified through Constitutional amendment. I would argue that the general election of the Leader of the Free World (21st- Century Edition) must be decided by popular vote plurality, adding only the caveat that the winner needs 40% or more of valid votes. Failing that, the top three (not two) should compete in a runoff three weeks afterward, with the same 40% minimum criterion, and then three weeks after that with the final two if necessary. The second runoff under that approach would be around Dec. 15, which is not too late to get ready for January 20. There's time to get it right, and a double runoff would be an extraordinarily rare event.

Nomination for the national ballot requires one million signatures of registered voters (of any party). Anyone on the ballot participates in all debates (regardless of sponsorship) and receives X$ for advertising. No other candidate-related advertising is permitted.

To abolish the Electoral College, we need to get over our fear of amending the Constitution and recognize that the President is not executive of the state governments, but of the Federal government, and more importantly, leader of the people, not of the states. The problems with the original formulation of electing the President from state delegates has been present since 1800 and has not been improved much. Periodically (1820, 1876, 1888, 1960, 2000) it produces jaw-dropping disconnects with the will of voters and a confusing mess. It's an outdated failure; scrap it.

UNP (-D) Victory Defined for Feb. 5, 2008

Continuing on the theme of Edwards and Obama, if we anticipate the coverage for the UNP(-D), it will focus on three areas:

1) total delegates won or pledged;
2) California popular vote, and the complex battle for the state's "rich harvest" (of delegates); and
3) the total popular vote across the 22 states (call it the "Apples and Oranges 22-state Sampler").

Winged Victory would be 50%+1 of Democratic delegates won or pledged coming out of Feb. 5. Perceived Victory would be pluralities, but not majorities, in 1), 2), and 3. Pluralistic Victory would be anything else.

Obama must seek to deny! (as Clyde Frazier would put it) victory to Hillary on Feb. 5 in order to be able to claim a win at the end of the night. I would argue that Edwards helps Obama's cause in the first two elements (note: those are the ones that matter, ultimately). In the third, the UNP Popular Vote, Edwards' alternative to Obama for anti-Hillary voters might be needed to keep HRC from reaching 50% in the third.

You will hear the opposite from the pundits: that Edwards' presence is preventing Obama from achieving a majority. I don't believe the majority for Obama is there yet; what he must do is keep punishing HRC in contested primaries and prevent her from attaining a delegate majority through the states where he has little to no organization formed.

Edwards on the Rack

or Jon(athan) Edwards: Do-Gooder in the Arms of an Angry God (in the person of Barack Obama)

I don't think John Edwards has a chance to win the nomination itself as the candidates and the races stand today, but where they will stand later is subject to shifts from seismic events, which have occurred with great frequency this time around. He does well to plan to run intensively in the short run (to maintain legitimacy), toward selected states on Feb. 5, and then presumably beyond if there is any race still in progress.

I do feel that Edwards is closer to Obama than Clinton, but I don't think it would help Obama all that much if Edwards left the race now, even to endorse Obama. Many Obamites--like me--would have had Edwards as second choice, but that does not mean that most who support Edwards or are considering doing so would go to Obama if he dropped out, especially at this weird early-but-late stage of the primary season.

I don't believe much in the idea that a candidate can "throw" his delegates to another in this day and age. The notion that seems most plausible and effective in delivering the maximum number of Edwards delegates for Obama would be an agreement and announcement that Edwards would run for VP at some point, though that is a long, long way off and could require that Edwards hold his bloc of delegates through a long period of time. For the present, Obama would want to keep his options open, and later it would depend on whether he would be in a winning position with or without such an agreement.

Bill Out, Edwards In

I endorse the post-NH decisions of Bill Richardson to abandon his Presidential bid and John Edwards to stay with his.

On the merits, I think they were the right choices: Richardson's 5% in NH underperformed low expectations, and Edwards has earned the right to stay in for the Unofficial National Primary on Feb. 5. J.E. has put in the mileage and contributed to the debates--though Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Kucinich might all say the same--but also has earned his spot from the results to date and those we could anticipate: Edwards' weaker states still put him in position to earn delegates, and his stronger efforts will truly contend.

I will go into Edwards and strategic thinking about his predicament in subsequent posts, but now I want to address Bill's.

Richardson should have bowed out and taken the Senate seat (for life, usually) that had his name engraved upon it. When I advised him to do it, I thought he could even take it from Pete Domenici, which would have made him a national hero to the party. Now, if he decided to run for it, he'd be close to a traitor: it now belongs (in every sense except that of having been elected for it) to Tom Udall, his friend, ally, and recent supporter for President. So that must be out.

He's spoken of his dislike of the Vice President's job, but I think it's a good one for him , and I think further he should be on the short list of both Clinton and Obama. His big ideas (all troops out of Iraq, in order to end The Occupation; ending aid to Musharraf if he fails to allow clean elections) are ones that sound good, deserve close examination, but don't necessarily comprise the best policy--just the kind of thing a VP should suggest in a Cabinet meeting.

Of course, the main thing a VP should do is help the ticket, and does Bill Richardson ever do that! The Democrats might think the Hispanic vote is theirs for the taking after the various Republican immigration xenophobia colloquies (a/k/a "debates"), but they would be only half-right: they still need to take the vote somehow. Nominating Bill for VP would be a better campaign strategy to do that, rather than antagonizing white and African-American men by pandering to pro-immigration Hispanics. It would also do a lot to wrap up New Mexico for the Democrats and give the Congressional delegation a gain in both the Senate and House.

Explanations

The pollsters came up with a rational excuse for the consensus mistake on the New Hampshire Democratic primary (a mistake of 8-10%, which is more than the 3-5% range of error--at a 95% percent level of certainty--which the polls typically would accept). Fact is that the pollsters stopped polling the last two days, during which--it appears--Clinton picked up about 15% of women voters. Her "weepy moment" (Gwen Ifill) played well with those voters, according to the rationale.

The search for blame has now shifted to the thousands of media hounds, the pack which descended on the state ostensibly to cover what was happening, who failed to detect any sign of the mini-quake in HRC's favor over the last two days. Some are blaming white voters for saying they would vote for Obama, then not doing so (is that some sort of crime--like perjury, or a hate crime?)

I have another explanation, which goes to the heart of the problem with these opinion polls. David Brooks on the Lehrer Report pointed to the problem, though he provided no solution. Fact is that the exit polls asked voters when they had decided for whom they would vote, and those that said they decided in the last two days split evenly between Obama and Clinton.

My hypothesis--for which I have no proof and which would be very difficult to prove in any case--is that the shift did occur, but the women voters were somewhat inaccurate about when they decided for whom they would vote. They'd been thinking about Clinton vs. Obama (or Clinton vs. Edwards, especially, I'd say) or Clinton vs. Romney or whatever. The "weemo" pushed them over the edge in their decision, but they didn't acknowledge it as such in the polls (the rationale following after the action).

There's no deceit involved because they were different people taking the polls before and afterward. If they had been the same people, they might have recognized what answer they had given before and acknowledged the change in their view. The conclusions are:
1) Exit polling on the post hoc rationale for actions is likely to come up with self-deceiving answers. There's no way to check on this, and it is simply a product of human nature to invent a rationale afterward which does not accurately portray their semi-rational choice of a candidate in the voting booth.
2) New Hampshire voters insist on defying expectations--we've seen it time and again. It's the "live free or die" thing; in this case they gave Hillary the opportunity to live free and they "died"--sacrificed their interest.

But no harm done, really; Hillary was always going to stay in the race (contrary to what John Edwards dreamed after Iowa), and I would have expected her to rally herself at some point; Obama had to taste defeat somewhere along the way, and better to get it out of the way early.

It's still down to California, as I've always thought. A highly unpredictable result--I've been watching the odds move dramatically on Rasmussen, though so far it has attracted little betting interest.

In some ways, and on a smaller scale, but with more media candlepower per square voter, Nevada might provide some preview of its big neighbor. South Carolina will be the acid test of whether Obama can reach the desired level of Afro-American support, so both the states--which look to be likely Obama wins--will help set the stage for the big drama. I'm trying to say that the two Dem primaries in the intervening weeks are sideshows, not meaningless, but not worth the attention they will get from the media, who are desperate to redeem themselves and hoping for more good story.

On the Republican side, Michigan does indeed look to be the Romney-McCain showdown in which Cmdr. John will get his knockout punch. Giuliani will eagerly scoop up Romney's leavings.
As I've said before, I love the way this informal UNP system is working--I just think it should be happening in June!

Half-Wrong

I have to say I relied too much on the "snapshots" which the polls provided for my forecast, as I just built my view of the consensus of the polls. then used my judgement to apply the remaining percentages (8% on the Dem side, 5% on the Rep side) to get the numbers to 100. It turned out that the correct answer would've come from giving all 8% of the Dem undecideds to Hillary; far was I from imagining that one; I misread the situation as being one in which Obama continued to have the momentum in the state.

I got a few of the numbers right: Kucinich 1% (too easy), Dem others 1%, McCain 37%, Romney 32%, Thompson 1%. For some reason, there's still only 96% of precincts reporting--the day after.

Here are the combined quantities of votes, in thousands, at present:
HRC 111, Obama 103, McCain 87, Romney 74, Edwards 48, Huck 26, Giuliani 20, Paul 18, Richardson 13, Kucinich 4, Thompson 3, Hunter 1.

I would say the biggest disappointment of the night was Richardson's--behind Giuliani and Paul--and the question is whether he wants to hang in until the Nevada caucuses or whether to admit the hopeless state he finds himself in. I do see he has 17 delegates committed to him at this point (CNN).

Obama got the turnout once again, so I don't find his result disappointing. He's now got a fully mobilized and motivated opponent.

I don't think the S.C. and Nevada results will be that significant for the two leaders--more for Edwards, who needs to justify his continuing role (or give it up for Barack!). On the Republican side, there will be much sound and fury signifying nothing.

The Unofficial National Primary on Feb. 5 is now revealed to be truly the main event. Strategic use of resources will be crucial to winning the most delegates that night, which should translate into the respective nominations.

Evening of Today predictions--NH

Obama 40, Clinton 30, Edwards 20, Richardson 9, Others 1. (Popular vote)

McCain 37, Romney 32, Huckabee 15, Paul 11, Thompson, Hunter 1% (each), Giuliani 2%, Others 1%.
(I particularly like the juxtaposition of names to produce the reference to our dear departed RS National Affairs columnist.)


I want to be accountable, but I will not accept accountability for rounding error, though--I'm right, for example, if Obama has anywhere between 39.01% and 40.99%. And Fred between 0.01 and 1.99%.

I am earnestly hoping for this kind of result because it will end any doubt about the relative positions in the pecking order. It won't kill Rudy or Fred (or Duncan, last heard bragging about his delegate), though.

Arbitrage Concept

If one were to look at the probabilities for the Democratic nomination, they should correspond very closely to the probabilities for the winner of the California Democratic primary on Feb. 5. I should look into this further. Basically, the reality would seem to me that whoever of Clinton or Obama wins statewide in CA should end up getting the nod.

But what if there are gaps--e.g., if the trading-based probability for Clinton winning in CA are much higher than for her winning the nomination--what should one do? I'll have to talk to my horse trader friends on this one, but I would think that the information on the overall race would be more inclusive of all the information, let's say of the impact on its outcome of the upcoming NH and SC races, than the CA odds itself would show. So, when the two diverge, one should bet on the CA race odds moving in the direction the overall outcome has taken.

Following my motto, "Putting my Money Where My Blog Is--Not", I was able to register with Rasmussen Markets. I made the following offers: bid 50.1% on Obama winning CA (vs. a current trade value of 55% on Obama winning the nomination!--last trade on CA was at 70%, but the next highest bid was at 49.9%, so I'm trying to get it cheap, below 55%), bid 2.3% on Hillary being nominated as VP (a sneaking suspicion I have), bid 24.2% on Ron Paul running as an independent (a buy up to about 40%, I'd say), bid 57% on the Dems winning NM's Senate contest, and finally, a bid at 88.5% on the Dems holding the Senate (now trading at 92; so if the price goes down for any reason I'll go in). It's just for fun.

I'm with HRC: Time for a "Reality Break"

Review of Yet Another Debate

I saw Obama's win in Iowa from (damn near freezing) South Florida--it warmed the heart, especially the speech afterward. The massive turnout of young people shocked us all; even me, believer as I am in Barack's message but forever doubtful as to whether events will permit it to develop into realization.

The results were dramatic and the networks were nowhere near being able to explain them. They had alluded to the dynamics of second-choice movement extensively in the previews, but in the actual occurrence, they had no inclination to even hazard guesses about what was/had been going on, let alone factual information about caucus-goer movements (a few coordinated movements of a couple of thousand one way or another would've been important in the final results) or any hints of negotiations around such movements.

Coverage apart, though, something happened in the speech afterward, and the entire Main Stream Media was suddenly and collectively charmed. Obama brought together his skills as a storyteller, a preacher, and a political organizer; beyond the stylistic beauty and the smooth oratory, he had a theme, a synthesis of the moment, that killed.

Even right-wingers raved (and, to some extent, continue to rave). Bill Bennett, of all people, had it right: Obama's persistent refusal to play the race card was symbolic, and substantial proof in itself, of his ability to bring off his new politics: a regime based on a consensus of all "well-intentioned anti-Bushites" (my coinage).

Gloria Bolger called him "post-partisan"; hers a better coinage, and one that escaped my humble past efforts totally: I don't feel enough distance to label anything that happens today "post-". It's all "post-", and it's all "pre-", and of the two, I'm more interested in the "pre-". The notion is right, though I'd say the word is slightly inaccurate: Obama's appeal aims at the desire to get past a certain set of unresolved partisan intrigues; it's not promising an end to all partisan struggle.

The debate tonight was a matter entirely different. Edwards wasted no time in lining himself up as part of Obama's movement for change, "and we finished first and second in Iowa". It was a phony line, really--his win over Clinton for second was millimeters wide and served no purpose except for such an argument--but it set the tone: "Everybody's Jumpin' Everybody Else's Train", I think the '80's song (The Cure) was named which expressed this concept so well.

Obama was put off by the posturing and play-acting: Hillary, "whose feelings were hurt" when she wasn't voted Most Likable; Edwards with his new-found buddy (and I would say Obama will definitely need him if he is to win, and, by the way, John, feel like running for VP again?) ; Richardson and Hillary trotting out "experience" (which they have more of, in a quantitative sense, but not qualitatively superior in any real measure). He kept his cool for the most part, didn't commit major errors, acknowledged his leadership position (which, funnily enough, Hillary didn't challenge).

I don't think Obama enjoyed it, though, and he would be well advised to avoid further debates with his Democratic rivals. His policies don't stand out (none of them do), and it isn't one of his better formats. His analysis is too dry (in contrast to Edwards', whose presentation is spectacular though less successful strategically) and abstruse.

Probably the worst aspect for Obama is that he demonstrated the same quality that everyone criticized Her Royal Colossus for before she got rocked in Iowa: no, not the one of the vague answers, but of playing to the general Electorate before the nomination is won. This may help him tactically in New Hampshire (and the race is, once again, so close that tactics will be vital), but will hurt him in the longer slog to the Unofficial National Primary.

He sticks, even if it pains him, to the strategy, which pivoted on a dime that night in Iowa City: Must Win New Hampshire! He's going for the independents and crossover Republicans, who in New Hampshire are free to vote for him. This will not be the case in South Carolina--the Democratic and Republican primaries are a week apart--so Obama will need to win that one on the strength of the case he can make to wavering fellow African-Americans for Hillary that he's proved he can get the white vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. So he was willing to absorb some arrows tonight.

A word for our Governor Bill Richardson, who was fighting to keep his seat on the podium tonight. It was not his sharpest performance, in terms of accuracy, but he had the zinger of the night. "I've been present at hostage negotiations that were more civil than this." It may have been prepared, but it's a line that plays to his benefit in all regards, and he delivered it with a comic's timing.

Richardson's presence forces the others to give clear answers on the parameters of their plans for Iraq. It probably serves no one's interest except President Bush, and unfortunately he's not going to be smart enough to take advantage of his leverage--the looming threat of Democrats--with the Iraqis. Richardson will need to break into double figures in New Hampshire or Nevada on the 19th to stay in for UNP (and a potential Favorite Son win in NM) on Feb. 5. I think he will fall a little short in NH but can still make it in NV if he makes an effective pitch to his fellow Hispanics.

Finally, I'm disappointed that no one is picking up on the idea that this strange Unofficial National Primary approach (i.e., one with a few outliers) is actually working properly (though in the wrong month) . The "regional rotation" thing reformers suggest is much too logical to fit into the untidy American Presidential election political process.

Secondly, this absurd focus on who "wins", or finishes second, or third. Obama's victory was of such significance because it was a "significant" victory of several percent, not a technical edge of a few in the count (as was Edwards' over Clinton, of Thompson over McCain). I'm of the opinion that a New Hampshire win, whether for McCain or Romney, or for Hillary or for Obama, is not important unless it is significant.

Short Term Outlook

After New Hampshire's photo finishes, everyone stays alive for February Five. And we will move on, to the chaotic segment of the race.

On the Republican side, everybody also has a good reason to stay in, regardless of New Hampshire's results (I'm excluding Duncan Hunter, who I heard tonight has now won his one delegate, in the Wyoming caucuses, and should now get out, without discharging his delegate):

McCain--the vendetta in S.C. he's planning is worth any result in the meantime;
Romney--should finish no worse than a "disappointing second", once again;
Giuliani--the good stuff is coming, and Romney's fading;
Thompson--in 'til S.C., at least;
Huckabee--at least they're not all like New Hampshire! and
Paul--"they gave me this money to run, and I'm going to stay in until it's spent, if it takes me until November!"

Benazir's Assassination

The tragedy of Benazir Bhutto's assassination was all too predictable. I see some are already comparing her assassination to JFK's in 1963: key member of dynastic political family killed after heedless (even reckless) exposure to gunmen opponents; conspiracy indicated but unsolved, etc.

I would suggest also that one consider the parallels to a fictional assassination, in the classic movie "Z", by Costa-Gavras. Charismatic figure challenging reactionary rule killed in rally (in the movie, by a cosh to the head--a head injury, instead of the bomb or the bullets, being one of the many strange turns in the aftermath of Bhutto's killing), bureaucratic cover-ups, political party in chaos.

Benazir was certainly no saint (like JFK), but her loss was most untimely and is ultimately irreplaceable.

In the follow-up, I'm looking for the U.S. to take an active role in trying to mediate, permanently, between India and Pakistan in order to bring their 50+ years of conflict to an end. This is achievable, believe it or not, and is a precondition for a serious effort to bring the terrorists' refuge in Pakistan to an end.


I would suggest that the bomb was part of an elaborate plan, to make sure the shooter (who's currently considered to have delivered the fatal injury) didn't survive. He (the shooter) probably didn't even know he was due to get blasted. CNN's counterterrorism expert Peter Begley (sp?) seems to have penetrated the fog and obfuscation and correctly identified the assassination as a Qaeda/Taliban operation.

New Year, New Muse

• We're going with
• Polyhymnia or Polymnia (the "[singer] of many hymns", muse of sacred song, oratory, lyric, singing and rhetoric...

(The) muse[s, as a group,] embody the arts and inspire the creation process with their graces through remembered and improvised song and stage, writing, traditional music, and dance. They were water nymphs, associated with the springs of Helicon and with Pieris, from which they are sometimes called the Pierides. The Olympian system set Apollo as their leader, Apollon Mousagetēs. Not only are the Muses explicitly used in modern English to refer to an inspiration, as when one cites his/her own artistic muse, but they are also implicit in the words "amuse" or "musing upon".^[2]

According to Hesiod's Theogony (seventh century BC), they are the daughters of Zeus, king of the gods, and Mnemosyne, goddess of memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse

Something like Hillary "embodies change", I guess. In particular, I think I should try to appeal to their mother, Mnemosyne, "goddess of memory". Please don't let me down, Mom!

'08 Elections: Early Reviews of the Previews

At this critical juncture of the Presidential race, in which all of us (even those few of us in a couple of predominantly-white swing states) can do nothing except hold our breath and wait, I suggest we pause. Just for laughs, or for rigor, or mortis, it might pay for me to own up to my prior previews and see how well I've handicapped events to date.

It might also be opportune to look at just how realistic those ancient scenarios are today as previews for what might be coming in the near future.


The Scenario of the Two Divergent Triangles

My first effort was an exceedingly long attempt which posted a couple of weeks before the 2006 elections. In an effort to keep from stressing out, I was looking beyond them to this '08 electoral contests.

In each of the Democratic and Republican nomination races, I foresaw at that time the likelihood of a three-way race, something that still seems likely for each. I found the prospective Republican race much more dependent on the '06 outcomes than the Dems'.

I was pessimistic for '06, giving "a 32% chance Dems win H of R this year; 20% chance they win Senate, so that's my guess as of October 15, 2006--".

Regardless of '06, though, I saw the Democratic race as ending up being a three-way race between Hillary, a "Clinton Centrist Challenger" and what I called "XXX", and meant the consensus choice of the Netroots and the left. At the moment , casting was wide open for "CCC" (Mark Warner had just dropped out), while I thought Feingold or Gore would end up with the "XXX" constituency. I came up with these probabilities for the Democratic nomination:

"Clinton 52%, Edwards 16%, Feingold 12%, Biden 8%, Gore 5%, Kerry 3%, the Field (Richardson, Bayh, Vilsack, Wes Clark, Schweitzer/Obama-type Draftee) 3%, Is there anything else? 1%, Kucinich 3 votes."

Well, at least I mentioned Obama--clearly understood today to be, indeed, the foretold Clinton Centrist Challenger--though at the time I didn't think Barack was going to run. As for Edwards, I knew he would be a factor, though I wasn't sure whether it would be as the centrist challenger or the leftist one.

I had the narrative for the electoral race. It took the DNC to preserve it, by sabotaging the attempts by Michigan and Florida to get more attention by bringing their primaries forward:

The basic theme of the Democratic nomination process will be winning in the early-season Four Corners (of a diamond?): IA, NH, and the recently promoted SC and NV. It seems improbable that anyone but HRC could win all four, but any candidate who doesn't win in SC but does win all the other three should be able to coast home. The SC winner would be the likeliest choice for the '3-C' role, while the first XXX leader will be identified before SC. (There could be more than one, someone coming in late and absorbing most of the delegates from an early XXX leader who may falter).

If Hillary doesn't win it early (at least 3 of 4), it should settle into the three-way race.

I spent a lot of effort on the Republican preview, looking at three '06 scenarios: a Bushite victory, Total Bushite Chaos!, and a Democratic Victory, the latter being defined as the Democrats winning control of at least one house of Congress (which I saw as having a 40% probability). For each outcome, I came up with an estimated "conditional probability"; and

after a Democratic Victory: GPR 25%, McCain 40%, anti-Bushite Right-Winger 35%".

("GPR" meant Giuliani, Pataki, or Romney, who were pretty much interchangeable, and I felt there was a niche for only one. ) The position of "anti-Bushite Right-Winger" was up for grabs--I saw Gingrich as the one most likely to snag it--and I disparaged Huckabee like the rest. Sen. Brownback I saw as a "fourth way" and possibly pivotal figure. Again, that role went to Mike.

I saw McCain's chances hinged on winning both NH and SC, but today it seems that in South Carolina he has no chance. Regardless, today it would be hard to criticize any preview except one that had any degree of certainty about it. You don't find anyone willing to stick one's neck out and say anything about the outcome at this point, except that someone's bound to win in the end.

After the double-D Democratic victory (which I gave only a 12% likelihood), I revisited the three-cornered race I saw coming forward. Not much had changed, though there was, of course, more clarity:

Update on most likely six finalists for the two three-cornered party nomination races:
1) McCain
(now more than ever with the decisive Democratic victory, Bushite defeat.)
2) Giuliani
(Romney now heir-apparent to this role if Rudy falters, as Pataki disappears)
3)Gingrich
(over Brownback as leader of right-wing holding action and eventual VP candidate. No more chance of a significant Bushite candidate )


1) Hillary Rodham Clinton (in her own interest, HRC will be advising Nancy Pelosi on a full-time basis throughout 2007)
2) Barack Obama (the Clinton Centrist Challenger of the moment)
3) John Edwards (establishing a surprising claim to be the best "XXX" candidate)

Got one right.

It would be ironic if it comes down to these three (and, for a further fancy, say, Bill Richardson) and Edwards is the only white male left standing for the Democrats, while being the one "furthest to the left". Such a combination could actually put him over the top for the nomination.

Seems unlikely.

I still see the likely scenario for the Republicans being the right-wing stalking horse handing the laurels to McCain in mid-primary season and getting the VP nomination (not insignificant, given McCain's age).

McCain-Huckabee we're talking here, though I didn't realize it. Still kind of hard to imagine, though tactically it makes a ton of sense. And that's what I'm hoping for, a ticket without Giuliani or Romney at the top. (Cheers to the Concord Monitor for their Romney "anti-endorsement"--also known as "endorsement. Not.")

Illegal Betting Advice

In July of '07 , I gave my assessment of the posted odds: (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2007/07/money-where-my-blog-is-not.html#links):

If I take the odds from one of the offshore gaming sites--press@intrade.com--(I don't recommend gambling in such places, plus it's illegal (!?) for Americans to vote in this way.)--

they have (7/25): Clinton 47.2; Obama 38.0; Edwards 5.9; Gore 5.4; Others (by subtraction only) 3.5%...

They have: Giuliani 39.0%; Thompson 32%; Romney 16.7%; Mc Cain 6.0%; Others 6.3%.

My conclusions would be: Clinton, though rising, is still cheap for the nomination (until about 60%). Clinton for the Presidency, at 29%, also looks cheap up to about 35-38%. Sell Giuliani and Romney; buy Thompson and McCain.

Except for the part about Thompson (who knew? I was going by his Watergate committee performance, never watch Law and Order), my advice still looks good.

More recently, in my tactical endorsement (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2007/11/democratic-prez-endorsement-pt-2.html#links), I wrote that I thought Obama would win Iowa, drawing upon Edwards-supporters forced by the rules to move toward their second choice. In the short time since then, Obama has surged to the Iowa lead in poll-driven expectations. As a consequence, neither Edwards nor Clinton should feel inclined to cut deals with Obama in Iowa.

The pundits seem to be hinting that Clinton is offering to deal with Edwards--which I see as more likely to help HRC, if it comes off. This, and the unreliability of counting on the youth vote, is making me a bit nervous about the "Obama the clear favorite" talk. I think that New Hampshire might still swing Obama's way, regardless, as the Graniteers choose free life rather than death.

Frank Morgan Memorial

When I consider all of Man's arts, crafts, and sciences, I am convinced that the most impressive and unique human achievements are in the worldly microcosm of sound--words, and how they are used, and especially music. I think that music best represents fulfillment of the pure ambition of human art for expression. The abstraction music can provide for human experience needs little explanation and can abide it less.

If some human voices approach the purity of tone and facility of note-playing that instruments provide, some instruments seem designed to express musical tones and emotional expression that could come from human voices--without words, of course (Peter Frampton notwithstanding). That seemed to me to be the kind of beauty that Frank Morgan could bring with his saxophone.

Frank knew what he had, and he respected his talent and demanded respect--for that artistic ideal, I feel--when he played. His jazz was not background music for chit-chat and party dialogue: he wouldn't let it be so. My evidence for that was his willingness to tell his audience in so many words to be quiet when he played.

At the Remembrance event today at the Taos Inn, I watched but didn't speak up. I didn't have the incredible stories to tell that most of them had, none at least that were unique or humorous. What I had seen of him was only his public persona: warm, stylish, flirtatious with the ladies, and mild-mannered and dignified with the gentlemen. There was more, I knew, but I didn't know so much--about his health problems, about his history of addiction (though I knew of it), about his time in prison. I hadn't been hip to his talent or his career in the '80's--a time when I was living in New York and going to the jazz clubs--though he was visiting and playing there some of the time.

I can testify to his generosity in putting his talent out there for the people of Taos. He played beautifully at my mother-in-law's wake (no fee, far as I know), including a sweet bit when he made the strings of the grand piano in the room vibrate to his tones. He came to the ski valley to play to our group for the Yaxche Mountain Festival, sending his sounds resonating off the nearby rock faces for our enjoyment.

I don't know about the rest of it, but in his later life, he seemed a fulfilled person, happy to be sharing his gifts. He left us something real and permanent in the enduring dialogue between human voice and musical instrument.

EPA Outrage

The announcement by the chief of the EPA that the new 35-MPG fuel efficiency (for what? 2020?) standard trumps more rigorous standards set in 17 states (led by California) borders on the criminal.

First, the timing clearly demonstrates that this was a quid pro quo--the government promised it would protect the auto manufacturers from these tougher state standards in return for their accepting the Federal standard just set in the Energy bill. This just goes naturally with the standard Bushite approach that those being regulated get to set the regulations, under Bushite Misrule.

Second, the EPA is clearly failing in its primary mission--to protect the environment, duh--unless it can show that 35 mpg is good enough to protect us from the consequences of climate change from greenhouse gases. Of course, it isn't.

The interesting note is that the large states with stricter standards, combined with the Federal nationwide standard, would've given the auto manufacturers a chance to dump their fuel-guzzlers in the other states. Now--at least until this ridiculous ruling is reversed, either in the courts or after the 2008 elections--there will be knockdown, drag-out battles to preserve the "right" for gas-hogs to be sold in quantity in states whose legislatures have largely rejected them.

Email to David Brooks

Re: The Obama-Clinton Issue

Wow! This was your best column since coming to the Times. I admire your use of historic references to bring clarity to a choice of historic dimensions.

I liked the lead gambit of your article which brought forward, then demolished, the argument that argues for Hillary through her stronger Senate performance. Obama supporters who'd read the blurb got a jolt of reality; Clinton supporters were flattered to get their attention for the battering conclusion.

What I liked most, though, was this line: "There are reasons to think that, among Democrats, Obama is better prepared for this madness." You didn't even feel the need to explain this strange notion that madness is reality. In this, you were right--how very 21st of you!

Ch'in Shih-tang

For full disclosure, see http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2007/12/stoner-democratic-prez-endorsement-pt-2.html#links
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html

Obama on the Issues--A Reality Check

Let's check how BHO's issue positions line up with my own.

The following are the Issue Headings, in reverse order listed, from BarackObama.com. I've taken the liberty of adding some notes (in italics) summarizing some of the key policies he advocates.

Assuming the order of topics represents something like Obama's priorities (though I note it's somewhat different on the homepage), I've numbered them that way, but omitting 6 of the last 9 listed. I found all those six to be a bit too apple-pie stuff, not too substantive, designed to reassure the moderates if they get that far down the page. We're left with my "Unofficial Obama's 10-point program".

Finally, on the issue listed first--"Strengthening America Overseas"--I give verbatim the five-point program he has under that most-important issue.

Obama's Issues (Reverse Order)
Reconciling Faith and Politics
Strengthening Families and Communities
Cleaning up Washington’s Culture of Corruption
Honoring our Veterans
10. Protecting Our Right to Vote
9. Immigration—Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Homeland Security—9/11 Measures
8. Improving our Schools—more Funding for Poor School Districts
Fulfilling our Covenant with Seniors--protect Social Security and Medicare
7. Technology and Innovation for a New Generation—Broadband for all
6. Energy—CAFE, Renewable Fuels, and Clean Coal
5. Environment—Global Warming Plan
4. Fighting Poverty—Job Programs, and see Education (BHO's #8), Healthcare (his #3); Rebuild New Orleans
3. Healthcare—Govt offered Insurance—no mandate
2. Plan to End the Iraq War—1-2 Brigades per month; history of being right. Short on prescription for Iraq, beyond new convention with UN support. Doesn’t mention future bases.
1. Strengthening America Overseas First, we will bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq and refocus on the critical challenges in the broader region. Second, we will rebuild and transform the military to meet 21st-century threats. Third, we will marshal a global effort to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Fourth, we will renew the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges, such as terrorism and climate change. And fifth, we will strengthen impoverished, weak and ungoverned countries that have become the most fertile breeding grounds for transnational threats like terror and pandemic disease and the smuggling of deadly weapons.

Now, the point-by-point comparison with my own 10-pointer, with reference to Obama's where applicable.

1.. Get control of climate-changing gases. Yes; #5
2. Preserve our biosphere. Not really, beyond the energy plan. Brings up enforcement of existing law; preservation of federally-protected status where applicable—way down the page!
3. Rebuild our relations with the world. Yes; #1
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision. Somewhat; see #9 and #7. Generally very future-oriented.
5. Reform the UN Charter. No such luck.
6. Get control of armaments. Yes; see #1
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. Nope.
8. Provide health care to our people. See #3; some doubt whether his plan would solve the problem if people don’t sign up. One good idea was to extend parental coverage of children up to age 25—this would help cover an age group with low health cost (to get the benefit for others) that generally isn’t covered today.
9. Electoral reform. #11 is mostly about removing obstacles to voting, which is half the problem. The other is how they’re counted (and applied).
10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones). Mention of the topic is conspicuously absent anywhere on the website. Off the website, he has a fairly responsible position today and shows more honesty than most, so I do not see him having much problem with it once this hoo-ha with Clinton campaign intriguers passes.

I'll give him 4 A's (on green house gases, vision for the future, general foreign relations, and arms reduction), 2 B's (electoral reform and healthcare), and 2 C's (environment and Drug Wars). The topic of the UN gets an Incomplete--Grade TBD. On protecting civil liberties, though, he gets a failing grade by failing to address a major issue.

Most importantly, Obama's implicit priorities recognize the fact that the primary duties of our President--though not the ones most American voters would cite as most important to them--are in the areas of foreign affairs and military policy. Here, he's not as strong as Biden or Richardson, perhaps, but he blows away someone like Huckabee or Romney.

In Dem Prez Endorsement--Pt 4, we'll take a look at HRC's 10-pointer and how it rates--for me--compared to Obama's.

Reasons to Declare "I Just Don't Know..."

Here's my response to the editorial by Eduardo Porter, "Campaigns Like These Make It Hard to Find a Reason to Believe", published today (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/opinion/14fri3.html?th&emc=th):



By failing to consider the perspective of the agnostic, Porter nearly re-creates Mitt Romney's omission on a smaller scale.

Declared agnostics clearly have on their side the combination of rationality and honesty. Most agnostics don't declare themselves, though: Pascal's wager-type situations occur too often in daily life, not only when running for office. There are plenty of agnostic Presidents in our history (more in memoirs than as a publicly stated view), and I daresay there are more than a few in Jerusalem, too.

If it came down to the Wager itself, we'd be on the losing side, whichever side we chose. The truly devout would never accept us who only professed belief for motives of gain. So we're with the atheists. Why don't they acknowledge us?

The world would be a better place if more of us faced the facts, accepted the plurality of humanity's religious beliefs, and got on with making this colossal living experiment a success.
— chinshihtang, Taos

It's not so much that I need to declare that I don't know (what's the big deal, anyway?--I don't), it just seemed like there was a pretty large animal in the room that hadn't been named.

Rate Reduction Reactions

We've seen the pattern now two or three times: the stock market rises in anticipation of a reduction in rates by the Fed, then we get it, then the doldrums creep back in. Net result is basically no movement in the market as a whole (at a level that I would argue is about 20% too high).

This time it varied slightly: market expectations (at least from some) were for a 50-basis point (in plain English, that's half a percent) reduction. The market dropped on the announcement of a 25-bp reduction. One day of rebound (at least there was something; also some infusion of funds was announced the next day), then back to the doldrums.

I have a little different take on the ongoing story. I think the initial 50-bp reduction (September?) was the right move--then the Fed should have sat and watched. For one thing, these moves have a delayed reaction in the world--months, not minutes or seconds. Bernanke and the Fed got pressured to do more when there were continuing danger signals of a possible future recession after the first move. So?

The second point is that weak resolve from the Fed is going to end up leading to galloping inflation. We have all the engines for future inflation already in place: high and rising energy prices, increased costs as we substitute higher-cost sources of energy, trade wars about to set in, and a weak economy going into an election year. The scenario looks like this: jobs drop, rates drop, a brief recession accompanied by more rate reductions, a strong recovery and prices go out of control.

The Fed should announce that its reductions are over for several months and then gird its collective loin for the political attacks that will follow. Anybody remember stagflation? The pain required to get out of it (Volcker's recession of '80-'82)? I do.

Romney the Mormon

Many people seem mystified that Romney has felt the need to defend his right to be a Mormon and run for President.

I just look at it as another form of pandering, one that will probably not work very well. Ah, but he needed to do something as Huckabee was daily stealing his bread (and Fred's bread, too) as the evangelist-cum-huckster choice--a role that is guaranteed about 25-30% of the Republican primary vote.

The key point of Romney's speech was his claim that the Mormon church never influenced his policies as Massachusetts governor, so it would never influence him as President. I'll grant that, as President, he'd be more powerful than even the most-senior Elder (Chairman of the Board) of the church in Salt Lake City (he might not have been so in MA), so he wouldn't have to listen to them. What I believed before his speech, and what I still believe, is that Romney consulted the church elders and got their OK to shift his policies some to get the governor job, and then again to get their OK to run for President as a Republican. So his flip-flops, the main item to debate regarding Mitt, would have a subtle church influence under that theory.

I believe this simply because I don't really trust the Avatar of Ken on anything. This, in particular, would be something that he would be stretching the truth about. Is this bigoted?

When it comes to the Mormons themselves, I find their theology, their view of society, and especially their account of the discovery of the Book of Mormon, along with its contents, all absurd in the extreme. About par for the course, I guess. What I can't disparage is their design for living; flexible though it has been, it has always provided for long, untroubled lives; for extensive procreation (one wife or many), and broad proselytizing.

It all makes for an intensely rapid growth rate: it's clearly a winning business model. Perhaps Mitt should go into it in more depth as an example of the competent management along Bushite lines that his campaign wants to promise. It wouldn't sway me, but so many of us want to be part of a winning team, and he can help us to join up on the mystery tour.

Football Mess

This year, the annual college football mess has been unusually chaotic. None of the top-ranked teams has proven it can win consistently thruogh he whole season, and the number of top 5 (top 2, top 10--take your pick) teams who have lost to unranked teams has hit a record high.

To be fair, the commentators this year have shown their impatience with the mess and the lack of a playoff system to resolve it.

I'd advocate a six-team playoff which takes three play dates to resolve (separated by two weeks, ideally). Teams 3-6 would play seeded games in the first round, and the winners would go up against the top two, with the finals to follow. This puts some emphasis, as is the case now, on finishing first or second in the rankings, and even more emphasis on finishing sixth vs. seventh.

I don't think you would let all the major conference champions have an automatic berth in that system. In order to do that properly, you'd need one additional round and make it a 12-team playoff. Teams 5-12 would play in the first round, and winners (perhaps re-seeded) would play vs. 1-4 in the quarterfinals, etc. I like this system even better, but it does require a fourth play date. One could begin the week after Thanksgiving; then you'd have the quarters in mid-December, the semis sometime around the New Year, and the finals in mid-January. It could catch on!

Democratic Prez Endorsement--Pt 3

The Aftermath

I based my recent endorsement of Obama for President on a tactical analysis of how best to achieve my strategic objective from the 2008 Presidential election. So far, it seems as though my pinhead-sized drop in the political sea has joined with a substantial surge rising all around me, even in landlocked Iowa. The next month or so will decide whether the wave of Obamania (it’s the second wave of it, really) will carry all before it, or crash ineffectually onto the banks of the Mississippi, receding before Her Royal Colossus. So far, both the decision and the timing seem good from this vantage point.

Now, I have to comment on The Nation’s November 27 issue, entitled “Time To Choose” (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/vidal#list). Like me, they saw this was the time, but they decided not to make a choice.

The cover piece has eight short essays, by eight different writers, each endorsing a different Democratic Presidential candidate (even one for Mike Gravel!) This seems to be a fair way to go at the difficult decision of choosing the best from this excellent field of contenders, but it will not change The Nation’s modern tradition of providing no effective endorsement to anyone.

At its best, we would get eight brilliant, totally convincing essays by prominent and articulate expert practitioners of rhetoric, thus confusing us hopelessly. Actually, that’s pretty much what the reader gets, omitting the hyperbole. The eight writers are all skilled, medium-to-well-known, not the usual Nation columnists (impressively neutral, the Editorial Board stays out of it, except to make the minimalist, and irrelevant, endorsement of all viz. the incumbent), and sincere.

I’d say the people they got to speak for some of the more minor candidates (Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson for Richardson, New Mexico’s John Nichols for Biden, and all-time fave Gore Vidal for Kucinich) have names more prominent than those recruited for the Big 3: Ellen Chesler, Michael Eric Dyson, and Katherine S. Newman (in order of descending national poll popularity of the endorsees).

For leaners/undecided Democrats like my wife and me, we found the overall impact to be less clarity in our decision-minded thinking and less certainty in our tendencies. In other words, the issue provides little to no help in the requisite choice, except to emphasize its difficulty.

Reading them for clues to my own feelings and thoughts, I was struck by the mix of different types of argument and rhetorical style employed. The brevity required (1000 words max?) didn’t allow individual writers to attack their thesis from various angles: each basically got one shot at it, plus or minus a twist to open or close the deal. Crafting the piece perfectly would involve harmonizing its style with key characteristics of the candidate to be endorsed, identifying the type of appeal most likely to succeed with those leaning toward the candidate, and employing ironclad logic.

The main choices were emotional or rational appeals, being more or less assertive in terms of strength of preference, and whether to utilize implicit or direct criticism of the other candidates in the argument. These break down as follows:

Biden (Nichols): rational; less assertive; Contrasts: Yes—he’s “the one Democrat Republicans feel compelled not merely to attack but to answer”.

Clinton (Chesler): rational;* more assertive; No—the other Dem candidates barely are in her Hillary’s field of vision.

Edwards (Newman): rational; more assertive; Yes—opposed to “tepid, middle-of-the-road, blow-with-the-wind candidates”.

Dodd (Bruce Shapiro): rational; much less (“Will I vote for Chris Dodd? I don’t know.”); No.

Gravel (Richard Kim): emotional; not very (he knows he’ll have to switch allegiance); not really antagonistic (as opposed to Gravel himself).

Kucinich (Vidal): emotional; not assertive; Yes—his cool knife inflicts a thousand cuts (or approximately one cut per word).

Richardson (Anderson): rational; assertive; Yes—repeatedly attacks all of the Big 3 on Iraq.

Obama (Dyson): emotional; assertive; No (does not mention another candidate, even indirectly). +

Dyson’s piece ended with an appeal so eloquent that it is worthy of Barack:

“Barack Obama has come closer than any figure in recent history to obeying a direct call of the people to the brutal and bloody fields of political mission. His visionary response to that call gives great hope that he can galvanize our nation with the payoff of his political rhetoric…he is our best hope to tie together the fraying strands of our political will into a powerful and productive vision of national destiny.”

Like a speech from Obama, these words say nothing…and everything.

Notes:

*But note the emotional rhetorical flourish (a “1-in-10” kind of blind shot) when Chesler throws in at the end “one more thing”: that she’s supporting her “because she is a woman”!

+In the order of the articles, except with Richardson and Obama reversed (one must save the best to last, of course!)

Living, Philosophy of (I)

I’ve got no lead (lede?) whatsoever for this one, except that “It should be obvious by now to my theoretical readership that there is something going on consistently in this blog, and sometimes it just has to be spelled out.” Maybe better to say “…it just has to spill out”—does that flow better?

In the perfect society, as envisioned by the Taoist sages, people would not need to ask themselves why they live the way they do. They would be fully committed to the life they live and would find their motivation from the intrinsic value of what they did. This notion is very close to the artistic ideal, though I would admit that my description of it overemphasizes the product and does not give full value to the process.

Human life is not perfect, though, and a philosophy of living must help people deal with inevitable dislocations from their perfect path: sickness, death, conflict with others, failure. What we need in our difficult moments is the wisdom gained from others’ experiences and their hard learning, with the hope that it may either prevent or ameliorate our problems.

I see this as the genesis of the Tao te ching by Lao-tse. The traditional story of its provenance is that of a middle-aged, middle-level official of the ancient Chinese empire, named Li Erh, who was leaving the empire’s boundaries for parts unknown. A border guard sought his wisdom for the benefit of civilized society, and “The Book of The Way and Its Power” was the result.

It was only the dislocation—before, we can hypothesize, he was content in his job and place in society, but now he clearly was not--and the sage’s pity for us Left Behind which caused us to receive those deep, cryptic notes. In the Tao te ching, though there are hints about ultimate realities, the guidance for “the Prince”—the many would-be practitioners who would receive these words—has to do with getting it right the first time, about making one’s way through life as it is, not fixing things. If one can not be directly the agent for Tao, at least one can proceed from second principles: how It works in the real world.

Unlike the ancient Chinese Old Master, the Greek philosophers—at least the ones of the Socratic school—saw the practice and study of philosophy itself as an ideal vocation for life. The ideal philosopher’s role, as portrayed through the example of Socrates’ death and Plato’s “cave analogy”, was to bring light unto mankind (more accurately, to help us to find it for ourselves), so that we would move toward it in our lives. For them, as for the second great Taoist philosopher Chuang-tse, and for the later Romantics and Marxists, the principal motivation was somehow dealing with this gap between the real and ideal; the art of the project was in the beauty of the objective: attempting to redeem humanity.

What was not artistic, as it turned out, was the product of their struggles. Their actions produce the drama of history, and sometimes even changes in our lives, in the form of the progress that makes our lives more complex, less pure. Hence, the Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times!” In today’s world, as in all eras of civilization so far, we must keep our heads down if we don’t want them to be lopped off by the wild swings of those who prescribe for others. This is the source of our reverence for classic conservatism.

Most people, most of the time, have had neither the luxury nor the distancing required to look around and examine their place in the scheme of things. They learn, as part of their native culture, their “parochial” view of these far-off First Movers—the gods. The stories that thrived and survived—our great religions—even gave us comfort with our place within it. At least they helped make it bearable.

In our time, we—many of us, anyway—have more space for maneuver. We are not as bound by the accidents of our birth, our race, gender, nor even the locally-accepted view of cosmology. We can accept that the design has its intelligence within its manifestations (the Darwinist view); we can insist that the intelligence is inherent in the design; or we can make our own design, if we have the time, the intelligence, and the discipline.

It can hardly be wrong for us to live our lives in the way we think best, but that design needs somehow to take into account the harm from the dislocations that others face, since we recognize that we must face them ourselves someday (my version of The Golden Rule, which all long-term successful philosophies and religions acknowledge). We can decry as folly the designs of those who live in this world without care for others or who deny their own vulnerability. Hence, we accept this central tenet, if not the practice, of our latter-day “liberals”.

In our lives, we have seen how dangerous it can be to come forward, to speak plainly, to try to rise above. We have seen that, while the ways in which one can express one’s ideas unmediated have flourished, most people absorb their information pre-chewed and artificially flavored. Our role model for exerting one’s influence positively while living artfully is Thomas Pynchon—as we imagine him—who moves the Monster with many small cuts, at a safe distance.

Democratic Prez Endorsement--Pt 2

Tactical Endorsement

Now would seem the time to put one's weight behind a candidate.

My intention was to keep the 2008 election in 2008--endorsements, contributions, polemics--and keep the thing at a distance until it's time. That seems fine with regard to the elections at state level. Rather than blanket contributions to the DSCC, I will be helping individual candidates in races that matter, and I can decide those much later, once the choices are clearly before us.

Unfortunately, while I like the Unofficial National Primary as a means for the parties to choose their nominees for President (the date is declared by the parties, and states can go before or after, or on it), February 5 is ridiculously early. It should be in May or June.

The Republicans can kick each other all the way to the convention, and I'll be pleased. It seems, though, that because of substantial leads that Hillary holds in many of the key states after the show gets on the road, the road race in the Democratic party is all about the first lap after the green flag. If Hillary pulls even a narrow victory out of Iowa, she will quickly be anointed, based on the expectations set by polls in states like New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, and California. Something has to interrupt that apparent momentum in Iowa.

So, with only 36 days, it's time to decide on an endorsement. Let's try to use logic and see where it points us.

Hillary or Other/Than Hillary (O/TH)?
This is the main line of demarcation for most every Democrat I've spoken with. Is there someone who's improvement enough on the Clinton Brand to justify putting roadblocks in her path?

The answer to this turns on four points, four "abilities": to get the nomination, to get elected, to govern successfully (at least our federal government), and to lead the country (and the world, insofar it has anything to do with US) toward a future worth living in.

We'll go into the last item more in Part 3 of the serialized endorsement--the discussion of policies and expected realities resulting from those policies. No one could deny that each of the first three points, though, is a sine qua non: we're not talking third-party Presidency here, not that anyone has explained how that could possibly work.


The only core scenario that makes any sense is a massive anti-Bushite victory in a referendum on the last eight years, and it's not farfetched at all. So, part of that governability requirement is bringing about a landslide, with coattails please, for the Democrats.

As I suggested in my Republican-party endorsement for Ron Paul and other postings, since the 2006 debacle there are no more candidates willing to wear a Bushite label. Yet the prevailing stance of the Republican candidates, with Paul's exception, is to accept many Bushite notions and only differ from the Administration on a couple of its qualities, its persistent incompetence being the principal choice. The non-Paul Republicans have in common a set of policy views typified by John McCain's all-but-Bushite (ABB) stance: we will not clamor to change much, except the stupidity we've come to associate with Bushite Misrule.

McCain is notable for presenting this position straightforwardly (and is doomed for it). The other first-tier candidates wear various masks over it: Giuliani the wounded urbanite mask, Huckabee the aw-shucks friendly pastor mask, Thompson occupies some sort of ghoulish re-animated cadaver of a 19th-century constitutional lawyer, and Romney, of course, is the Avatar of Ken.

Compared to these, Clinton is unabashedly and clearly an anti-Bushite and I would not begrudge her place alongside the Bushites' greatest foes. Yet, the question remains: is she sufficiently anti-ABB?

The key question of this election concerns McCain's advocacy of "the long war". He believes this GWOT will continue for generations, and, being honest, he tells us as much. This, not the cut-and-run neo-appeasement he accuses the Democrats of advocating, is the losing strategy. It preserves and enhances the need for continued war-fighting, instead of undercutting it, or better yet, uprooting it.

I want to see this strategy rejected from the 2008 Presidential election. This would be the greatest, most lasting result that could occur. The next President, no matter whom, is likely to be hemmed in and cursed with a lousy economy--a recipe for being outed after one term. Ending this Iraq occupation, and starting the hearts-and-minds effort which will be needed to end the tensions currently generating an unending supply of suicide bombers, are the accomplishments which can be expected (!) of the next President.

It is in this area that I fear Hillary could come up short. Partly because of her political posturing toward the hawkish side, though I recognize she could move once elected. More because of the ambiguity about her desire to go that way. "I will end this war," she says, but we don't know how. Bill reinforces our uncertainty when he claims to have opposed the Iraq invasion from the start.

There's another problem: Hillary winning this thing early means we'd have nine months of Republican Hillary-bashing to look forward to. This will give them plenty of time to propose a host of different angles, see which ones survive the Darwinian battle for our deficient attention spans, and provide the perfect growing environment for the viruses that remain. A sickness that poisons Hillary's candidacy and brings about a fold-up is probably the only thing that could prevent a strong Congressional victory for the Democratic party. The Republicans are counting on a protracted siege of Hillary's Honor and would have to improvise and invent a new game plan should anyone else get the nomination.

We look then, to Other/Than to see who has ideas to turn this thing in a new direction. Kucinich has the model answer (as he does for so many of the principal issues), but we all know what a weak vessel he is; in a general election tussle he's be an easy target to Swiftboat. Dodd I don't see rocking this boat of GWOT.

Biden and Richardson meet the general election requirement, so the question turns on the ability of either to get the nomination. Despite strong, and improving, performances in debates by both of them, Richardson gets no respect from the national media, while Biden has not succeeded in getting the voters' attention. I don't see a single state before the Unofficial National Primary where either could possibly win, so each will be put in the position of folding up his tent a few days this side or the other of Feb. 5.

We are left with the eternal question that has haunted our household for months: Edwards or Obama? Tactically, Edwards needs to win Iowa, while Obama just needs for Hillary not to win it. So, if we want to preserve our options, we should look for Edwards to win this round and Hillary to finish third.

Such a stance is little better than prevarication, though: we'd just be putting off the decision and letting events make up our mind. And such a fragile thread of hope such as Edwards' seems unlikely to hold, and his chances of governing seem doubtful. I see a potential Edwards Administration threatening to be like Jimmy Carter's--nice grin, Southern accent, good man, lousy President.

Obama is the only candidate whose promise includes the ability to win the nomination, win clearly against an ABB candidate (with or without Bloomberg in the race), carry the party to victory, yet preserve some hope of outreach to the defeated opposition.

We look for Obama to sweep up Edwards' Iowa caucus supporters in cases when they need to relocate to second-choices. Though Obama will tolerate the reciprocal movement (unofficially), he will gain on the unspoken deal and thus edge both Hillary and John in that state. He'll get enough momentum to get the message of his viable candidacy across to African-American voters, who will lift him in South Carolina and position him for an upset on UNP Day. After that, we'll see.

For now, it's Obama in '08.

And I didn't even wait until '08 to say it!

Pakistan: Disbelief is Restored from Suspension

I have long argued in chats on foreign policy themes that, if one is looking for a new object of concern about international security, Pakistan is a much more valid choice than Iran. Just two points should make the case:

1) Whatever the probabilities of various nuclear proliferation fears being realized in Iran (and I'd say they are high--50% or more--with our current policy arc, though remote in time), in Pakistan they are 100% proven. With regard to both domestic development and spreading capabilities beyond their borders, which is what the Bomb Iran Now! crowd suggests might happen in the worst-case scenario.

2) Control over Pakistan--under any regime, but especially under this one--is guaranteed to be much more unstable than Iran's has been under the mullahs or likely will be.

I do not argue that Musharraf has not been friend to US; his failures have been due to the limitations of his power rather than his intent. The limitations of the policies he chooses are pretty severe, though, when his own intelligence agency deliberately undercuts them, as with the Taliban.

Benazir Bhutto has made impressive efforts to take on Musharraf: first by daring to trust him, then by staying when her arrival (and the suicide bombing ensuing) demonstrated that he would not or could not protect her, and now by challenging his emergency rule.

Musharraf's recent moves are a good example of the slow-motion train wreck approach to government. He had boxed himself into a position where he had to take the self-destructive course. It reminds me somewhat of Indira Gandhi's emergency rule in India in 1969, and the outcome will be similar: some day he will allow an election, and then in that initial election, the Pakistani majority vote will be for the party that most thoroughly repudiates Musharraf before finding a new balance. Bhutto is positioning herself well for that day, whether it come sooner or later.

Udall In!

The national party leaned on Tom Udall to go after the Senate job opened up by Pete Domenici's announcement that he will retire, and now Tom is announcing that he will go for it.

Up until now, we stayed with our position, announced even before Domenici's admission of his illness and intention to retire (see our previous endorsement, made in June!) that the best person to run for the seat is Bill Richardson, who would have a brief window to change course, plow his remaining funds over, and announce before the deadline and after February 5 (I feel that he will be able to keep his candidacy viable until then).

That Udall's even considering running seems to indicate that Bill is unlikely to waver from his Executive Branch-headed course (for example, he would certainly be on Hillary's short list for V.P. , or some other senior Cabinet position, if it goes her way). His decision only came after consultation with Richardson, whom Udall boldly endorsed. No, seriously: it was bold, though perhaps also easy.

Udall's going in to the race changes things--we would shift from our endorsement of Richardson and our contingent endorsement of Martin Chavez. Udall's about as good a candidate as one could find, from a policy point of view, and would be nearly as strong as Bill Richardson. He should be able to defeat either Wilson or Pearce handily.

The Senate seat will be the headliner, but the real news will come in the scramble for all three of the state's House seats. All will be opened up if Udall, Wilson, and Pearce run--and the best thing is that, at most, one of the Republicans will still have a Congressional job!

Right now, we have two good-to-great Congressional reps (Udall and Sen. Bingaman) and three not-so-good-to-awful ones (Wilson, Pearce, and Domenici). What we want from the 2009 Congressional delegation is four of the former category, conceding the Republicans the House member from the southern part of the state. We need Udall to win, along with a decent (moderate Democratic) House representative from the middle, Albuquerque-centered district Heather Wilson now represents, and, perhaps the longest shot, we would need one of the better choices among the many Democratic hopefuls in the north-central district Udall now has.

We won't get a House member as good as Tom, but we will strive to identify someone honest and progressive and get behind such a Democrat. This race may require more direct involvement than I am generally willing to give, and on a personal basis may pre-empt general contributions to the DCCC. Similarly, while I always gave when Udall asked (and he usually only asked once per campaign), the financial needs for the Senate race for Udall will doubtlessly feel more immediate (and will soak up funds for DSCC).

The candidates are rapidly lining up. 2008 looks like a watershed year for the state, with most everyone running for something (for what Richardson will end up running, I'm not sure). Diane Denish is the one exception, as she has the inside track for the governor's job when Richardson's turn would naturally end, in 2010, or sooner if he gets a new job.

Democratic Prez Endorsement--Pt 1

I want to begin this discussion by singing the praises of someone whom I will not be endorsing for the nomination anytime soon: Hillary Clinton.


It is not faint praise when I say sincerely that she has the potential of having the best administration of my lifetime, so that we can envision going from the worst to the best in one step.


I do not blame her for some obfuscation on selected wedge issues, unlike some of her chief opponents for the nomination with her party, whose motives are obvious. I do not believe that her problem is an absence of clearly-announced positions; it is that she does not want to be boxed in, and that is appropriate given her present role as the focus of all attention (in either party). It is smart for her to do so, and generally, she's just plain smart. Well-disciplined, too (her husband's downfall). So, there is much to hope for with her, and I will readily settle if that is what it comes to.


Still, I can hope for better. I am persuaded by the War of the Roses argument that the national tickets of the last two-plus decades have shown a surfeit of Bushes and Clintons. We do not need another chapter (or two, when Jeb runs against her in 2012). Doing the Bill Clinton Administration without the sexual hijinks would've been great in 2000-2008, but we need to look toward the future.

It is a bit unfair to suggest Hillary doesn't look to the future, but it is not unfair to suggest her appeal is largely based on a desire to re-run the last decade or so--with edits.

John Edwards has now proved that he is the Democratic opponent with the best chops at getting Hillary. He's well informed, polite, but tough on her. The fact that he's the best at taking her down, though, does not constitute grounds for an endorsement. Barack Obama's strategy would seem to be a better one for getting elected: let Edwards bring her down to size, then he can take them both on without getting his reputation dirty.

NYT haiku challenge

My entry:


Vindicate Torre
Through seven straight years' downfalls
Close the door now, Joe.