A great majority of states choose to have their governors elected in the Presidential midterm. This year there are 37 gubernatorial elections, which is apparently a record. Not that anyone planned it, but this year's intersection of large numbers of statehouse elections, the parlous state of many of the Midwestern and Southwestern state economies, and the upcoming political battles for Congressional redistricting coming out of the 2010 Census (see preview, Pt. 4),* makes this not such good timing for the Democrats, and this category will be an area of meaningful defeats for them this year. However, as we will see, there is also the possibility of some real bright spots, too.
Key Races
(likely change in number of Congressional districts in parentheses):
Florida (+2) Apart from Congressional re-districting, control of the statehouse can have a determinative effect, if only on the margin, in the Big Ticket itself, the Presidential contest for electoral votes. Just remember Jeb Bush in Florida in 2000--a Democratic governor in Florida then might well have allowed Al Gore to win the national election. Florida looks, once again, to be a critical swing state in 2012, but now with two more electoral votes.
The contest for control of Tallahassee has got to be the most important governor's race this year in all regards. There's the redistricting, the implications for 2012, but also there's a very close and very hot race. If she wins, Democratic nominee Alex Sink will be one of the brightest new lights in what could be a very dark evening. Her opponent, Rick Scott, is one of the most odious major candidates in a year filled with them: another of these super-rich, self-financed vampires, Scott made his bucks with his scumsucking Columbia/HCA company, which he split just before the company took a billion-plus dollar hit on fines for fraudulent medical insurance practices.
Sink currently has a small lead and apparently did well in a major televised debate last night. The money involved in this campaign is unreal, so don't get involved unless you're megabuckistically endowed, but if you've got a valid Florida voter registration, please show up for Sink!
Ohio (-2) When you're talking swing state, Ohio must come up. And please note, loss of Congressional seats is just as important for redistricting concerns as additional seats. Incumbent Democratic Governor Ted Strickland used to be very popular; with the economy and the state's budget problems, today that's true not so much. His opponent, former Rep. John Kasich, is smart, ambitious, and both fairly hard-right and a Bushite. In other words, the passing electoral fad. All I can say is, Ohioans, if you elect Kasich you'll be sorry, and you'll make us feel that way, too--once again. Strickland was pretty far behind, but has apparently closed the gap. There are several House races down-ticket who are hoping Strickland's resurgence will continue.
Texas (+4) Re-districting is a big war in which Texans engage, with gusto, every ten years,** and this time around should be no exception. 10-year incumbent Rick Perry is leading the charge for the forces of reaction (to what, you have to wonder) once again. The good news is that the Democrats have a real opponent for Perry in Mayor Bill White of Houston; he's run a great race against the odds and will at least keep it close. I see Perry winning one last time, and White perhaps getting another shot and winning in four years. Despite the perceived huge advantage of Republicans in the state, the legislature is very closely balanced (a lot of Blue Dogs), so the contest over the four additional seats will not actually be one-sided.
Illinois (-1) This normally reliable blue state has been put into political play this year by the excesses of disgraced ex-Gov. Blagojevich. Both the Senate and Governor's races have been tough ones for the Democratic candidates. Democrat Pat Quinn (promoted from Lt. Gov. on Blago's resignation) is nominally the incumbent but has none of the normal advantages; he trailed but has closed the gap.
Pennsylvania (-1) According to Nate Silver and 538.com, this is pretty much a safe takeover for Republican Tom Corbett--apparently, the Democratic candidate Dan Onorato had low statewide name recognition and has not broken through that barrier. Still, with the close race in the Senate (Sestak vs. Toomey) and the many close House races in the state, closing the gap in the top-of-ticket race will be very important strategically for the Democrats.
Georgia, South Carolina (each + 1) These are major uphill battles for the Democrats, with party registration working against them big-time. To their credit, the Democrats have nominated good candidates in each state, while South Carolina's Tea Party fave Niki Haley has run into problems with alleged extramarital affairs (not permitted in S.C., especially after the debacle with their current Gov. Sanford). Still, look for Republicans to get narrow wins and use legislative majorities to grab tightly onto the states' new seats.
Massachusetts (-1) Democratic control of the state was challenged in the Scott Brown Senate by-election. Gov. Deval Patrick was a big favorite to hold the job for the Dems, due to an independent candidacy splitting Republican leaners, but then that candidate (Tim Cahill) pulled out, and the race has closed--Patrick still favored.
States of Anger
These states are all trending heavily Republican this year:
Michigan (-1)This state is looking disastrous for Democrats, with incumbent Gov. Granholm term limited and unable to run again. Not only are they way behind this year, unless there's a sharp turnaround, the chances the Democrats can hold this state in 2012's Presidential election look grim. The good news is that the combination of plentiful fresh water, a favorable climate, and ample vacant real estate make Detroit a likely winner if/when global warming hits.
Arizona (+1) Janet Napolitano's going to the Department of Homeland Security keeps having negative repercussions for Democrats. Republican Lt. Gov. Jan Brewer ascended to the governor's office, where she was pretty much a non-entity until she endorsed the anti-immigrant bill; now she is cruising to election and carrying other Republicans with her (lots of close House races may be going against incumbent Democrats). The clear lesson of this is not to bring Democratic governors into the Cabinet if the Lt. Gov. is from the other side.
Nevada (+1) Given how unpopular Sen. Harry Reid has become in Nevada, and how bad the economy, it probably wasn't such a good idea for the Democrats to nominate his son for governor.
Utah (+1) I'm not sure what Utahans have to be angry about, but I'm sure they are (note the Republican primary voters knocking out incumbent Sen. Bennett for a Teabagger because Bennett was insufficiently a right-winger). At least the Democrats nominated someone.
States Somewhat Outlying
New York (-2) The antics of Carl Paladino have gotten all the attention, but Paladino is an also-ran candidate who never had more than a ghost of a chance, and that has disappeared. It will be good to get a Cuomo back as governor after Pataki and the Spitzer/Patterson debacle. Not that Albany--the state legislature--will be moved by any change in the occupant of the governor's office.
Arkansas (0) This is actually a red state with a Democratic incumbent who's winning big. At the same time, in the state's Senate race, Blanche Lincoln is heading for the biggest wipeout loss of any Democratic incumbent. I can only conclude Gov. Beebe must be doing something right--perhaps carrying firearms in public?
Iowa (-1) This is a race where the Democratic incumbent is losing big. What's unusual is that the person who's beating him is Terry Branstad, who was previously a four-term governor. So much for getting rid of the career politicians.
California (0) It seems amazing that, having so many Congressional districts (47), California is neither projected to gain or lose a seat, but that's the initial indication. Our most populous state is an outlier because it appears now that it may be a Democratic pickup--there are not going to be many (but see below for a couple other possibilities).
I was not expecting former Gov. Jerry Brown to win this race against multi-millionaire Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, but Brown has outperformed expectations even more times than he has been counted out, and he seems to be doing it again. Brown had about caught Whitman (despite the faux pas of calling Whitman a "whore" when he meant a "sell-out"), when the scandal hit Whitman. She has been a frequent denouncer of illegal immigration and policies that encourage it, but then it emerged that she had (probably knowingly) employed an illegal as a live-in housekeeper. Brown has now pulled noticeably ahead--though the Times' official rating is "toss-up", their blogger Nate Silver has Brown with a 82% probability of winning.
Worth Noting, Briefly
None of these states have changes projected for their Congressional delegations, but as blue (or blu-ish) states with close governor's races, they illustrate both the difficulties of Democrats this year and the variances between the national and local party orientations. The Times has an incredible 13 state governors' races officially still rated as tossups; Silver and 538.com are much more ready to push the balance toward one side or theother, but these are among the closest races in his ratings. (Silver's % probability of Democratic win in parentheses below)
Oregon (67%) Republican Chris Dudley is tall (6'-11"), handsome, a Yale graduate and former NBA player. He had a lead early on, but his positions are a little too plain-vanilla right-wing Republican for Oregon. And, as for basketball, I challenge him to a free-throw shooting contest, anywhere, anytime!
Vermont (54%) According to Silver, this is the closest to a 50-50 race of all the governors' races. Given the easy win here for Obama and being the state of former Gov. Howard Dean, one might be surprised to know that Vermont has had a Republican governor the last eight years (Vermont has elections every two years, so that's four elections retiring Gov. Douglas won).
Rhode Island (56%) Little Rhody's governor has been a Republican for 16 years! This year, though, the race's leader is a Democrat, closely followed by Lincoln Chaffee, a moderate who's left the Republican party and is running as an independent--the Republican candidate is running a distant third.
Colorado (81%) - Like Rhode Island, the Republican nominee has been displaced in the contest, but in this case it is right-wing extremist Tom Tancredo (you may remember his extremist unsuccessful run in the Republican primaries in 2008) who has marginalized a mainstream candidate (who had little name recognition). Denver Mayor Tom Hickenlooper, the Democratic nominee, had a large lead but Tancredo has closed and could pull off a huge state-depressing upset (he would do some borderline racist act like Ariz. Gov. Brewer did to make the state a pariah). There are some closely contested Colorado House races that may depend partially on Hickenlooper's success in holding onto this governorship.
Maryland (81%) This is a rematch of four years ago, when Democrat Martin O'Malley challenged the Republican incumbent, Robert Ehrlich. The race was extremely close, but in recent weeks O'Malley has pulled a few points ahead. Maryland, of course, is one of the most reliably Democratic states in national elections.
Maine (28%) This is a very confusing race, with four candidates drawing significant support. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates' projected vote percentages have been dropping in recent weeks and the percentage undecided increasing. The Republican candidate, the slight leader, has a fairly standard-issue right-wing Republican platform. This race may be a preview of the chaos quite likely to ensue in the next two election cycles if the two moderate Republican women Senators decide to run: they are likely to be challenged from the right and the left.
New Mexico (8%) And, finally, we get to my home state's race. Compared to some of the states above, its significance is hardly cosmic--no Senate race, no Congressional redistricting likely, all the House races settling into clearly likely outcomes (one very red seat to be lost), but there are a few important points to note.
First, along the lines of Arizona's race (see above), there are unintended consequences arising from President Obama's Cabinet decisions. When Gov. Bill Richardson's nomination for Commerce Secretary was scuttled in the midst of an investigation of a possible pay-for-play violation in his New Mexico administration (no one was charged, though the result was a less-than-total vindication), it meant that Lt. Gov. Diane Denish's ascension to the top job was cancelled. This has certainly made her campaign to win the office more difficult, as has Richardson's declining level of support and a general feeling of disappointment in the accomplishments of his eight-year tenure.
Second, kudos to the Republicans for coming up with a viable Hispanic woman candidate, District Attorney Susana Martinez, to run against Denish, thus cutting deeply into Denish's two most promising sources of majority support (women and Hispanics, the latter being some 40% of voters, by far the highest Hispanic percentage of any state). Martinez' candidacy has created a serious schism in the local Hispanic community, and we are seeing who is motivated by progressive issues or party loyalty (for example, our Hispanic Representative, Ben Ray Lujan, who is winning in a virtual walkover), who by familial and client relationships, and who by identity politics.
Denish is a good person, but has zero charisma and has found that the Lieutenant Governor position, second fiddle to a high-profile governor, is not such a good springboard to the governor's job, after all.
Martinez has a basic right-wing Republican agenda, and the only charge that has really stuck to her is that she is a transplanted Texan (ineffective down South but potent up here) and a tool of big-money Texan interests who have given heavily to her campaign. She is officially endorsed by Tea Party arbitress Sarah Palin, but has moved fairly successfully toward the middle in the general election campaign, among other things backing away from her primary-race support for education vouchers.
Denish led early, but Martinez caught her in mid-summer, and has moved to a ten-point lead. Martinez will win big in the South, may be edged in the Albuquerque area, and her expected loss margin in this district may be reduced by low turnout. A typical 2010 result.
Finally, for completeness sake, I list these states with projected changes in number of Congressional districts which do not have governor's races this year: Washington (+1), Louisiana (-1), Missouri (-1), and New Jersey (-1).
*For all references to projected changes in number of Congressional districts for states coming out of the 2010 Census, my source is an analysis by ESRI, a government contractor expert on geographical distributions of population, as reported in USA Today a few weeks ago. These are based on preliminary population estimates; the official Census reports and the resulting Congressional district numbers are expected in December.
**In the latter stages of the 2000 edition of these wars, several Texas Democratic legislators hid out here in New Mexico for months to deny their legislature a quorum, in an unusual approach to filibuster last decade's unjust redistricting scheme. I kid you not.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Judge: Ask, Tell
The sound you may hear is the facade of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" crumbling. At this point, the rumble is only intermittent, and you can only hear it when the wind is blowing the right way.
Repealing "DADT", as it's come to be abbreviated, is one of the major pieces of unfinished business from President Obama's campaign promises. Gay activists, who are probably more interested in the war for legalizing gay marriage, have locked onto this one as a good battle they can win, one in which the Administration's position is less ambiguous.
DADT in the military is a law--it's not that people who are gay cannot serve in the military, it's that those who become known to be gay cannot stay. The policy, or law, then, stipulates that people's sexual orientation is not to be the subject of inquiry, but if it becomes known that a serviceman or servicewoman is gay, the military is required to take action to separate them from active duty.
Comes Federal District Judge Virginia Philips, responding to a challenge to the law from the Log Cabin Republicans, to rule that the law is an unconstitutional denial of free speech. I will say that this case perhaps gives LCR a reason to exist--though why any gay person would want to associate with the Republican party I will never understand--and, further, I'll say that the argument seems to have some merit on its face: the law is basically a limitation on speech.
The tricky aspect, though, is that here we are dealing with the military, which gets some extra wiggle room from the courts in many regards, and with a voluntary association people make when they enlist--that is, they should know what they are getting into and should have to live by the rules.
The Obama Administration's response, to appeal Judge Phillips' ruling, is puzzling at first glance: one might think that she is facilitating the change in policy that the Administration wants. The fact, though, is that the executive branch is required to enforce the law--at least, to attempt to enforce it--that's their job.
The response to the ruling, as the case works through the courts, has whipsawed policy and left gay servicepeople and those considering enlistment with whiplash. Within days, reports came out that the Pentagon had issued rules to its recruiters not to block enlistment of those who were openly gay. I would guess they also issued directives, probably secretly, to stop booting out those already in--and at the same time, out. Just about that time, though, the Administration's appeal succeeded in getting a stay in implementing Judge Phillips' ruling--thus canceling out those moves. The Pentagon now has had to release a new directive ordering the resumption of proceedings against those in the services who somehow have "told".
In the light of these lurches in conflicting directions, the advice to gay servicepeople should be clear: keep it under wraps for a while yet. Similarly, I'd advise patience to those who would enlist and are openly gay (including thousands who have been forced out and might be considering going back in). I feel the change will come, but not necessarily through this court case.
SCOTUS--to refer to The Nine as One--would seem most likely to choose to duck this one, allowing the stay on the ruling to stand, hoping that Congress, working with the military, will eliminate the need for a final judgment. If it came to it, a majority of the Supremes would probably give a judgment against justice, liberty, and in favor of whatever the Administration and the military want (though a top Clinton legal official suggests a new wrinkle in a Times editorial, suggesting they could argue to the Court that the law is, in fact, unconstitutional), something I imagine they'd rather not do.
So, the spotlight seems likely to go back to two other venues: Congress, and the military's report on the implications of changing the law. As for the latter, it's coming out--in December, supposedly--and the word is that the military is not afraid of the change and has some idea of what they'd have to do. With Congress, of course, nothing is ever simple: the House has already passed the enabling legislation--contingent on the military's report not being contrary.
As for the Senate, I saw some of the debate a few weeks ago, just before the Senate adjourned for the election recess, in the context of the military authorizations bill. It was somewhat unprecedented, but the Republicans' bloc prevented consideration of the military's essential bill because it didn't want to take on the issue just yet. Disregarding the fact that the legislation would only end DADT if the military got behind the change, they argued that it was premature to pass legislation before the military's stance was known. The fact was that this was a simple political power struggle--the Republicans were being blocked from offering amendments to the bill they wanted considered, so they said no dice on DADT for now.
This bill, and DADT, will certainly be considered during the lame-duck session of Congress after the elections, and I feel certain that, following soon after the Pentagon's position is out will come the rights of gay military to be such. After the Pentagon makes its position official, there probably won't even be much opposition in the Senate. Which is good, because there won't be much time left to debate it.
Repealing "DADT", as it's come to be abbreviated, is one of the major pieces of unfinished business from President Obama's campaign promises. Gay activists, who are probably more interested in the war for legalizing gay marriage, have locked onto this one as a good battle they can win, one in which the Administration's position is less ambiguous.
DADT in the military is a law--it's not that people who are gay cannot serve in the military, it's that those who become known to be gay cannot stay. The policy, or law, then, stipulates that people's sexual orientation is not to be the subject of inquiry, but if it becomes known that a serviceman or servicewoman is gay, the military is required to take action to separate them from active duty.
Comes Federal District Judge Virginia Philips, responding to a challenge to the law from the Log Cabin Republicans, to rule that the law is an unconstitutional denial of free speech. I will say that this case perhaps gives LCR a reason to exist--though why any gay person would want to associate with the Republican party I will never understand--and, further, I'll say that the argument seems to have some merit on its face: the law is basically a limitation on speech.
The tricky aspect, though, is that here we are dealing with the military, which gets some extra wiggle room from the courts in many regards, and with a voluntary association people make when they enlist--that is, they should know what they are getting into and should have to live by the rules.
The Obama Administration's response, to appeal Judge Phillips' ruling, is puzzling at first glance: one might think that she is facilitating the change in policy that the Administration wants. The fact, though, is that the executive branch is required to enforce the law--at least, to attempt to enforce it--that's their job.
The response to the ruling, as the case works through the courts, has whipsawed policy and left gay servicepeople and those considering enlistment with whiplash. Within days, reports came out that the Pentagon had issued rules to its recruiters not to block enlistment of those who were openly gay. I would guess they also issued directives, probably secretly, to stop booting out those already in--and at the same time, out. Just about that time, though, the Administration's appeal succeeded in getting a stay in implementing Judge Phillips' ruling--thus canceling out those moves. The Pentagon now has had to release a new directive ordering the resumption of proceedings against those in the services who somehow have "told".
In the light of these lurches in conflicting directions, the advice to gay servicepeople should be clear: keep it under wraps for a while yet. Similarly, I'd advise patience to those who would enlist and are openly gay (including thousands who have been forced out and might be considering going back in). I feel the change will come, but not necessarily through this court case.
SCOTUS--to refer to The Nine as One--would seem most likely to choose to duck this one, allowing the stay on the ruling to stand, hoping that Congress, working with the military, will eliminate the need for a final judgment. If it came to it, a majority of the Supremes would probably give a judgment against justice, liberty, and in favor of whatever the Administration and the military want (though a top Clinton legal official suggests a new wrinkle in a Times editorial, suggesting they could argue to the Court that the law is, in fact, unconstitutional), something I imagine they'd rather not do.
So, the spotlight seems likely to go back to two other venues: Congress, and the military's report on the implications of changing the law. As for the latter, it's coming out--in December, supposedly--and the word is that the military is not afraid of the change and has some idea of what they'd have to do. With Congress, of course, nothing is ever simple: the House has already passed the enabling legislation--contingent on the military's report not being contrary.
As for the Senate, I saw some of the debate a few weeks ago, just before the Senate adjourned for the election recess, in the context of the military authorizations bill. It was somewhat unprecedented, but the Republicans' bloc prevented consideration of the military's essential bill because it didn't want to take on the issue just yet. Disregarding the fact that the legislation would only end DADT if the military got behind the change, they argued that it was premature to pass legislation before the military's stance was known. The fact was that this was a simple political power struggle--the Republicans were being blocked from offering amendments to the bill they wanted considered, so they said no dice on DADT for now.
This bill, and DADT, will certainly be considered during the lame-duck session of Congress after the elections, and I feel certain that, following soon after the Pentagon's position is out will come the rights of gay military to be such. After the Pentagon makes its position official, there probably won't even be much opposition in the Senate. Which is good, because there won't be much time left to debate it.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Visibility for Israel
Israel's Ambassador to the US Michael Oren published an editorial in the New York Times on October 13 titled "An End to Israel's Invisibility". In it, Ambassador Oren plugged the Netanyahu government's new obsession, that everyone needs to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state. It is proposed that this be the basis of a loyalty pledge for all new immigrants to Israel; in this case, Oren echoes Netanyahu's call that the Palestinian Authority acknowledge it before Israel renews--even temporarily--its moratorium on settlements in the Occupied Territories.
Ambassador Oren's argument is fundamentally dishonest in two regards. First, he never mentions the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Palestinian Arabs, generally Muslims or of Muslim descent. To ignore this significant minority in this way is as though the US were to declare itself a White Anglo nation; we'd allow the 20% who are black or Hispanics to remain, but the law would require they be excluded from numerous privileges. Let's enshrine Jim Crow as law and make everyone recognize it! (sarcasm)
Second, while the PA might well be able to acknowledge the obvious fact that Israel is the "national home for the Jewish people", as Oren quotes the 1917 Balfour Declaration--at least that expression does not exclude the native Palestinian Arabs from considering it their home, too--Israel should then make the obverse declaration that the West Bank is not the Jewish people's national home. A clear statement of that fact should make things clearer to the Jewish settlers there who claim to be part of Israel and expect the protection of the state's military. Enough of this "Judea/Samaria" crap.
I originally wanted to write this as a letter to the Editor of the NYT; however, it is impossible to condense this to 150 words, as they require (I did try!). Of course, they never would've published this--even if I were to change "crap" to "nonsense" and take out the sarcasm.
Ambassador Oren's argument is fundamentally dishonest in two regards. First, he never mentions the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Palestinian Arabs, generally Muslims or of Muslim descent. To ignore this significant minority in this way is as though the US were to declare itself a White Anglo nation; we'd allow the 20% who are black or Hispanics to remain, but the law would require they be excluded from numerous privileges. Let's enshrine Jim Crow as law and make everyone recognize it! (sarcasm)
Second, while the PA might well be able to acknowledge the obvious fact that Israel is the "national home for the Jewish people", as Oren quotes the 1917 Balfour Declaration--at least that expression does not exclude the native Palestinian Arabs from considering it their home, too--Israel should then make the obverse declaration that the West Bank is not the Jewish people's national home. A clear statement of that fact should make things clearer to the Jewish settlers there who claim to be part of Israel and expect the protection of the state's military. Enough of this "Judea/Samaria" crap.
I originally wanted to write this as a letter to the Editor of the NYT; however, it is impossible to condense this to 150 words, as they require (I did try!). Of course, they never would've published this--even if I were to change "crap" to "nonsense" and take out the sarcasm.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Tales of Two Allies
Big Society, Little Country
I saw a taped speech of U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron to his Conservative party on C-SPAN delivered on 9/27. It was a combination of a pep talk and a broad policy outline.
Except for the posh accent, Cameron makes for a viable centrist American politician; it would be great to have a few like him negotiating with the Democrats on domestic programs--and, who knows? maybe such will emerge after the catharsis of these midterm elections and the brief look at the abyss it seems likely to afford us all.
Britain is different from the US in many ways, but Cameron is dealing with the same issues--fiscal responsibility, government cutbacks, tax increases, getting past the culture of the bailout and out of the Great Crater to something like normalcy--that we are going to be confronting in the near future, and the terms in which he speaks already seem familiar.
As an example of how American he is, Cameron's "Big Society" puts devolution--a new British federalist division of powers between Parliament and local councils--at the center of his program. Britain has allowed some self-government to the outer regions--Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland--in recent decades, but both those regional bodies and the county and town councils throughout England have had powers which were nominal in most areas. Those outer regions will have heard it all before and will not be impressed, but they don't support the Conservatives much anyway--this particular dose of political seduction is aimed at England--beyond London.
Cameron's smart play is to talk of sacrifice for all, but to focus it on the British civil service, a body above mere politics with great power and job security through all administrations; Cameron seeks to make it the political equivalent of despised "Washington". Next, Cameron will seek initial sacrifices from those who have high incomes, who will lose tax credits for dependent children. Another move guaranteed to be popular, though it probably made a few of the assembled party bigwigs squirm a bit. Still, a great policy idea, and it amazes me that the Democrats have not been able to sell the equivalent--ending the tax cuts for the rich--to our electorate.
I noticed that Cameron never made a single reference to the support of the Liberal Democrats, upon which his majority depends. Their livers have clearly become chopped; they can grin and bear it--which will become progressively tougher to do--or walk out and face electoral doom, having never gained their referendum to bring them something more like representation proportional to their numbers among voters.
Tough Sell for Israelis
Perhaps it is exactly the difference that having something more like proportional representation makes, but when it comes to getting Israel to agree to continue their moratorium on new settlements in the occupied territories, Prime Minister Netanyahu's junior partners in the coalition, the right-wing religious parties, are the tail wagging the dog.
Or so the wily Netanyahu would lead people to believe: poor thing, he can not get them to agree not to start new settlements (the approved ones have been continuing to build throughout), it would bring down the government. The possibility of having a peace agreement, or alternatively the threat of losing this round of peace negotiations, is not sufficient incentive for them to tolerate this loss of "rights".
Apart from massive guarantees apparently on offer from the US just for extending this moratorium for a couple of months, Netanyahu claimed that he needed to toss them a very large bone: a bill approved by his Cabinet going to the Knesset that would require all new Israeli citizens to swear an oath of loyalty to "a Jewish state". This new law is a calculated affront to the critical (for peace, anyway) Israeli Arab (i.e., Muslim) population, some 20% (and growing) of the nation's total. But, although they vote, they are on the outside of this and every other Israeli government. Labor's ministers in the Cabinet voted against this proposal; unlike the right-wing parties, their support does not seem necessary for Netanyahu government policy.
It's not looking promising....
I saw a taped speech of U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron to his Conservative party on C-SPAN delivered on 9/27. It was a combination of a pep talk and a broad policy outline.
Except for the posh accent, Cameron makes for a viable centrist American politician; it would be great to have a few like him negotiating with the Democrats on domestic programs--and, who knows? maybe such will emerge after the catharsis of these midterm elections and the brief look at the abyss it seems likely to afford us all.
Britain is different from the US in many ways, but Cameron is dealing with the same issues--fiscal responsibility, government cutbacks, tax increases, getting past the culture of the bailout and out of the Great Crater to something like normalcy--that we are going to be confronting in the near future, and the terms in which he speaks already seem familiar.
As an example of how American he is, Cameron's "Big Society" puts devolution--a new British federalist division of powers between Parliament and local councils--at the center of his program. Britain has allowed some self-government to the outer regions--Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland--in recent decades, but both those regional bodies and the county and town councils throughout England have had powers which were nominal in most areas. Those outer regions will have heard it all before and will not be impressed, but they don't support the Conservatives much anyway--this particular dose of political seduction is aimed at England--beyond London.
Cameron's smart play is to talk of sacrifice for all, but to focus it on the British civil service, a body above mere politics with great power and job security through all administrations; Cameron seeks to make it the political equivalent of despised "Washington". Next, Cameron will seek initial sacrifices from those who have high incomes, who will lose tax credits for dependent children. Another move guaranteed to be popular, though it probably made a few of the assembled party bigwigs squirm a bit. Still, a great policy idea, and it amazes me that the Democrats have not been able to sell the equivalent--ending the tax cuts for the rich--to our electorate.
I noticed that Cameron never made a single reference to the support of the Liberal Democrats, upon which his majority depends. Their livers have clearly become chopped; they can grin and bear it--which will become progressively tougher to do--or walk out and face electoral doom, having never gained their referendum to bring them something more like representation proportional to their numbers among voters.
Tough Sell for Israelis
Perhaps it is exactly the difference that having something more like proportional representation makes, but when it comes to getting Israel to agree to continue their moratorium on new settlements in the occupied territories, Prime Minister Netanyahu's junior partners in the coalition, the right-wing religious parties, are the tail wagging the dog.
Or so the wily Netanyahu would lead people to believe: poor thing, he can not get them to agree not to start new settlements (the approved ones have been continuing to build throughout), it would bring down the government. The possibility of having a peace agreement, or alternatively the threat of losing this round of peace negotiations, is not sufficient incentive for them to tolerate this loss of "rights".
Apart from massive guarantees apparently on offer from the US just for extending this moratorium for a couple of months, Netanyahu claimed that he needed to toss them a very large bone: a bill approved by his Cabinet going to the Knesset that would require all new Israeli citizens to swear an oath of loyalty to "a Jewish state". This new law is a calculated affront to the critical (for peace, anyway) Israeli Arab (i.e., Muslim) population, some 20% (and growing) of the nation's total. But, although they vote, they are on the outside of this and every other Israeli government. Labor's ministers in the Cabinet voted against this proposal; unlike the right-wing parties, their support does not seem necessary for Netanyahu government policy.
It's not looking promising....
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
MLBP
No, it's not My Life Before Pilades, but Major League Baseball's Playoffs, which started about an hour ago as I enter this post.
I refer you to my previous in-depth review of the progress of baseball's season, which will in turn refer you to my preseason posting. As for the latter, suffice to say that I got five of the eight postseason teams correct, a pretty good result, though my pick for World Series champ (the Cardinals) didn't make the cut. I'm happy about that error, as well as the Tampa Bay Rays displacing the Boston Red Sox (or BoTox, as I generally refer to them). I'm less pleased that the Colorado Rockies did not repeat their dramatic finish of 2007: as in that year, they had the winning streak to get close, but then ran out of gas, cut the motor, and, coasting, fell back in the race. On the whole, I've enjoyed the main course regular-season and its results enormously and I'm looking forward to dessert.
Going forward, then, we have four first-round matchups, which I'll discuss briefly, then giving my preference and predictions. Then I'll assume I'm right and briefly predict the League Championship and World Series.
Rays vs. Texas Rangers: Rays are favored, based on better regular-season performance. They also have the great motivation (I think) of knowing their team is likely to be largely broken up after the season in an effort to cut salary expenses. I see it as basically even; the Rangers' mid-season pickup of Cliff Lee puts them in a good position to win games 1 and 4, which, of course, is two-thirds of the way there. Texas has never--ever!--won a postseason series (and that includes their limp predecessor, the second incarnation of the Washington Senators), while Tampa Bay had a dramatic run to glory in 2008 before losing in the Series and dropping out of the running last year. My preference would be the Rangers; my pick is the Rays, in five games.
Minnesota Twins vs. New York Yankees: Three things suggest the Twins can reverse the slave-master relationship that has prevailed between the two teams in recent years and the recent playoff history: 1) Twins have home-field advantage because they won their division, while Yanks are "only" the Wild Card; 2) the Twins arguably have the stronger three-man starting rotation, because the Yanks have had only one reliable starter through the year, C.C. Sabathia; and 3) regular-season record has the Yanks only one game better, so the teams are at least theoretically about equal. Unfortunately, I don't buy any of that; the games will be high-scoring but the Yanks will outslug them. My preference would be the Twins; my pick is the Yanks, in four (win one of two on the road and the two at home).
San Francisco Giants vs. Atlanta Braves:
The Giants won their division on the last day with a 3-0 shutout of the San Diego Padres, thus avoiding a four-way tie among contenders and a three-way playoff for two spots (the playoff would've been Giants/Braves/Padres; the fourth tied team would've been the Cincinnati Reds, who'd clinched their division). The winner of that crucial game was Matt Cain, who is only the second-best starter on the Giants (behind Tim Lincecum), and they have two-three other good ones. The Giants' outstanding starting pitching makes them heavy favorites over the Braves, who have a sentimental appeal in beloved Manager Bobby Cox's last year (and, apparently, future Hall of Fame reliever--or should be HOF'er--Billy Wagner's last). My preference would be the Braves (see below for the reason), my pick is the Giants, in four.
Reds vs. Philadelphia Phillies: This is, for me, the main event, and for most fans, it will be the most interesting. For one thing, the Reds' presence in the postseason is something new and exciting (first appearance in 15 years); for another, it's a great matchup between the Phillies' three-man power rotation (Halladay/Oswalt/Hamels) and the Reds' top-rated offense. Unfortunately for me (a devoted Reds fan), good pitching can usually close down good hitting. I also have some doubt about the Reds' starting pitching for the series, as selected by manager Dusty Baker: three righty starters against the Phillies' power-hitting lefties.
The Reds have to win one of the first three to get to their best shot to win, Travis Wood, who I would hope Baker will trot out in Game 4. The key to that is for the Reds to make a successful comeback using long relievers (other than Wood, preferably) and their hitting prowess, either wearing down at least one of the Phillies' starters or getting to their bullpen. Sounds pretty daunting, and the Phillies are indeed major favorites.
I decided a while ago that, while I was sympathetic to the Phils in their two previous pennant runs (2008 and 2009), I would root against them this year for their nearly-criminal preseason trade of Cliff Lee to the Mariners (from whence Lee was traded again to the Rangers). Then the Reds came along to clinch that feeling. My preference is clearly the Reds, and I will ignore logic to pick the Reds in five.
Future rounds: ALCS--Yankees and Rays: This has been a real good matchup in the regular season this year. I picked the Yanks to go to the World Series in preseason, but that's because I figured the main opposition would be BoTox. The Yankees are formidable but their pitching weakness pierces their air of invulnerability, upon which they rely so much. My preference and pick would be the Rays. (If one or the other doesn't make the ALCS, I'd pick the one that does, and if Minnesota-Texas, I'll go with the Twins.)
NLCS--Reds vs. Giants: I'm already satisfied with the Reds' making the playoffs, though naturally if they beat the Phils, I'll want more. The Phillies would be looking to make history with three straight NL pennants if they win in the first round (the last time it was done was by the Cardinals in 1942-44; I'm rooting--and betting--against. Preference--Reds; pick--Giants. (I'll even go with the Giants against the Phils, but I'd pick the Reds, or the Phillies, over the Braves.)
World Series--Giants vs. Rays: This would be a great one to watch, if it happens; a real change from the usual suspects. The Giants have not won the World Series since they moved west from New York in 1958 (they won a bunch there); the Rays have a short history, with one World Series loss. Warning, though: it might be very low-scoring, because if the teams get this far, their pitching staffs will have been effective. Preference and prediction: Rays.
It's too complicated to consider all the other 30 possible World Series matchups, so I'll oversimplify and generalize. Preference: NL team (in all matchups except Phillies vs. not-Yanks); Prediction: same, in six games.
I refer you to my previous in-depth review of the progress of baseball's season, which will in turn refer you to my preseason posting. As for the latter, suffice to say that I got five of the eight postseason teams correct, a pretty good result, though my pick for World Series champ (the Cardinals) didn't make the cut. I'm happy about that error, as well as the Tampa Bay Rays displacing the Boston Red Sox (or BoTox, as I generally refer to them). I'm less pleased that the Colorado Rockies did not repeat their dramatic finish of 2007: as in that year, they had the winning streak to get close, but then ran out of gas, cut the motor, and, coasting, fell back in the race. On the whole, I've enjoyed the main course regular-season and its results enormously and I'm looking forward to dessert.
Going forward, then, we have four first-round matchups, which I'll discuss briefly, then giving my preference and predictions. Then I'll assume I'm right and briefly predict the League Championship and World Series.
Rays vs. Texas Rangers: Rays are favored, based on better regular-season performance. They also have the great motivation (I think) of knowing their team is likely to be largely broken up after the season in an effort to cut salary expenses. I see it as basically even; the Rangers' mid-season pickup of Cliff Lee puts them in a good position to win games 1 and 4, which, of course, is two-thirds of the way there. Texas has never--ever!--won a postseason series (and that includes their limp predecessor, the second incarnation of the Washington Senators), while Tampa Bay had a dramatic run to glory in 2008 before losing in the Series and dropping out of the running last year. My preference would be the Rangers; my pick is the Rays, in five games.
Minnesota Twins vs. New York Yankees: Three things suggest the Twins can reverse the slave-master relationship that has prevailed between the two teams in recent years and the recent playoff history: 1) Twins have home-field advantage because they won their division, while Yanks are "only" the Wild Card; 2) the Twins arguably have the stronger three-man starting rotation, because the Yanks have had only one reliable starter through the year, C.C. Sabathia; and 3) regular-season record has the Yanks only one game better, so the teams are at least theoretically about equal. Unfortunately, I don't buy any of that; the games will be high-scoring but the Yanks will outslug them. My preference would be the Twins; my pick is the Yanks, in four (win one of two on the road and the two at home).
San Francisco Giants vs. Atlanta Braves:
The Giants won their division on the last day with a 3-0 shutout of the San Diego Padres, thus avoiding a four-way tie among contenders and a three-way playoff for two spots (the playoff would've been Giants/Braves/Padres; the fourth tied team would've been the Cincinnati Reds, who'd clinched their division). The winner of that crucial game was Matt Cain, who is only the second-best starter on the Giants (behind Tim Lincecum), and they have two-three other good ones. The Giants' outstanding starting pitching makes them heavy favorites over the Braves, who have a sentimental appeal in beloved Manager Bobby Cox's last year (and, apparently, future Hall of Fame reliever--or should be HOF'er--Billy Wagner's last). My preference would be the Braves (see below for the reason), my pick is the Giants, in four.
Reds vs. Philadelphia Phillies: This is, for me, the main event, and for most fans, it will be the most interesting. For one thing, the Reds' presence in the postseason is something new and exciting (first appearance in 15 years); for another, it's a great matchup between the Phillies' three-man power rotation (Halladay/Oswalt/Hamels) and the Reds' top-rated offense. Unfortunately for me (a devoted Reds fan), good pitching can usually close down good hitting. I also have some doubt about the Reds' starting pitching for the series, as selected by manager Dusty Baker: three righty starters against the Phillies' power-hitting lefties.
The Reds have to win one of the first three to get to their best shot to win, Travis Wood, who I would hope Baker will trot out in Game 4. The key to that is for the Reds to make a successful comeback using long relievers (other than Wood, preferably) and their hitting prowess, either wearing down at least one of the Phillies' starters or getting to their bullpen. Sounds pretty daunting, and the Phillies are indeed major favorites.
I decided a while ago that, while I was sympathetic to the Phils in their two previous pennant runs (2008 and 2009), I would root against them this year for their nearly-criminal preseason trade of Cliff Lee to the Mariners (from whence Lee was traded again to the Rangers). Then the Reds came along to clinch that feeling. My preference is clearly the Reds, and I will ignore logic to pick the Reds in five.
Future rounds: ALCS--Yankees and Rays: This has been a real good matchup in the regular season this year. I picked the Yanks to go to the World Series in preseason, but that's because I figured the main opposition would be BoTox. The Yankees are formidable but their pitching weakness pierces their air of invulnerability, upon which they rely so much. My preference and pick would be the Rays. (If one or the other doesn't make the ALCS, I'd pick the one that does, and if Minnesota-Texas, I'll go with the Twins.)
NLCS--Reds vs. Giants: I'm already satisfied with the Reds' making the playoffs, though naturally if they beat the Phils, I'll want more. The Phillies would be looking to make history with three straight NL pennants if they win in the first round (the last time it was done was by the Cardinals in 1942-44; I'm rooting--and betting--against. Preference--Reds; pick--Giants. (I'll even go with the Giants against the Phils, but I'd pick the Reds, or the Phillies, over the Braves.)
World Series--Giants vs. Rays: This would be a great one to watch, if it happens; a real change from the usual suspects. The Giants have not won the World Series since they moved west from New York in 1958 (they won a bunch there); the Rays have a short history, with one World Series loss. Warning, though: it might be very low-scoring, because if the teams get this far, their pitching staffs will have been effective. Preference and prediction: Rays.
It's too complicated to consider all the other 30 possible World Series matchups, so I'll oversimplify and generalize. Preference: NL team (in all matchups except Phillies vs. not-Yanks); Prediction: same, in six games.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Final Pre-election View, Pt. 2: The House
Forget about your House of Cards/Radiohead, In/ Rainbows, Track #8
And I'll Do Mine.
WARNING: WE WILL BE DRAWING INFORMATION FROM SEVERAL WONKY ELECTION ANALYSIS WEBSITES. I'll try to link to them at, or soon after, first mention.
For all of its gerrymandered faults, the House is the most democratic of Federal institutions--there is little brake on the whims or delusions of the majority. Then, too, despite the fact that a majority of House districts are set up for a guaranteed party victory (about the same number, some 160-170 for each party), this decade has shown that about 100 are legitimately contested ones, in purplish shades varying from scarlet to indigo. These districts need to be won, or defended, every two years.
Nancy Pelosi did much that many Americans did not want, but I can not fault for a moment her proven ability to run legislation through the House on a timely basis (props also to ex-Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who is leaving his job as President Obama's chief of staff to go back home to try to run Chicago). A Republican majority, no matter how small, should work just as well, so it is much to be feared and opposed. I use the word "work" very loosely--they will be able to pass the legislation they want through the House, though Senate dithering and Presidential vetoes will both await if they get too aggressive--and by "well", I mean "badly", in terms of the short- and long-term interests of Americans, the economy, and the rest of the world. But what I mean is that 218 seats gets them control of all the committees, the bills put on the floor, and the rules which will govern their passage.
So, it's pretty much all or nothing: the Republicans need to gain 39 seats (plus the two vacant ones which are pretty much conceded to them). Go through the following and see if you think they'll get there.
Meet The Wonks
Nate Silver of Five-thirty-eight.com, now housed on the New York Times' blogs, is tops among those who study politics with a serious quantitative discipline. Part of his appeal is his willingness to write honestly and openly, and his willingness to engage in give-and-take with the blogosphere. He is also alone among those I'll mention here who makes his forecasts based on Election Day and not If-Today-Were-Election-Day.
With regard to forecasting individual House races, Silver has taken all the data available and come up with projected Election Day vote percentages, which he discloses in his district-level map. He also has for each a measure of standard error in those estimates (which he doesn't disclose); that error will reduce (and the projected percentages will change, albeit gradually) as Election Day nears and more polling data comes in--he commented recently that only 116 of the 435 races had local polls. The combination of the projected vote and the standard error has allowed him to quote a "percentage chance of takeover" for each individual race.
Silver is thought to be a liberal Democrat, but he has been very clear in establishing a distance from Democratic partisan viewpoints, respecting the work of conservative pollster Rasmussen and others of his ilk, and taking a firm, early position that the Democrats are in serious trouble, particularly in their bid to hold onto the House. His current assessment is that the Republicans have a 67% chance of winning control of the House, his mean simulation result is Republicans 224.3 seats, Democrats 210.7, and he shows a nice, real-life normal distribution of probable Democratic seats (done from "10,000 simulations") that looks like it peaks around 210-212, but with a neat little secondary spike right at 217-218.
I have two beefs with Silver: one is his habit of referring to his model anthropomorphically, as though it were a person with opinions ("my model is skeptical about...") instead of a mathematical construct he made. The other is that the notion of speaking of elections probabilistically is problematic: it has sense in the idea of putting stakes in the ground for bettors to take one side or the other, but not in the sense that political outcomes are random events. They are deterministic in their nature; the uncertainty comes from the difficulty in knowing who will come out and vote, whether people tell the truth to pollsters, how strategic decisions in the last days of the campaign will fall out, and whether past patterns of behavior will accurately predict future behavior, none of which really are random events like cutting cards or rolling dice.
Next up: Congressional Quarterly is a journal which studies developments in Congress and reports on them to the public. A few years ago, they got more seriously involved with detailed study of political races, and their site for this is called CQ Politics. They have done their own district-by-district ratings, which are done in a more traditional, less numbers-driven style. Essentially, they start with a detailed knowledge of individual Congresspeople, their districts, and how politics work, then add data as the race goes along.
The ratings start out with a pretty strong incumbent bias, but gradually filter in threats to incumbents. The only critical data point in the analysis is the last one before Election Day. In this study, I'll be using the ratings from September 17, though they came out with some shifts--entirely predictable ones--on September 30.
Cook Political Report appears similar to me in its base and approach. It makes a lot of good background information available to its paid subscribers--not so much to us Internet interlopers, though I did get a good description of the Congressional district "PVI"--the Partisan Vote Index. A description of a district as "R + 6" means that in the last two Presidential elections (i.e., 2004 and 2008), the district averaged 6% more Republican than the national average (which they quote as 48.7%, ignoring 3rd-party votes).
Larry Sabato is head of a non-partisan political institute at the University of Virginia and a long-time political observer and commentator. His "Crystal Ball" seems to utilize the national generic poll as the primary input to project national House campaign results.* I faulted him for not lining up his race-by-race assessments with his overall prediction ("if the election were held today"--or anytime in the last month--he's predicting a gain of 47 seats for the Republicans), but that overall prediction lines up very well with Silver's moving-target predictions. Sabato's organization just changed ratings of about 20 races on September 30 (unsurprisingly, all in the direction of improved Republican chances), but he has yet to update that attractive, but defective, chart published a few weeks ago.
Cook and CQPolitics have current analyses which are deceptive: they are only calling for net pickups of 10-20 seats for the Republicans, similar to Sabato's seat-by-seat analysis. I don't believe those are anything like what their final forecasts will be, and it would be dangerous for anyone to take them seriously. You have to assign all the many races called "toss-up" to the Republicans to get to their realistic forecast, where I expect them to end up. As I said, shifting each column over (or just relabeling it--Sabato's chart had zero Democratic-held seats as "Likely Republican") makes their analyses comparable to Silver's.
All three of those--Cook, Sabato, and CQ--will go through the same tiresome process of gradually, and selectively, moving races from Leans Democratic to Toss-up, Toss-up to Lean Republican, Leans Republican to Likely Republican, etc. as the days to Election Day diminish. They expect that memories will be short and they will not be faulted for failing to identify many of the seats that will turn over until the last weeks--something that Silver has been willing to do quite boldly. They should converge on similar final charts of race predictions, probably also similar to Silver's as he shifts his, too.
The final site I would recommend to those who want to do some research on their own is electoral-vote.com, which puts faces, PVI's, and narrative together about most, but not all, of the 100 contested races.
I did a study using Silver's percentages, categorized in the style of the others, and testing the hypothesis that the others identify the same races with the same results, only shifted one category toward the status quo. It worked pretty well, but not perfectly--on average, it was the right adjustment, but some races were two columns off or even more, while some were in the same column.
My Turn
This leads me (finally) to my own analysis. Basically, I looked at five pieces of data for 100 races. The selection of the races came easily: there is some variation around the margins (the "Likely Dem" and "Likely Rep" columns of one analyst might have races considered "safe" by others), but in the key areas of likely takeovers and tossup or near-tossup races, with a few exceptions, they're talking about the same ones.
The five pieces of data were the Cook, CQ, and Sabato forecasts, shifted a column away from the status quo as I've tried to describe, Silver's turnover percentages, and the PVI, which I used simplistically: a seat with a Republican-leaning PVI of "R + 6" or higher, in other words with a 55% or higher average Republican vote in the last two elections, was considered for this purpose a seat mildly trending Republican. I sought the center of those five indicators. A consensus is indicated if three or more of them (as adjusted) agree; those where there was too much difference of opinion are highlighted separately.
Democratic-held seats:
Gone (predict 100% to lose):
IN-3 (vacant); TN-6 (Open-Gordon); AR-2 (vacant- Snyder); NY-29 (Vacant); KS-3 (Open-Moore) (5 total; the two vacant were mentioned above, so Republicans need net +41 with them included).
High likelihood of loss (80% to lose):
LA-3 (Open-Melancon); ND-AtLg. (Pomeroy); MD-1 (Kratovil); AR-1 (Open-Barry); TN-8 (Open-Tanner); OH-1 (Driehaus); IN-8 (Open-Ellsworth); CO-4 (Markey); NM-2 (Teague); OH-15 (Kilroy); WA-3 (Open-Baird). (11 seats--note how many were seats vacated, either because Democrats sensed loss and abandoned them, or, in several cases, because they chose to run for the Senate, generally unsuccessfully).
High vulnerability, but forecasts varying widely (lose 2 of 3):
MI-1 (Open-Stupak)--91% turnover chance from Silver; PVI R+3; Cook Leans Republican (LR); Sabato Tossup (TO) (but moving to LR now); CQ TO.
MS-1 (Childers)--84%; R+14; Cook, CQ TO; Sabato LR.
PA-7 (Open--Sestak)--76%; D+3; Cook LR; CQ, Sabato TO.
Medium vulnerability (24 seats--lose 60%):
MI-7 (Schaer); FL-24 (Kosmas); WV-1 (Mollohan); NH-2 (Open-Hodes); PA-11 (Kanjorski); NH-1 (Shea-Porter); SC-5 (Spratt); PA-3 (Dahlkemper); PA-10 (Carney); AZ-1 (Kirkpatrick); IL-14 (Foster); GA-8 (Marshall); PA-12 (Critz); FL-8 (Grayson); VA-2 (Nye); IN-9 (Hill); NV-3 (Titus); MO-4 (Skelton); NY-24 (Arcuri); PA-8 (Murphy); KY-6 (Chandler); AZ-8 (Giffords); TN-4 (Davis); FL-2 (Boyd).
Medium, but varying forecasts:
On the high side (lose 3 of 4)--
IL-11 (Halverson): 88%; R+1; CQ LR; Sabato, Cook TO.
VA-5 (Perriello): 88%; R+5; CQ, Sabato, Cook all TO (Sabato moving to LR).
OH-16 (Boccieri): 84%; R+4; CQ, Sabato, Cook all TO.
WI-7 (Open-Obey)): 83%; D+3; CQ, Sabato, Cook all TO.
SD-AtLg. (Herseth-Sadler): 82%; R+9; CQ, Sabato, Cook all TO.
TX-17 (Edwards): 68%; R+20 (!); CQ LR; Cook TO; Sabato TO (moving to LR).
On the low side (lose half):
AL-2 (Bright): 74%; R+16; Sabato TO; Cook, CQ LD.
AZ-5 (Mitchell): 66%; R+5; Sabato LD (moving to TO); Cook, CQ TO.
IA-3 (Boswell): 63%; D+1; CQ LD; Sabato, Cook TO.
CO-3 (Salazar): 61%; R+5; Cook TO; Sabato, CQ LD.
WI-8 (Kagen): 56%; R+2; Cook, CQ TO; Sabato Likely Democratic (here abbr. as PD, Probably Dem.)
NC-8 (Kissell): 50%; R+2; CQ LD; Sabato, Cook TO.
OH-18 (Space): 49%; R+8; CQ, Sabato LD; Cook TO.
ID-1 (Minnick): 47%; R+18; Cook, CQ LD; Sabato TO.
Lower vulnerability (lose one in four):
CA-11 (McNerney); TX-23 (Rodriguez); FL-22 (Klein); NY-19 (Hall); NC-11 (Shuler); NJ-3 (Adler); OR-5 (Schrader); MI-9 (Peters); IN-2 (Donnelly); CO-7 (Perlmutter); NY-23 (Owens); PA-4 (Altmire); MA-10 (Open--Delahunt); ; NY-20 (Murphy); NM-1 (Heinrich); WA-2 (Larsen); VA-11 (Connolly); GA-2 (Bishop); OH-13 (Sutton); VA-9 (Boucher); WV-3 (Rahall); NY-1 (Bishop); CT-5 (Murphy). (23 seats)
Low, but varying forecasts(low side--lose 10%):
IL-17 (Hare): 26%; D+3; Cook, CQ LD; Sabato Safe Dem (but moving to PD).
CA-18 (Cardoza) 0.5; D+4; Sabato, Cook PD; CQ LD.
Very low vulnerability, but still considered contested (all to be held)
CT-4 (Himes); CA-47 (Sanchez); NC-4 (Price); GA-12 (Barrow); AR-4 (Ross); KY-3 (Yarmuth). (6 seats)
Democratic losses counted, by category above: 5 + 8.8 + 2 + 14.4 + 4.5 + 4 +5.75 + 0.2 + 0 = 44.65 seats (of 88 considered)
Republican-held seats:
High likelihood of loss (lose 3 of 4):
DE-AtLg. (Open-Castle); HI-1 (Diou); IL-10 (Open-Kirk); LA-2 (Cao). (4 seats)
Low likelihood (lose 1 of 4):
CA-3 (Lungren); FL-25 (Open-Diaz Balart); PA-15 (Dent); PA-6 (Gerlach); WA-8 (Reichert). (5 seats)
Very low, still considered contested (hold all):
MN-6 (Bachman--unfortunately); OH-12 (Tiberi); CA-44 (Calvert)
That's it--basically there were only 12 Republican-held seats that any of these experts gave a significant chance of flipping. Not too surprising when one considers that basically all the vulnerable House seats were going Democratic in 2006 and 2008. My expectation is that the likelihood of loss of these seats will become greater for the high-likelihood ones, but lower for the low-likelihood ones. There are a couple of real weak seats for the Republicans, but the wave will probably carry the other Republicans to safety.
Republican losses: 3 + 1.25 = 4.25
Net: Republican gain of 40.4 seats, resulting in the following count (my official prediction):
Democrats--217.6 seats, Republicans 217.4 seats.
I did NOT force these results--it's what came out from these calculations, honestly, even blindly, considered. My conclusions are the following:
1) In this election, control of the House is likely to be an absolute cliff-hanger.
2) The experts will be reluctant to show a tie or near-tied House, because it suggests an inability to make a decision.
3) Strategic use of resources is critical--nothing can be wasted. If I were in the DCCC, I would pump money into the "medium" vulnerability category above, including the ones contested to the high and low sides. They make up almost half the Democratic losses, while the high-end category seats are probably not salvageable, and the low vulnerability ones are very numerous yet represent a smaller portion of projected losses. In terms of states, I see a lot of Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona, and Virginia in those groups, and not as much Ohio as I would've thought.
For New Mexico residents: Note that NM-1 is considered to have a low vulnerability, NM-2 a high one, while our district, NM-3, is about as safe a Democratic seat as you will find anywhere. I agree with all these assessments.
*There is some data supporting use of the generic poll, though not as an unbiased indicator; there needs to be some adjustment of the raw vote percentages to get an accurate indication of expected results, and the generic results with unnamed House candidates is different from a national poll in which respondents are told the names of the candidates. Thanks again to Silver for both studying this, and for reporting on it.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Israel-P.A. Talks Test
Last night the Israelis' self-imposed moratorium on new settlements in the occupied territories expired. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has said he cannot continue the moratorium, citing lack of support for such a move in his coalition Cabinet. The Israelis' counterpart in the negotiations, the Palestinian Authority, has threatened to pull out of the newly re-established face-to-face negotiations if the Israelis begin to start new "illegal" settlements.
There is an "easy" solution to this problem, and whether they arrive at it quickly will be an excellent indicator of whether these two parties wish to make a deal. (The alternative is that they just showed up to please the US and President Obama but don't really care to do it.) The solution starts from a recognition that the draft settlement that both sides have seen and studied allows for some swaps of territory: some of the West Bank going to Israel, similarly-sized swaths of territory going from Israel to the proposed new Palestinian state. Further, most of those land swap areas have already been identified, and for the ones going to Israel, well-populated already with Israeli settlers.
All that is needed is for Israel to draw conservatively the map of territories they are due to get--conservatively meaning not aggressively, i.e., not including within the zones land that that is disputed in previous negotiations--and announce they will only build new settlements within those zones. The PA does not have to agree to the specifics of these zones of new development at the present time, but merely to tolerate it.
Such an "agreement" would be a great starting point for future negotiations; essentially, they would agree to take a large set of potentially contentious content and put it in a briefcase of agreed topics. One of them would be the PA's contention that all the Israeli settlements in areas beyond the 1967 boundaries are illegal. It would also put the framework of the discussion into a new agreement rather than trying to re-create the status prior to 1967, which was an unacceptable one for Israel.
Two cautionary notes, though:
There is an "easy" solution to this problem, and whether they arrive at it quickly will be an excellent indicator of whether these two parties wish to make a deal. (The alternative is that they just showed up to please the US and President Obama but don't really care to do it.) The solution starts from a recognition that the draft settlement that both sides have seen and studied allows for some swaps of territory: some of the West Bank going to Israel, similarly-sized swaths of territory going from Israel to the proposed new Palestinian state. Further, most of those land swap areas have already been identified, and for the ones going to Israel, well-populated already with Israeli settlers.
All that is needed is for Israel to draw conservatively the map of territories they are due to get--conservatively meaning not aggressively, i.e., not including within the zones land that that is disputed in previous negotiations--and announce they will only build new settlements within those zones. The PA does not have to agree to the specifics of these zones of new development at the present time, but merely to tolerate it.
Such an "agreement" would be a great starting point for future negotiations; essentially, they would agree to take a large set of potentially contentious content and put it in a briefcase of agreed topics. One of them would be the PA's contention that all the Israeli settlements in areas beyond the 1967 boundaries are illegal. It would also put the framework of the discussion into a new agreement rather than trying to re-create the status prior to 1967, which was an unacceptable one for Israel.
Two cautionary notes, though:
1) there would probably not be much agreement on new settlements in East Jerusalem, and the Israelis would be well-advised to be extra careful about targeting any new areas there; and
2) Sharon's Wall--the safety wall the Israelis have been putting up in occupied Palestinian areas to separate priority zones of Israeli interest from the Palestinians--could easily be a complicating factor. The Israelis are unlikely in this scenario to identify much beyond the Wall, but neither should they assume everything on "their" side of it is agreed (especially if it had not been agreed in the draft maps of prior negotiations).
Sunday, September 26, 2010
More Jobs? How About Less Work?
Here's an essay I wrote in June, 1994 for a writing class that I turned up the other day looking through old papers.
Here's a notion that is political heresy but that we had better learn to handle: finding full-time jobs for all Americans who can work is impossible, and trying to make it happen is bad public policy. If we need proof that full employment is an unsustainable proposition, we need only look at Wall Street's recent responses to the news that unemployment has reduced. It's only going to get worse.
Expressing the argument in simple terms of social behavior, producing all the goods and services Americans want requires a great deal less than the full-time effort of all our able-bodied adult population. This statement is oversimplified in that it considers the United States as a closed system. However, consider the following questions: If we produce for poorer countries and sell to them, won't that just enrich us further and perpetuate their poverty? And, as for richer countries (if there are any), why should we work to put bread on their inhabitants' tables if they are not inclined to do it for themselves? These should serve to start to show that international trade can only address the domestic employment challenge in a limited, short-term fashion. Its role is instead as a balancing process in which the comparative advantages of different nations are utilized to add value through greater economic efficiency.
Greater efficiency leads among the reasons why we should expect ever greater unemployment in our future. Quality management efforts have dictated relentless improvements in manufacturing processes. Service and manufacturing companies alike have realized savings through pruning middle management. The owners of international capital have demanded the liquidation, downsizing, or relocation of unprofitable operations. These products of the "Invisible Hand" of market economics are inevitable, and they have positive effects in rising productivity and keeping American industry, yet there is no law of macroeconomics which tells us that their net result on employment will be positive or even neutral.
Reductions in the level of employment in America may also result from structural changes to eliminate unproductive work, particularly in the public sector. Government social services programs at all levels will certainly undergo the same kind of pitiless scrutiny for productivity improvements that occurs in private industry and in non-profit agencies. We will all insist on it, to reduce both the budget deficit and the amount of wasteful spending. "Star Wars" missile defense programs will lose their funding (and those in those programs will be displaced), not because they are unnecessary for security, but because we will come to realize they just don't work: the task of intercepting an incoming ballistic missile is basically an impossible one. Support for the national manned spaqce program is likely to evaporate except in the areas which depend on it to maintain jobs.
Similar considerations of localized unemployment effects have postponed the expected peace benefit from the Cold War's end, a major reduction in military expenditures for weapons development and base personnel. Public understanding already exists that such "pork-barrel" decision methods are unethical, but they are accepted as a political fact of life. Structurally, voters have no method of penalizing the representatives of other areas for their selfishness. Recognition of the intrinsic nature of this governmental waste combines with the voters' powerlessness to change it, producing increased cynicism about politics and decreased willingness to fund governmental activities. These changes, too, will in time lead to reduced public-sector jobs.
Time is a factor which will tend to increase the gap between the number of employable individuals and the number employed full-time. Actually, we are now in the beginning of a period of a predicted labor shortage, when demand exceeds supply for certain skilled professions. Indeed, the market for current graduates is the strongest that it has been for many years. This will give way in a few years, though, to a steadily rising tide of new entrants to the job market, the children of the baby boom. To make things worse, the long-term forecasts which emphasize the huge surge in retirement-age people beginning about 20 years from now rarely note that, with pensions and savings shrinking, many of these people will need to continue work well past age 65, again causing excess job-seekers.
A future for America in which unemployment is endemic among its youth, even the most educated segment, should not be so surprising an idea. The fully-developed economies of Western Europe have had such a condition for decades now. Those societies have endured the strains such conditions bring, largely through extending the term of parental support and through developing a variety of forms of casual, informal, and part-time labor.
These are the types of adjustments we will need to make in American society. The marketplace does the best job of allocating a scarce commodity, which employment is already and will become more so. However we must give employers the variety of tools they will need to employ people rationally, instead of forcing a dichotomy between those who Have and Have-Not work. In civil society, we must develop new norms of equity in the distribution of employment--for example, it may not be the case that "one can always find work if one tries". Politicians can add value through responsible statements which recognize the limits of our society's capacity to provide employment, and through restraint in advocacy of localized solutions which work to the detriment of the general public.
What we all must try to do is develop creative solutions that recognize that employment is not a binary variable. As an example, consider the current debate over national health insurance. Putting the burden of payment solely on large employers of full-time workers will tend to decrease their number and further concentrate their burden, thus producing a job-destructive cycle. A more creative approach would provide partial benefit credits for part-time and temporary workers. This would also leave the way open for an enhancement in which work credits and associated health benefits would accrue to those performing critically important unpaid work, like caring for elderly relatives or responsibly raising children.
Accepting less-than-full employment is political heresy only because of the financial insecurity it implies, not because we all want to spend all of our lives at work.
A couple of the arguments are dated, like the one about the end of the Cold War, but most of them are as relevant or moreso now--note that this was written when the debate about Hillarycare was active. As for me, at that time I was looking from the inside out (i.e., I was one of the overemployed), but though that has flipped, I still feel the same way. The tech boom gave way to the war on terror and then to artificial props through financial engineering; now that those bubbles have burst, forming the Great Crater, the government's attempts to artificially produce employment are falling short, yet the politicians' pronouncements (from either party) on the subject have not progressed one iota.
Here's a notion that is political heresy but that we had better learn to handle: finding full-time jobs for all Americans who can work is impossible, and trying to make it happen is bad public policy. If we need proof that full employment is an unsustainable proposition, we need only look at Wall Street's recent responses to the news that unemployment has reduced. It's only going to get worse.
Expressing the argument in simple terms of social behavior, producing all the goods and services Americans want requires a great deal less than the full-time effort of all our able-bodied adult population. This statement is oversimplified in that it considers the United States as a closed system. However, consider the following questions: If we produce for poorer countries and sell to them, won't that just enrich us further and perpetuate their poverty? And, as for richer countries (if there are any), why should we work to put bread on their inhabitants' tables if they are not inclined to do it for themselves? These should serve to start to show that international trade can only address the domestic employment challenge in a limited, short-term fashion. Its role is instead as a balancing process in which the comparative advantages of different nations are utilized to add value through greater economic efficiency.
Greater efficiency leads among the reasons why we should expect ever greater unemployment in our future. Quality management efforts have dictated relentless improvements in manufacturing processes. Service and manufacturing companies alike have realized savings through pruning middle management. The owners of international capital have demanded the liquidation, downsizing, or relocation of unprofitable operations. These products of the "Invisible Hand" of market economics are inevitable, and they have positive effects in rising productivity and keeping American industry, yet there is no law of macroeconomics which tells us that their net result on employment will be positive or even neutral.
Reductions in the level of employment in America may also result from structural changes to eliminate unproductive work, particularly in the public sector. Government social services programs at all levels will certainly undergo the same kind of pitiless scrutiny for productivity improvements that occurs in private industry and in non-profit agencies. We will all insist on it, to reduce both the budget deficit and the amount of wasteful spending. "Star Wars" missile defense programs will lose their funding (and those in those programs will be displaced), not because they are unnecessary for security, but because we will come to realize they just don't work: the task of intercepting an incoming ballistic missile is basically an impossible one. Support for the national manned spaqce program is likely to evaporate except in the areas which depend on it to maintain jobs.
Similar considerations of localized unemployment effects have postponed the expected peace benefit from the Cold War's end, a major reduction in military expenditures for weapons development and base personnel. Public understanding already exists that such "pork-barrel" decision methods are unethical, but they are accepted as a political fact of life. Structurally, voters have no method of penalizing the representatives of other areas for their selfishness. Recognition of the intrinsic nature of this governmental waste combines with the voters' powerlessness to change it, producing increased cynicism about politics and decreased willingness to fund governmental activities. These changes, too, will in time lead to reduced public-sector jobs.
Time is a factor which will tend to increase the gap between the number of employable individuals and the number employed full-time. Actually, we are now in the beginning of a period of a predicted labor shortage, when demand exceeds supply for certain skilled professions. Indeed, the market for current graduates is the strongest that it has been for many years. This will give way in a few years, though, to a steadily rising tide of new entrants to the job market, the children of the baby boom. To make things worse, the long-term forecasts which emphasize the huge surge in retirement-age people beginning about 20 years from now rarely note that, with pensions and savings shrinking, many of these people will need to continue work well past age 65, again causing excess job-seekers.
A future for America in which unemployment is endemic among its youth, even the most educated segment, should not be so surprising an idea. The fully-developed economies of Western Europe have had such a condition for decades now. Those societies have endured the strains such conditions bring, largely through extending the term of parental support and through developing a variety of forms of casual, informal, and part-time labor.
These are the types of adjustments we will need to make in American society. The marketplace does the best job of allocating a scarce commodity, which employment is already and will become more so. However we must give employers the variety of tools they will need to employ people rationally, instead of forcing a dichotomy between those who Have and Have-Not work. In civil society, we must develop new norms of equity in the distribution of employment--for example, it may not be the case that "one can always find work if one tries". Politicians can add value through responsible statements which recognize the limits of our society's capacity to provide employment, and through restraint in advocacy of localized solutions which work to the detriment of the general public.
What we all must try to do is develop creative solutions that recognize that employment is not a binary variable. As an example, consider the current debate over national health insurance. Putting the burden of payment solely on large employers of full-time workers will tend to decrease their number and further concentrate their burden, thus producing a job-destructive cycle. A more creative approach would provide partial benefit credits for part-time and temporary workers. This would also leave the way open for an enhancement in which work credits and associated health benefits would accrue to those performing critically important unpaid work, like caring for elderly relatives or responsibly raising children.
Accepting less-than-full employment is political heresy only because of the financial insecurity it implies, not because we all want to spend all of our lives at work.
A couple of the arguments are dated, like the one about the end of the Cold War, but most of them are as relevant or moreso now--note that this was written when the debate about Hillarycare was active. As for me, at that time I was looking from the inside out (i.e., I was one of the overemployed), but though that has flipped, I still feel the same way. The tech boom gave way to the war on terror and then to artificial props through financial engineering; now that those bubbles have burst, forming the Great Crater, the government's attempts to artificially produce employment are falling short, yet the politicians' pronouncements (from either party) on the subject have not progressed one iota.
Evolution Works Both Ways
Friday evening Bill Maher aired a brief bit from his old show "Politically Incorrect" in which current Tea-bagger Senate candidate in Delaware Christine O'Donnell asked the trenchantly stupid question, "Well, then, why aren't monkeys evolving into humans?"
My counter-question would be, "How do we know humans aren't evolving into monkeys?" Or indeed, into something far worse.
If we keep selecting for stupidity--something that poll results suggest Americans are on the verge of doing this election--our legislators will create an environment in which morons like them will survive and propagate themselves. If you've seen the recent "Nature" series on dogs, you will understand that intentional selection can work far faster and more dramatically than random, natural selection.
So, in a few generations we--or most of us--may be mobs drooling and hanging from artificial cellphone trees which don't work any more. The isolated remnants of homo sapiens will be hiding out in places like Hawaii and Bali that are hard for our neo-simian relatives to knuckle-drag their way to.
My counter-question would be, "How do we know humans aren't evolving into monkeys?" Or indeed, into something far worse.
If we keep selecting for stupidity--something that poll results suggest Americans are on the verge of doing this election--our legislators will create an environment in which morons like them will survive and propagate themselves. If you've seen the recent "Nature" series on dogs, you will understand that intentional selection can work far faster and more dramatically than random, natural selection.
So, in a few generations we--or most of us--may be mobs drooling and hanging from artificial cellphone trees which don't work any more. The isolated remnants of homo sapiens will be hiding out in places like Hawaii and Bali that are hard for our neo-simian relatives to knuckle-drag their way to.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Inexplicable--That's What You Are
The apparent decision by the House of Representatives not to call a vote on the extension of the "middle-class tax cut" is pretty much indefensible. If there were more time until the election, I would say that a groundswell of opinion would cause them to change their minds and have the vote, but there is little time before the session will recess for the final election campaign, so I have little hope for a change of heart.
The House Democratic leadership is saying that they wanted a vote, but have been persuaded not to do so by the Senate's "leadership" punt. I can actually understand--somewhat--why the Senate would not bother to push the issue now; with a couple of Blue Dogs (Lieberman, Nelson of Nebraska) opposing the Democratic program of tax cut extension for the middle class and none for those with annual income over $250,000, and with an apparently united Republican opposition, the proposal would never even make it to the floor: it would be stopped by a filibuster and never get past the procedural votes.
For the House, it's a question of political strategy, then. The arguments about policy, or about economics, or even support for the White House's recommended policy--all of which militate clearly for a tax cut extension for the middle class, perhaps only a temporary one--are largely beside the point, given the low likelihood the Senate will be able to get it through. It's simply a question of whether having a recorded vote for a middle-class tax cut--nothing about the Republican-and-Blue-Dog-backed tax cut extensions for the wealthy need even be mentioned, given the House's rules and Democratic control over them--will help Democratic House members in tough races.
A number of them--Blue Dogs in Republican-leaning districts--put pressure on the leadership not to be put on the spot with this vote. Minority Whip Jim Clyburn was alluding to this when he indicated that a lot of members didn't seem to realize that the proposed cut would actually apply for the wealthy, too (the distinction the Obama White House has been pushing; it's just not a reduction in the marginal rate over $250k in taxable income). Clearly, he wants the vote and thinks it will help them.
The only--and I mean only--justification for the House leadership's decision is uncertainty about what the Republicans in the House might do. Minority Leader John Boehner (the Orange Man, seeking a future House of Orange) has said that he might have to support a middle-class tax cut if that's the only cut on the floor (he then quickly got with the party program, to hold all tax cuts hostage for cuts for the rich), so there is a chance the Republicans would actually vote for the middle-class tax cut, which would deprive the Democrats of exclusive hold on the high ground. Instead, the House Democrats seem to have chosen to hunker down in a besieged fort surrounded by good firing positions.
Thus, the Democrats in the House may be giving up their best chance to have a winning issue for this final, desperate phase of the campaign to keep control, behind a totally incomprehensible rationale.
Inexplicable, indefensible, incomprehensible (and I haven't even pulled out the heavy accusations, like "cowardly", "betrayal", "suicidal")--bad move, House leaders!
In the interests of fuller disclosure, I will say that early in this millennium (roughly 2000-2004), I was in the high tax bracket, and the Bush tax cuts made absolutely no difference in my life. My employer withheld what was needed, and I felt no change when the rate was cut. I say any argument that high income earners will feel pain--expressed as reduced spending--from expiration of the tax cut is bogus. The one exception would be if there is an expectation during the year--say 2011--of a lower tax rate, leading to lower withholding, and then some kind of retroactive increase.
The House Democratic leadership is saying that they wanted a vote, but have been persuaded not to do so by the Senate's "leadership" punt. I can actually understand--somewhat--why the Senate would not bother to push the issue now; with a couple of Blue Dogs (Lieberman, Nelson of Nebraska) opposing the Democratic program of tax cut extension for the middle class and none for those with annual income over $250,000, and with an apparently united Republican opposition, the proposal would never even make it to the floor: it would be stopped by a filibuster and never get past the procedural votes.
For the House, it's a question of political strategy, then. The arguments about policy, or about economics, or even support for the White House's recommended policy--all of which militate clearly for a tax cut extension for the middle class, perhaps only a temporary one--are largely beside the point, given the low likelihood the Senate will be able to get it through. It's simply a question of whether having a recorded vote for a middle-class tax cut--nothing about the Republican-and-Blue-Dog-backed tax cut extensions for the wealthy need even be mentioned, given the House's rules and Democratic control over them--will help Democratic House members in tough races.
A number of them--Blue Dogs in Republican-leaning districts--put pressure on the leadership not to be put on the spot with this vote. Minority Whip Jim Clyburn was alluding to this when he indicated that a lot of members didn't seem to realize that the proposed cut would actually apply for the wealthy, too (the distinction the Obama White House has been pushing; it's just not a reduction in the marginal rate over $250k in taxable income). Clearly, he wants the vote and thinks it will help them.
The only--and I mean only--justification for the House leadership's decision is uncertainty about what the Republicans in the House might do. Minority Leader John Boehner (the Orange Man, seeking a future House of Orange) has said that he might have to support a middle-class tax cut if that's the only cut on the floor (he then quickly got with the party program, to hold all tax cuts hostage for cuts for the rich), so there is a chance the Republicans would actually vote for the middle-class tax cut, which would deprive the Democrats of exclusive hold on the high ground. Instead, the House Democrats seem to have chosen to hunker down in a besieged fort surrounded by good firing positions.
Thus, the Democrats in the House may be giving up their best chance to have a winning issue for this final, desperate phase of the campaign to keep control, behind a totally incomprehensible rationale.
Inexplicable, indefensible, incomprehensible (and I haven't even pulled out the heavy accusations, like "cowardly", "betrayal", "suicidal")--bad move, House leaders!
In the interests of fuller disclosure, I will say that early in this millennium (roughly 2000-2004), I was in the high tax bracket, and the Bush tax cuts made absolutely no difference in my life. My employer withheld what was needed, and I felt no change when the rate was cut. I say any argument that high income earners will feel pain--expressed as reduced spending--from expiration of the tax cut is bogus. The one exception would be if there is an expectation during the year--say 2011--of a lower tax rate, leading to lower withholding, and then some kind of retroactive increase.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Republican Pledge: Well-Polished
In their Pledge to America, the Republicans seem to have confused a statement of policy with the well-known furniture polish Pledge. When it comes to bringing forward some ideas to help this country in its hour of great need, they come up with canned, shiny, glossy crap.
I know that it is the prerogative of the opposition party merely to provide opposition, and under the unfortunate circumstance of our economy's current condition, it's possible they could even win a house of Congress (I'm unwilling to believe they can win both), but I see no reason for this party's need to exist. Their record from 2001-2008 is reason enough for all of us to resolve that they should never again be allowed near the levers of governmental control, and their new "program" shows they have not come up with anything new since they were justly booted out in 2006 and 2008.
I yearn for a new Era of Good Feeling, such as in the early 1800's when the Democrats had no real opposition party, an era which lasted until they eventually split into competing factions. Americans should feel secure that the Democrats would do this again; there is no need for the Republican party to be around just to have an opponent.
I know that it is the prerogative of the opposition party merely to provide opposition, and under the unfortunate circumstance of our economy's current condition, it's possible they could even win a house of Congress (I'm unwilling to believe they can win both), but I see no reason for this party's need to exist. Their record from 2001-2008 is reason enough for all of us to resolve that they should never again be allowed near the levers of governmental control, and their new "program" shows they have not come up with anything new since they were justly booted out in 2006 and 2008.
I yearn for a new Era of Good Feeling, such as in the early 1800's when the Democrats had no real opposition party, an era which lasted until they eventually split into competing factions. Americans should feel secure that the Democrats would do this again; there is no need for the Republican party to be around just to have an opponent.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Blair Sells His Book
Tony Blair's new memoir is called "A Journey". I'm not plugging the book, or anti-plugging it, either. I would instead like to make some comments about two or three rather surprising things Blair said in his interview with Christiane Amanpour on ABC's "This Week", last week.
In the late '90's, I admired Blair as symbol of a new, revitalized, progressive-but-pragmatic Britain. After that, I was living in England early in this century: first I saw his generous, heartfelt support for the US in the wake of the 9/11 horrors; then, I watched that loyalty bring him to his disastrous support for the invasion of Iraq in 2002-03. Was Blair courageous in either case? In the first one, one could argue that Blair did what was popular and expected of him, though he did back up that stance with actions. In the latter case, I would say that the clearer profile in courage was that of the late Robin Cook, who resigned as Foreign Minister rather than support the unwise invasion of Irag, in a brilliant speech in Commons that I remember well. I would like to read what Blair says about that speech and his former Cabinet minister, who died rather suddenly a couple of years later.
In his interview, Blair defends broadly the Iraq invasion despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction. Not much of a surprise there; documents that have come forward in recent years suggest Blair knew that the allegation of Iraq's trying to develop nuclear weapons, at least, was a canard. His comment today, and I'm sure it's consistent with how he felt at that time, was that risks must be taken to advance the lifelong cause of the war on terror. He likens that to the Cold War and urges the West to have the same kind of unconditional, long-term commitment to the struggle that we had back then.
For me, this is a major overstatement of the seriousness of the threat currently posed by violent Islamic fundamentalists, and this kind of overstatement leads to overreaction, precisely of the kind that the Iraq War brought, and that in turn gives the terrorists great recruitment opportunities. There is a need to combat Al Qaeda and its ilk, and I am fully prepared to support offensive action in some cases when that will help reduce or eliminate that threat, but what I don't want to hear is JFK-type language that we are going to "face any foe, go to any length" to combat them. Instead, I want to hear that we are taking extremely well-targeted, limited, practical steps to reduce the threat and further isolate this small, fragmented, and harassed band of outlaws from modern Islamic society.
If the first surprise was a negative one that Blair is still talking unlimited, endless war on terror, the second was a positive one: Blair was asked about his relationships with Bill Clinton and with his successor as President. The popular view of Blair today, both here and in the UK, is that he was the lapdog of W, Cheney, and the neo-cons, but what he said in the interview (and, presumably, in his book) was that he was closer to Clinton, and he specifically said, "I'm a Democrat." That's pretty unusual, his identifying with a foreign political party--though I could imagine his political philosophy might have been closer to the mainstream of our Democratic party than the trade union socialist traditional center of his own Labour party--that kind of sympathizing and identification with foreigners, no matter which ones from whatever country, would never be tolerated in this country.
The third surprise had to do with Prime Minister's Questions, the weekly grilling of the Prime Minister by his fellow members of Parliament (and particularly, by the leaders of the opposition parties). Blair was the best I've ever seen at it, and my experience is that he eloquently, knowledgeably and effectively faced down all challenges. So, the surprise for me was his admission that he was terrorized by the weekly ritual: it kept him up at night and stressed him out incredibly. I don't doubt him for a moment, I'm just surprised at his ready admission that it was, indeed, frightening to be at the center of it.
In the late '90's, I admired Blair as symbol of a new, revitalized, progressive-but-pragmatic Britain. After that, I was living in England early in this century: first I saw his generous, heartfelt support for the US in the wake of the 9/11 horrors; then, I watched that loyalty bring him to his disastrous support for the invasion of Iraq in 2002-03. Was Blair courageous in either case? In the first one, one could argue that Blair did what was popular and expected of him, though he did back up that stance with actions. In the latter case, I would say that the clearer profile in courage was that of the late Robin Cook, who resigned as Foreign Minister rather than support the unwise invasion of Irag, in a brilliant speech in Commons that I remember well. I would like to read what Blair says about that speech and his former Cabinet minister, who died rather suddenly a couple of years later.
In his interview, Blair defends broadly the Iraq invasion despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction. Not much of a surprise there; documents that have come forward in recent years suggest Blair knew that the allegation of Iraq's trying to develop nuclear weapons, at least, was a canard. His comment today, and I'm sure it's consistent with how he felt at that time, was that risks must be taken to advance the lifelong cause of the war on terror. He likens that to the Cold War and urges the West to have the same kind of unconditional, long-term commitment to the struggle that we had back then.
For me, this is a major overstatement of the seriousness of the threat currently posed by violent Islamic fundamentalists, and this kind of overstatement leads to overreaction, precisely of the kind that the Iraq War brought, and that in turn gives the terrorists great recruitment opportunities. There is a need to combat Al Qaeda and its ilk, and I am fully prepared to support offensive action in some cases when that will help reduce or eliminate that threat, but what I don't want to hear is JFK-type language that we are going to "face any foe, go to any length" to combat them. Instead, I want to hear that we are taking extremely well-targeted, limited, practical steps to reduce the threat and further isolate this small, fragmented, and harassed band of outlaws from modern Islamic society.
If the first surprise was a negative one that Blair is still talking unlimited, endless war on terror, the second was a positive one: Blair was asked about his relationships with Bill Clinton and with his successor as President. The popular view of Blair today, both here and in the UK, is that he was the lapdog of W, Cheney, and the neo-cons, but what he said in the interview (and, presumably, in his book) was that he was closer to Clinton, and he specifically said, "I'm a Democrat." That's pretty unusual, his identifying with a foreign political party--though I could imagine his political philosophy might have been closer to the mainstream of our Democratic party than the trade union socialist traditional center of his own Labour party--that kind of sympathizing and identification with foreigners, no matter which ones from whatever country, would never be tolerated in this country.
The third surprise had to do with Prime Minister's Questions, the weekly grilling of the Prime Minister by his fellow members of Parliament (and particularly, by the leaders of the opposition parties). Blair was the best I've ever seen at it, and my experience is that he eloquently, knowledgeably and effectively faced down all challenges. So, the surprise for me was his admission that he was terrorized by the weekly ritual: it kept him up at night and stressed him out incredibly. I don't doubt him for a moment, I'm just surprised at his ready admission that it was, indeed, frightening to be at the center of it.
Friday, September 17, 2010
My Last Pre-Election View Pt. 1: The Senate
Pundits typically take a conservative approach to their previews (born of many late electoral changes they didn't see coming, no doubt): assume incumbents win, shift when the evidence is overwhelming, and make the right call late. We don't roll that way (or do we?--see the Bottom Line). This will be the last full-length review; if we see some changes worth noting, we'll make them in the comments.
We refer you to our prior previews from January, February, July, and earlier this week. We don't run from any of that analysis, and we accept that we are somewhat on the leftward tail in terms of expectations. We're looking to the endgame, assuming that Democrats will get their campaign together, that Republicans will have visible fault lines behind their pretended unity, and that voters, especially independent voters, will think twice before they hand the keys back to the Bushites (or the neo-Bushites).
In this view, we will take a look at what two key partisan organizations--the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the right-wing operation The Club for Growth--have said publicly about which are the key races. And, through implication, which may not be.
Going Where The Rant Leads Us
"The Rant" is a semi-blog operated by the DSCC, and this week they sent a missive--actually, two of them--to me seeking contributions for their races of interest. The first one listed twelve races where they saw a chance and were either asking me to "Contribute" (marked below with a +) or "Defeat Them" (a -). I figure in the former case they want to promote the quality of their candidates, in the latter, they plan to go negative at the Republicans.
As I've suggested before, I think it's best to contribute to individual races where there's a real Democrat with a real chance to win, not just to punt money to the DSCC and let them decide where to spend it. Here are those DSCC-featured races, with commentary from yours truly:
Alaska (-) This might have seemed like a waste of time; Tea Party candidate Joe Miller, a personal fave of Sarah Palin, is a little less of a favorite over Democratic also-ran Scott McAdams than the incumbent ("Establishment", and a personal rival of Palin), Lisa Murkowski. But now, the plot thickens with the announcement that Murkowski is not going to play nice, and will seek to run either as a third-party candidate or a write-in candidate. Either way, it could make things interesting, though I'm not sure it makes McAdams viable or that Murkowski, should she win, would ever caucus with the Dems. Conclusion: Don't bother.
California (+) Barbara Boxer is worth caring about; Carly Fiorina is worth making an effort to defeat. This race is hugely expensive, and pretty close. I am fairly confident Boxer will win in the end. Conclusion: Don't bother--unless you have a whole lot of money to burn.
Colorado (+) Appointed Senator Michael Bennet (and he's been a very good one; pushed hard for the public option, for example) is in a very tough race against right-winger Pat Buck (he likes the TP support, but has drawn the line at birthers). Bennet was behind but has caught up. This is one candidate I've already contributed to, and may do so again. Conclusion: Give now!
Connecticut (-) This is a must-win for the Democrats, and Attorney General Blumenthal has held the lead consistently since Chris Dodd dropped out long ago. The negative is because the Republican candidate, World Wrestling Federation bigwig wife Linda McMahon, is a big, nasty target. Appropriately so. If I were a Connectican, I would work on turnout, because a poor turnout is the only way Blumenthal can lose. Conclusion--No need to give $$.
Delaware (+) Chris Coons may be a nice guy--he's a favorite of Harry Reid--but the real play is negative ads about new upstart candidate Christine O'Donnell (nice, but batty). The best of all would be if they could get ads showing defeated moderate Republican candidate Michael Castle (who would've been a huge favorite if he'd won this week's primary) saying why he isn't endorsing O'Donnell. Don't take our word for it, take the word of the state's most successful Republican politician. Coons should now win if Dems don't relax. Conclusion--see Connecticut.
Illinois (-) This is doomed to be a negative campaign in which Republican Kirk and Democrat Giannolias are going to hammer away at each other's faults. The race is and has been genuinely close, but I would be shocked if the Democrats lose: in the end, I expect the Chicago machine to do its job. Conclusion--Let them do it.
Kentucky (-) This is one of those for which the Democrats claim that "there are 15 races within 5 points" is somewhat hollow: Tea-bagger Rand Paul isn't leading by much (the Republicans could've had a much easier time if he'd lost the primary), but I see the lead as more than 5. I gave some to the moderate Democrat, Jack Conway, because I'd really like to see my birth state do the right thing, but it seems unlikely at this point. Conclusion--a bit of a longshot, but it's up to you.
New Hampshire (-) I think the negative tack is the wrong way, because Paul Hodes is a Democrat worth praising. The Republican nominee, Kelly Ayotte, barely survived a tough TP challenge and has been weakened. Conclusion: A good give, though risky.
Nevada (-) Reid's challenger, Tea-bag Sharron "Right" Angle, is about as bad as they come. Going negative probably makes sense, given the dire straits of Nevada's economy--Reid may have delivered some Federal benefit to the state, but it's not nearly enough. The one thing is, Reid's campaign is going to have plenty of money. Conclusion--Don't give, and better hope he doesn't blow it.
Pennsylvania (-) I refuse to believe that Joe Sestak can't beat former Wall Street right-winger Pat Toomey, but Toomey continues to lead by 5-10 points. I consider Sestak one of the best candidates out there. This is technically a seat the Democrats are trying to hold, because of primary loser Arlen Specter's 2009 party conversion, but it's been uphill the whole way. Toomey currently has a small lead, but there is a high percentage of undecided, so there is still reason for hope. Conclusion--If there appears to be a chance, give to Sestak.
Washington (+) Patty Murray's been a good Senator, though not outstanding like her Democratic colleague Maria Cantwell. She's got a tough opponent in Dino Rossi, and it appears she's slightly ahead. The state trends Democratic, so I'm cautiously optimistic; this is an important race because it's one the Republicans would need to win if they're to take over the Senate. Conclusion--I'd certainly countenance a contribution.
Wisconsin (+) This is Russ Feingold we're talking about, after Bernie Sanders probably the most progressive Senator, and he's in a tough race with a rich right-winger. I thought Feingold, who's been raising money for this race for years, had enough money, but this race may be draining it. Conclusion--better give (I did recently), as we'll all be sorry if he loses.
After the initial Rant request, I got another later in the day asking for money on these four races. I think it was an afterthought--better not ignore any triggers that might spur giving--but I don't bite:
Missouri (-) Decent Democratic nominee (Robin Carnahan, of the family of popular deceased Senator Mel Carnahan), but she has an uphill fight against Republican incumbent Roy Blount. Conclusion--I'm skeptical--"show me" you can win, Robin.
Indiana (+) This hasn't been well handled by the Democrats, as Brad Ellsworth gave up his House seat (which will now probably be lost) to step up for this improbable race. Conclusion--Don't bother.
Louisiana (-) Railing against hypocritical right-wing sinner John Vitter might draw some money, but he's going to win, unfortunately. Conclusion--not this time.
West Virginia (+) It would make sense for the DSCC to give to Democratic Governor Joe Manchin, against a rich, free-spending opponent. They need to make sure he wins in this recently Republican-trending state, one that Democrats need to count upon to be sure of their majority, but that doesn't mean you or I should give. Conclusion--let them handle it.
The Club for Growth choices for big-money contributions are Nevada, Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. These are well-targeted: each is a hot race with a right-wing Republican nominee with a serious chance to win.
Florida is a special case, and notable because the DSCC doesn't seem to be getting behind its nominee, Kendrick Meek, who would be very supportable--if he had a chance to win (he doesn't). It's almost unfortunate that he is running well since winning the nomination, because he's cutting into the votes of Charlie Crist, who's running as an independent and is the best chance to stop TP Republican star Marco Rubio. I had hopes for Crist's chances, but I see them slipping away, something in retrospect I should've seen coming: third-party candidates often lose support late if the two major parties don't yield the field.
The other race notable in its omission from the DSCC Rants is Ohio: the state is trending extremely badly for Democrats, the Democrats' candidate never caught fire, and the chances there are slipping away.
Bottom Line Time
In terms of candidates to individual races, then, I'm strongly recommending contributions in Colorado, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin; somewhat less fervently, in New Hampshire, Kentucky, Washington, and California; and urging local involvement in Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, and Delaware (trusting that those races will get plenty of money). The mechanism to give to specific races? You can certainly look up the individual candidates' websites, but one easy way to pick the ones you want to give is through ActBlue.
O'Donnell's upset primary win takes Delaware from "certain Republican gain" to "probable hold". Rubio's pulling away from Crist puts Florida into "probable hold" for the Republicans. This leaves me with the following slightly optimistic assessments of competitive races or seat switches (Nate Silver's probabilities of party turnover appended):
Republican Takeovers
North Dakota, Arkansas --never in doubt (100%!)
Indiana (98%)
Democratic Uphill Struggles
Pennsylvania--would be sort of a hold (92%!)
New Hampshire--would be a pickup (20%)
True Tossups
Colorado (72%), Nevada (52%)
Feeling Somewhat Confident Now
Illinois (55%), Wisconsin (33%), Washington (30%), California (42%), Connecticut (2%), West Virginia (10%), Delaware (6%).
I'd Love to Believe, But Don't See It (reluctantly, Republican seat holds)
Florida (22%), Alaska (5%, but not updated for Murkowski's renegade run), Ohio(7%), Missouri (7%), Kentucky (9%).
I'll go conservative--but against the conventional wisdom--with party holds in all but the three certain or near-certain Republican takeovers. That would make the count Democrats 54, Republicans 44, plus Sanders (who counts as a Dem) and Lieberman (who doesn't, really). The big ones for me then--where I'm going against Silver's current probabilities--are Sestak in Pennsylvania, Reid in Nevada, Bennett in Colorado, and Giannoulias in Illinois. We also need to hold the others we should win (WI, WA, CA, CT, WV, and DE). Silver has approximately equal probabilities for 51-53 Democrats (counting the two independents).
Finally, for those who put their money where their predictions are, there are two Intrade bets I notice: on whether the Republicans will control 50 or more seats, the price is 42 (42%, roughly speaking); if they will control the Senate, it's 22%. The difference is that, with Vice President Biden able to cast the tie-breaking vote, the Republicans actually need 51 Senators to control that house of Congress.
Note: the only real movements in this prediction from my last was giving up on Florida and Crist, backing away on Paul Hodes' chances in New Hampshire, and flipping Delaware from a near-certain Republican pickup to a probable Democratic hold.
We refer you to our prior previews from January, February, July, and earlier this week. We don't run from any of that analysis, and we accept that we are somewhat on the leftward tail in terms of expectations. We're looking to the endgame, assuming that Democrats will get their campaign together, that Republicans will have visible fault lines behind their pretended unity, and that voters, especially independent voters, will think twice before they hand the keys back to the Bushites (or the neo-Bushites).
In this view, we will take a look at what two key partisan organizations--the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the right-wing operation The Club for Growth--have said publicly about which are the key races. And, through implication, which may not be.
Going Where The Rant Leads Us
"The Rant" is a semi-blog operated by the DSCC, and this week they sent a missive--actually, two of them--to me seeking contributions for their races of interest. The first one listed twelve races where they saw a chance and were either asking me to "Contribute" (marked below with a +) or "Defeat Them" (a -). I figure in the former case they want to promote the quality of their candidates, in the latter, they plan to go negative at the Republicans.
As I've suggested before, I think it's best to contribute to individual races where there's a real Democrat with a real chance to win, not just to punt money to the DSCC and let them decide where to spend it. Here are those DSCC-featured races, with commentary from yours truly:
Alaska (-) This might have seemed like a waste of time; Tea Party candidate Joe Miller, a personal fave of Sarah Palin, is a little less of a favorite over Democratic also-ran Scott McAdams than the incumbent ("Establishment", and a personal rival of Palin), Lisa Murkowski. But now, the plot thickens with the announcement that Murkowski is not going to play nice, and will seek to run either as a third-party candidate or a write-in candidate. Either way, it could make things interesting, though I'm not sure it makes McAdams viable or that Murkowski, should she win, would ever caucus with the Dems. Conclusion: Don't bother.
California (+) Barbara Boxer is worth caring about; Carly Fiorina is worth making an effort to defeat. This race is hugely expensive, and pretty close. I am fairly confident Boxer will win in the end. Conclusion: Don't bother--unless you have a whole lot of money to burn.
Colorado (+) Appointed Senator Michael Bennet (and he's been a very good one; pushed hard for the public option, for example) is in a very tough race against right-winger Pat Buck (he likes the TP support, but has drawn the line at birthers). Bennet was behind but has caught up. This is one candidate I've already contributed to, and may do so again. Conclusion: Give now!
Connecticut (-) This is a must-win for the Democrats, and Attorney General Blumenthal has held the lead consistently since Chris Dodd dropped out long ago. The negative is because the Republican candidate, World Wrestling Federation bigwig wife Linda McMahon, is a big, nasty target. Appropriately so. If I were a Connectican, I would work on turnout, because a poor turnout is the only way Blumenthal can lose. Conclusion--No need to give $$.
Delaware (+) Chris Coons may be a nice guy--he's a favorite of Harry Reid--but the real play is negative ads about new upstart candidate Christine O'Donnell (nice, but batty). The best of all would be if they could get ads showing defeated moderate Republican candidate Michael Castle (who would've been a huge favorite if he'd won this week's primary) saying why he isn't endorsing O'Donnell. Don't take our word for it, take the word of the state's most successful Republican politician. Coons should now win if Dems don't relax. Conclusion--see Connecticut.
Illinois (-) This is doomed to be a negative campaign in which Republican Kirk and Democrat Giannolias are going to hammer away at each other's faults. The race is and has been genuinely close, but I would be shocked if the Democrats lose: in the end, I expect the Chicago machine to do its job. Conclusion--Let them do it.
Kentucky (-) This is one of those for which the Democrats claim that "there are 15 races within 5 points" is somewhat hollow: Tea-bagger Rand Paul isn't leading by much (the Republicans could've had a much easier time if he'd lost the primary), but I see the lead as more than 5. I gave some to the moderate Democrat, Jack Conway, because I'd really like to see my birth state do the right thing, but it seems unlikely at this point. Conclusion--a bit of a longshot, but it's up to you.
New Hampshire (-) I think the negative tack is the wrong way, because Paul Hodes is a Democrat worth praising. The Republican nominee, Kelly Ayotte, barely survived a tough TP challenge and has been weakened. Conclusion: A good give, though risky.
Nevada (-) Reid's challenger, Tea-bag Sharron "Right" Angle, is about as bad as they come. Going negative probably makes sense, given the dire straits of Nevada's economy--Reid may have delivered some Federal benefit to the state, but it's not nearly enough. The one thing is, Reid's campaign is going to have plenty of money. Conclusion--Don't give, and better hope he doesn't blow it.
Pennsylvania (-) I refuse to believe that Joe Sestak can't beat former Wall Street right-winger Pat Toomey, but Toomey continues to lead by 5-10 points. I consider Sestak one of the best candidates out there. This is technically a seat the Democrats are trying to hold, because of primary loser Arlen Specter's 2009 party conversion, but it's been uphill the whole way. Toomey currently has a small lead, but there is a high percentage of undecided, so there is still reason for hope. Conclusion--If there appears to be a chance, give to Sestak.
Washington (+) Patty Murray's been a good Senator, though not outstanding like her Democratic colleague Maria Cantwell. She's got a tough opponent in Dino Rossi, and it appears she's slightly ahead. The state trends Democratic, so I'm cautiously optimistic; this is an important race because it's one the Republicans would need to win if they're to take over the Senate. Conclusion--I'd certainly countenance a contribution.
Wisconsin (+) This is Russ Feingold we're talking about, after Bernie Sanders probably the most progressive Senator, and he's in a tough race with a rich right-winger. I thought Feingold, who's been raising money for this race for years, had enough money, but this race may be draining it. Conclusion--better give (I did recently), as we'll all be sorry if he loses.
After the initial Rant request, I got another later in the day asking for money on these four races. I think it was an afterthought--better not ignore any triggers that might spur giving--but I don't bite:
Missouri (-) Decent Democratic nominee (Robin Carnahan, of the family of popular deceased Senator Mel Carnahan), but she has an uphill fight against Republican incumbent Roy Blount. Conclusion--I'm skeptical--"show me" you can win, Robin.
Indiana (+) This hasn't been well handled by the Democrats, as Brad Ellsworth gave up his House seat (which will now probably be lost) to step up for this improbable race. Conclusion--Don't bother.
Louisiana (-) Railing against hypocritical right-wing sinner John Vitter might draw some money, but he's going to win, unfortunately. Conclusion--not this time.
West Virginia (+) It would make sense for the DSCC to give to Democratic Governor Joe Manchin, against a rich, free-spending opponent. They need to make sure he wins in this recently Republican-trending state, one that Democrats need to count upon to be sure of their majority, but that doesn't mean you or I should give. Conclusion--let them handle it.
The Club for Growth choices for big-money contributions are Nevada, Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. These are well-targeted: each is a hot race with a right-wing Republican nominee with a serious chance to win.
Florida is a special case, and notable because the DSCC doesn't seem to be getting behind its nominee, Kendrick Meek, who would be very supportable--if he had a chance to win (he doesn't). It's almost unfortunate that he is running well since winning the nomination, because he's cutting into the votes of Charlie Crist, who's running as an independent and is the best chance to stop TP Republican star Marco Rubio. I had hopes for Crist's chances, but I see them slipping away, something in retrospect I should've seen coming: third-party candidates often lose support late if the two major parties don't yield the field.
The other race notable in its omission from the DSCC Rants is Ohio: the state is trending extremely badly for Democrats, the Democrats' candidate never caught fire, and the chances there are slipping away.
Bottom Line Time
In terms of candidates to individual races, then, I'm strongly recommending contributions in Colorado, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin; somewhat less fervently, in New Hampshire, Kentucky, Washington, and California; and urging local involvement in Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, and Delaware (trusting that those races will get plenty of money). The mechanism to give to specific races? You can certainly look up the individual candidates' websites, but one easy way to pick the ones you want to give is through ActBlue.
O'Donnell's upset primary win takes Delaware from "certain Republican gain" to "probable hold". Rubio's pulling away from Crist puts Florida into "probable hold" for the Republicans. This leaves me with the following slightly optimistic assessments of competitive races or seat switches (Nate Silver's probabilities of party turnover appended):
Republican Takeovers
North Dakota, Arkansas --never in doubt (100%!)
Indiana (98%)
Democratic Uphill Struggles
Pennsylvania--would be sort of a hold (92%!)
New Hampshire--would be a pickup (20%)
True Tossups
Colorado (72%), Nevada (52%)
Feeling Somewhat Confident Now
Illinois (55%), Wisconsin (33%), Washington (30%), California (42%), Connecticut (2%), West Virginia (10%), Delaware (6%).
I'd Love to Believe, But Don't See It (reluctantly, Republican seat holds)
Florida (22%), Alaska (5%, but not updated for Murkowski's renegade run), Ohio(7%), Missouri (7%), Kentucky (9%).
I'll go conservative--but against the conventional wisdom--with party holds in all but the three certain or near-certain Republican takeovers. That would make the count Democrats 54, Republicans 44, plus Sanders (who counts as a Dem) and Lieberman (who doesn't, really). The big ones for me then--where I'm going against Silver's current probabilities--are Sestak in Pennsylvania, Reid in Nevada, Bennett in Colorado, and Giannoulias in Illinois. We also need to hold the others we should win (WI, WA, CA, CT, WV, and DE). Silver has approximately equal probabilities for 51-53 Democrats (counting the two independents).
Finally, for those who put their money where their predictions are, there are two Intrade bets I notice: on whether the Republicans will control 50 or more seats, the price is 42 (42%, roughly speaking); if they will control the Senate, it's 22%. The difference is that, with Vice President Biden able to cast the tie-breaking vote, the Republicans actually need 51 Senators to control that house of Congress.
Note: the only real movements in this prediction from my last was giving up on Florida and Crist, backing away on Paul Hodes' chances in New Hampshire, and flipping Delaware from a near-certain Republican pickup to a probable Democratic hold.
Up on the Tightrope
President Obama's announcement of Elizabeth Warren to fill a newly-created advisory position (to himself, and to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner)on consumer financial products regulation suggests Obama is trying to walk a fine line between doing the right thing for Main Street and annoying Wall Street.
The questions this announcement raises are many: Who will be the nominee for the permanent position as head of the CFPA (Consumer Financial Protection Agency, set up by the recent financial regulatory legislation)? Why isn't it going to be Warren (it's possible she doesn't want it)? Why didn't he just give her a recess appointment? Can she perform as though she were the agency head in the meantime?
I don't know about any of these, though I have been one to call for her nomination, and devil take those who might block her. This seems a bit too cute to me.
The next Main St. vs. Wall St. tightrope walk will be the question of tax policy, and particularly any role Obama might take, now or in the lame-duck session after the election, to try to settle the logjam on any legislation to extend the Bushite tax cuts.
Today on CNBC they were heavily promoting a town hall meeting with the President they will be telecasting exclusively on Monday, and asking their various guests to name one question they would ask him. The best answer I heard was from one of their frequent contributors (I forget her name)1 , which was: What about the capital gains and dividends rate cuts due to expire?
This, to me, is the key question and could be the key to unlock the door. What I've seen from some economists suggests that of the various forms of tax cuts, the capital gains one would be the form that would return the greatest number of new investment in the economy (and thus, new jobs), and that retaining the lower rates on qualifying dividends would do a lot for (some) stocks' values, and that rises in stock values do the most to stimulate spending on the high end (not increases in income; those windfalls go into savings).
Obama should lay down a hard line on restoring tax cuts for high income earners--that he will veto the bill, if necessary--but encourage the "right types" of income through temporary restoration of tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. And, of course, the middle class tax cut, which will go straight into spending and reviving the economy.
Wall Street will be satisfied, if not thrilled. Main Street will be less than outraged. Those insisting on tax cuts for the rich will be high and dry, with no hope of getting them approved. Obama & Co. might even then pick up that couple of Republican/Blue Dog votes which will be required to get the bill through. And wouldn't that be better than just having a talking point for the campaign?
1 She's a funds investor, possibly in tech?, a bit on the wide side, and notably pessimistic about most everything, even her holdings.
The questions this announcement raises are many: Who will be the nominee for the permanent position as head of the CFPA (Consumer Financial Protection Agency, set up by the recent financial regulatory legislation)? Why isn't it going to be Warren (it's possible she doesn't want it)? Why didn't he just give her a recess appointment? Can she perform as though she were the agency head in the meantime?
I don't know about any of these, though I have been one to call for her nomination, and devil take those who might block her. This seems a bit too cute to me.
The next Main St. vs. Wall St. tightrope walk will be the question of tax policy, and particularly any role Obama might take, now or in the lame-duck session after the election, to try to settle the logjam on any legislation to extend the Bushite tax cuts.
Today on CNBC they were heavily promoting a town hall meeting with the President they will be telecasting exclusively on Monday, and asking their various guests to name one question they would ask him. The best answer I heard was from one of their frequent contributors (I forget her name)1 , which was: What about the capital gains and dividends rate cuts due to expire?
This, to me, is the key question and could be the key to unlock the door. What I've seen from some economists suggests that of the various forms of tax cuts, the capital gains one would be the form that would return the greatest number of new investment in the economy (and thus, new jobs), and that retaining the lower rates on qualifying dividends would do a lot for (some) stocks' values, and that rises in stock values do the most to stimulate spending on the high end (not increases in income; those windfalls go into savings).
Obama should lay down a hard line on restoring tax cuts for high income earners--that he will veto the bill, if necessary--but encourage the "right types" of income through temporary restoration of tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. And, of course, the middle class tax cut, which will go straight into spending and reviving the economy.
Wall Street will be satisfied, if not thrilled. Main Street will be less than outraged. Those insisting on tax cuts for the rich will be high and dry, with no hope of getting them approved. Obama & Co. might even then pick up that couple of Republican/Blue Dog votes which will be required to get the bill through. And wouldn't that be better than just having a talking point for the campaign?
1 She's a funds investor, possibly in tech?, a bit on the wide side, and notably pessimistic about most everything, even her holdings.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
San Bruno: Wake Up Again, Already!
The horrific explosion of a gas pipeline last weekend in San Bruno, California (just outside of San Francisco) once again reminds us that we are relying on a system of extracting, refining, and distributing fossil fuels that is collapsing and ripe for replacement.
Like the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill--the "Death Gusher"--and a subsequent e platform explosion off Louisiana's coast, San Bruno's disaster was a failure caused by a combination of private greed and regulatory slack. Oil and gas pipeline accidents happen with shocking frequency in the U.S., partly due to the age of many of the pipelines, partly due to the difficult corrosive conditions and stress often caused by external conditions (like weather, seismic instability), but mostly due to the fact that utility companies find it convenient to charge their customers for maintenance and then focus on repair rather than prevention.
It's one thing if pipelines cross uninhabited barren lands, as with the classic Alaska one (though the wildlife may not view them so comfortably), but pipelines in densely inhabited areas require increased measures to isolate and protect the surrounding population. I don't know if containment, as with nuclear power facilities, is a feasible solution, but this is an outrage, poses unacceptable risk, and immediate remedies should be sought, even if the cost to these companies is massive. Sell your PG&E shares!
Like the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill--the "Death Gusher"--and a subsequent e platform explosion off Louisiana's coast, San Bruno's disaster was a failure caused by a combination of private greed and regulatory slack. Oil and gas pipeline accidents happen with shocking frequency in the U.S., partly due to the age of many of the pipelines, partly due to the difficult corrosive conditions and stress often caused by external conditions (like weather, seismic instability), but mostly due to the fact that utility companies find it convenient to charge their customers for maintenance and then focus on repair rather than prevention.
It's one thing if pipelines cross uninhabited barren lands, as with the classic Alaska one (though the wildlife may not view them so comfortably), but pipelines in densely inhabited areas require increased measures to isolate and protect the surrounding population. I don't know if containment, as with nuclear power facilities, is a feasible solution, but this is an outrage, poses unacceptable risk, and immediate remedies should be sought, even if the cost to these companies is massive. Sell your PG&E shares!
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
TP Roll Out
Tuesday's primary election results completed a sequence of remarkable results for far-right activists, working within the Republican party, to remove those whose devotion to extremism, in word and deed, was insufficient.
The most significant result was in the tiny state of Delaware, where a turnout of some 50 thousand Republicans resulted in a major result: the moderate Republican, William Castle, whose success in the general election was considered a foregone conclusion, was nosed out by a political novice, Christine O'Donnell, a sweet young thing whose opinions are pretty batty.
Delaware is an interesting state politically, quite different from neighboring Maryland, and a good example of how the federal system gives added power to small privileged populations. Because of certain state laws, many American companies are chartered there, and the state has successfully established itself as an attractive site for operations centers, for banks in particular. The resulting prevailing political philosophy has been socially moderate, but very supportive of strengthened central government and of large companies' needs.
Joe Biden--who held the seat in contention for 36 years--learned long ago to fit himself into these tendencies, and Castle represented them well, too. O'Donnell does not fit, and so her nomination moves the Senate race from one with a 15-point Republican lead to one where Democratic nominee Chris Coons is 10 points or so ahead. There is still a race to be run, albeit a short one, but the net result is that the Tea Party rebellion against has likely turned a sure Republican pickup into a loss.
Thus far, the net effect of TP seems to be advancing what I would call the Whig Project: the effort to make George W. Bush the 21st-century Millard Fillmore--the last President of his party.
Havanutha Cuppa?It may seem strange that this movement which has revitalized the party--albeit from the outside, in what one of their generals, Dick Armey, aptly has called a "hostile takeover"--and led to much stronger turnout for the primary elections, seeming to have brought the party to the verge of regaining control of the House, that the Tea Party would be a contributor to the party's near demise, but that's the hope and that's how I see this playing out.
In the short run, the Republicans get tea-bagger candidates for key Senate contests like Rand Paul in Kentucky, Sharron "Right" Angle in Nevada, and O'Donnell in Delaware. Others, like Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, who barely survived a challenge from the right on Tuesday, have been forced far to the right to fend off the TP threat; Ayotte's lead in polls for the general election contest has been sharply reduced. Ken Buck in Colorado has found the birther army's support to be problematic, and he also finds himself in a tough race.
Those two may survive the brush with the thick white stuff, and Tea Party rebel candidates may yet survive in rightist-tending states like Alaska and Utah. However, the general pattern of the primary season would have to make moderate Republicans wonder what they are doing in such a narrow and vindictive tent, and independents--who on the whole may be receptive to the idea of balancing off Democratic political power in this election--will have to swallow hard and close their eyes before selecting some of these flaky right-wingers.
If the Republicans succeed in TP'ing the House just after Halloween, they may find this to be a Pyrrhic victory, just as they did their victory led by Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America in 1994. Rather than castigating the Bushites for having governed as incompetent, statist, civil liberty-denying, tools of the military-industrial complex, they choose to oppose them on the dubious ground of having been too accommodating to the Obama administration. As if! Much as independents' desires might include a reduction in the level of Federal government activity, the post-'94 history suggests they will not reward an attempt to shut things down, either--particularly if the economic weakness continues.
In the longer run, running against a Tea Party national candidate in 2012 would seem to be a dream scenario for President Obama and the Democrats. If the extremist Republican primary takeover model is not discredited by the 2010 general election results, it's possible it could repeat in the national party nomination process. Sarah Palin could easily pull off a caucus coup in Iowa, survive New Hampshire and win South Carolina, then use the momentum to win the nomination. Such a result could cause a politically-disastrous split in the party, and would regardless suggest a massive Democratic win.
It's a gamble, I recognize. First, Democrats could become overconfident in this year's races; second, the country would be damaged by a Congressional takeover by reincarnated John Birchers. Then, if somehow it were possible that Palin & Co. could win--and the Electoral College makes all kinds of undemocratic outcomes possible--we would be looking an unprecedented disaster in the face, even worse than Bushite Misrule.
The most significant result was in the tiny state of Delaware, where a turnout of some 50 thousand Republicans resulted in a major result: the moderate Republican, William Castle, whose success in the general election was considered a foregone conclusion, was nosed out by a political novice, Christine O'Donnell, a sweet young thing whose opinions are pretty batty.
Delaware is an interesting state politically, quite different from neighboring Maryland, and a good example of how the federal system gives added power to small privileged populations. Because of certain state laws, many American companies are chartered there, and the state has successfully established itself as an attractive site for operations centers, for banks in particular. The resulting prevailing political philosophy has been socially moderate, but very supportive of strengthened central government and of large companies' needs.
Joe Biden--who held the seat in contention for 36 years--learned long ago to fit himself into these tendencies, and Castle represented them well, too. O'Donnell does not fit, and so her nomination moves the Senate race from one with a 15-point Republican lead to one where Democratic nominee Chris Coons is 10 points or so ahead. There is still a race to be run, albeit a short one, but the net result is that the Tea Party rebellion against has likely turned a sure Republican pickup into a loss.
Thus far, the net effect of TP seems to be advancing what I would call the Whig Project: the effort to make George W. Bush the 21st-century Millard Fillmore--the last President of his party.
Havanutha Cuppa?It may seem strange that this movement which has revitalized the party--albeit from the outside, in what one of their generals, Dick Armey, aptly has called a "hostile takeover"--and led to much stronger turnout for the primary elections, seeming to have brought the party to the verge of regaining control of the House, that the Tea Party would be a contributor to the party's near demise, but that's the hope and that's how I see this playing out.
In the short run, the Republicans get tea-bagger candidates for key Senate contests like Rand Paul in Kentucky, Sharron "Right" Angle in Nevada, and O'Donnell in Delaware. Others, like Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, who barely survived a challenge from the right on Tuesday, have been forced far to the right to fend off the TP threat; Ayotte's lead in polls for the general election contest has been sharply reduced. Ken Buck in Colorado has found the birther army's support to be problematic, and he also finds himself in a tough race.
Those two may survive the brush with the thick white stuff, and Tea Party rebel candidates may yet survive in rightist-tending states like Alaska and Utah. However, the general pattern of the primary season would have to make moderate Republicans wonder what they are doing in such a narrow and vindictive tent, and independents--who on the whole may be receptive to the idea of balancing off Democratic political power in this election--will have to swallow hard and close their eyes before selecting some of these flaky right-wingers.
If the Republicans succeed in TP'ing the House just after Halloween, they may find this to be a Pyrrhic victory, just as they did their victory led by Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America in 1994. Rather than castigating the Bushites for having governed as incompetent, statist, civil liberty-denying, tools of the military-industrial complex, they choose to oppose them on the dubious ground of having been too accommodating to the Obama administration. As if! Much as independents' desires might include a reduction in the level of Federal government activity, the post-'94 history suggests they will not reward an attempt to shut things down, either--particularly if the economic weakness continues.
In the longer run, running against a Tea Party national candidate in 2012 would seem to be a dream scenario for President Obama and the Democrats. If the extremist Republican primary takeover model is not discredited by the 2010 general election results, it's possible it could repeat in the national party nomination process. Sarah Palin could easily pull off a caucus coup in Iowa, survive New Hampshire and win South Carolina, then use the momentum to win the nomination. Such a result could cause a politically-disastrous split in the party, and would regardless suggest a massive Democratic win.
It's a gamble, I recognize. First, Democrats could become overconfident in this year's races; second, the country would be damaged by a Congressional takeover by reincarnated John Birchers. Then, if somehow it were possible that Palin & Co. could win--and the Electoral College makes all kinds of undemocratic outcomes possible--we would be looking an unprecedented disaster in the face, even worse than Bushite Misrule.
TPM Post
I apologize to my reader(s) for the relative silence of the past few weeks: I had to bone up on both Spanish and Italian for oral exams (in Italian: "interrogazioni"), but that is now over. I will now attempt a burst of several postings, and at least one on the key primary elections tonight (whether before or after them, I'm not sure at this point).
First, this one I posted on Talking Points Memo's website today in response to the "news" that the Republicans have come up with an historic "compromise" on the tax cuts (among themselves, that is), the compromise being merely to kick everything down the road for two years (or three years, as Lindsay Graham generously proposed).
This is also posted on facebook--TPM has this habit of frequently screwing up my log-in ID, and I couldn't even get to the login screen for this today (as chinshihtang), so I had to use my alter ego name. Solve the riddle--earn a piddle!
First, this one I posted on Talking Points Memo's website today in response to the "news" that the Republicans have come up with an historic "compromise" on the tax cuts (among themselves, that is), the compromise being merely to kick everything down the road for two years (or three years, as Lindsay Graham generously proposed).
This is the classic slow-motion train wreck (remember "The Fugitive" remake?)
With the exception of a few renegades, you won't see many Democrats agreeing to this "compromise", and to put the shoe on the other foot for once, they should have enough votes to filibuster such a lousy deal. Remember, extending the lower rates a couple more years for the wealthy will give the special interests the chance to pull this stuff again in 2012 or 2013, when the debt will be much bigger, and the deficits and the unemployment may be no better.
A much better compromise is to allow certain tax cuts--I have in mind the reduced rates on capital gains and dividends--to continue for a couple of years, because the former will lead to some reinvestment in the economy (much more than lower rates on high-income earners would do) and the latter will help the stock market (which will lead to more spending among the wealthy). The tax rates on the wealthy should expire--now!--while the lower rates on the middle class could be extended (kicked down the road) for a few years, rather than making them permanent. That will make the projected cost of the deal much less than other options.
This is also posted on facebook--TPM has this habit of frequently screwing up my log-in ID, and I couldn't even get to the login screen for this today (as chinshihtang), so I had to use my alter ego name. Solve the riddle--earn a piddle!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
