GOP Offers Debt Ceiling Sanity....for a few months
Coming out of the House GOP retreat, where they are presumably discussing their strategy and vision for the next 2 years and specifically how they are going to hold on to the House in 2014, comes word that the GOP will offer up a more or less "clean" increase of the debt ceiling to ward off default.
It comes with a few strings attached. The extension would only be for 3 months, meaning that we would be having the same discussion again in May or June. It would require both houses of Congress to pass a budget by April 15th or forfeit pay, something that the Senate has not done in several years, a fact that has been a talking point for the GOP.
It is possible that President Obama and the Democrats will have some issue with the proposal. The 3 month extension falls far short of the kind of extension or even elimination of the debt ceiling that the President had sought, hoping to avert having to deal with debt ceiling issue again in his Presidency. And Senate Democrats might balk at needing to pass a budget resolution.
But it seems like a savvy move for the GOP. It would be a tough sell for Democrats to vote against the debt ceiling increase they asked for. And I don't know very many people who would be too concerned about the possibility of Representatives and Senators not getting paid for a little while.
1 Term Down, 1 To Go
President Obama's will celebrate his second inauguration on Monday. It will be a more subdued ceremony than the celebration four years ago, when the country was less divided and we hadn't endured such a long economic malaise. But it will be a unifying moment for supporters of the President and a day of patriotism for all.
While the inauguration is on Monday, the official start of the President's second term is at noon tomorrow, as dictated by the constitution and the President will privately retake the oath of office then, before going through the ceremony on Monday.
Being at the end of the President's first 4 years, I thought it would be a good time to take stock of how the President has done.
(1) Did He Keep His Promises?
Politifact.com (run by the Tampa Bay Times) has did a great job of tracking all of the promises that the President made in the 2008 campaign and how they have turned out.
There were 508 documented promises made and of those, 239 were fully kept, 130 were partially kept and 139 were not kept. Those not kept were not kept for a variety of reasons - either the President changing his position (closing Gitmo, for instance), simply not pursuing something he promised to do (giving a State of the World address, for instance) or his desired policies changing as a result of negotiation with Congress (extending the Bush tax cuts for upper income limits for instance.)
Giving the President 100% for promises fully kept and 50% for those partially kept, the President gets 304 points out of a possible 508 or a score of 60%.
I said at the beginning of his term that it would be an A-worthy performance if the President could do half of the things he promised to do in 2008. A score of 60% certainly qualifies.
Grade: A
(2) Did He Achieve His Major Policy Goals?
The President had articulated six clear policy goals for his first term at the outset:
a. Implement a meaningful stimulus
On this issue, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act achieved almost all of what the President set out to achieve. It provided aid to states, funds for infrastructure improvements and targeted tax cuts. Couple this with the (just expired) temporary Social Security tax rate reductions that the President was able to get in 2010 and you have to say the President basically implemented what he set out to implement. There is much debate on the effectiveness of those policies, but here we are grading whether he did what he set out to do.
Grade: A
b. Implement Health Care Reform That Achieves Universal Coverage
The coverage is not quite universal (2% are excluded), the plan doesn't contain a public option, it does contain a mandate (something he opposed on the campaign trail) and the President gave up very early on including abortion coverage in the plan (another thing he campaigned on.) Still, President Obama was successful where Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton failed (President Reagan and both Presidents Bush were not advocates for such a program.) The carefully negotiated program was passed through congress narrowly and was narrowly upheld as largely constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is the law of the land and will roll out over his second term. We will all get to see how successful it is or isn't.
Grade: B+
c. Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts for Those Making Over $250K
The President completely punted on this once, agreeing to a 2-year extension in late 2010, in exchange for some other goodies, such as the Social Security Tax deal. The President did better recently, at the end of his term, cutting a deal that let the rates rise on individuals making over $400K and couples making over $450K, about half of the population the President was targeting to contribute more.
Grade: C
d. Pass Meaningful Legislation to Deal with Carbon Emissions
A Cap and Trade bill passed the House in 2009 but was never even taken up in the Senate and there has been virtually no leadership from the President on making this stated priority happen. There were smaller steps that did happen, such as tax credits for energy efficient homes and appliances and extensions of wind and solar subsidies. But all-in-all, the President hasn't made much progress here.
Grade: D+
e. Provide for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Perhaps it will be a second term issue. But the President never even proposed a package of immigration reform, something which he had stated he would do in his first year in office. He took some action by executive order, such as the regulatory version of the Dream Act, but these actions were taken very late in his term and fall far short of comprehensive reform.
Grade: D
f. End the War in Iraq and Provide Additional Troops, on a Timetable in Afghanistan
The President basically did everything he said he would here. We are out of Iraq. We did surge in Afghanistan, but are now winding down our involvement, in line with the time table the President set.
Grade: A
Overall Grade on Priorities: B-
(3) How Did We Fare Economically?
This is a quite complicated question, given the deep recession that was underway at the start of his term. By some economic measures, the President doesn't make the grade, by others he does.
Average Annual GDP Growth During His Term: 2.1% (average 20 years prior to Obama = 3.8%)
Average Unemployment Rate During His Term: 9.0% (average 20 years prior to Obama = 6.0%)
Stock Market Return During His Term: 12.1% (average 20 years prior to Obama = 9.9%)
By the standards of economic growth and unemployment, the last 4 years have not been among our better ones. Following a deep recession, we have had slow growth with sustained high unemployment over several years. While unemployment is now falling, it is doing so painfully slowly and at least in part due to less people in the workforce. By these measures, President Obama doesn't rate well.
However, putting those numbers in proper context is difficult since anyone could have predicted following the financial crisis that unemployment would be elevated and growth depressed, at least for a period of time. This is where the stock market return comes in. The stock market price reflects both present economic circumstances and expectations around future economic performance. On this measure, the President is doing great, far exceeding normal market returns and, given that those are nominal returns and inflation has been very low, real returns exceed by an even greater margin.
Of course, stock market expectations can be wrong. The stock market was wildly over-priced in 1999 and wildly under priced in 1982. So while some of change in expectations can be due to averting crises or sounder policies, some is also due to mean reversion or, in common language, irrational panic or optimism abating.
So, it is difficult as we stand here today to judge the President's economic performance. We didn't fall off a cliff and into a depression, something that seemed like a real possibility in 2008. But we also haven't had a "V-shaped recovery" where the economy grows quickly after purging the less efficient elements in a recession. It is a mixed bag.
Grade; C
The President has a lot to tackle in his second term. The deficit is still out-of-control, with no path to balance in sight. Immigration and climate change remain unsolved issues. The economy, while not in crisis, is certainly not healthy, particularly for the lower-middle class.
I wish him luck as he begins his second term, for all our sakes.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Monday, January 4, 2010
An In-Depth Look at Obama's Numbers Heading Into 2010, Terrorism Back in Focus, What To Look For In The Coming Weeks and Months, Predictions for 2010
Taking the "Long View"
It has become conventional wisdom in Washington that President Barack Obama is known for "taking the long view", virtually ignoring the short-term political ramifications of decisions and focusing instead on building a portfolio of policies that he believes will lead him to success over time. Sticking by Tim Geithner, expending massive political capital seeking health care reform, defending a stimulus plan that did little to defray unemployment in the near term are all part of the President's bigger plan, which will pay off over the long term, we are told.
You may believe or not believe that the President's policies will ultimately be successful in achieving their goals. And, frankly, you may agree or disagree with the underlying values that are implied by those goals. But one thing is for sure - while the President himself may have the luxury of taking a long view as he is not on the ballot again for almost 3 years, many of his Democratic partners in Congress do not have the same luxury, as all of Democratic House seats and 19 of the 58 Senate seats controlled by Democrats face elections this year.
So what can we glean of the President's current numbers? Let's start by grounding ourselves in them again. Below is the trend from his past month in his approve minus disapprove. As you can see, the President has remained in the channel between the zero line (an equal split between approval and disapproval) and the 7.2% margin of victory he achieved in 2008. Please note that the recent trends (since December 20th) have been impacted by a lack of available polling data. Gallup and Rasmussen both suspended their polling for a few days each around Christmas and New Year's and no other major national polls have come out in the past two weeks. So, the next few weeks will show if these numbers are still good, but below is what we have as of now.
Looking at the President's monthly numbers, he finished December with at +4.5%, his lowest number to date, down 42.4% from his massive numbers when he took office. This means, essentially, that 21.2% of the population or more than 1 in 5 people have changed their view of the President's performance from positive to negative since early in his term. This is a concerning, but not yet damning trend.
In total for 2009, the President averaged +23.1%, which would be an above-average year for a new President. But that was impacted, obviously, by his very high numbers early in his term and we are nowhere near those big numbers now.
In total, being +4 to +5% wouldn't be too horribly bad under ordinary circumstances. I'm sure that the President would be happy to take a 4 or 5 percentage point win in 2012. But, these are not ordinary circumstances. These are circumstances where Democrats have to defend massive majorities in both houses of congress.
Bear in mind, the House that is up for re-election in 2010 was elected in November 2008, when the President won by a 7.2% margin. Therefore, any Presidential approval numbers below that 7.2% spread imply losses in the fall for Democrats in the House. And there were a number of very close races in 2008 -- 6 within 1 percentage point, 11 within 2% and 23 within the President's margin of victory of 7.2%. Worse yet, Congressional Democrats, while they actually outperformed the President in total in 2008 (their aggregate vote margin in the House was about 9%) are underperforming him in current polling.
The Senate is a more complicated situation. Certainly Democrats are being hurt by the drag on their polls in close, open races such as Ohio and Missouri. But they are also a victim of individual failings, such as Chris Dodd's situation with AIG which may cost them a race that they should be winning easily, even in a down year, in Connecticut or the Blago/Roland Burris scandal, which has made a race in Illinois that should be a no-brainer a pick 'em. Republicans have also drafted some good candidates, such as Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware, a true Northeastern moderate, who has a real chance at claiming that seat for the GOP.
So, circumstances are conspiring against the Democrats. But all is not lost. If you look at how much ground the President lost in year one, amidst bloody battles on the stimulus bill and health care and while the economy continued to sag, it could all reverse just as quickly if unemployment turns upward, which it appears poised to do. The problem that they will face is that public perception about the economy tends to lag reality -- just ask former President George Herbert-Walker Bush, who got destroyed, receiving only 38% of the vote right as the economy was roaring back to life in 1992.
It seems inevitable that the Democrats will lose seats, certainly in the House and most likely in the Senate in November. Whether it is simply a minor correction (say 3 or 4 seats in the Senate and 20 or 25 seats in the House) or a 1994-style blood-letting (say 10 seats in the Senate and 40 to 50 seats in the House) remains to be seen. The best thing the Democrats can do is get healthcare down fast and move on to other issues, mainly the economy.
The National Security Dialogue Resumes
For a while in 2009, you could have forgotten that we were fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the focus of the political world from 2001 through the first half of 2008 had been all about terrorism, radical Islam and Al Qaeda. The focus of the political world was on the economy and health care. Two things have brought this issue back to being front and center: the President's decision to commit additional troops to Afghanistan and the attempted bombing of a Northwest / Delta flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
We have been reminded again that people are still trying to kill Americans. We are also reminded of just how tricky fighting Al Qaeda radicals is. They were based out of Afghanistan. Now, while they are still there in small numbers, they are based in Pakistan but also operate camps in Yemen, Somalia and many, many other pockets throughout the middle east and Africa. Clearly, we can't win this by fighting them country by country, as we have been more or less attempting.
Nor can we realistically put in place security protocols that preclude a future attack. Sure, we are stepping up procedures in response to the attempted bombing. But, once again, we are chasing what Al Qaeda has already attempted, not what they will attempt next. Who is to say that the next attempt won't be on a train? A chemical factory? A nuclear power plant? A hazmat truck? How good do you feel about the security in these places?
The simple truth, that nobody wants to hear, but that I've said many times is that you CANNOT prevent terrorist attacks while retaining a free society. The shear volume of people that move through commercial airports, trains and roads precludes it. Not that we shouldn't attempt to put common sense security protocols in place, but let's not give the false sense that we can ever be in complete control. And let's not overplay the risk....on September 11th, the worst day in aviation history, you were still more likely to be killed driving a car a mile than flying a mile.
Things to Look for Upcoming
Health Care -- negotiations between the House and the Senate get kicked off in earnest in about a week. Look first to what process is going to be used -- a formal conference committee or something less formal. Also, look to see how the pressure from other states on the sweetheart deal Ben Nelson got for Nebraska impacts the final deal, keeping in mind that the Dems must retain Nelson in order to win final passage. If you don't see a vote by early February, the bill is in trouble.
State of the Union -- look for the President to focus on two themes -- the economy and terrorism. He has to. They are what is on everyone's mind. Also, look to see if he signals a willingness to drop Cap and Trade this year or if he forges ahead with another ambitious year.
Special Election in Massachusetts -- looks to see if it is closer than expected. Nobody seriously expects the GOP to win, but if they are within 15 points, it is a dangerous sign for the Dems heading into November.
Predictions for 2010
I've been known to get these horribly wrong, but I'll try anyway:
(1) President Obama will sign a health care bill into law in late February that looks a lot like the version the Senate passed on December 24th.
(2) A Cap and Trade bill will NOT pass the Senate before the mid-term elections, despite a push from the White House.
(3) President Obama's numbers will bottom out in February or March and then rise modestly the rest of the year as unemployment falls, ending the year between 8.5% and 9.0%
(4) Republicans gain ground in both the House and the Senate, but retake neither, picking up 30 House seats and 5 Senate seats. The Blue Dogs gain even more clout and talk the White House into a monthly breakfast to discuss their issues as they now hold the key swing votes.
(5) Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin all announce their candidacy for President. Palin leads with a plurality in early polling.
(6) Gitmo is still not entirely closed on December 31st.
(7) The President shows that his "deadline" for drawdown in Afghanistan is more flexible than we all thought.
Thanks for reading....if you like this site, tell your friends.
It has become conventional wisdom in Washington that President Barack Obama is known for "taking the long view", virtually ignoring the short-term political ramifications of decisions and focusing instead on building a portfolio of policies that he believes will lead him to success over time. Sticking by Tim Geithner, expending massive political capital seeking health care reform, defending a stimulus plan that did little to defray unemployment in the near term are all part of the President's bigger plan, which will pay off over the long term, we are told.
You may believe or not believe that the President's policies will ultimately be successful in achieving their goals. And, frankly, you may agree or disagree with the underlying values that are implied by those goals. But one thing is for sure - while the President himself may have the luxury of taking a long view as he is not on the ballot again for almost 3 years, many of his Democratic partners in Congress do not have the same luxury, as all of Democratic House seats and 19 of the 58 Senate seats controlled by Democrats face elections this year.
So what can we glean of the President's current numbers? Let's start by grounding ourselves in them again. Below is the trend from his past month in his approve minus disapprove. As you can see, the President has remained in the channel between the zero line (an equal split between approval and disapproval) and the 7.2% margin of victory he achieved in 2008. Please note that the recent trends (since December 20th) have been impacted by a lack of available polling data. Gallup and Rasmussen both suspended their polling for a few days each around Christmas and New Year's and no other major national polls have come out in the past two weeks. So, the next few weeks will show if these numbers are still good, but below is what we have as of now.
Looking at the President's monthly numbers, he finished December with at +4.5%, his lowest number to date, down 42.4% from his massive numbers when he took office. This means, essentially, that 21.2% of the population or more than 1 in 5 people have changed their view of the President's performance from positive to negative since early in his term. This is a concerning, but not yet damning trend.
In total for 2009, the President averaged +23.1%, which would be an above-average year for a new President. But that was impacted, obviously, by his very high numbers early in his term and we are nowhere near those big numbers now.
In total, being +4 to +5% wouldn't be too horribly bad under ordinary circumstances. I'm sure that the President would be happy to take a 4 or 5 percentage point win in 2012. But, these are not ordinary circumstances. These are circumstances where Democrats have to defend massive majorities in both houses of congress.
Bear in mind, the House that is up for re-election in 2010 was elected in November 2008, when the President won by a 7.2% margin. Therefore, any Presidential approval numbers below that 7.2% spread imply losses in the fall for Democrats in the House. And there were a number of very close races in 2008 -- 6 within 1 percentage point, 11 within 2% and 23 within the President's margin of victory of 7.2%. Worse yet, Congressional Democrats, while they actually outperformed the President in total in 2008 (their aggregate vote margin in the House was about 9%) are underperforming him in current polling.
The Senate is a more complicated situation. Certainly Democrats are being hurt by the drag on their polls in close, open races such as Ohio and Missouri. But they are also a victim of individual failings, such as Chris Dodd's situation with AIG which may cost them a race that they should be winning easily, even in a down year, in Connecticut or the Blago/Roland Burris scandal, which has made a race in Illinois that should be a no-brainer a pick 'em. Republicans have also drafted some good candidates, such as Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware, a true Northeastern moderate, who has a real chance at claiming that seat for the GOP.
So, circumstances are conspiring against the Democrats. But all is not lost. If you look at how much ground the President lost in year one, amidst bloody battles on the stimulus bill and health care and while the economy continued to sag, it could all reverse just as quickly if unemployment turns upward, which it appears poised to do. The problem that they will face is that public perception about the economy tends to lag reality -- just ask former President George Herbert-Walker Bush, who got destroyed, receiving only 38% of the vote right as the economy was roaring back to life in 1992.
It seems inevitable that the Democrats will lose seats, certainly in the House and most likely in the Senate in November. Whether it is simply a minor correction (say 3 or 4 seats in the Senate and 20 or 25 seats in the House) or a 1994-style blood-letting (say 10 seats in the Senate and 40 to 50 seats in the House) remains to be seen. The best thing the Democrats can do is get healthcare down fast and move on to other issues, mainly the economy.
The National Security Dialogue Resumes
For a while in 2009, you could have forgotten that we were fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the focus of the political world from 2001 through the first half of 2008 had been all about terrorism, radical Islam and Al Qaeda. The focus of the political world was on the economy and health care. Two things have brought this issue back to being front and center: the President's decision to commit additional troops to Afghanistan and the attempted bombing of a Northwest / Delta flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
We have been reminded again that people are still trying to kill Americans. We are also reminded of just how tricky fighting Al Qaeda radicals is. They were based out of Afghanistan. Now, while they are still there in small numbers, they are based in Pakistan but also operate camps in Yemen, Somalia and many, many other pockets throughout the middle east and Africa. Clearly, we can't win this by fighting them country by country, as we have been more or less attempting.
Nor can we realistically put in place security protocols that preclude a future attack. Sure, we are stepping up procedures in response to the attempted bombing. But, once again, we are chasing what Al Qaeda has already attempted, not what they will attempt next. Who is to say that the next attempt won't be on a train? A chemical factory? A nuclear power plant? A hazmat truck? How good do you feel about the security in these places?
The simple truth, that nobody wants to hear, but that I've said many times is that you CANNOT prevent terrorist attacks while retaining a free society. The shear volume of people that move through commercial airports, trains and roads precludes it. Not that we shouldn't attempt to put common sense security protocols in place, but let's not give the false sense that we can ever be in complete control. And let's not overplay the risk....on September 11th, the worst day in aviation history, you were still more likely to be killed driving a car a mile than flying a mile.
Things to Look for Upcoming
Health Care -- negotiations between the House and the Senate get kicked off in earnest in about a week. Look first to what process is going to be used -- a formal conference committee or something less formal. Also, look to see how the pressure from other states on the sweetheart deal Ben Nelson got for Nebraska impacts the final deal, keeping in mind that the Dems must retain Nelson in order to win final passage. If you don't see a vote by early February, the bill is in trouble.
State of the Union -- look for the President to focus on two themes -- the economy and terrorism. He has to. They are what is on everyone's mind. Also, look to see if he signals a willingness to drop Cap and Trade this year or if he forges ahead with another ambitious year.
Special Election in Massachusetts -- looks to see if it is closer than expected. Nobody seriously expects the GOP to win, but if they are within 15 points, it is a dangerous sign for the Dems heading into November.
Predictions for 2010
I've been known to get these horribly wrong, but I'll try anyway:
(1) President Obama will sign a health care bill into law in late February that looks a lot like the version the Senate passed on December 24th.
(2) A Cap and Trade bill will NOT pass the Senate before the mid-term elections, despite a push from the White House.
(3) President Obama's numbers will bottom out in February or March and then rise modestly the rest of the year as unemployment falls, ending the year between 8.5% and 9.0%
(4) Republicans gain ground in both the House and the Senate, but retake neither, picking up 30 House seats and 5 Senate seats. The Blue Dogs gain even more clout and talk the White House into a monthly breakfast to discuss their issues as they now hold the key swing votes.
(5) Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin all announce their candidacy for President. Palin leads with a plurality in early polling.
(6) Gitmo is still not entirely closed on December 31st.
(7) The President shows that his "deadline" for drawdown in Afghanistan is more flexible than we all thought.
Thanks for reading....if you like this site, tell your friends.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
President Obama's War
10 months into his Presidency, the war in Afghanistan is President Barack Obama's war. Tonight marked a crucial inflection point in our strategy and in how future history books will be written about the long, protracted war in Afghanistan.
On an emotional note first, I found the speech somewhat flat. Recalling the passion that I felt after September 11th to get the evil that killed thousands of innocent Americans for no reason other than that they were in the wrong building on the wrong day, I thought the President missed an opportunity to provide emotional clarity for why we must be in Afghanistan. He mentioned this history, but his words failed to stir me and he has certainly shown a capability to stir and inspire in the past. He felt almost hurried in his delivery and there were a couple of points where he appeared to audibly trip over his words, perhaps a testament to the late finalization of the speech (word was, he continued to work on it in the hour leading up to its delivery.)
On the content, I feel better about the speech, although far from great. President Obama highlighted the risks of the Taliban and an Al Queda unconstrained. He made clear our goals -- dismantle the power base of these two organizations and build a sustainable security infrastructure in Afghanistan. He made clear that more troops were needed to accomplish this mission. He set a clear timeline for withdrawal.
But the speech was short on the specifics of the strategy. I don't leave hearing the speech with a sense of clarity around HOW these additional troops would help us clear these hurdles. The timeline seemed arbitrary -- why draw down after 18 months? Why not 12 months or 24? Why set a rigid timeline? Shouldn't this all be really clear after the length of his deliberations? Doesn't this sound a bit too much like the vaguely aspirational speeches that Bush used to give about Iraq? What about Pakistan? Can Karzai actually govern outside of Kabul?
The speech was also intensely political at times. There were the thinly veiled swipes at Bush Administration policy, which seem unnecessary at this stage of the game. There was also his reference to the 98-0 vote in the Senate and the 420-1 vote in the House to authorize the war. The message? Fellow Democrats -- we got in this together and we are still in this together.
I certainly believe that our prospects for success in dismantling terrorist networks in Afghanistan and establishing a stable (if only marginally Democratic) government are improved with the higher troop levels. Let's face it -- this is the first time we've really not given the military a shot to win this thing resource-wise before. But victory is still far from assured. And the President will have to have the fortitude to withstand public opinion (increasingly opposed to the war), the scrutiny of his own party (he will find few defenders in the Democratic caucus, except amongst the Joe Lieberman's and Jim Webb's of the world) and the emotional toll of bodies continuing to come back in coffins. I certainly respect him for listening to the moderate voices in his cabinet. I just hope for all of our sakes that we have the strategy to pull this off.
One thing is clear...this is the first issue on which President Obama now completely owns the success or failure. The economy? That was wrecked before he got here. Iraq? He was opposed to getting in and now is getting us out. Health care? We don't have a bill and even if we get one, it won't take effect in large measure until 2013 or 2014.
But this one he owns. If we are in a quagmire at this time next year, it belongs to the President. If Afghanistan is stable, it is to his credit.
You could argue that this was President Obama's first true Presidential moment -- Harry Truman's buck stopped with him tonight.
I pray he has this one right.
On an emotional note first, I found the speech somewhat flat. Recalling the passion that I felt after September 11th to get the evil that killed thousands of innocent Americans for no reason other than that they were in the wrong building on the wrong day, I thought the President missed an opportunity to provide emotional clarity for why we must be in Afghanistan. He mentioned this history, but his words failed to stir me and he has certainly shown a capability to stir and inspire in the past. He felt almost hurried in his delivery and there were a couple of points where he appeared to audibly trip over his words, perhaps a testament to the late finalization of the speech (word was, he continued to work on it in the hour leading up to its delivery.)
On the content, I feel better about the speech, although far from great. President Obama highlighted the risks of the Taliban and an Al Queda unconstrained. He made clear our goals -- dismantle the power base of these two organizations and build a sustainable security infrastructure in Afghanistan. He made clear that more troops were needed to accomplish this mission. He set a clear timeline for withdrawal.
But the speech was short on the specifics of the strategy. I don't leave hearing the speech with a sense of clarity around HOW these additional troops would help us clear these hurdles. The timeline seemed arbitrary -- why draw down after 18 months? Why not 12 months or 24? Why set a rigid timeline? Shouldn't this all be really clear after the length of his deliberations? Doesn't this sound a bit too much like the vaguely aspirational speeches that Bush used to give about Iraq? What about Pakistan? Can Karzai actually govern outside of Kabul?
The speech was also intensely political at times. There were the thinly veiled swipes at Bush Administration policy, which seem unnecessary at this stage of the game. There was also his reference to the 98-0 vote in the Senate and the 420-1 vote in the House to authorize the war. The message? Fellow Democrats -- we got in this together and we are still in this together.
I certainly believe that our prospects for success in dismantling terrorist networks in Afghanistan and establishing a stable (if only marginally Democratic) government are improved with the higher troop levels. Let's face it -- this is the first time we've really not given the military a shot to win this thing resource-wise before. But victory is still far from assured. And the President will have to have the fortitude to withstand public opinion (increasingly opposed to the war), the scrutiny of his own party (he will find few defenders in the Democratic caucus, except amongst the Joe Lieberman's and Jim Webb's of the world) and the emotional toll of bodies continuing to come back in coffins. I certainly respect him for listening to the moderate voices in his cabinet. I just hope for all of our sakes that we have the strategy to pull this off.
One thing is clear...this is the first issue on which President Obama now completely owns the success or failure. The economy? That was wrecked before he got here. Iraq? He was opposed to getting in and now is getting us out. Health care? We don't have a bill and even if we get one, it won't take effect in large measure until 2013 or 2014.
But this one he owns. If we are in a quagmire at this time next year, it belongs to the President. If Afghanistan is stable, it is to his credit.
You could argue that this was President Obama's first true Presidential moment -- Harry Truman's buck stopped with him tonight.
I pray he has this one right.
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Tough Road Ahead for President Obama
It is going to be a trying few months for the President. Consider:
(1) He is about to announce an Afghanistan strategy that will infuriate his own party. Liberals will be outraged that we are sending more troops to Afghanistan, while Conservatives will be likely only lukewarm in their support, feeling that he should have reached this conclusion earlier.
(2) He needs every last one of those members of his own party to pass health care reform legislation in the Senate. He also needs to convince moderates like Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR) to vote with him, possibly at the expense of her own job.
(3) While unemployment appears to be stabilizing (at least from the latest unemployment benefit numbers), it is stabilizing at a very high level, with pretty low prospects for it being recovered in time for November.
(4) His third domestic priority, environmental legislation took a huge blow when hacked e-mails from major scientists appeared to reveal a conspiracy to squash anti-global warming scientific evidence. The perception is horrible, regardless of the scientific reality.
(5) His approval in many polls has dipped below the "magic" (in the eyes of the media, not myself) 50% threshold, although his approve minus disapprove remains positive.
(6) The Secret Service is apparently too inept to keep uninvited guests out of his parties -- not a comforting thought if you are the first black US President who sees death threats posted on the internet daily.
(7) Everybody still hates Tim Geithner
(8) You can't seem to stop committing gaffes on foreign soil (bow and handshake, ipods to the Queen of England, etc.) -- and we all know the media would much rather talk about that than substance
A tough road indeed. Poll numbers updated next post (still painfully recreating my poll database from scratch).
If you like this site, tell your friends.
(1) He is about to announce an Afghanistan strategy that will infuriate his own party. Liberals will be outraged that we are sending more troops to Afghanistan, while Conservatives will be likely only lukewarm in their support, feeling that he should have reached this conclusion earlier.
(2) He needs every last one of those members of his own party to pass health care reform legislation in the Senate. He also needs to convince moderates like Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR) to vote with him, possibly at the expense of her own job.
(3) While unemployment appears to be stabilizing (at least from the latest unemployment benefit numbers), it is stabilizing at a very high level, with pretty low prospects for it being recovered in time for November.
(4) His third domestic priority, environmental legislation took a huge blow when hacked e-mails from major scientists appeared to reveal a conspiracy to squash anti-global warming scientific evidence. The perception is horrible, regardless of the scientific reality.
(5) His approval in many polls has dipped below the "magic" (in the eyes of the media, not myself) 50% threshold, although his approve minus disapprove remains positive.
(6) The Secret Service is apparently too inept to keep uninvited guests out of his parties -- not a comforting thought if you are the first black US President who sees death threats posted on the internet daily.
(7) Everybody still hates Tim Geithner
(8) You can't seem to stop committing gaffes on foreign soil (bow and handshake, ipods to the Queen of England, etc.) -- and we all know the media would much rather talk about that than substance
A tough road indeed. Poll numbers updated next post (still painfully recreating my poll database from scratch).
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Afghan Troop Decision Tuesday, Giving Thanks
Obama to Announce Afghan Strategy Next Tuesday
Numerous news sources have confirmed that President Obama will announce his long-awaited decision around troop levels and war strategy in Afghanistan next Tuesday. Reportedly, this will consist of a 34,000 troop increase (in addition to the 68,000 or so troops already in Afghanistan, up from 45,000 or so at the start of his Presidency) along with a request to NATO for an additional 6,000 troops to fully provide the 40,000 troops that were requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal several months ago. In total, if these reports are true, the President will have more than doubled our troop presence in Afghanistan since the start of his Presidency. This is very consistent with his campaign rhetoric about this being a "war of necessity" and that Iraq took our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, but is also sure to infuriate the left wing in his own party, who have been calling for an accelerated withdrawal from the long conflict.
This decision, if true, continues a pattern that I first noted several months ago -- that President Obama has shown himself to be more liberal on domestic issues than many anticipated (see the stimulus plan, cap and trade and health care) but more conservative on foreign policy issues (this decision, the decision not to join the NATO alliance on banning the use of land mines, the far slower draw down in Iraq than many had hoped for or anticipated.) In both cases, he is being pretty consistent with the platform that he ran on.
I've said before on balance that I believe that we continue to have an important role in Afghanistan, but that a clear objective and exit strategy are necessary with any troop escalation. Let's hope the Commander-in-Chief articulates these things with his announcement on Tuesday.
Giving Thanks
Tomorrow is Thanksgiving and as I always do in this space, I'd like to note things that are worthy of Americans giving thanks for:
I'm thankful that America is still a wealthy enough nation that we can fly to see our relatives and that if we can't afford to fly that we can drive or take the train.
I'm thankful that there are still a few moderates left in American politics, in spite of the partisan divide.
While I find references to President Obama (or ex-President Bush) as Nazis in poor taste, I'm thankful that we live in a country where people have the freedom to protest in ways that I find distasteful.
I'm thankful to have a job in an economy that has 10.2% unemployment and I'm thankful that we live in a country that has a safety net if I don't have one in the future.
I'm thankful that over the past 30 years, we as a nation have increasingly embraced rather than shunned our diversity. All respect to Attorney General Eric Holder, but we are not the cowards that we once were.
I'm thankful that you are reading these words today and that you may find something that I have to say interesting, enlightening or provocative.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. May you find love and hapiness in however you celebrate it. And a special thank you to those who do not get tomorrow off -- the police officers, fire fighters, grocery store clerks, soliders and air traffic controllers who will be working on Thanksgiving, each contributing to our uniquely American way of life.
On A Personal Note
The hard drive on my computer has failed. Like a fool, I had several pieces of data, including some of my Presidential approval history that I did not have recently backed up. I will attempt to recreate those data, but there may be a delay in the ordinary weekly posting of the President's numbers. I will get this rectified as soon as possible.
Thanks for reading. Enjoy Thanksgiving wherever you are and whatever you are doing.
Numerous news sources have confirmed that President Obama will announce his long-awaited decision around troop levels and war strategy in Afghanistan next Tuesday. Reportedly, this will consist of a 34,000 troop increase (in addition to the 68,000 or so troops already in Afghanistan, up from 45,000 or so at the start of his Presidency) along with a request to NATO for an additional 6,000 troops to fully provide the 40,000 troops that were requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal several months ago. In total, if these reports are true, the President will have more than doubled our troop presence in Afghanistan since the start of his Presidency. This is very consistent with his campaign rhetoric about this being a "war of necessity" and that Iraq took our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, but is also sure to infuriate the left wing in his own party, who have been calling for an accelerated withdrawal from the long conflict.
This decision, if true, continues a pattern that I first noted several months ago -- that President Obama has shown himself to be more liberal on domestic issues than many anticipated (see the stimulus plan, cap and trade and health care) but more conservative on foreign policy issues (this decision, the decision not to join the NATO alliance on banning the use of land mines, the far slower draw down in Iraq than many had hoped for or anticipated.) In both cases, he is being pretty consistent with the platform that he ran on.
I've said before on balance that I believe that we continue to have an important role in Afghanistan, but that a clear objective and exit strategy are necessary with any troop escalation. Let's hope the Commander-in-Chief articulates these things with his announcement on Tuesday.
Giving Thanks
Tomorrow is Thanksgiving and as I always do in this space, I'd like to note things that are worthy of Americans giving thanks for:
I'm thankful that America is still a wealthy enough nation that we can fly to see our relatives and that if we can't afford to fly that we can drive or take the train.
I'm thankful that there are still a few moderates left in American politics, in spite of the partisan divide.
While I find references to President Obama (or ex-President Bush) as Nazis in poor taste, I'm thankful that we live in a country where people have the freedom to protest in ways that I find distasteful.
I'm thankful to have a job in an economy that has 10.2% unemployment and I'm thankful that we live in a country that has a safety net if I don't have one in the future.
I'm thankful that over the past 30 years, we as a nation have increasingly embraced rather than shunned our diversity. All respect to Attorney General Eric Holder, but we are not the cowards that we once were.
I'm thankful that you are reading these words today and that you may find something that I have to say interesting, enlightening or provocative.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. May you find love and hapiness in however you celebrate it. And a special thank you to those who do not get tomorrow off -- the police officers, fire fighters, grocery store clerks, soliders and air traffic controllers who will be working on Thanksgiving, each contributing to our uniquely American way of life.
On A Personal Note
The hard drive on my computer has failed. Like a fool, I had several pieces of data, including some of my Presidential approval history that I did not have recently backed up. I will attempt to recreate those data, but there may be a delay in the ordinary weekly posting of the President's numbers. I will get this rectified as soon as possible.
Thanks for reading. Enjoy Thanksgiving wherever you are and whatever you are doing.
Friday, November 13, 2009
A Conversation That Might Have Happened at the White House, Budget Freeze?, Blinking on Afghanistan, Obama Poll Numbers
They Might Have Said This at the White House....
A conversation between President Barack Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius that could have happened...
Sebelius: Our health care bill has passed the House, 220-215, Mr. President.
Obama: Great news, Kathleen! So all we have to do is pass a bill through the Senate and I can sign this baby into law, right?
Sebelius: Well, not quite Mr. President. We have to get a bill passed in the Senate, then have a conference committee consolidate the two bills and the combined bill pass both House of congress.
Obama: But we should be able to get it through the Senate, right? I mean, we have 60 seats there...heck, we could even give up 10 Senators and still win, right?
Sebelius: No, Mr. President, we need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Obama: Oh yeah, the filibuster, right. Well, at least we have the 60 votes we need.
Sebelius: Not quite, Mr. President. Sen. Ben Nelson will only support a bill if we include an amendment to ban abortion funding.
Obama: Well, I said reproductive care would be the centerpiece of my health care legislation, but we gave it up in the House, so I guess we'll give in there too, so long as it gets us to 60.
Sebelius: Not so fast, Mr. President, Sen. Lieberman won't back a bill with a public option in it.
Obama: Can't we just get Olympia Snowe from the other side? Then we won't need Lieberman.
Sebelius: Senator Snowe will only back a bill with a trigger mechanism, Mr. President, not a real public option.
Obama: So...I guess we will have to give ground on the public option. We get a bill then, right?
Sebelius: We might get it through the Senate, Mr. President, but 40 House Democrats have said they will vote against the conference report if it contains the abortion provision.
Obama: What? They just passed a bill with the provision in it!
Sebelius: But they say they won't back it this time. Also the progressive caucus won't back a bill without a strong public option.
Obama: Okay...so can we put it back in?
Sebelius: Then it won't pass the Senate, plus Bart Stupak and 30-some other Democrats who are anti-abortion will vote against it then.
Obama: So...let me get this straight. We passed a bill in the House with a public option and no abortion funding. We can't get a bill through the Senate with a public option or abortion funding and we can't get a bill back through the House with or without abortion funding and we can't get a bill through with or without a public option?
Sebelius: Exactly, Mr. President.
Obama: Can we talk about Afghanistan now?
The Senate may take up the health care bill next week. Stay tuned for more high drama.
A Budget Freeze?
The White House is leaking word that the President's budget for Fiscal 2011, which is scheduled to be released in February, may contain an across the board freeze in spending or even an across the board 5% cut, combined with new taxes to combat the deficit.
Remember when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed an across the board freeze? Then-Senator Barack Obama said that was a "hatchet when what is needed is a scalpel." Of course, we were also going to be out of Afghanistan in the first year of his Presidency...
I have trouble reconciling passing a $787 billion stimulus bill and then EIGHT MONTHS later proposing cuts to core spending. Does the White House think the economy has improved THAT much?
More likely, this is a reaction to the poor Democratic showing in 2009. The White House might be wiser to consider what 2010 will look like if unemployment is still 10%+.
ALL Options Rejected?
One more time back to the drawing board as the President has rejected all presented options on Afghanistan. News reports had been that he was leaning towards sending an additional 30,000 troops but evidently is not yet satisfied with the strategy.
Okay...I'm all for careful deliberation, but at some point you actually have to make a decision. I know all the options suck. They will still suck the next time your advisers talk to you. Go all in, fold or somewhere in-between. Those are pretty much the options.
Time to act, Mr. President. You won't ever know all the facts. But our troops on the ground deserve a clear direction and strategy.
Obama Numbers Stay Within a Range
President Obama's approve minus disapprove is still bouncing around in the +8% range. His worst day yet of his Presidency for his aggregate numbers was yesterday at +7.7%...still ahead of his +7.2% total in November, but by a mere 0.5% margin.
The monthlies tell the same story as the President's November numbers hoover just above +8%.
Next up -- we have some new 2010 polls...and the news in total looks marginally worse for Democrats.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.
A conversation between President Barack Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius that could have happened...
Sebelius: Our health care bill has passed the House, 220-215, Mr. President.
Obama: Great news, Kathleen! So all we have to do is pass a bill through the Senate and I can sign this baby into law, right?
Sebelius: Well, not quite Mr. President. We have to get a bill passed in the Senate, then have a conference committee consolidate the two bills and the combined bill pass both House of congress.
Obama: But we should be able to get it through the Senate, right? I mean, we have 60 seats there...heck, we could even give up 10 Senators and still win, right?
Sebelius: No, Mr. President, we need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Obama: Oh yeah, the filibuster, right. Well, at least we have the 60 votes we need.
Sebelius: Not quite, Mr. President. Sen. Ben Nelson will only support a bill if we include an amendment to ban abortion funding.
Obama: Well, I said reproductive care would be the centerpiece of my health care legislation, but we gave it up in the House, so I guess we'll give in there too, so long as it gets us to 60.
Sebelius: Not so fast, Mr. President, Sen. Lieberman won't back a bill with a public option in it.
Obama: Can't we just get Olympia Snowe from the other side? Then we won't need Lieberman.
Sebelius: Senator Snowe will only back a bill with a trigger mechanism, Mr. President, not a real public option.
Obama: So...I guess we will have to give ground on the public option. We get a bill then, right?
Sebelius: We might get it through the Senate, Mr. President, but 40 House Democrats have said they will vote against the conference report if it contains the abortion provision.
Obama: What? They just passed a bill with the provision in it!
Sebelius: But they say they won't back it this time. Also the progressive caucus won't back a bill without a strong public option.
Obama: Okay...so can we put it back in?
Sebelius: Then it won't pass the Senate, plus Bart Stupak and 30-some other Democrats who are anti-abortion will vote against it then.
Obama: So...let me get this straight. We passed a bill in the House with a public option and no abortion funding. We can't get a bill through the Senate with a public option or abortion funding and we can't get a bill back through the House with or without abortion funding and we can't get a bill through with or without a public option?
Sebelius: Exactly, Mr. President.
Obama: Can we talk about Afghanistan now?
The Senate may take up the health care bill next week. Stay tuned for more high drama.
A Budget Freeze?
The White House is leaking word that the President's budget for Fiscal 2011, which is scheduled to be released in February, may contain an across the board freeze in spending or even an across the board 5% cut, combined with new taxes to combat the deficit.
Remember when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed an across the board freeze? Then-Senator Barack Obama said that was a "hatchet when what is needed is a scalpel." Of course, we were also going to be out of Afghanistan in the first year of his Presidency...
I have trouble reconciling passing a $787 billion stimulus bill and then EIGHT MONTHS later proposing cuts to core spending. Does the White House think the economy has improved THAT much?
More likely, this is a reaction to the poor Democratic showing in 2009. The White House might be wiser to consider what 2010 will look like if unemployment is still 10%+.
ALL Options Rejected?
One more time back to the drawing board as the President has rejected all presented options on Afghanistan. News reports had been that he was leaning towards sending an additional 30,000 troops but evidently is not yet satisfied with the strategy.
Okay...I'm all for careful deliberation, but at some point you actually have to make a decision. I know all the options suck. They will still suck the next time your advisers talk to you. Go all in, fold or somewhere in-between. Those are pretty much the options.
Time to act, Mr. President. You won't ever know all the facts. But our troops on the ground deserve a clear direction and strategy.
Obama Numbers Stay Within a Range
President Obama's approve minus disapprove is still bouncing around in the +8% range. His worst day yet of his Presidency for his aggregate numbers was yesterday at +7.7%...still ahead of his +7.2% total in November, but by a mere 0.5% margin.
The monthlies tell the same story as the President's November numbers hoover just above +8%.
Next up -- we have some new 2010 polls...and the news in total looks marginally worse for Democrats.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Latest Calls for Election Day, Finally Primetime for Health Care, The Middle Path on Afghanistan?, More Can Kicking, Presidential Approval
New Jersey, Virginia & New York-23
I will make my final projections in the 3 major November races on Monday. I don't project "ties" in my predictions, so at this point, I've eliminated the toss-up category -- every race will have a prediction, however close it is. As I still don't know what to do with Rasmussen polling data, I've elected to average the "Rasmussen" and "non-Rasmussen" averages, essentially giving the Rasmussen polling 50% weight. This is a departure from my Presidential Approval tracking where Rasmussen is given full weighting. I will make future calls on inclusion or exclusion of Rasmussen polls based on their accuracy in predicting these races. As always, polls sponsored by partisan groups are excluded from the analysis. For prediction purposes, only polls conducted within the past 7 days are included.
I have not been covering the New York mayoral races, as I generally cover only races for federal offices (House, Senate, the President) and Governor's races, but suffice it to say that Mayor Bloomberg appears to be extremely safe for a third term.
Let's get down to the races I'm covering:
New Jersey
Including Rasmussen
Weighted Average: Corzine +0.5%
Unweighted Average: Even
Median: Christie +0.5%
Average of Averages: Even
Excluding Rasmussen
Weighted Average: Corzine +1.3%
Unweighted Average: Corzine +0.6%
Median: Even
Average of Averages: Corzine +0.6%
My Projection: Lean DEM Hold, Corzine +0.3%
This one is ever-so-close and will depend on many factors: Democratic turn-out, the Daggett factor and late-breaking undecideds. It could obviously move in either direction in the last few days. The Corzine surge appears to have died out for now and we have settled in at about as close as they come.
Virginia
Including Rasmussen
Weighted Average: McDonnell +13.7%
Unweighted Average: McDonnell +14.3%
Median: McDonnell +14.0%
Average of Averages: McDonnell +14.0%
Excluding Rasmussen
Weighted Average: McDonnell +13.9%
Unweighted Average: McDonnell +14.5%
Median: McDonnell +15.5%
Average of Averages: McDonnell +14.6%
My Projection: Likely GOP Pick-up, McDonnell +14.3%
This one isn't close -- not even remotely. The GOP is back in Virginia. McDonnell beats Deeds.
New York-23
I like an adequate polling base to make a statistical projection, so I will share what is available. The one non-partisan poll conducted in the past week, a Research 2000 poll, showed Owens, the Democrat at 33%, Hoffman, the upstart Conservative party candidate at 32%, and Scozzofava, the "official" GOP candidate at 21%.
In the R2000 poll, Hoffman has gained 9 points in the past week, picking up almost all of them from Scozzofava after receiving high-profile endorsements from the likes of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and current Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.
This is a race Hoffman SHOULD win. Owens is stuck in the low 30s and the only way he can hold on to win is if Hoffman and Scozzofava more or less split the 60%+ of voters who intend to vote for some sort of Republican and Conservative.
In spite of the one non-partisan poll showing Owens in the lead,
My Prediction: Lean Conservative Pick-up
Showtime on Health Care Reform
With the unveiling of the House version of Health Care reform by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the implicit promise that it will hit the floor sometime late next week, after months and months of debate, town halls, hand wringing, Blue Dogs, liberals, Republicans, lobbyists, speeches and the like, it is FINALLY showtime.
The Pelosi bill is more liberal than the proposed Reid bill in the Senate, including a public option without an opt-out provision for individual states, but is less liberal than those on the left had hoped, allowing only for the public option to negotiate with providers versus perscribing that reimbursement rates be tied to Medicaid.
Many issues remain unresolved in the House version: what kind of public options survives, what to do about abortion coverage opposed by a group of pro-life Democrats (as well as Republicans), etc. But it appears highly likely that some kind of reform will pass the House.
The path through the Senate continues to be far less clear. It is obvious that moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is not on board with the opt-out public option, although she might support a "trigger mechanism" for a future public option. Independent Joe Lieberman has agreed to vote to begin debate in the Senate, but has threatened to support a fillibuster if the public option isn't pulled. As no other Republican has indicated any inclination to support the bill, the Democrats will need one of those two, along with moderate Democratic Senator Ben Nelson in order to pass a bill.
Clearly Harry Reid doesn't have this all figured out yet and the plan appears to be to let things develop on the Senate floor, which will likely lead to some high drama.
I'll be tuned in, bag of popcorn in hand when the Senate debate finally begins. No word yet on when this hits the Senate floor, although it would be logical for them to follow the House, where Democrats should have an easier (although not easy) go of it.
More Than 0, Less Than 40K?
Inside reports out of the Obama Administration indicate that the President is leaning towards sending additional troops to Afghanistan, but something less than the 40,000 requested by General Stanley McChrystal. This is not too surprising, given the history of the President's rhetoric on the subject..."war of necessity" and all, but what is still not clear to me is what the
mission objective will be for those additional troops.
I hope the President decides soon (taking your time is fine, but this is getting ridiculous) and that whatever he decides that he articulates a clear objective for the troops over there. We owe our brave soliders that.
Another Continuing Resolution
The federal government will keep its doors open until December 18th, assuming the President, today or tomorrow, signs the Interior Department appropriations bill. The conference report on that bill had another continuing resolution tacked on to it which gives the vast swath of agencies (see below) that still don't have a budget for the year, the capability to continue operating for another 7 weeks.
As the Senate has not yet even taken up several of the appropriations bill, we may again get deep into the budget year before the Fiscal 2010, which started October 1st, gets settled. It also appears likely, given the delay, that several of those bills will be combined into a so called "minibus" appropriations bill covering multiple agencies.
Think having a State and Defense department budget might be important during the middle of two wars? Apparently congress doesn't.
President Obama -- Scraping the Lows
I don't want to overplay a one-day drop, but today President Obama hit his second-lowest aggregate polling of his Presidency at an Approve minus Disapprove of +8.8% (his all-time low was on September 11th, when he was at +8.7%.) Still just slightly better than his November vote total of +7.2%, but his numbers took a turn down in the past week. Whether it is a bump in the road or a start of a new trend remains to be seen.
The President's monthly numbers don't show the same decline, primarily because he actually bumped up in approval early in the month before dropping late. October is almost over, so these won't change much...we'll see how November shapes up.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.
I will make my final projections in the 3 major November races on Monday. I don't project "ties" in my predictions, so at this point, I've eliminated the toss-up category -- every race will have a prediction, however close it is. As I still don't know what to do with Rasmussen polling data, I've elected to average the "Rasmussen" and "non-Rasmussen" averages, essentially giving the Rasmussen polling 50% weight. This is a departure from my Presidential Approval tracking where Rasmussen is given full weighting. I will make future calls on inclusion or exclusion of Rasmussen polls based on their accuracy in predicting these races. As always, polls sponsored by partisan groups are excluded from the analysis. For prediction purposes, only polls conducted within the past 7 days are included.
I have not been covering the New York mayoral races, as I generally cover only races for federal offices (House, Senate, the President) and Governor's races, but suffice it to say that Mayor Bloomberg appears to be extremely safe for a third term.
Let's get down to the races I'm covering:
New Jersey
Including Rasmussen
Weighted Average: Corzine +0.5%
Unweighted Average: Even
Median: Christie +0.5%
Average of Averages: Even
Excluding Rasmussen
Weighted Average: Corzine +1.3%
Unweighted Average: Corzine +0.6%
Median: Even
Average of Averages: Corzine +0.6%
My Projection: Lean DEM Hold, Corzine +0.3%
This one is ever-so-close and will depend on many factors: Democratic turn-out, the Daggett factor and late-breaking undecideds. It could obviously move in either direction in the last few days. The Corzine surge appears to have died out for now and we have settled in at about as close as they come.
Virginia
Including Rasmussen
Weighted Average: McDonnell +13.7%
Unweighted Average: McDonnell +14.3%
Median: McDonnell +14.0%
Average of Averages: McDonnell +14.0%
Excluding Rasmussen
Weighted Average: McDonnell +13.9%
Unweighted Average: McDonnell +14.5%
Median: McDonnell +15.5%
Average of Averages: McDonnell +14.6%
My Projection: Likely GOP Pick-up, McDonnell +14.3%
This one isn't close -- not even remotely. The GOP is back in Virginia. McDonnell beats Deeds.
New York-23
I like an adequate polling base to make a statistical projection, so I will share what is available. The one non-partisan poll conducted in the past week, a Research 2000 poll, showed Owens, the Democrat at 33%, Hoffman, the upstart Conservative party candidate at 32%, and Scozzofava, the "official" GOP candidate at 21%.
In the R2000 poll, Hoffman has gained 9 points in the past week, picking up almost all of them from Scozzofava after receiving high-profile endorsements from the likes of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and current Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.
This is a race Hoffman SHOULD win. Owens is stuck in the low 30s and the only way he can hold on to win is if Hoffman and Scozzofava more or less split the 60%+ of voters who intend to vote for some sort of Republican and Conservative.
In spite of the one non-partisan poll showing Owens in the lead,
My Prediction: Lean Conservative Pick-up
Showtime on Health Care Reform
With the unveiling of the House version of Health Care reform by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the implicit promise that it will hit the floor sometime late next week, after months and months of debate, town halls, hand wringing, Blue Dogs, liberals, Republicans, lobbyists, speeches and the like, it is FINALLY showtime.
The Pelosi bill is more liberal than the proposed Reid bill in the Senate, including a public option without an opt-out provision for individual states, but is less liberal than those on the left had hoped, allowing only for the public option to negotiate with providers versus perscribing that reimbursement rates be tied to Medicaid.
Many issues remain unresolved in the House version: what kind of public options survives, what to do about abortion coverage opposed by a group of pro-life Democrats (as well as Republicans), etc. But it appears highly likely that some kind of reform will pass the House.
The path through the Senate continues to be far less clear. It is obvious that moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is not on board with the opt-out public option, although she might support a "trigger mechanism" for a future public option. Independent Joe Lieberman has agreed to vote to begin debate in the Senate, but has threatened to support a fillibuster if the public option isn't pulled. As no other Republican has indicated any inclination to support the bill, the Democrats will need one of those two, along with moderate Democratic Senator Ben Nelson in order to pass a bill.
Clearly Harry Reid doesn't have this all figured out yet and the plan appears to be to let things develop on the Senate floor, which will likely lead to some high drama.
I'll be tuned in, bag of popcorn in hand when the Senate debate finally begins. No word yet on when this hits the Senate floor, although it would be logical for them to follow the House, where Democrats should have an easier (although not easy) go of it.
More Than 0, Less Than 40K?
Inside reports out of the Obama Administration indicate that the President is leaning towards sending additional troops to Afghanistan, but something less than the 40,000 requested by General Stanley McChrystal. This is not too surprising, given the history of the President's rhetoric on the subject..."war of necessity" and all, but what is still not clear to me is what the
mission objective will be for those additional troops.
I hope the President decides soon (taking your time is fine, but this is getting ridiculous) and that whatever he decides that he articulates a clear objective for the troops over there. We owe our brave soliders that.
Another Continuing Resolution
The federal government will keep its doors open until December 18th, assuming the President, today or tomorrow, signs the Interior Department appropriations bill. The conference report on that bill had another continuing resolution tacked on to it which gives the vast swath of agencies (see below) that still don't have a budget for the year, the capability to continue operating for another 7 weeks.
As the Senate has not yet even taken up several of the appropriations bill, we may again get deep into the budget year before the Fiscal 2010, which started October 1st, gets settled. It also appears likely, given the delay, that several of those bills will be combined into a so called "minibus" appropriations bill covering multiple agencies.Think having a State and Defense department budget might be important during the middle of two wars? Apparently congress doesn't.
President Obama -- Scraping the Lows
I don't want to overplay a one-day drop, but today President Obama hit his second-lowest aggregate polling of his Presidency at an Approve minus Disapprove of +8.8% (his all-time low was on September 11th, when he was at +8.7%.) Still just slightly better than his November vote total of +7.2%, but his numbers took a turn down in the past week. Whether it is a bump in the road or a start of a new trend remains to be seen.
The President's monthly numbers don't show the same decline, primarily because he actually bumped up in approval early in the month before dropping late. October is almost over, so these won't change much...we'll see how November shapes up.
Thanks for reading. If you like this site, tell your friends.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
A Tale of Two Governor's Races, Health Care Finance Comittee Vote Tuesday, Budgeting Rolls On, Don't Call It a Stimulus!, Tracking Site Visits
The Only Legal Left Turn in New Jersey, Right Turns on Red Allowed in Virginia Those who live or visit my home state of New Jersey know full well the odd road design that persists throughout the state. In many places, left turns are simply not allowed on New Jersey roads. In their place, New Jersey has designed a series of "jug-handles", right lane off-ramps that loops around to take traffic to the left.
While left turns are not legal on the roads in my state, they are all the norm in statewide races over the course of the past 20 years. The cycle goes thusly: New Jersians get mad every cycle about high property taxes, government corruption and runaway spending. They flirt with Republican candidates who surge out to double digit leads in early polls. The media swarms around how "blue" New Jersey may elect a right-winger to a major statewide office. Slowly as the election approaches, the Democrat runs a series of ads portraying the Republican as an enemy of education, a token of the social right and an incapable leader. Everyone is suddenly shocked as the polls tighten to break even. Then, on election night, the Democrat wins by a solid margin.
Is the cycle repeating? You betcha.
New polling in the New Jersey Governors race? My average: Christie +1.7%. RCP average: Christie +1.8%. Both the closest the race has been all year.
A Corzine win in November? I sure wouldn't bet against it.
Virginia, by contrast, was one of the first states to legalize right turns on red. And right turns in politics are the norm, although the state has certainly had a purplish hue of late, with wins by Barack Obama, Mark Warner, Tim Kahne and Jim Webb as proof of a new, sudden, Democratic dominance.
It is not to be this year. The latest in the Governor's race there? My average: McDonnell +9.6%. RCP Average: McDonnell +8.5%.
Put this one in the bank for the GOP. Deeds is toast, barring a major, late-breaking scandal.
The Baucus Bill -- It Saves Money and Will Get a Vote on Tuesday Maybe Max Baucus is crazy like a fox. After being scorned by the left for dropping a public option and shunned by the right, who universally turned their back on Baucus' compromise Health Care proposal, it may ultimately be proven that he has successfully threaded the needle to navigate a health care bill out of committee.
The CBO analysis of the amended Baucus bill gave it two major talking points: it's new expenditures are well below the $900 billion over 10 years that President Obama had set as a target in his address to the nation. And, perhaps more importantly, the CBO projects that the Baucus bill will REDUCE the deficit by $80 billion over that time period while covering 94% of Americans.
Now will these points cause Republicans en masse to endorse the bill? Absolutely not. There are 1, maybe 2 Republicans in the Senate that appear "gettable", our favorite moderate Senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. But it does give cover for the 58 Democrats and 2 Independents to support the bill with less fear of reprecussion about runaway spending.
Now, this debate is obviously still far from over. Assuming the bill survives the committee vote (I predict it will pass with all Democrats voting "aye" and Sen. Snowe joining but no other Republicans), it will have to be "melded" with the other bills coming out of the various Senate comittees and then brought to the floor where it will be ammended, attacked and fillibustered. But make no mistake about it, this is a big step towards getting a bill through the Senate.
No word on when a bill will make it to the House floor, although Speaker Pelosi still says "soon", whatever that means.
Still Working Through a Budget
The Senate and to a lesser extent the House and the conference committees continue to slowly make progress on appropriations. The latest bill to move completely through the congress, the Agriculture bill, passed in a slightly less partisan fashion (although still not particularly bi-partisan) than the first bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill.
The meat of the spend (Defense, DOD/DOE Construction, etc.) are still moving through the process. I'd be hopeful that congress gets done by the time the first continuing resolution expires October 31st, but given the pace so far, I'm not counting on it.
A Stealth Stimulus?
The Obama Administration is walking a tightrope on the stimulus. On the one hand, the White House is feeling the heat of needing to show more progress on job creation. On the other hand, proposing a second stimulus would be tantamount to admitting that the first stimulus was either a failure or insufficient, something the President has been unwilling to do.
So what is the White House doing? Quietly proposing small "stimulating" activities -- continuing to extend unemployment benefits, extended the first-time home buyer credit. This kind of small ball stimulus is a play straight out of the Clinton playbook -- do small, managable initiatives that you can tout the success of if conditions improve and are small enough not to draw public outrage if they fail. It is, frankly, a very un-Obama strategy, as the President has thus far shown a preference for the big, bold and splashy. But it might be a wise move until unemployment starts dropping.
Extending unemployment has hit a snag, however, as Senators from states with higher unemployment rates argue with Senators from states with lower unemployment rates. The key issue is whether all unemployment benefits should be extended for a shorter period of time or benefits in states with high rates be extended for a shorter period of time. Obviously which state you are in drives your opinion there.
Afghanisoon
I've received a number of e-mails on my relative lack of coverage of the debate within the White House around the strategy in Afghanistan. I HAVE written previously about the choices facing President Obama and the need to commit, one way or another, to a clear strategy of either "all-in" or "all-out". I don't really have a lot more to say on the topic until the President reaches decision, which I will critique in full. Two options, Mr. President, you need to choose one.
Who's Reading This?
1,581 people since February, according to the tracking. I initiated tracking of site visitors in late January, which was largely just as the political season was slowing down, post-innauguration. From there, the number of visitors held relatively constant from February-May, spiked up in June when I did some advertising on electoral-vote.com (still one of the best political sites on the web) and has slowly declined since then, to a low of 140 visitors in September.
So is the readership drying up for this site? Not really. It's the political slow season, I haven't advertised, and as you can see from the green line, a lot of the decline has been driven by my posting less as I have been busy with the business of life and traveling a lot.
For those of you who read frequently, thanks for reading. And let people know about us. There is never a charge and I try very hard to bring you analysis that you won't find anywhere else on the web, at any price. From innovative poll-aggregation techniques (which I believe are provably more accurate than sites like realclearpolitics) to tracking of the budgeting process (which is scarcely mentioned on many political sites) to commentary, I think people will like what they find here, regardless of their political stripes.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and suggestions.
While left turns are not legal on the roads in my state, they are all the norm in statewide races over the course of the past 20 years. The cycle goes thusly: New Jersians get mad every cycle about high property taxes, government corruption and runaway spending. They flirt with Republican candidates who surge out to double digit leads in early polls. The media swarms around how "blue" New Jersey may elect a right-winger to a major statewide office. Slowly as the election approaches, the Democrat runs a series of ads portraying the Republican as an enemy of education, a token of the social right and an incapable leader. Everyone is suddenly shocked as the polls tighten to break even. Then, on election night, the Democrat wins by a solid margin.
Is the cycle repeating? You betcha.
New polling in the New Jersey Governors race? My average: Christie +1.7%. RCP average: Christie +1.8%. Both the closest the race has been all year.
A Corzine win in November? I sure wouldn't bet against it.
Virginia, by contrast, was one of the first states to legalize right turns on red. And right turns in politics are the norm, although the state has certainly had a purplish hue of late, with wins by Barack Obama, Mark Warner, Tim Kahne and Jim Webb as proof of a new, sudden, Democratic dominance.
It is not to be this year. The latest in the Governor's race there? My average: McDonnell +9.6%. RCP Average: McDonnell +8.5%.
Put this one in the bank for the GOP. Deeds is toast, barring a major, late-breaking scandal.
The Baucus Bill -- It Saves Money and Will Get a Vote on Tuesday Maybe Max Baucus is crazy like a fox. After being scorned by the left for dropping a public option and shunned by the right, who universally turned their back on Baucus' compromise Health Care proposal, it may ultimately be proven that he has successfully threaded the needle to navigate a health care bill out of committee.
The CBO analysis of the amended Baucus bill gave it two major talking points: it's new expenditures are well below the $900 billion over 10 years that President Obama had set as a target in his address to the nation. And, perhaps more importantly, the CBO projects that the Baucus bill will REDUCE the deficit by $80 billion over that time period while covering 94% of Americans.
Now will these points cause Republicans en masse to endorse the bill? Absolutely not. There are 1, maybe 2 Republicans in the Senate that appear "gettable", our favorite moderate Senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. But it does give cover for the 58 Democrats and 2 Independents to support the bill with less fear of reprecussion about runaway spending.
Now, this debate is obviously still far from over. Assuming the bill survives the committee vote (I predict it will pass with all Democrats voting "aye" and Sen. Snowe joining but no other Republicans), it will have to be "melded" with the other bills coming out of the various Senate comittees and then brought to the floor where it will be ammended, attacked and fillibustered. But make no mistake about it, this is a big step towards getting a bill through the Senate.
No word on when a bill will make it to the House floor, although Speaker Pelosi still says "soon", whatever that means.
Still Working Through a Budget
The Senate and to a lesser extent the House and the conference committees continue to slowly make progress on appropriations. The latest bill to move completely through the congress, the Agriculture bill, passed in a slightly less partisan fashion (although still not particularly bi-partisan) than the first bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill.
The meat of the spend (Defense, DOD/DOE Construction, etc.) are still moving through the process. I'd be hopeful that congress gets done by the time the first continuing resolution expires October 31st, but given the pace so far, I'm not counting on it.
A Stealth Stimulus?The Obama Administration is walking a tightrope on the stimulus. On the one hand, the White House is feeling the heat of needing to show more progress on job creation. On the other hand, proposing a second stimulus would be tantamount to admitting that the first stimulus was either a failure or insufficient, something the President has been unwilling to do.
So what is the White House doing? Quietly proposing small "stimulating" activities -- continuing to extend unemployment benefits, extended the first-time home buyer credit. This kind of small ball stimulus is a play straight out of the Clinton playbook -- do small, managable initiatives that you can tout the success of if conditions improve and are small enough not to draw public outrage if they fail. It is, frankly, a very un-Obama strategy, as the President has thus far shown a preference for the big, bold and splashy. But it might be a wise move until unemployment starts dropping.
Extending unemployment has hit a snag, however, as Senators from states with higher unemployment rates argue with Senators from states with lower unemployment rates. The key issue is whether all unemployment benefits should be extended for a shorter period of time or benefits in states with high rates be extended for a shorter period of time. Obviously which state you are in drives your opinion there.
Afghanisoon
I've received a number of e-mails on my relative lack of coverage of the debate within the White House around the strategy in Afghanistan. I HAVE written previously about the choices facing President Obama and the need to commit, one way or another, to a clear strategy of either "all-in" or "all-out". I don't really have a lot more to say on the topic until the President reaches decision, which I will critique in full. Two options, Mr. President, you need to choose one.
Who's Reading This?
1,581 people since February, according to the tracking. I initiated tracking of site visitors in late January, which was largely just as the political season was slowing down, post-innauguration. From there, the number of visitors held relatively constant from February-May, spiked up in June when I did some advertising on electoral-vote.com (still one of the best political sites on the web) and has slowly declined since then, to a low of 140 visitors in September.
So is the readership drying up for this site? Not really. It's the political slow season, I haven't advertised, and as you can see from the green line, a lot of the decline has been driven by my posting less as I have been busy with the business of life and traveling a lot. For those of you who read frequently, thanks for reading. And let people know about us. There is never a charge and I try very hard to bring you analysis that you won't find anywhere else on the web, at any price. From innovative poll-aggregation techniques (which I believe are provably more accurate than sites like realclearpolitics) to tracking of the budgeting process (which is scarcely mentioned on many political sites) to commentary, I think people will like what they find here, regardless of their political stripes.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and suggestions.
Friday, September 25, 2009
It's a Crazy World, Waffling on Afghanistan?, More Obama Polls, Tracking NJ and VA, Health Care Plods Along, MA Senate Controversy
There has been a ton going on this week in the world of politics, so I'll get right to it....
Nutcases, Radicals and Dictators -- Oh, My! If there is one thing that the UN and G20 meetings has confirmed, it is that there are still a lot of crazies in the world....and that we need to keep an eye on the ones who could potentially get their hands on nuclear weapons.
From the re-emergence of Libya's nutty-again dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi, who, apparently has quite an axe to grind with just about everyone in the world, to Iran's illegitimately elected (probably), nuclear-ambitious, holocaust-dening, always-nutty Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the world is quite a scary place.
Of the two, while Qaddafi's rambling, long speech garnered the eye of the media, it is Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions that deserve our attention. A nuclear Iran is a scary prospect indeed. While Iran lacks the technological capability to launch a nuclear weapon that could reach U.S. territory, they could certainly turn the middle east into a crater, Israel included.
A much harder line is needed with Iran. President Obama is right to declare their actions unaccceptable, but the world needs to stand together to do much more than talk. Iran should have zero access to capital, equipment or trade unless and until it abandons its nuclear ambitions. They are simply too great a risk. What purpose does the UN serve if NOT to stop rogue nations like Iran from acquiring the ultimate destructive weapon?
At the G20, a slightly more sane gathering of nations, things were considerably tamer. Sure, we had the normal protests from the usual anti-globalization radicals, but the tone inside was considerably more business-like. That said, no real break throughs came out of the session. The leaders declared it a success and agreed to some underlying principles on things like regulation of the financial markets and pollution control. Nothing really meaty though.
The international schedule has been crowded as of late, particularly with the aftermath of a global recession. Unfortunately, I fear the world is just nibbling at the edges of the causes of the near-collapse of the global economy. No one has addressed in a serious way, how to eliminate the risk posed by "too big to fail" institutions, which are at the root of the severity of the recession. And it appears unlikely they will as the crisis has passed.
Is Obama Shooting Straight on Afghanistan? From the onset of his campaign for President, Barack Obama made it clear that he viewed the war in Afghanistan as a "war of necessity" as opposed to the Iraq war, which he viewed as a "war of choice". He relentlessly criticized the Bush Administration for failing to commit adequate resources to Afghanistan and for taking its eyes off the ball by focusing so much troop strength in Iraq.
It is concerning, then, that the President seems reluctant to send more troops and appears to have held back the recommendation of Gen. Stanley Mcchrystal to send at least 10,000 additional troops to the country.
Is Obama caving in to the left-wing of his party?
The worst solution in Afghanistan is to maintain the status quo. We could have a reasoned debate about whether a continued American presence makes sense (I tend to think it does, although we need a great deal more clarity on the mission objectives and conditions for exit), but EITHER commiting more troops OR exiting the theater are preferable to maintaining the status quo. We learned our lesson in Vietnam, that half-pregnant wars do not work.
Let's hope President Obama takes a clear position in the next couple of weeks and if he chooses to continue to leave troops in Afghanistan, that he commits a sufficient number to do the job.
More Obama Polling
It is remarkable, given everything that has happened over the first 8 months of his Presidency, that President Obama continues to enjoy popularity at or above his November totals. The hope and change President has seemed far less inspirational and a lot less visionary over the past few months than many had hoped. Yet, on his ultimate scorecard he is still faring pretty well.
President Obama has continued to hold on to the modest gains that he had achieved following his late-August lows. He has yet to have a polling day below his November margin of 7.2%.
In the monthly data, President Obama actually has a chance for September to be the first month that he gains ground. His average as of today is +12.0%, just slightly below his August average of +12.3%, but his daily numbers are tracking above the average, so it certainly looks that, at worst, President Obama will have a flat month in September. Not a bad recovery after the disaster over the summer.
NJ/VA Governor Updates
It's getting down to crunch time in the 2009 elections, and the only ones of significance are the fights for Governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The GOP would still have to be considered a favorite to take both seats, but things continue to get closer.
In Virginia -- my latest analysis of polls puts this at a 4.4% margin for Republican Robert McDonnell over Democrat Creigh Deeds, while the RCP average has an identical margin. This is practically a pick 'em in a state race with over a month to go and Deeds closing at a pretty good clip (we were talking mid-double digits a couple of months ago.)
In New Jersey -- my latest analysis still has it a 7.5% margin for Republican Chris Christie over incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) while the RCP average shows it a 6.6% race. This one is tightening too, although not as fast.
I'd been predicting from the get-go that Corzine would close in New Jersey, given its history of flirting with Republicans but electing Democrats. Could I have had this backwards? Might the DEMs pull it out in now-purple Virginia and get scortched in still-deep-blue New Jersey?
Health Care Bills Moving, But Not Too Fast
In the House, Nancy Pelosi is slowly moving towards a showdown on the floor sometime in the next month, basically negotiating only with Democrats. It appears likely that the bill will make it to the floor with a public option in it, as Pelosi has expressly rejected both co-ops and the "trigger" mechanism as alternatives. The problem Democrats face in the House, is that it is not clear that they can cobble together enough Democratic votes to pass a bill with the public option, and they will certainly get no GOP votes. It's also not clear that a bill that excludes a public option would attract enough liberal support. Back to the same problem -- the Dems are not on one page.
The Senate prospects, unbelieveably, actually look brighter than in the House. Despite lots of partisan committee votes, it appears that the Baucus bill will make it to the floor without major changes and with no obvious Democratic defections. If the Senate passes a bill without a public option, it will put major pressure on Pelosi and company to get the liberal wing in line and line up behind a similar bill.
Still a long tricky way to go on this one.
Hypocrites in Massachussetts
Governor Deval Patrick (D) has named Paul Kirk to fill in as an interim Senator until a special election is held in January to select the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D). He made this appointment after the legislature rushed through a bill, changing the law to allow such an appointment. The Governor waived a normal protocol that laws in the state be deferred for 90 days before taking effect, prompting a GOP court challenge, which appears to have at least initially failed.
Gov. Patrick and company were probably within their legal rights here. But that's not the point. The point is the hypocracy that they delayed in making the change in the law.
Massachussetts had previously had a law which allowed temporary appointments to the Senate. In 2004, when Sen. John Kerry (D) was seeking the Presidency, the legislature promptly changed the law to allow only selection by special election, guarding against a GOP Senator from then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R). Now, when a 60th Democrat is needed for health care reform, they switch it back. Changing the rules of election to serve a specific political outcome is wrong and should be condemned.
And while we are on the topic, shouldn't we have a uniform selection of laws across the country for how Senators are selected in the event of a vacancy?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Nutcases, Radicals and Dictators -- Oh, My! If there is one thing that the UN and G20 meetings has confirmed, it is that there are still a lot of crazies in the world....and that we need to keep an eye on the ones who could potentially get their hands on nuclear weapons.
From the re-emergence of Libya's nutty-again dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi, who, apparently has quite an axe to grind with just about everyone in the world, to Iran's illegitimately elected (probably), nuclear-ambitious, holocaust-dening, always-nutty Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the world is quite a scary place.
Of the two, while Qaddafi's rambling, long speech garnered the eye of the media, it is Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions that deserve our attention. A nuclear Iran is a scary prospect indeed. While Iran lacks the technological capability to launch a nuclear weapon that could reach U.S. territory, they could certainly turn the middle east into a crater, Israel included.
A much harder line is needed with Iran. President Obama is right to declare their actions unaccceptable, but the world needs to stand together to do much more than talk. Iran should have zero access to capital, equipment or trade unless and until it abandons its nuclear ambitions. They are simply too great a risk. What purpose does the UN serve if NOT to stop rogue nations like Iran from acquiring the ultimate destructive weapon?
At the G20, a slightly more sane gathering of nations, things were considerably tamer. Sure, we had the normal protests from the usual anti-globalization radicals, but the tone inside was considerably more business-like. That said, no real break throughs came out of the session. The leaders declared it a success and agreed to some underlying principles on things like regulation of the financial markets and pollution control. Nothing really meaty though.
The international schedule has been crowded as of late, particularly with the aftermath of a global recession. Unfortunately, I fear the world is just nibbling at the edges of the causes of the near-collapse of the global economy. No one has addressed in a serious way, how to eliminate the risk posed by "too big to fail" institutions, which are at the root of the severity of the recession. And it appears unlikely they will as the crisis has passed.
Is Obama Shooting Straight on Afghanistan? From the onset of his campaign for President, Barack Obama made it clear that he viewed the war in Afghanistan as a "war of necessity" as opposed to the Iraq war, which he viewed as a "war of choice". He relentlessly criticized the Bush Administration for failing to commit adequate resources to Afghanistan and for taking its eyes off the ball by focusing so much troop strength in Iraq.
It is concerning, then, that the President seems reluctant to send more troops and appears to have held back the recommendation of Gen. Stanley Mcchrystal to send at least 10,000 additional troops to the country.
Is Obama caving in to the left-wing of his party?
The worst solution in Afghanistan is to maintain the status quo. We could have a reasoned debate about whether a continued American presence makes sense (I tend to think it does, although we need a great deal more clarity on the mission objectives and conditions for exit), but EITHER commiting more troops OR exiting the theater are preferable to maintaining the status quo. We learned our lesson in Vietnam, that half-pregnant wars do not work.
Let's hope President Obama takes a clear position in the next couple of weeks and if he chooses to continue to leave troops in Afghanistan, that he commits a sufficient number to do the job.
More Obama Polling
It is remarkable, given everything that has happened over the first 8 months of his Presidency, that President Obama continues to enjoy popularity at or above his November totals. The hope and change President has seemed far less inspirational and a lot less visionary over the past few months than many had hoped. Yet, on his ultimate scorecard he is still faring pretty well.
President Obama has continued to hold on to the modest gains that he had achieved following his late-August lows. He has yet to have a polling day below his November margin of 7.2%.
In the monthly data, President Obama actually has a chance for September to be the first month that he gains ground. His average as of today is +12.0%, just slightly below his August average of +12.3%, but his daily numbers are tracking above the average, so it certainly looks that, at worst, President Obama will have a flat month in September. Not a bad recovery after the disaster over the summer.
NJ/VA Governor Updates
It's getting down to crunch time in the 2009 elections, and the only ones of significance are the fights for Governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The GOP would still have to be considered a favorite to take both seats, but things continue to get closer.
In Virginia -- my latest analysis of polls puts this at a 4.4% margin for Republican Robert McDonnell over Democrat Creigh Deeds, while the RCP average has an identical margin. This is practically a pick 'em in a state race with over a month to go and Deeds closing at a pretty good clip (we were talking mid-double digits a couple of months ago.)
In New Jersey -- my latest analysis still has it a 7.5% margin for Republican Chris Christie over incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) while the RCP average shows it a 6.6% race. This one is tightening too, although not as fast.
I'd been predicting from the get-go that Corzine would close in New Jersey, given its history of flirting with Republicans but electing Democrats. Could I have had this backwards? Might the DEMs pull it out in now-purple Virginia and get scortched in still-deep-blue New Jersey?
Health Care Bills Moving, But Not Too Fast
In the House, Nancy Pelosi is slowly moving towards a showdown on the floor sometime in the next month, basically negotiating only with Democrats. It appears likely that the bill will make it to the floor with a public option in it, as Pelosi has expressly rejected both co-ops and the "trigger" mechanism as alternatives. The problem Democrats face in the House, is that it is not clear that they can cobble together enough Democratic votes to pass a bill with the public option, and they will certainly get no GOP votes. It's also not clear that a bill that excludes a public option would attract enough liberal support. Back to the same problem -- the Dems are not on one page.
The Senate prospects, unbelieveably, actually look brighter than in the House. Despite lots of partisan committee votes, it appears that the Baucus bill will make it to the floor without major changes and with no obvious Democratic defections. If the Senate passes a bill without a public option, it will put major pressure on Pelosi and company to get the liberal wing in line and line up behind a similar bill.
Still a long tricky way to go on this one.
Hypocrites in Massachussetts
Governor Deval Patrick (D) has named Paul Kirk to fill in as an interim Senator until a special election is held in January to select the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D). He made this appointment after the legislature rushed through a bill, changing the law to allow such an appointment. The Governor waived a normal protocol that laws in the state be deferred for 90 days before taking effect, prompting a GOP court challenge, which appears to have at least initially failed.
Gov. Patrick and company were probably within their legal rights here. But that's not the point. The point is the hypocracy that they delayed in making the change in the law.
Massachussetts had previously had a law which allowed temporary appointments to the Senate. In 2004, when Sen. John Kerry (D) was seeking the Presidency, the legislature promptly changed the law to allow only selection by special election, guarding against a GOP Senator from then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R). Now, when a 60th Democrat is needed for health care reform, they switch it back. Changing the rules of election to serve a specific political outcome is wrong and should be condemned.
And while we are on the topic, shouldn't we have a uniform selection of laws across the country for how Senators are selected in the event of a vacancy?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
