Sorry I Missed You
There were many visitors to this space the night of the State of the Union. Most years, I cover the State of the Union, as I do all major American political events. It was simply personal circumstances beyond my control that caused me to miss the speech (which I was just finally able to watch, along with Marco Rubio's Republican response.)
I am continually humbled by the number of people that come here to learn a little bit more about our Republic and its politics. I am sorry to have missed you this State of the Union.
Where is the Optimism?
The Republican Party has been out in the wilderness for a little while now. They have been out of the White House for over 4 years now, have not controlled the Senate in over 6 years and have controlled the House for only 2 of the last 6 years.
This is hardly unprecedented in US politics. The Democrats were cast from the White House for all but 4 of the 20 years from 1973-1993, when a young Governor from Arkansas named Bill Clinton revitalized the Democratic center coalition.
Republicans were completely out of power in both Houses of Congress all the way from 1955 until the Reagan revolution coattails swept them into power in the Senate in 1981.
The Republican Party certainly has the capability to return to power. We are naturally a nation of economic conservatives (at least as compared to our first world allies) and while demographic shifts appear at the moment to be a huge headwind to the GOP, the growing Latino voter base is largely socially conservative and family-oriented, a seemingly natural constituency for the GOP.
But right now, the GOP isn't helping itself.
What Bill Clinton for the Democrats and Ronald Reagan for the Republicans had in common when they led their parties back from the wilderness was optimism. They had powerful, positive visions for the country and sold them with a smile.
Voters are drawn to optimists. They tell us about what is possible. They propose solutions to seemingly overwhelming problems that sound reasonable. They stoke our patriotism.
Pessimism doesn't sell. It implies a lack of faith in our nation. It promises a bleaker future. It isn't a product anyone wants to buy.
And herein lies the core problem for the GOP - a lack of optimism. From chattering heads to internet message boards to elected officials, the words coming out of the GOP imply that we are going to hell in a hand basket. This is a natural extension of very overheated rhetoric in both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. The thinking goes - President Obama is a socialist or even a communist and we've been saying for years that if he got into office, he was going to wreck the country, so it must be true. I think Francois Hollande is laughing somewhere at the notion that the President is a socialist. We debate the difference between 35% and 39.6% marginal tax rates - the French impose top taxes of 75% when they get a "real" socialist in office.
The man or woman who can step forward and paint a truly optimistic vision for the country will emerge as the natural leader of the GOP. Based on the State of the Union response from Marco Rubio, which was a drab and uninspiring affair, I do not believe that man will be Marco Rubio, at least not yet. I'd look to the Governor's mansion, where you have people building that optimistic vision. Think Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels. Pragmatic men who work hard to build better states. Leave the Tea Party and the wingnut survivalists behind and you have a path back to leadership.
Is the Wall Street Journal Ignorant or Dishonest?
I like the Wall Street Journal. While they have a clear conservative bent, they provide excellent reporting on the world of business and do strong investigative journalism into corporate wrongdoing.
So it is quite disappointing to me that they would publish a highly intellectually dishonest commentary on proposed minimum wage hikes entitled "The Minority Youth Unemployment Act". In the piece, the Journal argues that hiking the minimum wage would lead to fewer available minimum wage jobs, which would disproportionately impact young minorities.
It was once said that in the order of significant lies, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Such is certainly the case with the Journal piece.
Firstly, they present a graph that shows minimum wage hikes and black youth unemployment and total you unemployment plotted on a timeline from 2007 to the present, with hikes in the minimum wage from 2007 to 2009 noted on the graph. The point the author attempts to make is that youth unemployment spiked from 2007 to 2009, correlated with the rise of the minimum wage from 2007 to 2009.
The chart is factual but wildly deceiving. Any first year statistics student knows that correlation does not imply causation. Murders and ice cream consumption spike at the same time every year, but no fool things ice cream causes murder, the thoughtful realize that both spike in the summer for different reasons. Certainly, the minimum wage went up during that time period (due to a bill supported and signed by President George W. Bush, incidentally), but there was also this little financial crisis that led to the Great Recession. Does anybody with connected brain cells not think that the financial crisis led to the spike in unemployment?
To punctuate that point, note that the author singles out just one set of minimum wage hikes and does not chart the countless other minimum wage hikes and corresponding unemployment rates. The hike from 3.80 to 4.25 in 1991? Unemployment crashed after that one on the heels of an economic recovery. The successive hikes from 4.25 to 4.75 and then 5.15 in 1996 and 1997? The economy recorded some of the lowest unemployment rates in history following those hikes.
Bottom line, cherry-picking only the data that support your point of view is the type of deception that should be reserved for political spin doctors, not publications that are ostensibly paragons of journalism.
The premise of the article, that higher minimum wages lead to employers refusing to hire workers also defies logic. As any first year business student knows, businesses exist to make money. They don't generally employ workers that are unnecessary. If a hotel needs 5 maids in order to clean all the rooms, they are going to hire 5 maids, whether the minimum wage is $7.15 or $9.00. They aren't going to hire 5 extra maids that they don't need if the minimum wage is lower. Likewise, they aren't going to hire 3 maids and simply not clean some of the rooms if the minimum wage is higher. They are going to hire the people that they need.
What is true is that if labor costs rise, those costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for things that require minimum wage labor, such as hotel rooms and fast food meals. Companies still want to make their profit, so they simply mark up their items to maintain their profit margins. This essentially amounts to a tax on all of us to support slightly higher wages at the bottom rung.
This is a trade-off that we have been willing to make as a country since 1938, when the first minimum wage law went into effect.
The minimum wage is near historic lows at the moment. In real dollar terms, the minimum wage was $7.33 in 1950, slightly higher than today. In 1956, it was then hiked to the equivalent of $8.57 in today's dollars and continued to rise from there in real dollar terms, peaking at a real-dollar rate of $10.74 in 1968. It remained above $9/hour in real terms until 1981, when Ronald Reagan essentially put a freeze on minimum wage hikes, allowing it to fall in real terms (thanks to inflation) to under $6/hour in real terms before President George H.W. Bush signed a hike.
If higher minimum wages lead to higher unemployment and lower minimum wages lead to lower unemployment, unemployment should be near historic lows.
The Wall Street Journal article is dishonest and wrong. I would like to hope this was out of ignorance, but given the depth of experience on the Journal editorial board, I suspect it was deliberately deceptive.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label State of the Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State of the Union. Show all posts
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Do Newts Bounce Like Dead Cats?
Here Lizard, Lizard
The "dead cat bounce" is a term commonly used in the world of investing. A company, destined for the scrap heap of bankruptcy, has seen its stock go down and down. From $100 to $10 to $1, it is on a steady decline. Then, all of a sudden, it jumps up from $1 to $3. But the jump isn't real - the fundamental problems that plague the company haven't gone away, people have just forgotten about how severe they are. Before you know it, the stock is at $0 and the company is bankrupt. Those who bought it at $3 are wondering what the heck they were thinking, boarding a sinking ship. It's the same as dropping a dead cat out the window...it will bounce up when it hits the ground, but that isn't because it's coming back to life...and it ends up just as dead on the ground a second later.
Is Newt Gingrich a sinking ship? 48 hours ago, he was on top of the world. After having ridden the wave to the top of the polls earlier in the election season, Gingrich had been written off for dead. Somehow, against all odds, seemingly, Gingrich battled back to win a clear cut victory in the South Carolina primary by a wide margin. All of a sudden, he was up 9 points in some polls in Florida. The whole narrative of Romney's inevitability was fading before our eyes.
48 hours later, his poll numbers in Florida seem to be dropping as fast as the gravity that pulls down a dead cat. One poll out today has that 9 point lead diminished to 2 points, another has Romney ahead by 2 points.
So is Newt Gingrich a dead cat bouncing back to Earth or is there just noise in the polls? Are we headed towards a nail-biter in Florida or will Romney be handily in command by Tuesday?
The debate on Thursday matters. Where the torn apart conservative GOP electorate, stuck between an unelectable lizard and an unprincipled glove, finally come down on the question of whether they want the best chance to win or the best representation of their views comes down is just as critical.
Certainly no one in the GOP is happy. And President Obama's battle for re-election against a tough economy and a toxic political environment looks less like a mountain and more like a speed bump every day.
Contrasts and Small Ball
President Obama can give a speech, lest any of us forget the best political skill of our Commander-in-Chief. But the vision last night seemed a lot less ambitious, a lot more sober and a lot more political than his previous efforts at a State of the Union speech.
In reality, all State of the Union speeches are inherently political. Most SOTU proposals go nowhere. Did George H.W. Bush get his 1% across-the-board tax cut? How about Bill Clinton's Hillarycare? George W. Bush's privatization of social security and comprehensive immigration reform? Nowhere to be found.
So President Obama's goal wasn't to make a big sweeping set of policy initiatives. It was to draw a contrast with Republicans and propose some easy wins. Ban insider trading in Congress? Who would be against that but crooked Senators? Prevent the next Horizon oil spill? Yeah, I think we are all on board with that.
It was a good speech that will give the President a short-term bump in the polls but will likely soon be forgotten in the deafening noise of the campaign.
This was more a re-election announcement that a look at the state of our union.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
The "dead cat bounce" is a term commonly used in the world of investing. A company, destined for the scrap heap of bankruptcy, has seen its stock go down and down. From $100 to $10 to $1, it is on a steady decline. Then, all of a sudden, it jumps up from $1 to $3. But the jump isn't real - the fundamental problems that plague the company haven't gone away, people have just forgotten about how severe they are. Before you know it, the stock is at $0 and the company is bankrupt. Those who bought it at $3 are wondering what the heck they were thinking, boarding a sinking ship. It's the same as dropping a dead cat out the window...it will bounce up when it hits the ground, but that isn't because it's coming back to life...and it ends up just as dead on the ground a second later.
Is Newt Gingrich a sinking ship? 48 hours ago, he was on top of the world. After having ridden the wave to the top of the polls earlier in the election season, Gingrich had been written off for dead. Somehow, against all odds, seemingly, Gingrich battled back to win a clear cut victory in the South Carolina primary by a wide margin. All of a sudden, he was up 9 points in some polls in Florida. The whole narrative of Romney's inevitability was fading before our eyes.
48 hours later, his poll numbers in Florida seem to be dropping as fast as the gravity that pulls down a dead cat. One poll out today has that 9 point lead diminished to 2 points, another has Romney ahead by 2 points.
So is Newt Gingrich a dead cat bouncing back to Earth or is there just noise in the polls? Are we headed towards a nail-biter in Florida or will Romney be handily in command by Tuesday?
The debate on Thursday matters. Where the torn apart conservative GOP electorate, stuck between an unelectable lizard and an unprincipled glove, finally come down on the question of whether they want the best chance to win or the best representation of their views comes down is just as critical.
Certainly no one in the GOP is happy. And President Obama's battle for re-election against a tough economy and a toxic political environment looks less like a mountain and more like a speed bump every day.
Contrasts and Small Ball
President Obama can give a speech, lest any of us forget the best political skill of our Commander-in-Chief. But the vision last night seemed a lot less ambitious, a lot more sober and a lot more political than his previous efforts at a State of the Union speech.
In reality, all State of the Union speeches are inherently political. Most SOTU proposals go nowhere. Did George H.W. Bush get his 1% across-the-board tax cut? How about Bill Clinton's Hillarycare? George W. Bush's privatization of social security and comprehensive immigration reform? Nowhere to be found.
So President Obama's goal wasn't to make a big sweeping set of policy initiatives. It was to draw a contrast with Republicans and propose some easy wins. Ban insider trading in Congress? Who would be against that but crooked Senators? Prevent the next Horizon oil spill? Yeah, I think we are all on board with that.
It was a good speech that will give the President a short-term bump in the polls but will likely soon be forgotten in the deafening noise of the campaign.
This was more a re-election announcement that a look at the state of our union.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
SOTU Recap: Was That Reagan in 1982?
I miss the days when State of the Union speeches typically lasted 40 to 45 minutes. Bill Clinton set the bar for insanely long speeches, stretching as long as 90 minutes some years. And President Barack Obama last night continued that ugly trend, going almost 75 minutes by my count.
Here's my quick recap on the good and the bad:
The Good
1. He was funny, self-deprecating and entertaining for the first half of the speech. I loved the line referring to health care "as should be clear by now, I didn't do it because it was good politics."
2. He stuck to his guns. Health care, still needed. Cap and Trade, get it done.
3. His explanation of the economic circumstances facing the country and his administration's approach was excellent.
4. He FINALLY loudly called for Congress to allow gays to serve openly in the military.
The Bad
1. No path forward - how are we to reconcile the political reality of today with the ambitions that he laid out.
2. False bi-partisanship - the repeated rhetoric of last November, with very little tangible action. We'll buy it when we actually see Democrats and Republicans working together.
3. Small ball, and not even good small ball - small business capital gains taxes? Are you serious? Small businesses aren't hiring because they can't get credit and don't have customers, not because their owner is worried that when he makes millions, he will have to pay a 15% tax. Not a single new big initiative.
In total, it was a decent, but fairly forgettable speech. I expect the President's approval to get a modest bump from the speech. It will do nothing in and of itself, to move congress forward. The President's actions in the coming weeks are critical if he is serious about getting real bi-partisanship or getting health care or cap and trade done. He's going to have to be a lot more directly involved in the process and a lot more active.
So, why the title of this blog? Take a look at the link below to view President Ronald Reagan's 1982 State of the Union Speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QFLsxeEl5I
I watched it today because I was interested in how a different President, from a different party, reacted to similar economic circumstances. Interestingly, while the solutions proposed are different, the construct is remarkable similar. Both talk about the crisis they were handed. Both defended their programs, saying things would have been far worse without their actions. Both expressed optimism, without really committing to timelines or metrics for improvement. Both spent more than half of their speech on economic matters, with only small sections on foreign policy issues, despite the prominence of international concerns in their administrations.
It should be noted that Reagan's party went on to get smacked in November 1982, but that Reagan won in a landslide in 1984. We'll know in a few months whether the first half of that repeats for President Obama.
A few quick thoughts on Bob McDonnell's GOP response:
It was a very good response speech. Having a live audience worked much better than a single individual staring at a camera. And Gov. McDonnell (R-VA) is clearly a gifted communicator. The speech was respectful and upbeat, while drawing stark policy contrasts.
In short, it was much, much better than Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R-LA) awful response speech a year ago. While it would be early to suggest that a star was born last night, it is clear to me that McDonnell has the potential for higher office.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Here's my quick recap on the good and the bad:
The Good
1. He was funny, self-deprecating and entertaining for the first half of the speech. I loved the line referring to health care "as should be clear by now, I didn't do it because it was good politics."
2. He stuck to his guns. Health care, still needed. Cap and Trade, get it done.
3. His explanation of the economic circumstances facing the country and his administration's approach was excellent.
4. He FINALLY loudly called for Congress to allow gays to serve openly in the military.
The Bad
1. No path forward - how are we to reconcile the political reality of today with the ambitions that he laid out.
2. False bi-partisanship - the repeated rhetoric of last November, with very little tangible action. We'll buy it when we actually see Democrats and Republicans working together.
3. Small ball, and not even good small ball - small business capital gains taxes? Are you serious? Small businesses aren't hiring because they can't get credit and don't have customers, not because their owner is worried that when he makes millions, he will have to pay a 15% tax. Not a single new big initiative.
In total, it was a decent, but fairly forgettable speech. I expect the President's approval to get a modest bump from the speech. It will do nothing in and of itself, to move congress forward. The President's actions in the coming weeks are critical if he is serious about getting real bi-partisanship or getting health care or cap and trade done. He's going to have to be a lot more directly involved in the process and a lot more active.
So, why the title of this blog? Take a look at the link below to view President Ronald Reagan's 1982 State of the Union Speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QFLsxeEl5I
I watched it today because I was interested in how a different President, from a different party, reacted to similar economic circumstances. Interestingly, while the solutions proposed are different, the construct is remarkable similar. Both talk about the crisis they were handed. Both defended their programs, saying things would have been far worse without their actions. Both expressed optimism, without really committing to timelines or metrics for improvement. Both spent more than half of their speech on economic matters, with only small sections on foreign policy issues, despite the prominence of international concerns in their administrations.
It should be noted that Reagan's party went on to get smacked in November 1982, but that Reagan won in a landslide in 1984. We'll know in a few months whether the first half of that repeats for President Obama.
A few quick thoughts on Bob McDonnell's GOP response:
It was a very good response speech. Having a live audience worked much better than a single individual staring at a camera. And Gov. McDonnell (R-VA) is clearly a gifted communicator. The speech was respectful and upbeat, while drawing stark policy contrasts.
In short, it was much, much better than Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R-LA) awful response speech a year ago. While it would be early to suggest that a star was born last night, it is clear to me that McDonnell has the potential for higher office.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Biden Out (Beau That Is), Bayh at Risk, Full Steam Ahead on Health Care?, Your Guide to the State of the Union
Beau Isn't Running
Beau Biden has decided not to seek the Senate seat that was vacated by his father assuming the Vice Presidency this past January. This is a major blow to Democrats in the state, who had been counting on the popular Biden brand name to carry the race against very popular At Large Rep. Mike Castle (R). With Biden out of the race and no star candidates in the mix, I'll move this race from a Toss-Up to a Lean GOP Pick-Up, pending polling information.
I guess the move wasn't terribly shocking, as this is shaping up to be a rough year for Democrats in November and Biden would've been fighting a pick 'em race against a popular ex-Governor and rare true moderate. Why should Biden risk his popularity now, when he could wait for an easier shot, in a better year, in heavily Democratic Delaware.
Bayh No Lock
Popular, well, at least, I thought he was popular, moderate Sen. Evan Bayh (D) will not have a walk either in his race either. A just-released Rasmussen poll shows him down 3% against potential opponent Rep. Mark Pence and up only 3% against less well known John Hostettler.
It is not clear yet if Pence will run and this is only one poll. I will move it from a Likely DEM Hold to a Lean DEM Hold pending information on Pence's possibly candidacy and additional polling. This is another one to add to the mix of races that would've seemed like easy defenses a year ago but are now competitive. The same poll found Obama's Approve minus Disapprove in Indiana to be at -13%, in a state that he won by a slim margin in 2008.
Full Speed Ahead with Health Care?
Reports out of Washington are that after President Obama's seeming concession to a smaller-scale health care bill that Pelosi and Reid may push ahead with a two-pronged approach of passing the Senate measure in the House and then using reconciliation to make changes to the bill later on.
The reconciliation process would require only 51 Senate votes but can only be used on the provisions related to taxation and spending. So, for instance, they could be used to alter the provisions pertaining to taxes on high-cost insurance plans, but could not be used to modify the provisions related to pre-existing conditions. It is debatable whether modifying the abortion-funding rules falls within the scope of reconciliation, and that is likely to be a contentious issue with passing the bill in the House. But it is likely if the House passed the bill that Democrats could muster 60 votes for a stand-alone change to explicitly prohibit abortion funding, if it was part of the quid pro quo.
If the reports of this plan are true, this is a dramatically bold plan, in the face of the Massachusetts defeat. But it is also the best possible long-term path for Democrats. To come out of two years with dominant majorities without real reform on their signature issue would be a disaster. And while the GOP likes to point to the unpopularity of the overall bill, almost all of the individual provisions of the bill are popular, indicating to me that the public may like it better as a law than they did as a bill.
Even if Pelosi and Reid push ahead with this plan, it is far from a done deal. They have to convince liberals to accept a more moderate Senate bill and have to convince at least some Blue Dogs that this bill is worth risking their necks in November for. No easy feat given the way the Democratic party has been running scared for the past week. But we'll see.
State of the Union Viewers Guide
President Obama gives his first official State of the Union speech tomorrow night, although his address to a joint session of Congress a year ago was essentially the same forum, and in light of the events of the past couple of weeks, it is highly anticipated for us political watchers. Here are my things to watch:
(1) What does he say about his priorities from last year?
Is it full steam ahead on Health Care, public opinion be damned? Is this a moral or an economic issue? Will we scale back or push for all we can get? Or is this issue headed to the back burner with little mention?
Is Cap and Trade still on the table? Will the President push it or ignore that priority from last year? Will he say anything about Copenhagen?
(2) Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
What will he stay about the stimulus? Call it successful but not enough? Say that it did what was intended? What will he propose going forward? What promises will he make about unemployment, if any?
(3) The Deficit
The rumor is that he is going to propose a 3-year freeze on spending for a large portion of domestic discretionary spending. Was this a trial balloon or will he propose it? Will he talk about sun-setting the Bush tax cuts in 2011? What will he say about the balance of the stimulus? How about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan? Will he even mention entitlement reform, the elephant in the room? Will he explicitly push Congress to appoint a bi-partisan commission, with a straight up or down vote on their recommendations?
(4) Foreign Policy
Does it get much mention or is it pushed to the back? What will he say about GITMO and his failure to meet one of his first executive orders? Will he talk about winding down Iraq? Any shift in tone on Afghanistan?
(5) Small Ball / Triangulation
Will we see some Bill Clinton-style small ball, triangulated initiatives? Remember 100,000 more cops on the street and Family Medical Leave -- are things like this in the offing? WIll the tone be more about the big, bold ideas or the small practical ones?
(6) What is the State of the Union?
I remember Bill Clinton saying "the State of the Union has never been stronger", a triumphant declaration of victory in a time of sub 4% unemployment and the beginnings of the internet boom. Clearly the President can't say this. But what will he say that recognizes the struggle ordinary people are feeling yet conveys confidence in the future? How will he solve the "Stockdale Paradox", named for Admiral Stockdale, who, as a POW in Vietnam, figured out a way to remain confident that he would be rescued without setting a specific date.
It is an almost impossible speech given the current circumstances, but the President needs a home run performance to recharge his administration and his priorities. He needs to walk the line between pragmatic and bold. He needs some quick wins and some big wins. Most of all, he needs to reshape the dialogue.
I'll be watching, as I suspect most of you will too. State of the Unions are always impressive and entertaining, with all the trappings of Congress and the Presidency. And they do matter in terms of setting the agenda, perhaps more than any other speeches. And perhaps no speech given by a President known for giving some famous speeches, will be more important to his Presidency.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Beau Biden has decided not to seek the Senate seat that was vacated by his father assuming the Vice Presidency this past January. This is a major blow to Democrats in the state, who had been counting on the popular Biden brand name to carry the race against very popular At Large Rep. Mike Castle (R). With Biden out of the race and no star candidates in the mix, I'll move this race from a Toss-Up to a Lean GOP Pick-Up, pending polling information.
I guess the move wasn't terribly shocking, as this is shaping up to be a rough year for Democrats in November and Biden would've been fighting a pick 'em race against a popular ex-Governor and rare true moderate. Why should Biden risk his popularity now, when he could wait for an easier shot, in a better year, in heavily Democratic Delaware.
Bayh No Lock
Popular, well, at least, I thought he was popular, moderate Sen. Evan Bayh (D) will not have a walk either in his race either. A just-released Rasmussen poll shows him down 3% against potential opponent Rep. Mark Pence and up only 3% against less well known John Hostettler.
It is not clear yet if Pence will run and this is only one poll. I will move it from a Likely DEM Hold to a Lean DEM Hold pending information on Pence's possibly candidacy and additional polling. This is another one to add to the mix of races that would've seemed like easy defenses a year ago but are now competitive. The same poll found Obama's Approve minus Disapprove in Indiana to be at -13%, in a state that he won by a slim margin in 2008.
Full Speed Ahead with Health Care?
Reports out of Washington are that after President Obama's seeming concession to a smaller-scale health care bill that Pelosi and Reid may push ahead with a two-pronged approach of passing the Senate measure in the House and then using reconciliation to make changes to the bill later on.
The reconciliation process would require only 51 Senate votes but can only be used on the provisions related to taxation and spending. So, for instance, they could be used to alter the provisions pertaining to taxes on high-cost insurance plans, but could not be used to modify the provisions related to pre-existing conditions. It is debatable whether modifying the abortion-funding rules falls within the scope of reconciliation, and that is likely to be a contentious issue with passing the bill in the House. But it is likely if the House passed the bill that Democrats could muster 60 votes for a stand-alone change to explicitly prohibit abortion funding, if it was part of the quid pro quo.
If the reports of this plan are true, this is a dramatically bold plan, in the face of the Massachusetts defeat. But it is also the best possible long-term path for Democrats. To come out of two years with dominant majorities without real reform on their signature issue would be a disaster. And while the GOP likes to point to the unpopularity of the overall bill, almost all of the individual provisions of the bill are popular, indicating to me that the public may like it better as a law than they did as a bill.
Even if Pelosi and Reid push ahead with this plan, it is far from a done deal. They have to convince liberals to accept a more moderate Senate bill and have to convince at least some Blue Dogs that this bill is worth risking their necks in November for. No easy feat given the way the Democratic party has been running scared for the past week. But we'll see.
State of the Union Viewers Guide
President Obama gives his first official State of the Union speech tomorrow night, although his address to a joint session of Congress a year ago was essentially the same forum, and in light of the events of the past couple of weeks, it is highly anticipated for us political watchers. Here are my things to watch:
(1) What does he say about his priorities from last year?
Is it full steam ahead on Health Care, public opinion be damned? Is this a moral or an economic issue? Will we scale back or push for all we can get? Or is this issue headed to the back burner with little mention?
Is Cap and Trade still on the table? Will the President push it or ignore that priority from last year? Will he say anything about Copenhagen?
(2) Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
What will he stay about the stimulus? Call it successful but not enough? Say that it did what was intended? What will he propose going forward? What promises will he make about unemployment, if any?
(3) The Deficit
The rumor is that he is going to propose a 3-year freeze on spending for a large portion of domestic discretionary spending. Was this a trial balloon or will he propose it? Will he talk about sun-setting the Bush tax cuts in 2011? What will he say about the balance of the stimulus? How about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan? Will he even mention entitlement reform, the elephant in the room? Will he explicitly push Congress to appoint a bi-partisan commission, with a straight up or down vote on their recommendations?
(4) Foreign Policy
Does it get much mention or is it pushed to the back? What will he say about GITMO and his failure to meet one of his first executive orders? Will he talk about winding down Iraq? Any shift in tone on Afghanistan?
(5) Small Ball / Triangulation
Will we see some Bill Clinton-style small ball, triangulated initiatives? Remember 100,000 more cops on the street and Family Medical Leave -- are things like this in the offing? WIll the tone be more about the big, bold ideas or the small practical ones?
(6) What is the State of the Union?
I remember Bill Clinton saying "the State of the Union has never been stronger", a triumphant declaration of victory in a time of sub 4% unemployment and the beginnings of the internet boom. Clearly the President can't say this. But what will he say that recognizes the struggle ordinary people are feeling yet conveys confidence in the future? How will he solve the "Stockdale Paradox", named for Admiral Stockdale, who, as a POW in Vietnam, figured out a way to remain confident that he would be rescued without setting a specific date.
It is an almost impossible speech given the current circumstances, but the President needs a home run performance to recharge his administration and his priorities. He needs to walk the line between pragmatic and bold. He needs some quick wins and some big wins. Most of all, he needs to reshape the dialogue.
I'll be watching, as I suspect most of you will too. State of the Unions are always impressive and entertaining, with all the trappings of Congress and the Presidency. And they do matter in terms of setting the agenda, perhaps more than any other speeches. And perhaps no speech given by a President known for giving some famous speeches, will be more important to his Presidency.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Scorecarding the MA Senate Race -- How'd I Do?, Did the Whole Game Just Change?
Results Versus Projections
So, the votes are counted, other than a few stray overseas absentee ballot and we have a clear picture of how well I projected the Massachusetts Senate result.
First, the obvious, I got the ultimate outcome right. Unlike many political sites, such as the highly reputed Cook Report, which simply rated the race a "toss-up" going into Tuesday, I always make a projection, regardless of the closeness of the margin. And we were right again. Combine that with getting the end result right in the New Jersey and Virginia Governors races this past November and going 48 for 50 in calling state results in the Presidential race, as well as nailing dead on the popular vote margin in 2008 and I think this site has a track record that rivals any political expert in terms of projecting elections over the past two years.
Now, on to the specifics of Massachusetts. Below are the actual (unofficial, but verified) vote percentages from Massachusetts versus my final projections:
Scott Brown: Actual 51.9%, Projected 50.8%, Error = 1.1%
Martha Coakley: Actual 47.1%, Projected 47.1%, Error = 0.0%
Joe Kennedy: Actual 1.0%, Projected 2.1%, Error = 1.1%
Note that the projection was exactly correct on Martha Coakley's vote percentage and that the error on the other two candidates was entirely due to Joe Kennedy receiving less than half of the statistical projection and those votes going to Scott Brown. If you re-read my blogs leading up to the election, I noted that minor independent candidates almost always poll better than they actually do...I even reasoned that Kennedy might lose about half of his support on election day. I also noted that it stood to reason that late departures from the Kennedy camp would favor the Republican over the Democrat. You can't statistically project that type of phenomenon, but I've seen enough of these elections to detect the pattern.
So, all told, I think I did extremely well in projecting an extremely difficult race to call, given all the rapid-moving dynamics and the inherent difficulty in projecting a special election.
I feel much better about these results than I do in the New Jersey and Virginia Governor's races, where the results were correctly projected, but the margin in both was off by just over 3%.
Time to Rethink the Whole Agenda?
While the result in Massachusetts was not unanticipated in most political circles, you could feel the ground shift as the results were called.
Democrats were calling for starting over on health care. Republicans possessed a swagger that they haven't had since early last decade. Centrist commentator Mort Zuckerman, who supported President Obama last November, blasted the President for the lack of openness, the ugly deals cut on health care and the general tone of his administration.
I'm reminded of a frequently used phrase in Washington: elections have consequences. And this election appears to be having broad-reacihng consequences.
Democrats have wisely ruled out ramming a bill through congress before Brown takes office. House Democrats have ruled out passing the Senate bill. This means, effectively, back to the drawing board. Are they even going to try for a bill? If so, what will it take to win over Olympia Snowe? Will they go just far enough to get to 60 or go much smaller and hope to win 70 or 75 Senate votes? What of the rest of the President's agenda? Will the Senate even debate Cap and Trade? Is immigration reform anywhere on the horizon? What of the budget for next year?
The direction of debate will largely be shaped by the President's State of the Union address next week. For a man who rose to power in large measure on the prowess of his powers of communication, this is THE most important speech of his career. Bigger than his 2004 DNC speech. Bigger than his speech on race. This speech will set the course for the next year of his Presidency and beyond.
In that vein, here is my unsolicited advice:
(1) Talk about deficit reduction
I've harped on this for months...the administration has not, as of yet, presented a credible deficit reduction program in any way shape or form. It has been accurately noted that Independents, who Obama won big with in November 2008 but who turned to a little-known State Senator named Scott Brown yesterday, tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative. They want stem cell research, abortion rights and don't so much mind gays in the military, but they detest runaway spending and deficits. Also, more than anything, they despise harsh partisan rhetoric and backroom deals.
The President can't solve the deficit in a speech. And the solutions are ugly...raise taxes, reform entitlements, cut social programs, cut the military, etc. But the President CAN support Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) sensible proposal for a non-partisan deficit reduction commission that would come back with a proposal to curb the deficit that Congress would be required to give an up or down vote to, as a whole. This process worked when military bases needed to be closed in the 1980s and 90s, and if you recall that era, there was no more contentious issue then. Giving full visible support to such a proposal would be a big win with independents and would garner bi-partisan support in Congress.
(2) Move quickly on the easy, bipartisan parts of health care. A bill to prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions, allow the purchase of insurance across state lines and to set up exchanges for the uninsured, that allowed reimportation of perscription drugs and that provided some modest tort reform could pass with big GOP support. The President could finally get the bipartisanship that he has been promising but utterly failed to deliver on.
(3) Refocus on jobs and fast. The elements are in place to drop unemployment. The problem is, Mr. President, people don't think you are working on it. Talk about what you are doing. Talk about the green energy economy. Talk about productivity investments. Make people believe that you #1 care and #2 are competent to do something about it.
(4) Advertise a little. Tell people about the 4 million kids who have health insurance that didn't when you administration took office. Talk about the troops coming home from Iraq. Talk about the credit card protections for consumers that you have put into place.
Have we entered a new era of gridlock or the dawning of a new age of bipartisanship?
I fear the former but hold out hope for the later. The President must take the first step, but the GOP will have to be willing to play ball as well.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
So, the votes are counted, other than a few stray overseas absentee ballot and we have a clear picture of how well I projected the Massachusetts Senate result.
First, the obvious, I got the ultimate outcome right. Unlike many political sites, such as the highly reputed Cook Report, which simply rated the race a "toss-up" going into Tuesday, I always make a projection, regardless of the closeness of the margin. And we were right again. Combine that with getting the end result right in the New Jersey and Virginia Governors races this past November and going 48 for 50 in calling state results in the Presidential race, as well as nailing dead on the popular vote margin in 2008 and I think this site has a track record that rivals any political expert in terms of projecting elections over the past two years.
Now, on to the specifics of Massachusetts. Below are the actual (unofficial, but verified) vote percentages from Massachusetts versus my final projections:
Scott Brown: Actual 51.9%, Projected 50.8%, Error = 1.1%
Martha Coakley: Actual 47.1%, Projected 47.1%, Error = 0.0%
Joe Kennedy: Actual 1.0%, Projected 2.1%, Error = 1.1%
Note that the projection was exactly correct on Martha Coakley's vote percentage and that the error on the other two candidates was entirely due to Joe Kennedy receiving less than half of the statistical projection and those votes going to Scott Brown. If you re-read my blogs leading up to the election, I noted that minor independent candidates almost always poll better than they actually do...I even reasoned that Kennedy might lose about half of his support on election day. I also noted that it stood to reason that late departures from the Kennedy camp would favor the Republican over the Democrat. You can't statistically project that type of phenomenon, but I've seen enough of these elections to detect the pattern.
So, all told, I think I did extremely well in projecting an extremely difficult race to call, given all the rapid-moving dynamics and the inherent difficulty in projecting a special election.
I feel much better about these results than I do in the New Jersey and Virginia Governor's races, where the results were correctly projected, but the margin in both was off by just over 3%.
Time to Rethink the Whole Agenda?
While the result in Massachusetts was not unanticipated in most political circles, you could feel the ground shift as the results were called.
Democrats were calling for starting over on health care. Republicans possessed a swagger that they haven't had since early last decade. Centrist commentator Mort Zuckerman, who supported President Obama last November, blasted the President for the lack of openness, the ugly deals cut on health care and the general tone of his administration.
I'm reminded of a frequently used phrase in Washington: elections have consequences. And this election appears to be having broad-reacihng consequences.
Democrats have wisely ruled out ramming a bill through congress before Brown takes office. House Democrats have ruled out passing the Senate bill. This means, effectively, back to the drawing board. Are they even going to try for a bill? If so, what will it take to win over Olympia Snowe? Will they go just far enough to get to 60 or go much smaller and hope to win 70 or 75 Senate votes? What of the rest of the President's agenda? Will the Senate even debate Cap and Trade? Is immigration reform anywhere on the horizon? What of the budget for next year?
The direction of debate will largely be shaped by the President's State of the Union address next week. For a man who rose to power in large measure on the prowess of his powers of communication, this is THE most important speech of his career. Bigger than his 2004 DNC speech. Bigger than his speech on race. This speech will set the course for the next year of his Presidency and beyond.
In that vein, here is my unsolicited advice:
(1) Talk about deficit reduction
I've harped on this for months...the administration has not, as of yet, presented a credible deficit reduction program in any way shape or form. It has been accurately noted that Independents, who Obama won big with in November 2008 but who turned to a little-known State Senator named Scott Brown yesterday, tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative. They want stem cell research, abortion rights and don't so much mind gays in the military, but they detest runaway spending and deficits. Also, more than anything, they despise harsh partisan rhetoric and backroom deals.
The President can't solve the deficit in a speech. And the solutions are ugly...raise taxes, reform entitlements, cut social programs, cut the military, etc. But the President CAN support Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) sensible proposal for a non-partisan deficit reduction commission that would come back with a proposal to curb the deficit that Congress would be required to give an up or down vote to, as a whole. This process worked when military bases needed to be closed in the 1980s and 90s, and if you recall that era, there was no more contentious issue then. Giving full visible support to such a proposal would be a big win with independents and would garner bi-partisan support in Congress.
(2) Move quickly on the easy, bipartisan parts of health care. A bill to prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions, allow the purchase of insurance across state lines and to set up exchanges for the uninsured, that allowed reimportation of perscription drugs and that provided some modest tort reform could pass with big GOP support. The President could finally get the bipartisanship that he has been promising but utterly failed to deliver on.
(3) Refocus on jobs and fast. The elements are in place to drop unemployment. The problem is, Mr. President, people don't think you are working on it. Talk about what you are doing. Talk about the green energy economy. Talk about productivity investments. Make people believe that you #1 care and #2 are competent to do something about it.
(4) Advertise a little. Tell people about the 4 million kids who have health insurance that didn't when you administration took office. Talk about the troops coming home from Iraq. Talk about the credit card protections for consumers that you have put into place.
Have we entered a new era of gridlock or the dawning of a new age of bipartisanship?
I fear the former but hold out hope for the later. The President must take the first step, but the GOP will have to be willing to play ball as well.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
