The country that I love turns 236 today. By the standards of nations, that is quite young. Most old world countries have been around for far longer than that - England, our father of sorts, became a nation over 1,100 years ago. China was formed as a nation over 2,200 years ago - sort of an odd twist on it being an "emerging" economy.
Our nation's history, while short by the standard of nation's, is nothing short of extraordinary.
On the fateful day in 1776 where the Continental Congress declared independence from England, there had been no formal census, but there were likely less than 3 million people in the 13 colonies. We were a farming economy, based on growing tobacco, molasses and cotton to export back to Europe.
We also knew little of how to establish an effective government, spending the first 13 years of our independence with a weak central government with no chief executive under the Articles of Confederation. It wasn't until 1789 that we set in motion the form of government that is still the envy of the world.
The concepts embraced in the constitution are brilliant both in their simplicity and in the way that they address key issues that have plagued representative democracies.
The separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches has been a lynchpin in preserving the stability of our policy. Unlike in most of Europe where the executive and legislative branches change hands in lock-step, leading to huge swings in policy from election-to-election, our split between legislative and executive branches force slow change, compromise and consistency.
The amendment process to the constitution was similarly brilliant. The bar was high enough that the political whims of the day are usually not sufficient to change the constitution, but low enough that the system can progress and as social progress happens. In fact, in 223 years with our constitution, only 27 amendments have been passed, only 17 since the Bill of Rights. And of the 27, arguably only 1 got it wrong, that being the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919 that constitutionally created prohibition.
The Bill of Rights itself is a uniquely brilliant concept. The separation of church and state was a largely foreign concept in a world where religious leaders often were the political leaders, but it has served our diverse population extremely well. Freedom of speech, something that most of us that grew up in the United States take as a basic human right, to this day does not exist even in most of the civilized world. In Germany, people can be arrested simply for advocating for the Nazi party, something that would be an unthinkable breach of liberty here. The notion that openness, not restriction, produces truth through debate, is a boldly American concept.
Not that we can claim a perfect history, far from it.
Slavery was an abomination and was not abolished until 1865, 89 years into our nation's history and after a bitter civil war, an event that killed a massive portion of a male generation across the country and a conflict that would be near unthinkable today. What is not well known was the strong abolitionist streak that existed in the constitutional convention in 1789. The gruesome sounding "3/5ths" compromise, which counted black slaves as 3/5ths of a person and the ominous text in the constitution that prohibits restrictions on slavery until 1808 is a sign of the deep-seated disagreement between northern and southern delegates that led to a nastily imperfect compromise int he interest of bringing all 13 states along.
It was 1870 before the now-free black population was given the vote nationwide and 1920 before women were given the vote nationally, again, both by constitutional amendment.
Segregation didn't end until 1954, with the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision that ruled that the 14th Amendment (that guarantees equal rights to all citizens) prohibited the so called "separate but equal" (which was always separate, but seldom equal) of blacks and other minorities.
And our nation's system of rights is imperfect still - gay marriage is still available only to a minority of the population, discrimination still exists in our society - one need only look to the whiteness and maleness of the Fortune 500 C-Suite to see things are still not equal today, but we have obviously trended in the right direction.
There is no coincidence that our progression of equality has correlated with our rise economically. The Post World War II economic boom was fueled by a growing black middle class. The meteoric rise of the economy in the 1980s and 1990s was driven by a surge of women into the work force. In short, social equality and economic growth are linked in a way that is obvious if you look at the world and how nations have fared in the past century.
Much has been written about whether the devastating economic conditions of the past 5 years signal the end of the era of American dominance in the world and harken the rise of China as the dominant economic power. I don't buy it, for all the reasons above and more. It is quite possible that in absolute terms, China may pass the size of the US economy in the next 20 years. Their economic is currently about half our size, which means that if we grow at an anemic 2% and they grow at a developing economy 6 to 7% rate, they will catch us by that time. But that projection, which is already flawed as it assumes the next 20 years will, in an uninterrupted fashion, look exactly like the last 5 (hardly a lock - remember when Japan was going to eat our lunch in the 80s?), the statistic would only mean that China had achieved ONE QUARTER of the standard of living in the US. In other words, they'd be the largest because of sheer population size, not because of some great economic success.
I'm bullish on American. We are the home of innovation. In our short history, we've invented the light bulb, the telephone, the automobile, the airplane, the microchip and computer, the internet, the smart phone (okay - we got an assist from Canada on that one, but honestly - do you want a Blackberry or an iPhone), the space shuttle, the artificial heart, social media and the online auction.
What has China invented? Gunpowder in the 1400s? China's economy is built on paying people less to produce things invented elsewhere - hardly a recipe to be the dominant economy in the world.
Our system of property rights, individual freedom and effective finance (yes I know it is much maligned, but where else are there venture capitalists, angel investors and an IPO system that feeds massive capital to scale great ideas?) gives us the edge in this decade and the next.
I bet on the USA. And I hope to be here for as many of the next 236 years as I can.
Happy Birthday, USA, the greatest nation on earth.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Saturday, June 30, 2012
The Latest 2012 Big Map, The Supreme Era of John Roberts
2012 Presidential Update
Days Until the Election: 129
Projected Popular Vote Total: Obama +3.2% (Obama down 0.3% from last week)
Projected Electoral Vote Total: Obama 332, Romney 206 (Obama +18 from last week)
The national polling was fairly flat last week, but the geographic dynamics shifted slightly but significantly from an electoral standpoint.
Ohio, was has switched back and forth over the past month, switches back to President Obama, as he establishes a narrow lead there. New England, meanwhile, moves a little closer, with New Hampshire now only a Lean Obama state and Massachusetts shifting down one notch (although not seriously predicted to be competitive.)
Virtually all of the polling included in this update was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, which the effect of (whatever that may be) should show up in earnest next week.
John Roberts, Meet Warren Burger
The Supreme Court decision to uphold almost all of the Affordable Care Act, most notably the so-called individual mandate by a 5-4 vote was a minor surprise. Most observers, myself included, expected the most likely outcome to be a 5-4 vote to strike the mandate, with the outcome that actually happened being the second most likely scenario.
What virtually all of us anticipated was the liberal wing of the court, including Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer on one side, with the conservative wing of Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts on the other side and the fifth and deciding vote being cost by moderate Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy.
But something happened on the way to a Supreme Court ruling. Kennedy sided with the conservatives, as was narrowly expected. But Chief Justice John Roberts broke ranks to uphold the individual mandate.
This tells us a few things. First of all, Roberts has a deep-seated belief in the separation of powers. There is virtually no question that John Roberts considers the ACA to be poor legislation. Prior to his time on the bench, Roberts was a member of the steering committee of the right-wing Federalist Society, a libertarian/conservative think tank who are certainly no fans of the ACA. Roberts worked for the Bush campaign in 2000 in the Florida Recount. He is a political conservative - no question.
But Roberts clearly believes that a Supreme Court ruling striking down the health care law would be an undue exercise of judicial power - substituting the Supreme Court's judgement for the judgement of elected officials.
In fact, Roberts took great pains to make clear in his opinion that this was not a judgement in favor of the policies in the ACA, stating, "we do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgement is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders."
In my opinion, Roberts got it exactly right on the constitutional question, ruling that the government does not have the authority to require people to purchase health insurance but does have the power to tax those who do not. Roberts wrote:
"The federal government does not have the power to force people to buy health insurance. The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance...It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those that have a certain amount of income, but chose to go without health insurance."
There were two principal arguments for the constitutional authority of the law. The first, and actually primary argument was under the commerce clause of the constitution, the federal government has the right to "regulate commerce among the several states". This has been construed by the court in the past as a broad power, with the federal government having been seen to have a right to not only regulate trade that moves across state borders, but trade within the borders of states that impacts the marketplace of other states - for instance, regulate the growing of corn in Iowa even if that corn is being sold within Iowa because it impacts national prices.
What has never been tested before is the authority of the federal government to require people to DO things versus NOT DO them. Requiring an affirmative purchase from an individual by requiring them to purchase something would be an expansion of historical power, one that the 4 liberal justices were comfortable with, but one that the other 5 more conservative justices were not.
In other words, the court ruled that it would be unconstitutional to, for instance, throw people in jail if they didn't purchase health insurance. This seems to me to be a very prudent interpretation of the constitution as a ruling on the commerce clause that allowed the government to require people to do things would open the door to virtually unlimited power over individual actions by the federal government.
The taxation question is a different question as the governments authority on taxation is considerably more broad. The clause in the constitution (Article I, Section VIII) states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Note that the original text also went on to restrict taxes to only allow that the taxes be uniform (i.e. proportional to population or trade) but that this restriction was removed with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.
There are essentially no restrictions on the right of Congress to pass any tax it sees fit, so if you construe the financial fee charged in the ACA to those without individuals as a tax, which both Roberts and I see as a reasonable interpretation.
Some will argue that the issue is the same as with the commerce clause in that this is a tax on inactivity versus a tax on activity (say an income tax or a consumption tax), or, more bluntly that you are taxing people for NOT having health insurance versus taxing someone for purchasing something or earning income.
This argument falls flat to me for two reasons:
1. It is a distinction without a difference - Congress creates tax credits all the time to provide incentives for behavior - tax deductions for charitable contributions, tax credits for education and solar panels, tax credits for oil exploration and many, many others. If Congress had worded the health care bill as a general tax increase with a tax credit for those who purchase health insurance, the net effect would have been the same - an increase in tax costs for those who don't purchase health insurance and a net neutral tax position for all others.
2. Even if you construe this as a new and different tax on inactivity, there is no reasonable interpretation that I can make of the constitutional authority above that prohibits taxes on inactivity. The taxing power of Congress is fairly absolute.
Roberts, in breaking with the conservative wing on this issue, follows a long tradition of judicial independence. Few today remember Chief Justice Warren Burger. Burger was appointed to the court by Richard Nixon in 1969, replacing the liberal Earl Warren, who had presided over many liberal decisions with the most famous being Brown v. Board of Education (which ruled racial segregation in public schools illegal) as part of what was, at the time, perceived as a conservative effort to stack the court. Playing far from the script, Burger, once on the court, presided over several surprisingly liberal decisions, the most notable being Roe vs. Wade in 1973, which he wrote himself. Burger also wrote the 9-0 ruling that the Nixon White House had to turn over crucial information about the Watergate break-in and wrote the 9-0 decision in a case that required expansive busing of school children in Charlotte to better integrate public schools. Burger, in other words, became a reliable liberal on the court.
Similarly, David Souter, a George Herbert-Walker Bush nominee, was seen as part of a new conservative majority when he was appointed to the court in 1990. Far from following script, Souter became a reliable liberal vote on the court.
This is exactly why the judiciary is independent. And the system works, largely, whether you agree with you agree with all the courts rulings (and few do - most liberals detest the Citizens United ruling that allows essentially unlimited corporate spending in elections and most conservatives will detest the ACA ruling.)
In my opinion, Roberts did exactly what a Supreme Court Chief Justice should do. He exercised independent judgement on a difficult constitutional question. And in my opinion, he also got it exactly right.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Days Until the Election: 129
Projected Popular Vote Total: Obama +3.2% (Obama down 0.3% from last week)
Projected Electoral Vote Total: Obama 332, Romney 206 (Obama +18 from last week)
The national polling was fairly flat last week, but the geographic dynamics shifted slightly but significantly from an electoral standpoint.
Ohio, was has switched back and forth over the past month, switches back to President Obama, as he establishes a narrow lead there. New England, meanwhile, moves a little closer, with New Hampshire now only a Lean Obama state and Massachusetts shifting down one notch (although not seriously predicted to be competitive.)
Virtually all of the polling included in this update was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, which the effect of (whatever that may be) should show up in earnest next week.
John Roberts, Meet Warren Burger
The Supreme Court decision to uphold almost all of the Affordable Care Act, most notably the so-called individual mandate by a 5-4 vote was a minor surprise. Most observers, myself included, expected the most likely outcome to be a 5-4 vote to strike the mandate, with the outcome that actually happened being the second most likely scenario.
What virtually all of us anticipated was the liberal wing of the court, including Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer on one side, with the conservative wing of Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts on the other side and the fifth and deciding vote being cost by moderate Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy.
But something happened on the way to a Supreme Court ruling. Kennedy sided with the conservatives, as was narrowly expected. But Chief Justice John Roberts broke ranks to uphold the individual mandate.
This tells us a few things. First of all, Roberts has a deep-seated belief in the separation of powers. There is virtually no question that John Roberts considers the ACA to be poor legislation. Prior to his time on the bench, Roberts was a member of the steering committee of the right-wing Federalist Society, a libertarian/conservative think tank who are certainly no fans of the ACA. Roberts worked for the Bush campaign in 2000 in the Florida Recount. He is a political conservative - no question.
But Roberts clearly believes that a Supreme Court ruling striking down the health care law would be an undue exercise of judicial power - substituting the Supreme Court's judgement for the judgement of elected officials.
In fact, Roberts took great pains to make clear in his opinion that this was not a judgement in favor of the policies in the ACA, stating, "we do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgement is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders."
In my opinion, Roberts got it exactly right on the constitutional question, ruling that the government does not have the authority to require people to purchase health insurance but does have the power to tax those who do not. Roberts wrote:
"The federal government does not have the power to force people to buy health insurance. The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance...It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those that have a certain amount of income, but chose to go without health insurance."
There were two principal arguments for the constitutional authority of the law. The first, and actually primary argument was under the commerce clause of the constitution, the federal government has the right to "regulate commerce among the several states". This has been construed by the court in the past as a broad power, with the federal government having been seen to have a right to not only regulate trade that moves across state borders, but trade within the borders of states that impacts the marketplace of other states - for instance, regulate the growing of corn in Iowa even if that corn is being sold within Iowa because it impacts national prices.
What has never been tested before is the authority of the federal government to require people to DO things versus NOT DO them. Requiring an affirmative purchase from an individual by requiring them to purchase something would be an expansion of historical power, one that the 4 liberal justices were comfortable with, but one that the other 5 more conservative justices were not.
In other words, the court ruled that it would be unconstitutional to, for instance, throw people in jail if they didn't purchase health insurance. This seems to me to be a very prudent interpretation of the constitution as a ruling on the commerce clause that allowed the government to require people to do things would open the door to virtually unlimited power over individual actions by the federal government.
The taxation question is a different question as the governments authority on taxation is considerably more broad. The clause in the constitution (Article I, Section VIII) states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Note that the original text also went on to restrict taxes to only allow that the taxes be uniform (i.e. proportional to population or trade) but that this restriction was removed with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.
There are essentially no restrictions on the right of Congress to pass any tax it sees fit, so if you construe the financial fee charged in the ACA to those without individuals as a tax, which both Roberts and I see as a reasonable interpretation.
Some will argue that the issue is the same as with the commerce clause in that this is a tax on inactivity versus a tax on activity (say an income tax or a consumption tax), or, more bluntly that you are taxing people for NOT having health insurance versus taxing someone for purchasing something or earning income.
This argument falls flat to me for two reasons:
1. It is a distinction without a difference - Congress creates tax credits all the time to provide incentives for behavior - tax deductions for charitable contributions, tax credits for education and solar panels, tax credits for oil exploration and many, many others. If Congress had worded the health care bill as a general tax increase with a tax credit for those who purchase health insurance, the net effect would have been the same - an increase in tax costs for those who don't purchase health insurance and a net neutral tax position for all others.
2. Even if you construe this as a new and different tax on inactivity, there is no reasonable interpretation that I can make of the constitutional authority above that prohibits taxes on inactivity. The taxing power of Congress is fairly absolute.
Roberts, in breaking with the conservative wing on this issue, follows a long tradition of judicial independence. Few today remember Chief Justice Warren Burger. Burger was appointed to the court by Richard Nixon in 1969, replacing the liberal Earl Warren, who had presided over many liberal decisions with the most famous being Brown v. Board of Education (which ruled racial segregation in public schools illegal) as part of what was, at the time, perceived as a conservative effort to stack the court. Playing far from the script, Burger, once on the court, presided over several surprisingly liberal decisions, the most notable being Roe vs. Wade in 1973, which he wrote himself. Burger also wrote the 9-0 ruling that the Nixon White House had to turn over crucial information about the Watergate break-in and wrote the 9-0 decision in a case that required expansive busing of school children in Charlotte to better integrate public schools. Burger, in other words, became a reliable liberal on the court.
Similarly, David Souter, a George Herbert-Walker Bush nominee, was seen as part of a new conservative majority when he was appointed to the court in 1990. Far from following script, Souter became a reliable liberal vote on the court.
This is exactly why the judiciary is independent. And the system works, largely, whether you agree with you agree with all the courts rulings (and few do - most liberals detest the Citizens United ruling that allows essentially unlimited corporate spending in elections and most conservatives will detest the ACA ruling.)
In my opinion, Roberts did exactly what a Supreme Court Chief Justice should do. He exercised independent judgement on a difficult constitutional question. And in my opinion, he also got it exactly right.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
The Big 2012 Electoral Map - Good Week for Obama, The Future of Obamacare, Commerce and Justice Departments in Disarray
Electoral Map Update
Days Until the Election: 135
Projected Popular Vote Total: Obama +3.5%
Projected Electoral Vote Total: Obama 314, Romney 224
Mitt Romney's closing of the gap against President Obama sure didn't last long. Obama gained over two and a half points in the national polls (more on that and the outlier Bloomberg Poll later) and appears to now hold a small lead in Florida, a state he had been trailing Romney in marginally for some time.
The two bright spots for Romney are that he held onto a razor-thin lead in Ohio, a must win state, to be sure, and moved far closer in Michigan, which moves into the "lean" category for the first time. Winning Michigan would be game-changing for Romney, as it takes him out of the narrow electoral box that I have been describing for several weeks. Flipping just Michigan and Florida from the current electoral map would yield a 269-269 electoral college split, more than likely enough for Romney to win the Presidency, given the Republican house. Of course, it would also make the couple of electors that I have not been closely tracking in Nebraska and Maine, the two states that are not winner-take-all, crucial. If a winner-take-all scenario yields a 269-269 split, Obama need only win one congressional district in Nebraska (as he did in 2008) and Romney need only win one of the two districts in Maine (which certainly seems possible, given how much more competitive Maine is than in 2008.) Deciding a Presidency on this basis would probably be extremely unsatisfying, but the rules are what they are.
National polling was thrown a big curve ball this week when the Bloomberg Presidential poll, which is a fairly respected non-partisan national poll, showed President Obama with a 13 point lead over Mitt Romney. I've looked at the polling report and there is nothing obviously wrong with the sample selection or methodology, which is in line with other national polls.
So what are we to make of this poll? Clearly I don't think President Obama has a 13 point lead, as every other national poll shows a much closer race, but this is a good lesson in poll sampling error and statistical outliers.
The way polling works, fundamentally, is by sampling a small portion of the population and using that to project the larger national picture. Polling is a statistical science, by which taking a sample, if the sample size is large enough relative to the group that you are attempting to sample, you can provide an accurate picture most of the time.
There are two statistical elements which describe the possible variability of a poll - they are expressed statistically as the confidence interval level and the confidence interval range. The confidence interval range is typically referred to in the media as the "Margin of Error". This isn't strictly correct, since it ignores the confidence interval level, which is typically not published, but usually 95%. National media also tends to ignore the fact that the confidence interval runs both ways...in other words if it is 3%, then you would have to subtract 3% from one candidate AND add 3% to the other candidate to find the outer range of the confidence interval, or a 6% swing.
In the case of the Bloomberg Poll, the confidence interval was a 95% confidence interval and the confidence interval range was +/- 3.5%.
The media would simply report "the poll had a margin of error of 3.5%".
A statistician would say "We have 95% confidence that each candidate's actual total is within 3.5% of the reported total in the poll".
So, the Bloomberg Poll could be the 1 time in 20 that the poll is just flat wrong. Or it could be that the 13 point lead that it is reporting is really a 6 point lead and the poll, is, in fact, withing the "margin of error".
Regardless, other national polls from the week, show the following:
Pew Research - Obama +4%
Assocaited Press - Obama +3%
Gallup - Even
Rasmussen - Romney +5%
So, clearly the Bloomberg poll is a high outlier for Obama and the Rasmussen poll is a high outlier for Romney, with the other three showing somewhere between a 0 to 4% lead for the President. Aggregating all the poll results gives us a 3.5% lead for the President, so the Bloomberg poll does have an impact on the numbers, but not an outsized one.
Monday Is the Day (Probably) for SCOTUS and Obamacare
Monday is the last scheduled day for the Supreme Court to issue rulings and is therefore the probable date for it to issue its ruling on Obamacare. Now, the Supremes have utter discretion to extend the date if they need more time to finish the ruling, but the odds are still in favor that we will see a ruling early this week.
So what is likely to happen? The Supreme Court appears to be the last institution that is highly effective at preventing leaks, so I don't have any intelligence that isn't public knowledge, but, like everyone else, I can speculate based on the questioning during the arguing of the case.
There appears to me to be a clear 5-4 majority that favors striking down the individual mandate.
George W. Bush nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito plus George H.W. Bush nominee Clarence Thomas will join Reagan nominees Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy to form the 5 vote majority, opposed by Clinton nominees Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steve Breyer and Obama nominees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. I mention the nominating Presidents to make one simple point - this appears poised to be a straight party-line vote, rather than a debate of complex legal theories.
Kennedy was thought to be the swing vote, but made it fairly obvious by his questioning in the case that he is highly skeptical of the mandate.
What is very much in debt is whether striking down the mandate (assuming the court does) will lead it to invalidate the entire law or whether it will allow the law to stand without the mandate. I don't really know, but I believe it is likely, also by a 5-4 vote, with Kennedy swinging the deciding vote, that it will rule that the rest of the law can stand. To strike down the rest, in spite of a clear notice in the law of severability would be a massive overreach of power by the Supremes, and the fact that 4 "strict constructionist conservatives" appeared poised to do it largely invalidates their complaints of judicial activism. There is certainly some chance that the court will rule 5-4 the other way, with Kennedy not swinging his vote, but I think it is more likely than not that the rest of the law will stay intact.
Hit and Runs and Fast and Furious
The now very well publicized Fast and Furious scandal at the Justice Department reached a new level of rancor this week, with President Obama asserting executive privilege over Justice Department memorandum related to the ill-fated program.
This is now a full-fledged scandal, with Holder for months denying the program, which sold guns to Mexican cartels, then subsequently lost track of the guns, which were used to slaughter Mexican civilians and a U.S. agent, then admitted it existed and has consistently dodged congressional inquiry.
Now, Republicans love to witch-hunt scandal in an otherwise clean Obama administration. But they have good cause in this case. Obama should stop letting Holder hide behind him, live up to his stated commitment of public transparency and release the information. We have a right to know what is in those documents. And Holder should resign for his role running the department. Loyalty to Holder should not trump national interest.
In addition to the well-known Justice Department troubles, Obama continues to struggle with the Commerce Department. The Commerce Department has plagued the President since before he took office. It took three tries to get a suitable nominee to head the department, with Obama's first pick of Tom Daschle withdrawn due to a tax scandal, his second nominee, Republican Judd Gregg, withdrawn after Gregg decided he didn't want the job. Obama' third nominee, Gary Locke, actually made it to running the department, but lasted scarcely two years before talking. Obama's fourth nominee and second secretary, John Bryson, took office last October, but resigned under strange and questionable circumstances last week after being arrested for a hit and run and blaming the situation on a seizure. With Bryson gone, we may never fully understand what happened during Bryson's traffic accident, but Obama has a hole in his cabinet again. Don't expect any nominee to get approved before the election.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Days Until the Election: 135
Projected Popular Vote Total: Obama +3.5%
Projected Electoral Vote Total: Obama 314, Romney 224
Mitt Romney's closing of the gap against President Obama sure didn't last long. Obama gained over two and a half points in the national polls (more on that and the outlier Bloomberg Poll later) and appears to now hold a small lead in Florida, a state he had been trailing Romney in marginally for some time.
The two bright spots for Romney are that he held onto a razor-thin lead in Ohio, a must win state, to be sure, and moved far closer in Michigan, which moves into the "lean" category for the first time. Winning Michigan would be game-changing for Romney, as it takes him out of the narrow electoral box that I have been describing for several weeks. Flipping just Michigan and Florida from the current electoral map would yield a 269-269 electoral college split, more than likely enough for Romney to win the Presidency, given the Republican house. Of course, it would also make the couple of electors that I have not been closely tracking in Nebraska and Maine, the two states that are not winner-take-all, crucial. If a winner-take-all scenario yields a 269-269 split, Obama need only win one congressional district in Nebraska (as he did in 2008) and Romney need only win one of the two districts in Maine (which certainly seems possible, given how much more competitive Maine is than in 2008.) Deciding a Presidency on this basis would probably be extremely unsatisfying, but the rules are what they are.
National polling was thrown a big curve ball this week when the Bloomberg Presidential poll, which is a fairly respected non-partisan national poll, showed President Obama with a 13 point lead over Mitt Romney. I've looked at the polling report and there is nothing obviously wrong with the sample selection or methodology, which is in line with other national polls.
So what are we to make of this poll? Clearly I don't think President Obama has a 13 point lead, as every other national poll shows a much closer race, but this is a good lesson in poll sampling error and statistical outliers.
The way polling works, fundamentally, is by sampling a small portion of the population and using that to project the larger national picture. Polling is a statistical science, by which taking a sample, if the sample size is large enough relative to the group that you are attempting to sample, you can provide an accurate picture most of the time.
There are two statistical elements which describe the possible variability of a poll - they are expressed statistically as the confidence interval level and the confidence interval range. The confidence interval range is typically referred to in the media as the "Margin of Error". This isn't strictly correct, since it ignores the confidence interval level, which is typically not published, but usually 95%. National media also tends to ignore the fact that the confidence interval runs both ways...in other words if it is 3%, then you would have to subtract 3% from one candidate AND add 3% to the other candidate to find the outer range of the confidence interval, or a 6% swing.
In the case of the Bloomberg Poll, the confidence interval was a 95% confidence interval and the confidence interval range was +/- 3.5%.
The media would simply report "the poll had a margin of error of 3.5%".
A statistician would say "We have 95% confidence that each candidate's actual total is within 3.5% of the reported total in the poll".
So, the Bloomberg Poll could be the 1 time in 20 that the poll is just flat wrong. Or it could be that the 13 point lead that it is reporting is really a 6 point lead and the poll, is, in fact, withing the "margin of error".
Regardless, other national polls from the week, show the following:
Pew Research - Obama +4%
Assocaited Press - Obama +3%
Gallup - Even
Rasmussen - Romney +5%
So, clearly the Bloomberg poll is a high outlier for Obama and the Rasmussen poll is a high outlier for Romney, with the other three showing somewhere between a 0 to 4% lead for the President. Aggregating all the poll results gives us a 3.5% lead for the President, so the Bloomberg poll does have an impact on the numbers, but not an outsized one.
Monday Is the Day (Probably) for SCOTUS and Obamacare
Monday is the last scheduled day for the Supreme Court to issue rulings and is therefore the probable date for it to issue its ruling on Obamacare. Now, the Supremes have utter discretion to extend the date if they need more time to finish the ruling, but the odds are still in favor that we will see a ruling early this week.
So what is likely to happen? The Supreme Court appears to be the last institution that is highly effective at preventing leaks, so I don't have any intelligence that isn't public knowledge, but, like everyone else, I can speculate based on the questioning during the arguing of the case.
There appears to me to be a clear 5-4 majority that favors striking down the individual mandate.
George W. Bush nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito plus George H.W. Bush nominee Clarence Thomas will join Reagan nominees Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy to form the 5 vote majority, opposed by Clinton nominees Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steve Breyer and Obama nominees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. I mention the nominating Presidents to make one simple point - this appears poised to be a straight party-line vote, rather than a debate of complex legal theories.
Kennedy was thought to be the swing vote, but made it fairly obvious by his questioning in the case that he is highly skeptical of the mandate.
What is very much in debt is whether striking down the mandate (assuming the court does) will lead it to invalidate the entire law or whether it will allow the law to stand without the mandate. I don't really know, but I believe it is likely, also by a 5-4 vote, with Kennedy swinging the deciding vote, that it will rule that the rest of the law can stand. To strike down the rest, in spite of a clear notice in the law of severability would be a massive overreach of power by the Supremes, and the fact that 4 "strict constructionist conservatives" appeared poised to do it largely invalidates their complaints of judicial activism. There is certainly some chance that the court will rule 5-4 the other way, with Kennedy not swinging his vote, but I think it is more likely than not that the rest of the law will stay intact.
Hit and Runs and Fast and Furious
The now very well publicized Fast and Furious scandal at the Justice Department reached a new level of rancor this week, with President Obama asserting executive privilege over Justice Department memorandum related to the ill-fated program.
This is now a full-fledged scandal, with Holder for months denying the program, which sold guns to Mexican cartels, then subsequently lost track of the guns, which were used to slaughter Mexican civilians and a U.S. agent, then admitted it existed and has consistently dodged congressional inquiry.
Now, Republicans love to witch-hunt scandal in an otherwise clean Obama administration. But they have good cause in this case. Obama should stop letting Holder hide behind him, live up to his stated commitment of public transparency and release the information. We have a right to know what is in those documents. And Holder should resign for his role running the department. Loyalty to Holder should not trump national interest.
In addition to the well-known Justice Department troubles, Obama continues to struggle with the Commerce Department. The Commerce Department has plagued the President since before he took office. It took three tries to get a suitable nominee to head the department, with Obama's first pick of Tom Daschle withdrawn due to a tax scandal, his second nominee, Republican Judd Gregg, withdrawn after Gregg decided he didn't want the job. Obama' third nominee, Gary Locke, actually made it to running the department, but lasted scarcely two years before talking. Obama's fourth nominee and second secretary, John Bryson, took office last October, but resigned under strange and questionable circumstances last week after being arrested for a hit and run and blaming the situation on a seizure. With Bryson gone, we may never fully understand what happened during Bryson's traffic accident, but Obama has a hole in his cabinet again. Don't expect any nominee to get approved before the election.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Electoral Map Update - Ohio Shifts to Romney
Days Until the Election: 144
Projected Popular Vote Total: Obama +0.8%
Projected Electoral Vote Total: Obama 285, Romney 253
Shifts Since Last Week:
Ohio moves from Lean Obama to Lean Romney
Not a lot has actually changed in the past week in the Presidential race. The average of averages for national polls is almost identical (+0.8% this week for Obama versus +0.9% last week.) And we only had a single state shift categories.
The reason it feels different is that one shift happened in Ohio and its 18 electoral votes swing from Obama to Romney in our total, edging him closer to 270.
But it feels more different than it is. Both last week and this week we have a very tight race. And both last week and this week, the clearest path for Obama to be re-elected is still the same (hold what you've got) and the clearest path for Romney to win the Presidency is still the same (win Ohio, Virginia and either Iowa or Colorado.)
From a strategy standpoint, there are a number of ways the candidates could approach this race.
For Obama, he could:
(1) Try to hold what he's got
He has enough electoral votes to win, as I project today. Concentrate resources on holding Virginia, which would effectively block most of Romney's paths to the Presidency.
(2) Go for the Dagger in Ohio or Florida
Losing either Ohio or Florida makes it, for all practical purposes, impossible for Romney to win the Presidency. If the President can make a stand in economically recovering Ohio or heavily Hispanic Florida by focusing on relevant issues in those areas, he can win.
(3) Play a road game
The Democratic National Convention is in North Carolina. Certainly, a Democratic win there would be a deathblow for Romney. Obama could also force Romney to play defense in Indiana (which Obama won in 2008), Missouri (which he very nearly won) and Arizona (which is now more in play without McCain on the GOP ticket.)
For Romney, he could:
(1) Go for the path of least resistance
Hold his current leads and push hard in Virginia, Colorado and Iowa, hoping for the Virginia + 1 strategy mentioned above. It's certainly his cleanest path to victory and if the national polls move another 2 to 3 points in his favor, it seems very viable.
(2) End it All in Pennsylvania
It is very difficult to see a path for Obama to win re-election without winning the state of Pennsylvania. Romney could focus his considerable resources there, especially in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and the conservative rural areas and ease his path to victory. Of course, John McCain tried this strategy and failed.
(3) Broaden the field
Wisconsin seems to swinging more conservatively these days. Michigan's economy is still rough and it's Romney's birth state, where his name still carries some clout. Both seem ripe for a competitive fight and both would seriously complicate Obama's re-election bid.
I suspect that early in the race, the candidates will attempt to play road games and broaden the field, given the massive amount of money at both of their disposal and the fluidity of the electoral map. However, as the race winds down, in the last 30 days, I'd expect them to focus on the closest of swing states.
The national lead and the state-by-state breakdown coming out of the two party conventions will be very telling in shaping the race.
But, for now, we have a very close race, led marginally by President Obama.
Projected Popular Vote Total: Obama +0.8%
Projected Electoral Vote Total: Obama 285, Romney 253
Shifts Since Last Week:
Ohio moves from Lean Obama to Lean Romney
Not a lot has actually changed in the past week in the Presidential race. The average of averages for national polls is almost identical (+0.8% this week for Obama versus +0.9% last week.) And we only had a single state shift categories.
The reason it feels different is that one shift happened in Ohio and its 18 electoral votes swing from Obama to Romney in our total, edging him closer to 270.
But it feels more different than it is. Both last week and this week we have a very tight race. And both last week and this week, the clearest path for Obama to be re-elected is still the same (hold what you've got) and the clearest path for Romney to win the Presidency is still the same (win Ohio, Virginia and either Iowa or Colorado.)
From a strategy standpoint, there are a number of ways the candidates could approach this race.
For Obama, he could:
(1) Try to hold what he's got
He has enough electoral votes to win, as I project today. Concentrate resources on holding Virginia, which would effectively block most of Romney's paths to the Presidency.
(2) Go for the Dagger in Ohio or Florida
Losing either Ohio or Florida makes it, for all practical purposes, impossible for Romney to win the Presidency. If the President can make a stand in economically recovering Ohio or heavily Hispanic Florida by focusing on relevant issues in those areas, he can win.
(3) Play a road game
The Democratic National Convention is in North Carolina. Certainly, a Democratic win there would be a deathblow for Romney. Obama could also force Romney to play defense in Indiana (which Obama won in 2008), Missouri (which he very nearly won) and Arizona (which is now more in play without McCain on the GOP ticket.)
For Romney, he could:
(1) Go for the path of least resistance
Hold his current leads and push hard in Virginia, Colorado and Iowa, hoping for the Virginia + 1 strategy mentioned above. It's certainly his cleanest path to victory and if the national polls move another 2 to 3 points in his favor, it seems very viable.
(2) End it All in Pennsylvania
It is very difficult to see a path for Obama to win re-election without winning the state of Pennsylvania. Romney could focus his considerable resources there, especially in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and the conservative rural areas and ease his path to victory. Of course, John McCain tried this strategy and failed.
(3) Broaden the field
Wisconsin seems to swinging more conservatively these days. Michigan's economy is still rough and it's Romney's birth state, where his name still carries some clout. Both seem ripe for a competitive fight and both would seriously complicate Obama's re-election bid.
I suspect that early in the race, the candidates will attempt to play road games and broaden the field, given the massive amount of money at both of their disposal and the fluidity of the electoral map. However, as the race winds down, in the last 30 days, I'd expect them to focus on the closest of swing states.
The national lead and the state-by-state breakdown coming out of the two party conventions will be very telling in shaping the race.
But, for now, we have a very close race, led marginally by President Obama.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
A Tightening Race Thanks to Bad Circumstances and Bad Strategy, The All Out Battle for Congress
Days Until the Election: 150
Projected Popular Vote Total: Obama +0.9%
Projected Electoral Vote Total: Obama 303-Romney 235
Projected Senate Total: Republican 50, Democratic 48, Independents 2
Projected House Total: Republican 260, Democratic 175
The Top of the Ticket
Lousy employment news isn't helping President Obama, but neither is a campaign that is off-message and a Presidency that seems out of ideas on the economy. Infighting among Democrats, including Newark Mayor Cory Booker and former President Bill Clinton over private equity has been a complete distraction, eliminating any air space for him to fight presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney. With the stimulus money spent, monetary policy about as loose as it can possibly be (between near zero interest rates and quantitative easing) and both payroll and income tax cuts extended through the end of this year, it's not clear at all where the President goes from here on the economy.
While the electoral count doesn't look any different than my last posting, the national polls have tightened significantly and the close states make a Romney win look more viable than it did just a few weeks ago.
Ratings shifts from my last map:
Colorado - from Likely Obama to Lean Obama
Wisconsin - from Lean Obama to Likely Obama
Michigan - from Strong Obama to Likely Obama
Maine - from Strong Obama to Likely Obama
Mitt Romney's road to the White House is fairly simple now. Win the states he is presently leading (i.e. hold on to Missouri, North Carolina and Florida) and win the Lean Obama states. Ohio, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia have a combined 46 electoral votes. If Romney takes that path, it will give him 281, more than enough to win. He can afford to give up either Iowa or Colorado, but Ohio and Virginia are must-haves, just as they have been all race.
Do I hear a call to Rob Portman for the Veep spot?
The Senate
The Democratic Party has a near-impossible task of retaining the Senate in 2012, with all of the unlikely upsets they pulled off in the sweep of 2006 up for re-election and a slim majority. They are hanging on by a thread at the moment, with just enough seats to hold the majority, assuming Bernie Sanders (Independent/Socialist - Vermont) continues to caucus with the Democrats and that likely Maine winner Angus King does as well (as he is expected to), plus the Democratic ticket wins at the top. But they have a lot of seats at risk.
Excluding the seats up for election this time, there are 37 Republicans and 30 Democrats who will return to Washington next year.
Of the 33 races up for grabs, here are my latest projections:
Safe or Strong Democratic (13)
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia
Safe or Strong Independent (2)
Maine, Vermont
Likely Democratic (1)
Ohio
Lean Democratic (4)
Florida, New Mexico, North Dakota, Virginia
Lean Republican (6)
Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Wisconsin
Likely Republican (2)
Arizona, Nebraska
Safe or Strong Republican (5)
Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming
So, in the range of likely scenarios, Republicans could up their total to as many as 54 seats or, if the national tide somehow turns, fall back to 42. Clearly there is a lot yet to be decided in the Senate.
The House
Republicans have a massive structural advantage in this year's House elections thanks to redistricting. Republican victories in state houses and gubernatorial races over the past few years have given them the right to draw a lot of congressional districts to their advantage. Plus, the continued practice of drawing black-majority districts (a product of the Voting Rights Act) naturally concentrates heavily Democratic black voters in a smaller number of House districts, leading to a few solidly Democratic districts in urban areas and a number of modestly Republican seats in the suburbs and exurbs.
How big is the GOP structural advantage? Looking at the Cook Partisan Voting Index, which measures how much more Republican or Democratic a district is than the nation as a whole, with the new house districts we see:
Solidly Democratic Districts (RPI +10 Democratic or higher) = 111
Likely Democratic Districts (RPI of 5 to 9) = 44
Lean Democratic Districts (RPI of 1 to 4) = 37
Toss-Up Districts (RPI = 0) = 9
Lean Republican Districts (RPI of 1 to 4) = 45
Likely Republican Districts (RPI of 5 to 9) = 78
Solidly Republican Districts (RPI +10 Republican or higher) = 111
What this means is that if the Congressional vote split exactly 50/50, the GOP would win between 234 and 243 seats, a solid majority in either case. For the Democrats to get to the magic number of 218, they would need to win nationally by about 2%.
And at the moment, they trail in the generic ballot by 2%, leading to a very solid GOP majority.
A lot could change in this projection as a few point swing can have big effects on the House total. But it sure looks good for the GOP in the House at this stage of the game.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Projected Popular Vote Total: Obama +0.9%
Projected Electoral Vote Total: Obama 303-Romney 235
Projected Senate Total: Republican 50, Democratic 48, Independents 2
Projected House Total: Republican 260, Democratic 175
The Top of the Ticket
Lousy employment news isn't helping President Obama, but neither is a campaign that is off-message and a Presidency that seems out of ideas on the economy. Infighting among Democrats, including Newark Mayor Cory Booker and former President Bill Clinton over private equity has been a complete distraction, eliminating any air space for him to fight presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney. With the stimulus money spent, monetary policy about as loose as it can possibly be (between near zero interest rates and quantitative easing) and both payroll and income tax cuts extended through the end of this year, it's not clear at all where the President goes from here on the economy.
While the electoral count doesn't look any different than my last posting, the national polls have tightened significantly and the close states make a Romney win look more viable than it did just a few weeks ago.
Ratings shifts from my last map:
Colorado - from Likely Obama to Lean Obama
Wisconsin - from Lean Obama to Likely Obama
Michigan - from Strong Obama to Likely Obama
Maine - from Strong Obama to Likely Obama
Do I hear a call to Rob Portman for the Veep spot?
The Senate
The Democratic Party has a near-impossible task of retaining the Senate in 2012, with all of the unlikely upsets they pulled off in the sweep of 2006 up for re-election and a slim majority. They are hanging on by a thread at the moment, with just enough seats to hold the majority, assuming Bernie Sanders (Independent/Socialist - Vermont) continues to caucus with the Democrats and that likely Maine winner Angus King does as well (as he is expected to), plus the Democratic ticket wins at the top. But they have a lot of seats at risk.
Excluding the seats up for election this time, there are 37 Republicans and 30 Democrats who will return to Washington next year.
Of the 33 races up for grabs, here are my latest projections:
Safe or Strong Democratic (13)
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia
Safe or Strong Independent (2)
Maine, Vermont
Likely Democratic (1)
Ohio
Lean Democratic (4)
Florida, New Mexico, North Dakota, Virginia
Lean Republican (6)
Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Wisconsin
Likely Republican (2)
Arizona, Nebraska
Safe or Strong Republican (5)
Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming
So, in the range of likely scenarios, Republicans could up their total to as many as 54 seats or, if the national tide somehow turns, fall back to 42. Clearly there is a lot yet to be decided in the Senate.
The House
Republicans have a massive structural advantage in this year's House elections thanks to redistricting. Republican victories in state houses and gubernatorial races over the past few years have given them the right to draw a lot of congressional districts to their advantage. Plus, the continued practice of drawing black-majority districts (a product of the Voting Rights Act) naturally concentrates heavily Democratic black voters in a smaller number of House districts, leading to a few solidly Democratic districts in urban areas and a number of modestly Republican seats in the suburbs and exurbs.
How big is the GOP structural advantage? Looking at the Cook Partisan Voting Index, which measures how much more Republican or Democratic a district is than the nation as a whole, with the new house districts we see:
Solidly Democratic Districts (RPI +10 Democratic or higher) = 111
Likely Democratic Districts (RPI of 5 to 9) = 44
Lean Democratic Districts (RPI of 1 to 4) = 37
Toss-Up Districts (RPI = 0) = 9
Lean Republican Districts (RPI of 1 to 4) = 45
Likely Republican Districts (RPI of 5 to 9) = 78
Solidly Republican Districts (RPI +10 Republican or higher) = 111
What this means is that if the Congressional vote split exactly 50/50, the GOP would win between 234 and 243 seats, a solid majority in either case. For the Democrats to get to the magic number of 218, they would need to win nationally by about 2%.
And at the moment, they trail in the generic ballot by 2%, leading to a very solid GOP majority.
A lot could change in this projection as a few point swing can have big effects on the House total. But it sure looks good for the GOP in the House at this stage of the game.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Updates to the 2012 Big Map, Don't Believe the "Radical" Hype, In Defense of Cory Booker, Battleground Wisconsin
2012 Presidential Projection
Days Until Election: 163
Current National Vote Projection: Obama +2.1% (-1.2% from last projection)
Current Electoral Vote Projection: Obama 303, Romney 235 (unchanged from last projection)
State Projection Changes Since Last Publish:
Delaware - From Safe Obama to Strong Obama
California - From Safe Obama to Strong Obama
Georgia - From Likely Romney to Strong Romney
Not a ton of new news this week, as both candidates hold on to all their states from last week. It was a modestly good week for Romney, who closed by a little over a point in the national polls and enjoyed the benefit of all three state status changes, although those status changes were in states that are unlikely to be competitive come November.
Intrade currently puts the odds of the President being re-elected at 57.5%, more or less stable with where it has been for several months (it has traded in a range between 55% to 62% since February.)
Next time around, I'll take a look at the down ticket battles for the House and Senate, which are mostly flying under the radar at the moment, but will be just as meaningful as the Presidential race in terms of how the next several years go. Control of the Senate is very much within the competitive balance, so it bears some coverage.
No Radicals Here
While the presumptive Presidential nominees fire away accusations of radicalism at each other - Obama is a socialist who would have the government take over the economy, Romney would destroy Medicare and take from the poor and give to the rich, etc., lost in all of this is that there is probably less difference ideologically between these two candidates than there has been in any Presidential election since 1992, when a center-left Bill Clinton ran against a center-right George Hebert Walker Bush.
Think about it on the major issues of the day:
On taxes - the candidates are completely aligned on tax policy for everyone making less than $250K per year (98% of the population) - they want to extend the Bush tax cuts and ultimately lower rates and reduce loopholes. They do disagree on extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250K, but that is a difference between a 35% top rate and a 39.6% top rate, hardly the difference between socialism and anarchy. And lest we forget, President Obama already extended this cut he now opposes once.
On health care - President Obama's health care plan is essentially a carbon copy of the plan Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. Romney has defended the concept of an individual mandate, a key Republican talking point against the Obama plan. Sure, Romney opposes Obama's plan on a national level, preferring to late individual states craft solutions, but this is a question of federalism, not of core philosophy.
On foreign policy - both back the now largely completed exit from Iraq, both want to stay the course in Afghanistan. Both are strong advocates for free trade. Romney fires off rhetorical attacks against Obama having diminished our standing in the world, but on issues that actually matter in the foreign arena, they are more aligned than different.
On gay marriage - Mitt Romney backs civil unions but not gay marriage. This was Obama's position until a couple of weeks ago, when he came out for gay marriage. And both favor each state's right to make that determination for itself.
On abortion - there is a clear difference here, with President Obama backing abortion rights and Mitt Romney largely holding a pro-life position. But even here, the last time Romney held office, his views were essentially identical to Obama's and I have serious doubts on if he would put any energy behind pushing unpopular restrictions on abortion.
President Obama has framed this election as a "choice" election. Unfortunately, in my eyes, there isn't that much of a choice on policy. There is no true liberal or true conservative in the race. We have a couple of moderates arguing about the margins with over heated rhetoric.
Cory Booker - Speaking Truth
Cory Booker is probably the best Mayor that Newark has ever had. The turnaround that he has brought to the blighted city of Newark is a modern miracle, particularly in perilous economic times. Booker has walked the talk and at times, seemed larger than life, rescuing neighbors from burning buildings, personally managing snow-removal and emergency services during crises, and, most critically, pulling business investment into a once-forgotten city.
Booker is the kind of honest broker that we should be thrilled to have on the political scene - an Ivy-League (and Oxford!) educated man who has eschewed far higher paying fields of work to do good in a place where his intelligence, grit and determination were sorely needed.
I am therefore very saddened by the speed with which the Democratic establishment turned on Booker for - frankly - speaking a truth that wasn't a part of the Obama campaign narrative.
Booker's statement that the Obama campaign's attempt to paint Romney's association with Bain Capital in a negative light by showing clips of people who lost jobs in Bain acquired companies upset him was met with criticism and scorn.
On the substance of the issue, I find Booker to be right. Private equity, on balance, is a good thing for our free market economy. For those of you who don't know, what private equity essentially does is purchase public companies, take them private, attempt to improve the value of the companies, and then sell them. This can involve lots of different strategies, from investing new capital to improve a companies operations to restructuring its operations. Typically, companies that sell to private equity are highly troubled and at risk of going out of business. This means that increasing their value can involve tough choices - closing factories, trimming staff, etc. Yes, it stinks when that involves layoffs. But a leaner company that thrives is far preferable to a company that dies. As Mitt Romney has astutely pointed out - the role of private equity in general is identical to the role the government paid in restructuring GM - which also closed a lot of factories and trimmed staff to get back to a sustainable position.
Not that private equity is always a good force. There have been many examples of private equity buying companies, loading them up with debt and repackaging them to investors, putting the company in a weaker position but making the private equity partners rich. But that only works when there is a greater sucker willing to pay a higher price for a debt-laden company. Simply put - if the markets respond rationally, it cuts that opportunity off at the pass.
Independent of your views of the merits of Booker's remarks, we should view our political discourse as being strengthened by varied points of views. Booker should not be required to toe the party line when he disagrees. He should be allowed to speak his mind without fear of reprisal from the Democratic Party, who should be holding Booker up as a role model.
Scott Walker Will Probably Survive
I realized today that I had not written at all about the emotional recall election taking place in Wisconsin. Scott Walker, possibly the most conservative governor of Wisconsin in a generation, sparked a strong reaction on both sides when he moved to aggressively curtail the collective bargaining powers of public employee unions in an attempt to limit the growth of wage and benefit costs in the state.
Public employee benefit costs are a major issue facing just about every state and municipality. The public sector has far lagged the private sector in terms of transitioning from traditional pensions to defined contribution plans like 401k's and in transferring the cost of retiree medical benefits to the retirees.
These debates invoke a lot of emotion on both sides with conservatives viewing public employees getting benefits far greater than the private sector as a betrayal of public trust and liberals viewing those benefits as core commitments that governments have made to workers.
In what may be an ominous sign for President Obama in November in Wisconsin, the people appear poised to decide, by a mid-single digit margin, that on balance, they come down on Walker's side. He appears likely to survive a June 5 recall, up by an average of +5.7% in recent polls.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Days Until Election: 163
Current National Vote Projection: Obama +2.1% (-1.2% from last projection)
Current Electoral Vote Projection: Obama 303, Romney 235 (unchanged from last projection)
State Projection Changes Since Last Publish:
Delaware - From Safe Obama to Strong Obama
California - From Safe Obama to Strong Obama
Georgia - From Likely Romney to Strong Romney
Not a ton of new news this week, as both candidates hold on to all their states from last week. It was a modestly good week for Romney, who closed by a little over a point in the national polls and enjoyed the benefit of all three state status changes, although those status changes were in states that are unlikely to be competitive come November.
Intrade currently puts the odds of the President being re-elected at 57.5%, more or less stable with where it has been for several months (it has traded in a range between 55% to 62% since February.)
Next time around, I'll take a look at the down ticket battles for the House and Senate, which are mostly flying under the radar at the moment, but will be just as meaningful as the Presidential race in terms of how the next several years go. Control of the Senate is very much within the competitive balance, so it bears some coverage.
No Radicals Here
While the presumptive Presidential nominees fire away accusations of radicalism at each other - Obama is a socialist who would have the government take over the economy, Romney would destroy Medicare and take from the poor and give to the rich, etc., lost in all of this is that there is probably less difference ideologically between these two candidates than there has been in any Presidential election since 1992, when a center-left Bill Clinton ran against a center-right George Hebert Walker Bush.
Think about it on the major issues of the day:
On taxes - the candidates are completely aligned on tax policy for everyone making less than $250K per year (98% of the population) - they want to extend the Bush tax cuts and ultimately lower rates and reduce loopholes. They do disagree on extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250K, but that is a difference between a 35% top rate and a 39.6% top rate, hardly the difference between socialism and anarchy. And lest we forget, President Obama already extended this cut he now opposes once.
On health care - President Obama's health care plan is essentially a carbon copy of the plan Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. Romney has defended the concept of an individual mandate, a key Republican talking point against the Obama plan. Sure, Romney opposes Obama's plan on a national level, preferring to late individual states craft solutions, but this is a question of federalism, not of core philosophy.
On foreign policy - both back the now largely completed exit from Iraq, both want to stay the course in Afghanistan. Both are strong advocates for free trade. Romney fires off rhetorical attacks against Obama having diminished our standing in the world, but on issues that actually matter in the foreign arena, they are more aligned than different.
On gay marriage - Mitt Romney backs civil unions but not gay marriage. This was Obama's position until a couple of weeks ago, when he came out for gay marriage. And both favor each state's right to make that determination for itself.
On abortion - there is a clear difference here, with President Obama backing abortion rights and Mitt Romney largely holding a pro-life position. But even here, the last time Romney held office, his views were essentially identical to Obama's and I have serious doubts on if he would put any energy behind pushing unpopular restrictions on abortion.
President Obama has framed this election as a "choice" election. Unfortunately, in my eyes, there isn't that much of a choice on policy. There is no true liberal or true conservative in the race. We have a couple of moderates arguing about the margins with over heated rhetoric.
Cory Booker - Speaking Truth
Cory Booker is probably the best Mayor that Newark has ever had. The turnaround that he has brought to the blighted city of Newark is a modern miracle, particularly in perilous economic times. Booker has walked the talk and at times, seemed larger than life, rescuing neighbors from burning buildings, personally managing snow-removal and emergency services during crises, and, most critically, pulling business investment into a once-forgotten city.
Booker is the kind of honest broker that we should be thrilled to have on the political scene - an Ivy-League (and Oxford!) educated man who has eschewed far higher paying fields of work to do good in a place where his intelligence, grit and determination were sorely needed.
I am therefore very saddened by the speed with which the Democratic establishment turned on Booker for - frankly - speaking a truth that wasn't a part of the Obama campaign narrative.
Booker's statement that the Obama campaign's attempt to paint Romney's association with Bain Capital in a negative light by showing clips of people who lost jobs in Bain acquired companies upset him was met with criticism and scorn.
On the substance of the issue, I find Booker to be right. Private equity, on balance, is a good thing for our free market economy. For those of you who don't know, what private equity essentially does is purchase public companies, take them private, attempt to improve the value of the companies, and then sell them. This can involve lots of different strategies, from investing new capital to improve a companies operations to restructuring its operations. Typically, companies that sell to private equity are highly troubled and at risk of going out of business. This means that increasing their value can involve tough choices - closing factories, trimming staff, etc. Yes, it stinks when that involves layoffs. But a leaner company that thrives is far preferable to a company that dies. As Mitt Romney has astutely pointed out - the role of private equity in general is identical to the role the government paid in restructuring GM - which also closed a lot of factories and trimmed staff to get back to a sustainable position.
Not that private equity is always a good force. There have been many examples of private equity buying companies, loading them up with debt and repackaging them to investors, putting the company in a weaker position but making the private equity partners rich. But that only works when there is a greater sucker willing to pay a higher price for a debt-laden company. Simply put - if the markets respond rationally, it cuts that opportunity off at the pass.
Independent of your views of the merits of Booker's remarks, we should view our political discourse as being strengthened by varied points of views. Booker should not be required to toe the party line when he disagrees. He should be allowed to speak his mind without fear of reprisal from the Democratic Party, who should be holding Booker up as a role model.
Scott Walker Will Probably Survive
I realized today that I had not written at all about the emotional recall election taking place in Wisconsin. Scott Walker, possibly the most conservative governor of Wisconsin in a generation, sparked a strong reaction on both sides when he moved to aggressively curtail the collective bargaining powers of public employee unions in an attempt to limit the growth of wage and benefit costs in the state.
Public employee benefit costs are a major issue facing just about every state and municipality. The public sector has far lagged the private sector in terms of transitioning from traditional pensions to defined contribution plans like 401k's and in transferring the cost of retiree medical benefits to the retirees.
These debates invoke a lot of emotion on both sides with conservatives viewing public employees getting benefits far greater than the private sector as a betrayal of public trust and liberals viewing those benefits as core commitments that governments have made to workers.
In what may be an ominous sign for President Obama in November in Wisconsin, the people appear poised to decide, by a mid-single digit margin, that on balance, they come down on Walker's side. He appears likely to survive a June 5 recall, up by an average of +5.7% in recent polls.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Standing on the Right Side of History, New Battlegrounds Emerge on Our Electoral Map
How Do You Want to Be Remembered?
It is common belief today, in all but the most backward corners of bigotry, that interracial marriage is not only a thing that should be legal, but a perfectly normal, socially acceptable and equal form of marriage. If you ask the average 25-year-old, they can't imagine an American society where interracial marriage would somehow be viewed as wrong or inferior.
But the issue was hardly settled in the 1950s. As of 1948, only 11 states explicitly allowed interracial marriage. As of June 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in the entire south and Delaware, 16 states in all. In that month, the Supreme Court struck down the laws in those states, providing marriage equality across racial lines across the nation. The decision, along with many other civil rights decisions in that era were widely unpopular in the south and across the country actual instances of interracial marriage were slow to happen, with interracial couples representing only 0.7% of marriages by 1970.
You might find a few people these days who would argue against interracial marriage, but only a very few. And you don't find a lot of people these days who lived back then who would own up to being on the wrong side of history.
I imagine 40 years from now, few people will admit to having been staunchly against gay marriage. The push for marriage equality for gay Americans is an inevitable force of social progress. In 40 years, marriage for gays will be legally equal in all 50 states. It won't be an issue at all. It won't even be thought about except for the few stragglers who cling to an outdated and backward view of the world (as is the case with interracial marriage today.)
President Obama has placed himself on the right side of history by supporting gay marriage. Certainly he is far too late to the game, having not shown courage of his convictions in 2008, since he actually flip-flopped in the wrong direction when he ran for the Senate and for national office. He was behind Dick Cheney, Alan Simpson and many others to the right of him politically have take courageous stands first. Courageous Republican State Senators in New York took real political risk long before the President.
But, he is at least on the right side of history now. And that's more than I can say about Mitt Romney. In 40 years, in their old age, Barack Obama will be proud of the stand he took in May 2012. I imagine Mitt Romney will be ashamed of the stand he didn't take.
A Shifting Map
This map will move a lot over the course of the next five and a half months. But the swings and the entry of new states into competition and the removal of other states from contention is all part of the fun of the Presidential election season.
The latest numbers reveal the following shifts:
Florida - flips back from Lean Obama to Lean Romney - this state seems destined to be very close, so don't be surprised if it flips a bunch more times before November.
New Hampshire - moves from Lean Obama to Likely Obama - Obama's lead is strengthening in Mitt Romney's next door state, which has become increasingly less of a swing state the last 2 election cycles.
Wisconsin - moves from Likely Obama to Lean Obama - the badger state looks to be in play for the first time in several cycles.
Massachusetts and Illinois - move from Strong Obama to Safe Obama
Georgia and Tennessee - move from Strong Romney to Likely Romney - these two states in the solid south appear to be marginally in play this year...but I could really only see them going for Obama in a blow out.
Kentucky and Louisiana - move from Strong Romney to Safe Romney
All of which leaves us with the following. Note that my maps are now constructed using realclearpolitics.com instead of 270towin.com since the realclearpolitics construction tool allows for various shades of support. On the map, "Strong" and "Safe" states are lumped together in the darkest color, "Likely" states in the next lighter color and "Lean" states in the lightest color.
So we see President Obama holding a lead of 303-235, even with the flip of Florida, coinciding with an average national polling lead of 3.3%. The intriguing thing about Wisconsin entering the competitive space is that it gives Romney more options. He needs to pick up 35 electoral votes to swing to victory, and of the 4 lean states, he has 2 combinations that get him there:
(1) Virginia, Ohio and Iowa (37 electoral votes)
(2) Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin (41 electoral votes)
Note that without Virginia the max Romney could get is the 34 electoral votes from the other 3 states, leaving him 1 vote short. Also note that without Ohio, Romney's max is reduced to 29 electoral votes.
So, Ohio and Virginia are must haves for Romney still, along with Florida.
His electoral strategy is starting to look like North Carolina (home of the Democratic convention), Florida (home of the Republican convention), Ohio, Virginia plus "one", the one being either Wisconsin, Iowa or even Colorado (New Hampshire, by itself, would not get him to his total.)
On Obama's side, the strategy is still to hold serve on some of his 2008 states to prevent this strategy, plus open a couple of new fronts Romney will have to defend. The best candidates for Obama to pick-up versus 2008 are Missouri (which he lost very closely) and Arizona (which does not have a native son running this time.) Also, keep your eye on South Carolina - there is no recent polling available, but I have some inside insight that that state may be a lot closer than we are all thinking.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
It is common belief today, in all but the most backward corners of bigotry, that interracial marriage is not only a thing that should be legal, but a perfectly normal, socially acceptable and equal form of marriage. If you ask the average 25-year-old, they can't imagine an American society where interracial marriage would somehow be viewed as wrong or inferior.
But the issue was hardly settled in the 1950s. As of 1948, only 11 states explicitly allowed interracial marriage. As of June 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in the entire south and Delaware, 16 states in all. In that month, the Supreme Court struck down the laws in those states, providing marriage equality across racial lines across the nation. The decision, along with many other civil rights decisions in that era were widely unpopular in the south and across the country actual instances of interracial marriage were slow to happen, with interracial couples representing only 0.7% of marriages by 1970.
You might find a few people these days who would argue against interracial marriage, but only a very few. And you don't find a lot of people these days who lived back then who would own up to being on the wrong side of history.
I imagine 40 years from now, few people will admit to having been staunchly against gay marriage. The push for marriage equality for gay Americans is an inevitable force of social progress. In 40 years, marriage for gays will be legally equal in all 50 states. It won't be an issue at all. It won't even be thought about except for the few stragglers who cling to an outdated and backward view of the world (as is the case with interracial marriage today.)
President Obama has placed himself on the right side of history by supporting gay marriage. Certainly he is far too late to the game, having not shown courage of his convictions in 2008, since he actually flip-flopped in the wrong direction when he ran for the Senate and for national office. He was behind Dick Cheney, Alan Simpson and many others to the right of him politically have take courageous stands first. Courageous Republican State Senators in New York took real political risk long before the President.
But, he is at least on the right side of history now. And that's more than I can say about Mitt Romney. In 40 years, in their old age, Barack Obama will be proud of the stand he took in May 2012. I imagine Mitt Romney will be ashamed of the stand he didn't take.
A Shifting Map
This map will move a lot over the course of the next five and a half months. But the swings and the entry of new states into competition and the removal of other states from contention is all part of the fun of the Presidential election season.
The latest numbers reveal the following shifts:
Florida - flips back from Lean Obama to Lean Romney - this state seems destined to be very close, so don't be surprised if it flips a bunch more times before November.
New Hampshire - moves from Lean Obama to Likely Obama - Obama's lead is strengthening in Mitt Romney's next door state, which has become increasingly less of a swing state the last 2 election cycles.
Wisconsin - moves from Likely Obama to Lean Obama - the badger state looks to be in play for the first time in several cycles.
Massachusetts and Illinois - move from Strong Obama to Safe Obama
Georgia and Tennessee - move from Strong Romney to Likely Romney - these two states in the solid south appear to be marginally in play this year...but I could really only see them going for Obama in a blow out.
Kentucky and Louisiana - move from Strong Romney to Safe Romney
All of which leaves us with the following. Note that my maps are now constructed using realclearpolitics.com instead of 270towin.com since the realclearpolitics construction tool allows for various shades of support. On the map, "Strong" and "Safe" states are lumped together in the darkest color, "Likely" states in the next lighter color and "Lean" states in the lightest color.
(1) Virginia, Ohio and Iowa (37 electoral votes)
(2) Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin (41 electoral votes)
Note that without Virginia the max Romney could get is the 34 electoral votes from the other 3 states, leaving him 1 vote short. Also note that without Ohio, Romney's max is reduced to 29 electoral votes.
So, Ohio and Virginia are must haves for Romney still, along with Florida.
His electoral strategy is starting to look like North Carolina (home of the Democratic convention), Florida (home of the Republican convention), Ohio, Virginia plus "one", the one being either Wisconsin, Iowa or even Colorado (New Hampshire, by itself, would not get him to his total.)
On Obama's side, the strategy is still to hold serve on some of his 2008 states to prevent this strategy, plus open a couple of new fronts Romney will have to defend. The best candidates for Obama to pick-up versus 2008 are Missouri (which he lost very closely) and Arizona (which does not have a native son running this time.) Also, keep your eye on South Carolina - there is no recent polling available, but I have some inside insight that that state may be a lot closer than we are all thinking.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
