Apparently, there is a bit of a legend regarding the Washington Redskins game held right before a Presidential Election. Since 1936 (when they were still the Boston Redskins) if the Redskins win, the incumbent party wins. If the Redskins lose, the opposing party wins. This held true until 2004 (they lost but Bush was re-elected). This year, the Redskins will be playing the Pittsburgh Steelers on Monday Night Football.
Mrs. X and I compete in a little football pool against each other every year. What happens is that we pick the Bengals game and four other contests that seem like they would be close match-ups. Naturally, Pittsburgh-Washington would be expected to be a good game and I put it on our roster.
Given the trend regarding the elections, one would expect that I would prefer that the Redskins win and that Mrs. X would prefer that Pittsburgh would win. Guess how we picked the game?
I picked Pittsburgh.
She picked Washington.
BTW, Mrs. X is leading our picks by 5 games. Make of that what you like ;)
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Statistical Weighting
Mrs. X called her brother Mr. A last night and they got to talking about the election (he lives in PA). Their conversation got us to talking and about polling specifically. Most people take polls pretty much at face value, but every pollster manipulates the numbers they get to conform to certain preconceived notions that they have about a particular race or geographic region. This is done with something known as statistical weighting. I’ll give a numerical example:
Let’s say that I’m a pollster and I call 1000 people in a geographic region. 453 people that I call say that they are members of party A, 438 people say they are members of party B and 109 say they are independent. Each group lists their voting preference for candidates X, Y, or a third party as follows:
X Y 3p Total
A 387 54 12 453
B 44 390 4 438
I 52 51 6 109
Taken as shown, candidate Y would be leading 49.5-48.3 (which most pollsters would just report as a 50-48 race). This might seem a reasonable breakdown with the two major parties being roughly even and a reasonable amount of third party affiliation.
However, let’s say that as the pollster, I don’t believe that this is the proper party breakdown. Instead, I believe that in the region I am sampling, its 45% membership for party A, 39% for party B, and 16% for Independents. Thus, I would then multiply my numbers by a weighing factor, which would be determined by taking my perceived party affiliation percentage and dividing it by the party percentage of my sample. In our example, I would have weighing factors of 0.99 for party A, 0.89 for party B, and 1.47 for independents. This would change my numbers as follows:
X Y 3p Total
A 383 54 12 449
B 39 347 4 390
I 76 75 9 160
Summing these numbers up, we now have candidate X leading 49.8-47.6 (or 50-48), a swing of nearly 3.5 points. The fundamental flaw that is introduced is that the pollster is assuming right off the bat that his sample is fixed and only mass defection of a party away from its candidate or a large swing in unaffiliated voters will determine the outcome of the election. In fact, a pollster has no way of knowing what absolute party breakdown will be come Election Day.
This is the key element of danger for the Democratic Party. During the primary, many people came and registered to vote as Democrats, there have been massive drives to sign first-time voters (many of whom would probably favor Democratic candidates), and Mr. Obama is said to have a large get-out-the-vote apparatus in place. These three things cause many pollsters to weigh their samples a bit heavier on the Democratic end of the scale.
Now one or all of these things could be true and Democratic turnout could be much heavier that Republican, but if polls are shown to favor Mr. Obama by large margins, it could lead to a sense of complacency among Democratic voters and the hubris that it might foster among Democrats could galvanize Republicans into their own large scale get-out-the-vote effort.
One other problem is that Democrats and media outlets that are friendly to Democrats have been trumpeting these polls, telling everyone that they should vote for Mr. Obama to be part of the “cool kids table” since he’s going to win anyway. That attitude might work if we all sat around and raised our hands in public to vote (see Oct. 16 post) but we don’t. We get to vote in a quiet little booth and only you and God know who you voted for. You could talk all you want about voting for one candidate, but then quietly vote for another and not a soul would know.
Things are certainly stacked in favor for Mr. Obama to win, but there is enough uncertainty and danger out there that I would suggest that everyone sit back and just wait to see what happens. Of course, that’s what makes this process so much fun.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Israeli Elections
Tzipi Livni, head of the Kadima party, has been unable to form a coalition government. As such, she has declared the Israeli government insolvent and President Shimon Perez has called for early elections, which will likely be held in late January or early February. Essentially this means that Ehud Olmert will remain PM throughout the rest of Mr. Bush’s presidency. Whether this means he will seize the initiative and go ahead with an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is unclear at this time. However, it removes some level of uncertainty and replaces it with a new type.
In all likelihood, Likud (right-wing party) will pick up seats at the expense of Kadima and possibly Labor as well. I’d look for the ultra-orthodox party of Shas to also pick up a reasonable number of seats and these two will likely form the main body of the next coalition government. This would return Benjamin Netanyahu to the PM slot that he held in the mid-90’s. Mr. Netanyahu is much more aggressive regarding Israeli security and if it looks like Likud and Shas will gain a large number of seats, we might expect the Arabs surrounding Israel to strike before being put on the defensive, no matter what Mr. Olmert does or does not do with regard to Iran.
Also note that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has fallen ill and that Iran is strangely quiet at the moment. I think something is up and the smell of blood is in the air.
In all likelihood, Likud (right-wing party) will pick up seats at the expense of Kadima and possibly Labor as well. I’d look for the ultra-orthodox party of Shas to also pick up a reasonable number of seats and these two will likely form the main body of the next coalition government. This would return Benjamin Netanyahu to the PM slot that he held in the mid-90’s. Mr. Netanyahu is much more aggressive regarding Israeli security and if it looks like Likud and Shas will gain a large number of seats, we might expect the Arabs surrounding Israel to strike before being put on the defensive, no matter what Mr. Olmert does or does not do with regard to Iran.
Also note that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has fallen ill and that Iran is strangely quiet at the moment. I think something is up and the smell of blood is in the air.
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Very, Very, Very Bad Idea!
Mrs. X and I were talking last night and I happen to mention an article that I glanced at yesterday. Apparently discussion on this article has taken off so I thought I would enumerate some of the major problems.
Essentially, a small group of Democratic Congressmen, spurred on by the economic theories of a professor, have idly discussed removing the tax-exempt status of 401(k)s and related tax shelters. Their reasoning goes that this is a large source of revenue that is being withheld from the government and that people are so scared by the volatility of the market that they want something safe. So the plan being proposed is that a person would put after tax money into a 401(k) and then the government would invest that money in government bonds at a guaranteed 3% interest. The investment money would then be given to the Social Security Administration to look over and they put a little checklist out that says you own x number of bonds that will be worth y when you plan to retire.
There are several very bad things about this plan. First, under the revised rules, the 401(k) assets would now be subject to the estate tax, giving the government the ability to take 50% of all unused assets when the owner croaks. Currently, since the 401(k) is a before tax holding, it only gets taxed when people withdraw the money and the holdings could be passed on in ownership without incurring any tax liability. But under this new plan, a 401(k) will be seen as a real asset and subject to the taxes that occur when it passes hands.
Second, since all the tax incentives will be withdrawn, employers will stop issuing matching funds to a 401(k). Currently, a company gains a massive tax write-off by giving matching funds to their employee’s accounts. But if there is no available tax write-off, a company doesn’t have any reason to give money away. So a person is losing as much as half of his potential retirement savings without the matching funds.
Third, since people are only allowed to invest in government bonds, ownership of stocks through mutual funds would crater. This in turn drives down the stock prices and the overall market as the number of people who have the ability to buy goes way down. Worse, it’s possible that the government may simply hold on to the shares that they have seized rather than put them back on the market. In effect, this would make the government the majority owner in thousands of freely traded companies and would give them the right to dictate whatever policy they saw fit for any type of company.
Fourth, we would all have to work longer because our retirements will simply not accrue enough money to support us. In 2005 and 2006, the average 401(k) earned somewhere between 7 and 15% depending on the overall aggressiveness of the fund. Yes, some of those profits have been lost, but over the life of nearly 40 years, the rate of return on stocks is much higher than 3%. This means that a person will not see anywhere near the rate of return that is being seen now.
Fifth, people will no longer have the amount that they donate to their 401(k) to take off the top of their adjusted gross income. Right now, a person has an overall gross income and that is adjusted downward based on the pre-tax donations that a person makes to their 401(k). That’s why you see one number that you use on your 1040 and a higher number that is used when noting how much you have paid to Social Security and local taxes. But if a person loses that tax-exempt status on their 401(k), the number that goes on your 1040 will now be the larger overall number. Effectively, this will push anyone who had a 401(k) into a higher tax bracket that what they had been and we will be forced to pay more taxes while saving a lot less money.
At its root, this proposal turns a means of promoting wealth and increasing collective ownership of companies into a government managed savings account. One that they can tap and spend at will, so long as they leave that promissory note called a government bond. However, if they ever go ahead with this plan, I guarantee that we will see the economy crater like no tomorrow and the 1930’s will have nothing on what will go on after this takes effect. Incidentally, Argentina is currently implementing this plan, so we’ll have an example to watch of how bad an idea this is.
Essentially, a small group of Democratic Congressmen, spurred on by the economic theories of a professor, have idly discussed removing the tax-exempt status of 401(k)s and related tax shelters. Their reasoning goes that this is a large source of revenue that is being withheld from the government and that people are so scared by the volatility of the market that they want something safe. So the plan being proposed is that a person would put after tax money into a 401(k) and then the government would invest that money in government bonds at a guaranteed 3% interest. The investment money would then be given to the Social Security Administration to look over and they put a little checklist out that says you own x number of bonds that will be worth y when you plan to retire.
There are several very bad things about this plan. First, under the revised rules, the 401(k) assets would now be subject to the estate tax, giving the government the ability to take 50% of all unused assets when the owner croaks. Currently, since the 401(k) is a before tax holding, it only gets taxed when people withdraw the money and the holdings could be passed on in ownership without incurring any tax liability. But under this new plan, a 401(k) will be seen as a real asset and subject to the taxes that occur when it passes hands.
Second, since all the tax incentives will be withdrawn, employers will stop issuing matching funds to a 401(k). Currently, a company gains a massive tax write-off by giving matching funds to their employee’s accounts. But if there is no available tax write-off, a company doesn’t have any reason to give money away. So a person is losing as much as half of his potential retirement savings without the matching funds.
Third, since people are only allowed to invest in government bonds, ownership of stocks through mutual funds would crater. This in turn drives down the stock prices and the overall market as the number of people who have the ability to buy goes way down. Worse, it’s possible that the government may simply hold on to the shares that they have seized rather than put them back on the market. In effect, this would make the government the majority owner in thousands of freely traded companies and would give them the right to dictate whatever policy they saw fit for any type of company.
Fourth, we would all have to work longer because our retirements will simply not accrue enough money to support us. In 2005 and 2006, the average 401(k) earned somewhere between 7 and 15% depending on the overall aggressiveness of the fund. Yes, some of those profits have been lost, but over the life of nearly 40 years, the rate of return on stocks is much higher than 3%. This means that a person will not see anywhere near the rate of return that is being seen now.
Fifth, people will no longer have the amount that they donate to their 401(k) to take off the top of their adjusted gross income. Right now, a person has an overall gross income and that is adjusted downward based on the pre-tax donations that a person makes to their 401(k). That’s why you see one number that you use on your 1040 and a higher number that is used when noting how much you have paid to Social Security and local taxes. But if a person loses that tax-exempt status on their 401(k), the number that goes on your 1040 will now be the larger overall number. Effectively, this will push anyone who had a 401(k) into a higher tax bracket that what they had been and we will be forced to pay more taxes while saving a lot less money.
At its root, this proposal turns a means of promoting wealth and increasing collective ownership of companies into a government managed savings account. One that they can tap and spend at will, so long as they leave that promissory note called a government bond. However, if they ever go ahead with this plan, I guarantee that we will see the economy crater like no tomorrow and the 1930’s will have nothing on what will go on after this takes effect. Incidentally, Argentina is currently implementing this plan, so we’ll have an example to watch of how bad an idea this is.
Yo Ho Ho and a Bottle of Uranium
A very interesting story has cropped up over the last couple of months. Back in late August, an Iranian ship was rounding the horn of Africa, making for the Suez Canal. However, they were waylaid by Somali pirates, an unfortunately common occurrence in this region, who intended to sell the cargo and ransom the crew. Upon boarding the ship, the pirates interrogated the captain and asked what their cargo was. The captain was evasive but finally said that it was minerals. The pirates didn’t quite believe him and cracked open a couple of the crates and found it to be a white, sandy soil, very similar to the way the captain had described. Perhaps a little disappointed that the cargo wasn’t anything of greater value, the pirates drove the ship to shore and had the captain give them contact information to demand ransom.
Three days later, all the pirates who had boarded the ship began getting sick with symptoms that included hair loss, vomiting, and severe skin rashes. Three weeks after the original capture, sixteen of the pirates were dead and the story was beginning to crack worldwide media. The freighter was then seized by a group of nations (including the US) who found that the “minerals” were in fact radioactive sand that had apparently been purchased by Iran from China in exchange for oil. The captain was questioned again and he disclosed that their instructions had been to sail into the Eastern Mediterranean and then abandon the ship off the coast of one of Israel’s ports. They were then to blow up the ship remotely on Yom Kippur (Oct. 9) where the prevailing winds would have carried the radioactive cloud over Israel’s major population centers. Undoubtedly, quite a few Palestinians as well as many Israelis would have been sickened and likely killed by this attack, but they were seen as collateral to Iran’s central goal of killing Jews and creating chaos that could have been exploited by the Syrians and Hezbollah.
This of course becomes even more interesting when one notes that two days ago, it was leaked that members of the Iranian parliament are favoring a pre-emptive strike on Israel to thwart them from destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel’s current estimate is that Iran will have enough nuclear material to begin building a nuclear bomb by February. Incidentally, it may have been this report which triggered Mr. Biden’s statement regarding Mr. Obama being tested. Iran threatening to detonate a nuclear weapon in Israel might indeed be considered something of an international crisis.
Three days later, all the pirates who had boarded the ship began getting sick with symptoms that included hair loss, vomiting, and severe skin rashes. Three weeks after the original capture, sixteen of the pirates were dead and the story was beginning to crack worldwide media. The freighter was then seized by a group of nations (including the US) who found that the “minerals” were in fact radioactive sand that had apparently been purchased by Iran from China in exchange for oil. The captain was questioned again and he disclosed that their instructions had been to sail into the Eastern Mediterranean and then abandon the ship off the coast of one of Israel’s ports. They were then to blow up the ship remotely on Yom Kippur (Oct. 9) where the prevailing winds would have carried the radioactive cloud over Israel’s major population centers. Undoubtedly, quite a few Palestinians as well as many Israelis would have been sickened and likely killed by this attack, but they were seen as collateral to Iran’s central goal of killing Jews and creating chaos that could have been exploited by the Syrians and Hezbollah.
This of course becomes even more interesting when one notes that two days ago, it was leaked that members of the Iranian parliament are favoring a pre-emptive strike on Israel to thwart them from destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel’s current estimate is that Iran will have enough nuclear material to begin building a nuclear bomb by February. Incidentally, it may have been this report which triggered Mr. Biden’s statement regarding Mr. Obama being tested. Iran threatening to detonate a nuclear weapon in Israel might indeed be considered something of an international crisis.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Vice Presidential Trivia
Pop Quiz time.
Until recently, a Vice Presidential candidate has usually been selected for their geographical relevance. It would surprise no one that New York is the leading supplier with 11 out of the 46 total Veeps.
Guess which electorally powerful state is number 2 on the list?
Hint #1 - VPs from this state started showing up in the mid-19th century.
Hint #2 - This state has gone for the same party since 1968.
Answer (Highlight to see): Indiana (5 - Schuyler Colfax, Thomas Hendricks, Charles Fairbanks, Thomas Marshall, Dan Quayle)
Until recently, a Vice Presidential candidate has usually been selected for their geographical relevance. It would surprise no one that New York is the leading supplier with 11 out of the 46 total Veeps.
Guess which electorally powerful state is number 2 on the list?
Hint #1 - VPs from this state started showing up in the mid-19th century.
Hint #2 - This state has gone for the same party since 1968.
Answer (Highlight to see): Indiana (5 - Schuyler Colfax, Thomas Hendricks, Charles Fairbanks, Thomas Marshall, Dan Quayle)
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Barstool Economics
I found this yesterday and thought it rather interesting. It's very simplified and doesn't get into the all the other nice ways that the government leaches money from us, but it does in a pinch regarding income tax.
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with thearrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted thatfrom everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each endup being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (17 % savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed tothe tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with thearrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted thatfrom everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each endup being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (17 % savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed tothe tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A Reminder
Bush Derangement Syndrome:
Liberals rage in the press, equate Bush with Hitler, and hold rallies with giant puppets.
Obama Derangement Syndrome:
Conservatives own guns.
Liberals rage in the press, equate Bush with Hitler, and hold rallies with giant puppets.
Obama Derangement Syndrome:
Conservatives own guns.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Asch in Elections
Have you ever been in a situation where you felt strongly about something but because everyone else in the room had stated the opposite opinion you went ahead with the crowd? Apparently this is fairly common reaction: you treasure your opinion but the social pressure is such that you voice something you don’t agree with just so you fit in. Every once in a while you get a situation where someone will actually question their own opinion in the face of such opposition, but for the most part people remain confident in their own opinions even they don’t voice them.
Apparently there was an actual study done for this back in the early 1950’s by Solomon Asch. Asch was a professor who would invite a group of students to participate in a “vision test.” As it turns out, only one student was the subject and the others were in on the true nature of the test. The professor would hold up a picture of a line and three lines next to it and ask which line of the three was closest in length to the solo line. He would go around the room and people would answer with the test subject usually being the last or second-to-last to answer. The students in on the test would give the correct answer for the first couple of questions, but eventually they would start giving the wrong answer. The test subject would usually hold out for a few questions, but eventually they would knowingly start giving the wrong answer. In after interviews, many of the subjects would state that they were confident of what the right answer was, but they were deliberately giving the wrong answer so they wouldn’t feel so isolated. Only in a few instances did the test subjects say that they began to doubt and assume that their senses were wrong. Asch reran the tests and whenever at least one other person stated the correct answer, the number of incidents where the test subject deliberately answered incorrectly dropped off drastically.
I mention this for two reasons. One, it’s really interesting from a social engineering standpoint. Second, it has bearing on something that’s been brought up in this election: the Bradley Effect.
The Bradley Effect is the factor that a certain percentage of white voters will say that they are going to vote for the African-American candidate, but vote for the white candidate instead. Now, this assumes that there is inherent racism on behalf of white America and that there is a segment of the population that physically cannot bring themselves to vote for the African-American for only that reason, whether they agree with him or not on other issues. In actuality, there is no way of really knowing as to why a group of people say they were going to vote one way but do not.
Dr. Asch’s tests might give us a reason. I believe that most Americans are not actually racist. However, many white Americans are terrified of being accused of being racist. So it is not surprising that a group of people would say that of course they are going to vote for the African-American candidate because it’s easier to not rock the boat that to say that they are not going to vote for him because they disagree with him on certain policy issues, out of fear of being accused of being racist. Incidentally, the Bradley Effect is a bit overstated to begin with because the poll that said that Mr. Bradley was going to become California’s next governor was conducted over a week out from the election. On Election Day, Mr. Bradley’s lead was down to two points, which was within the margin of error.
So, I am going to be very curious come Election Day. If Mr. Obama doesn’t win by the margin he is expected to, or he even loses, much of the talking heads will talk about the Bradley Effect. But I think it more likely that there are simply a bunch of people who don’t want to be the odd person out and either don’t say anything or say, yes I’m voting for X, but instead will vote for Y when they are secured in the quiet of the voting booth.
Apparently there was an actual study done for this back in the early 1950’s by Solomon Asch. Asch was a professor who would invite a group of students to participate in a “vision test.” As it turns out, only one student was the subject and the others were in on the true nature of the test. The professor would hold up a picture of a line and three lines next to it and ask which line of the three was closest in length to the solo line. He would go around the room and people would answer with the test subject usually being the last or second-to-last to answer. The students in on the test would give the correct answer for the first couple of questions, but eventually they would start giving the wrong answer. The test subject would usually hold out for a few questions, but eventually they would knowingly start giving the wrong answer. In after interviews, many of the subjects would state that they were confident of what the right answer was, but they were deliberately giving the wrong answer so they wouldn’t feel so isolated. Only in a few instances did the test subjects say that they began to doubt and assume that their senses were wrong. Asch reran the tests and whenever at least one other person stated the correct answer, the number of incidents where the test subject deliberately answered incorrectly dropped off drastically.
I mention this for two reasons. One, it’s really interesting from a social engineering standpoint. Second, it has bearing on something that’s been brought up in this election: the Bradley Effect.
The Bradley Effect is the factor that a certain percentage of white voters will say that they are going to vote for the African-American candidate, but vote for the white candidate instead. Now, this assumes that there is inherent racism on behalf of white America and that there is a segment of the population that physically cannot bring themselves to vote for the African-American for only that reason, whether they agree with him or not on other issues. In actuality, there is no way of really knowing as to why a group of people say they were going to vote one way but do not.
Dr. Asch’s tests might give us a reason. I believe that most Americans are not actually racist. However, many white Americans are terrified of being accused of being racist. So it is not surprising that a group of people would say that of course they are going to vote for the African-American candidate because it’s easier to not rock the boat that to say that they are not going to vote for him because they disagree with him on certain policy issues, out of fear of being accused of being racist. Incidentally, the Bradley Effect is a bit overstated to begin with because the poll that said that Mr. Bradley was going to become California’s next governor was conducted over a week out from the election. On Election Day, Mr. Bradley’s lead was down to two points, which was within the margin of error.
So, I am going to be very curious come Election Day. If Mr. Obama doesn’t win by the margin he is expected to, or he even loses, much of the talking heads will talk about the Bradley Effect. But I think it more likely that there are simply a bunch of people who don’t want to be the odd person out and either don’t say anything or say, yes I’m voting for X, but instead will vote for Y when they are secured in the quiet of the voting booth.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Dewey Caveats
Over the past few weeks, essentially since the excrement hit the fan regarding the economy, we’ve seen evidence that Mr. Obama is going to coast to a landslide in the Presidential election. Certainly many of the political analysis class seem to be talking that way, which is annoying as one would expect the commentators to want a good dog fight (I miss Tim Russert).
No matter what happens at tonight’s debate (unless Mr. Obama starts talking about how he idolizes Josef Stalin) Mr. Obama will likely emerge looking Presidential and the same chattering classes will state that Mr. McCain did not do enough to reverse the tide and we should all look forward to a Democratic administration.
However, there is something that doesn’t quite add up to me. The polls that are showing Mr. Obama with large leads seem overly heavy on Democrats. I know there have been a lot of new Democrats registered, but weighting your samples 39-30 seems heavy to me. Less weighted samples from Zogby and Rasmussen are showing 4-5 point leads which seem more realistic to me. Now, these types of leads would still indicate that Mr. Obama should win, especially given the state-to-state analyses that I looked at a few weeks ago where the Mountain West states would seem to have most of the power.
Yet, I can’t help but think that with three weeks to go, things are being set up too much. Maybe it’s because I’ve been listening to Truman on cassette in the car, but all of this just feels a little too much like the political elite declaring the election for Dewey long before a single vote was cast. Now it should be pointed out that Mr. Truman had the advantage of a good economy during his barnstorming tour and knowledge of the farmer’s mentality, but I cannot recall any other election that people have been so ready to declare over before Election Day.
There are three particular things that have me raising my eyebrows before things get going. The first is that there are investigations (and one possible RICO indictment) against ACORN in fifteen states. Although ACORN is officially non-partisan, it’s no secret that the majority of the people they register tend to vote Democrat and there is documentation that Mr. Obama did hire ACORN in one state to assist with get-out-the-vote efforts. There is nothing wrong with either of these things, but bad press about ACORN could hurt Mr. Obama by association.
Second, the Sixth Circuit court has ordered Ohio’s Secretary of State to verify all same-day registrations and votes in the opening six days of the early voting period by Friday. She has protested that she doesn’t have the resources, but the court has ordered it anyway. Although no one has explicitly stated this, if she fails to comply the court could declare all ballots cast during this period as illegitimate and order them thrown out. Again, the general assumption is that many of these early ballots have been cast for Mr. Obama and losing these could end up tipping the vote total in Ohio to Mr. McCain.
The third is the complete absence of news from Israel regarding worries about Iran. The general talk was that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities between November and January, especially if Mr. Obama wins the election. However, the Iranians are also well aware of this. Israel has always conducted these types of raids (Iraq and Syria) with complete surprise. The one time that NO ONE is expecting Israel to attack is right before the American election. The next new moon would be right at the end of October (Oct. 28) and would provide the perfect cover of darkness in a period that the Iranians are not expecting. This attack could ignite some sort of wider conflict and could bring a military situation to the forefront of people’s minds less than a week before the election. This might benefit Mr. McCain, if it happens.
Now, none of these might mean anything and Mr. Obama wins in a landslide. They all might happen and not matter as Mr. Obama wins anyway (landslide or squeeker). But there are still enough variables in the air (these three being the foremost in my mind), that is not a definite given that Mr. Obama will defeat Mr. McCain. We shall see and I’ll be very curious to see how the numbers twitch around over the next three weeks.
No matter what happens at tonight’s debate (unless Mr. Obama starts talking about how he idolizes Josef Stalin) Mr. Obama will likely emerge looking Presidential and the same chattering classes will state that Mr. McCain did not do enough to reverse the tide and we should all look forward to a Democratic administration.
However, there is something that doesn’t quite add up to me. The polls that are showing Mr. Obama with large leads seem overly heavy on Democrats. I know there have been a lot of new Democrats registered, but weighting your samples 39-30 seems heavy to me. Less weighted samples from Zogby and Rasmussen are showing 4-5 point leads which seem more realistic to me. Now, these types of leads would still indicate that Mr. Obama should win, especially given the state-to-state analyses that I looked at a few weeks ago where the Mountain West states would seem to have most of the power.
Yet, I can’t help but think that with three weeks to go, things are being set up too much. Maybe it’s because I’ve been listening to Truman on cassette in the car, but all of this just feels a little too much like the political elite declaring the election for Dewey long before a single vote was cast. Now it should be pointed out that Mr. Truman had the advantage of a good economy during his barnstorming tour and knowledge of the farmer’s mentality, but I cannot recall any other election that people have been so ready to declare over before Election Day.
There are three particular things that have me raising my eyebrows before things get going. The first is that there are investigations (and one possible RICO indictment) against ACORN in fifteen states. Although ACORN is officially non-partisan, it’s no secret that the majority of the people they register tend to vote Democrat and there is documentation that Mr. Obama did hire ACORN in one state to assist with get-out-the-vote efforts. There is nothing wrong with either of these things, but bad press about ACORN could hurt Mr. Obama by association.
Second, the Sixth Circuit court has ordered Ohio’s Secretary of State to verify all same-day registrations and votes in the opening six days of the early voting period by Friday. She has protested that she doesn’t have the resources, but the court has ordered it anyway. Although no one has explicitly stated this, if she fails to comply the court could declare all ballots cast during this period as illegitimate and order them thrown out. Again, the general assumption is that many of these early ballots have been cast for Mr. Obama and losing these could end up tipping the vote total in Ohio to Mr. McCain.
The third is the complete absence of news from Israel regarding worries about Iran. The general talk was that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities between November and January, especially if Mr. Obama wins the election. However, the Iranians are also well aware of this. Israel has always conducted these types of raids (Iraq and Syria) with complete surprise. The one time that NO ONE is expecting Israel to attack is right before the American election. The next new moon would be right at the end of October (Oct. 28) and would provide the perfect cover of darkness in a period that the Iranians are not expecting. This attack could ignite some sort of wider conflict and could bring a military situation to the forefront of people’s minds less than a week before the election. This might benefit Mr. McCain, if it happens.
Now, none of these might mean anything and Mr. Obama wins in a landslide. They all might happen and not matter as Mr. Obama wins anyway (landslide or squeeker). But there are still enough variables in the air (these three being the foremost in my mind), that is not a definite given that Mr. Obama will defeat Mr. McCain. We shall see and I’ll be very curious to see how the numbers twitch around over the next three weeks.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Good Advice
Every day the head of my company has his secretary e-mail out a motivational quote of the day. Most are very stupid but every once in a while there is a good one. I rather liked this one from yesterday and thought it an important maxim to remember:
Irritability is immaturity of character. If you are subject to being cross and unpleasant with others for no apparent reason, you need to come face-to-face with the fact that you are thinking too much of yourself. After all, your feelings are not the most important thing in this world.
- Lawrence G. Lovasik
I have no idea who this fellow is but as one who does lose their temper on occasion, something like this is good to keep in the back of your mind.
Irritability is immaturity of character. If you are subject to being cross and unpleasant with others for no apparent reason, you need to come face-to-face with the fact that you are thinking too much of yourself. After all, your feelings are not the most important thing in this world.
- Lawrence G. Lovasik
I have no idea who this fellow is but as one who does lose their temper on occasion, something like this is good to keep in the back of your mind.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
"You are not to speak. I don't like you."
A wise man once said that it is not the crime that gets a person in trouble, but the cover up. A slight take on that could be that if a person puts something out there and then scrambles like a mad man to get it back into the fold, people are more likely to pay attention to it.
Mrs. X and I (having Toddler X) don’t stay up too late and thus don’t watch SNL very much. We did DVR the season premier with Michael Phelps, but aside from the opening Palin/Clinton sketch and the Charles Barkley Show sketch, it stunk. However, Mrs. X and I have been enjoying the Sarah Palin sketches and watch them on the SNL website.
Earlier in the week, we went to the SNL website and watched the VP debate sketch. It was okay (I think too many of the Palin jokes were recycled; Biden was okay; Queen Latifah as Gwen Ifil was very funny), but while we were there, we saw a link for a bailout sketch. This sketch was much funnier in my opinion (although the guy doing Bush was no where near as good as Will Ferrell) and roasted the mortgage companies, Bush and the Democrats quite well. However, it seems that the sketch is no longer available. There is a picture of it at the SNL website, but the link is dead.
Now all the other links and video are still there, so why is this sketch gone? Conspiracy theorists are suggesting that either Mr. Soros or Mr. and Mrs. Sandler (who are all real people mocked in the sketch) have pressured NBC to pull the sketch. I’m not in that tank as SNL would have never aired the sketch if they thought these people would call them on the carpet. But it’s more than a glitch or it would have been restored immediately once the conservative media started jumping on it.
Whatever the reason NBC has pulled the sketch, the very act of pulling it has garnered more attention that just leaving it where it was. If it was the bidding of some corporate master, either at NBC or outside, the act of retrieval has caused far more attention (and potential problems) than just leaving it alone would have.
UPDATE:
SNL has reposted the sketch with changes to the C-SPAN banner for the Sandlers. Apparently a line was also cut where Mr. Sandler thanks Congressman Frank for hiding their corrupt activities. It would seem that Mr. and Mrs. Sandler requested they not be attacked quite so nastily.
Mrs. X and I (having Toddler X) don’t stay up too late and thus don’t watch SNL very much. We did DVR the season premier with Michael Phelps, but aside from the opening Palin/Clinton sketch and the Charles Barkley Show sketch, it stunk. However, Mrs. X and I have been enjoying the Sarah Palin sketches and watch them on the SNL website.
Earlier in the week, we went to the SNL website and watched the VP debate sketch. It was okay (I think too many of the Palin jokes were recycled; Biden was okay; Queen Latifah as Gwen Ifil was very funny), but while we were there, we saw a link for a bailout sketch. This sketch was much funnier in my opinion (although the guy doing Bush was no where near as good as Will Ferrell) and roasted the mortgage companies, Bush and the Democrats quite well. However, it seems that the sketch is no longer available. There is a picture of it at the SNL website, but the link is dead.
Now all the other links and video are still there, so why is this sketch gone? Conspiracy theorists are suggesting that either Mr. Soros or Mr. and Mrs. Sandler (who are all real people mocked in the sketch) have pressured NBC to pull the sketch. I’m not in that tank as SNL would have never aired the sketch if they thought these people would call them on the carpet. But it’s more than a glitch or it would have been restored immediately once the conservative media started jumping on it.
Whatever the reason NBC has pulled the sketch, the very act of pulling it has garnered more attention that just leaving it where it was. If it was the bidding of some corporate master, either at NBC or outside, the act of retrieval has caused far more attention (and potential problems) than just leaving it alone would have.
UPDATE:
SNL has reposted the sketch with changes to the C-SPAN banner for the Sandlers. Apparently a line was also cut where Mr. Sandler thanks Congressman Frank for hiding their corrupt activities. It would seem that Mr. and Mrs. Sandler requested they not be attacked quite so nastily.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Let Down
There has been a rather big deflatement in the eschatological community. A few months back (May 8), I wrote about a theory promoted by a Washington preacher that the Rapture might happen over Rosh Hashanah due to his noting of some very interesting astronomical data that will occur over the next 7 years.
Well, Rosh Hashanah has come and gone and we’re all still here. I was skeptical about it then and it seems that my skepticism was justified. Again, I thought it was good scholarship and I still think that we should expect some very interesting happenings over the next 7 years. But there is a real sense of let down among a lot of people I think.
Probably the biggest source of let down is one of the most valid points that had been made in that previous argument: the fact that the Tribulation will probably correspond to a Sabbatical Cycle. The downside to getting everyone hyped up over Rosh Hashanah 2008 is that now that it is past, the next period where we should be examining the signs and thinking that the Rapture is immanent is around Rosh Hashanah 2015. Very little is more depressing that being told that you need to wait at least 7 years before something that you really want will arrive. There is also the very real possibility that 2015 will not be the time of things either and we’ll all have to wait until 2022, etc. This is why we are forbidden to date set. The let down is extraordinarily destructive to morale.
Now, it is important to remember that all this scholarship could be way off and the Rapture could happen tomorrow. I think that’s unlikely, but I’m not God and I don’t make the rules. So, it is important to continue to keep watching and being attentive. But is also important to remember what Paul told the Thessalonians: don’t forget to live. Live and work, but be watchful. So buck up. Yes, we might be waiting for a good seven years or longer, but it’ll happen and in the meantime, we have work to do.
Well, Rosh Hashanah has come and gone and we’re all still here. I was skeptical about it then and it seems that my skepticism was justified. Again, I thought it was good scholarship and I still think that we should expect some very interesting happenings over the next 7 years. But there is a real sense of let down among a lot of people I think.
Probably the biggest source of let down is one of the most valid points that had been made in that previous argument: the fact that the Tribulation will probably correspond to a Sabbatical Cycle. The downside to getting everyone hyped up over Rosh Hashanah 2008 is that now that it is past, the next period where we should be examining the signs and thinking that the Rapture is immanent is around Rosh Hashanah 2015. Very little is more depressing that being told that you need to wait at least 7 years before something that you really want will arrive. There is also the very real possibility that 2015 will not be the time of things either and we’ll all have to wait until 2022, etc. This is why we are forbidden to date set. The let down is extraordinarily destructive to morale.
Now, it is important to remember that all this scholarship could be way off and the Rapture could happen tomorrow. I think that’s unlikely, but I’m not God and I don’t make the rules. So, it is important to continue to keep watching and being attentive. But is also important to remember what Paul told the Thessalonians: don’t forget to live. Live and work, but be watchful. So buck up. Yes, we might be waiting for a good seven years or longer, but it’ll happen and in the meantime, we have work to do.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Powerless
Bailout package fails in the House:
141-94 Democrats
66-132 Republicans
207-226 Total
Ms. Pelosi needed 11 additional members of her own party to pass this and she couldn’t do it. The knives are going to come out on both sides and I think there is going to be some blood spilled on both sides. I shall be curious to see how Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama react to this.
141-94 Democrats
66-132 Republicans
207-226 Total
Ms. Pelosi needed 11 additional members of her own party to pass this and she couldn’t do it. The knives are going to come out on both sides and I think there is going to be some blood spilled on both sides. I shall be curious to see how Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama react to this.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Congress Trek II: Wrath of the Voter
If there is one thing one must always remember about politicians, it is that they are always trying to make sure you reelect them. One of the best ways to do this is to make sure they look like they are doing something to solve problems and that someone else is causing the problems (preferably from the opposite party).
Take this little mortgage kerfuffle. There is a problem as banks are in a bit of a bind and they need some relief. So something does need to be done. We have this bill proposed by Henry Paulson, so we know that the President will support it and sign it. There has been enough parading in front of the news to note that House Democrats, Senate Democrats and some Senate Republicans support the bill. No one has been talking about a filibuster so obviously at least 10 Senate Republicans support this and probably more. So why don’t we have a law yet?
House Republicans have been saying that they don’t like this and they won’t support it. So what? Last time I checked, the House didn’t have any special rules like the Senate where a minority could hold up the majority and Democrats have a reasonable majority. Yes, maybe some of the Blue Dogs are balking, but there are a few liberal Republicans in the house who tend to vote with the Democratic majority and create a counterbalance to the Blue Dogs. If the bill passes 218-217, it still passes and those that opposed it will just have to suck it up. So I ask again, why doesn’t Ms. Pelosi just ram it through and leave Mr. Boehner looking like the powerless man that he is?
There are two reasons:
First, the Democrats are reluctant to push through a bill that a lot of Republicans oppose and that President Bush supports. This would tie them to Bush’s unpopularity and undermine their attempts to link Republican candidates to Bush (like Mr. McCain). They don’t need that statistic floating out there 5 weeks before the election.
Second, although its not getting quite the headlines as the process is, there is still a majority of Americans that oppose this bill. Last poll I saw had about 57% opposed to any bailout of Wall Street. It might be necessary, but regular Americans want to see greed and incompetence punished and they don’t want to foot the bill. So, again with the election only 5 weeks away, Democrats don’t want to be the ones shown as working against the will of the people (even though the will of the people might be wrong) because they will receive the voter’s wrath and could lose their majorities in Congress.
Now we have a game of high stakes chicken. I rather doubt that House Republicans are going to move because they believe they have nothing to lose. Everyone will scream and complain, but the majorities will probably be forced to act because of the crisis frenzy that has been whipped up. Now, whether House Republicans get punished for being obstinate or House Democrats get blamed for defying the will of the people is something I’m not sure anyone knows right now, and that is what has everyone in government so jumpy at the moment.
Take this little mortgage kerfuffle. There is a problem as banks are in a bit of a bind and they need some relief. So something does need to be done. We have this bill proposed by Henry Paulson, so we know that the President will support it and sign it. There has been enough parading in front of the news to note that House Democrats, Senate Democrats and some Senate Republicans support the bill. No one has been talking about a filibuster so obviously at least 10 Senate Republicans support this and probably more. So why don’t we have a law yet?
House Republicans have been saying that they don’t like this and they won’t support it. So what? Last time I checked, the House didn’t have any special rules like the Senate where a minority could hold up the majority and Democrats have a reasonable majority. Yes, maybe some of the Blue Dogs are balking, but there are a few liberal Republicans in the house who tend to vote with the Democratic majority and create a counterbalance to the Blue Dogs. If the bill passes 218-217, it still passes and those that opposed it will just have to suck it up. So I ask again, why doesn’t Ms. Pelosi just ram it through and leave Mr. Boehner looking like the powerless man that he is?
There are two reasons:
First, the Democrats are reluctant to push through a bill that a lot of Republicans oppose and that President Bush supports. This would tie them to Bush’s unpopularity and undermine their attempts to link Republican candidates to Bush (like Mr. McCain). They don’t need that statistic floating out there 5 weeks before the election.
Second, although its not getting quite the headlines as the process is, there is still a majority of Americans that oppose this bill. Last poll I saw had about 57% opposed to any bailout of Wall Street. It might be necessary, but regular Americans want to see greed and incompetence punished and they don’t want to foot the bill. So, again with the election only 5 weeks away, Democrats don’t want to be the ones shown as working against the will of the people (even though the will of the people might be wrong) because they will receive the voter’s wrath and could lose their majorities in Congress.
Now we have a game of high stakes chicken. I rather doubt that House Republicans are going to move because they believe they have nothing to lose. Everyone will scream and complain, but the majorities will probably be forced to act because of the crisis frenzy that has been whipped up. Now, whether House Republicans get punished for being obstinate or House Democrats get blamed for defying the will of the people is something I’m not sure anyone knows right now, and that is what has everyone in government so jumpy at the moment.
Liberalism VS. Monopoly
There has been much terminology bandied about over the last few years and I feel compelled to point out one particular thing. Despite what folks in the conservative media tell you, there is nothing wrong with liberalism (in the definition of large government solutions to problems).
Our country operates in the capitalist system. Now, as anyone who has ever taken an economics course will tell you, left to its own devices, a capitalist system will always end in monopoly in one fashion or the other. Liberalism and Conservatism are the idealistic forces that pull against corporate monopoly and state monopoly respectively. In most cases, a free market has a natural tendency to drift towards corporate monopoly. In fact, this was one of the major problems with the American economy in the late 19th and early 20th century and took liberal actions from people like Theodore Roosevelt and other fair minded individuals to pull the economy away from this morass. Organized labor was another factor that helped break up the power of corporate monopolies.
Unfortunately, leftward monopoly (stateism) is equally harmful. Franklin Roosevelt was able to use the crisis of the Great Depression to try and make the government the largest producer of jobs and capital (spend our way back to health). This didn’t work either (with the exception of the TVA) and only increased demand brought on by World War II kick started the economy back up and gave corporations some of their power back.
One of the main reason that the 1950’s and early 60’s were so good for people was that market forces operated in a good balance. Labor was strong but not overwhelming management with frivolous power grabs and demands. The government offered security nets to low income and the elderly in the early forms of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare. These programs worked because they existed solely as safety valves. Competition kept prices low so that most people didn’t need these programs, keeping government expenditures low, while the Social Security eligible population was also very small and did not stay on the public dole for long as the lifespan of these people was shorter than it is now.
Then things went south under Johnson and continued during Nixon. Johnson expanded all these programs, assuming more state control over the economy as prices rose. Nixon exacerbated the problem by introducing price controls and adding more bloat to the government as they offered more nanny-state services to people. When the price controls were lifted, inflation skyrocketed as market equilibrium returned, forcing further government seizure to protect the people as businesses went under due to the whiplash.
Steadily, government agencies have sought to absorb more and more power, reducing competition and making problems worse as prices always rise in the face of monopoly, with bloat (corporate or government) reducing the efficiency of services provided. Some of this is philosophically driven (believing that the state can control things better than market forces), while some is people trying to improve things in the short term and making things worse in the long.
We are now approaching the point where total state control is possible for certain industries. We are currently watching to see if the government will assume the majority stake in the mortgage market and since the early 1990’s, there has been a movement to nationalize the health care industry.
Health care is a special case as excessive malpractice awards by juries have spiked the insurance premiums paid by doctors and more complicated development of drugs has led to higher medication costs. To survive these price spikes, doctors clump together in the form of mini-corporations (HMOs), further reducing competition. However, this also allows insurance companies to spike premiums even higher as the collective wealth of an HMO allows for even higher malpractice awards (i.e. you’ll get much more money by suing Coke that you would by suing a local drink firm like Faygo). What’s more, with fewer doctors available to recommend their new drugs to, drug companies waste extra money on advertizing and convincing doctors to use their product. This extra capital is then made up by jacking the price of the drug another couple of bucks a pill. Nationalizing health care would take insurance out of the equation and give a single source seller for drug companies, but it would introduce all the problems of monopoly and it is unlikely that costs would decrease. Instead, the costs would be shared by everyone and many people would take advantage to make sure they are “getting their fair share,” increasing overall costs and driving up price. Greater competition, a cap on malpractice awards, and the elimination of drug company solicitation would go a long way to bringing prices down and making health care affordable to all.
Parsing all this together, it is my belief that government sponsored solutions are important and even necessary, especially to protect those who would have no other resource. However, total state control is just as bad as total corporate control. Competition is the only thing that keeps prices low and allows people the luxury of creating higher demand, which in turn creates greater profits and higher wages. We would do better to push back against the recent stateist tendencies and return to a more balanced mix of free market with government safety nets for the downtrodden.
Our country operates in the capitalist system. Now, as anyone who has ever taken an economics course will tell you, left to its own devices, a capitalist system will always end in monopoly in one fashion or the other. Liberalism and Conservatism are the idealistic forces that pull against corporate monopoly and state monopoly respectively. In most cases, a free market has a natural tendency to drift towards corporate monopoly. In fact, this was one of the major problems with the American economy in the late 19th and early 20th century and took liberal actions from people like Theodore Roosevelt and other fair minded individuals to pull the economy away from this morass. Organized labor was another factor that helped break up the power of corporate monopolies.
Unfortunately, leftward monopoly (stateism) is equally harmful. Franklin Roosevelt was able to use the crisis of the Great Depression to try and make the government the largest producer of jobs and capital (spend our way back to health). This didn’t work either (with the exception of the TVA) and only increased demand brought on by World War II kick started the economy back up and gave corporations some of their power back.
One of the main reason that the 1950’s and early 60’s were so good for people was that market forces operated in a good balance. Labor was strong but not overwhelming management with frivolous power grabs and demands. The government offered security nets to low income and the elderly in the early forms of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare. These programs worked because they existed solely as safety valves. Competition kept prices low so that most people didn’t need these programs, keeping government expenditures low, while the Social Security eligible population was also very small and did not stay on the public dole for long as the lifespan of these people was shorter than it is now.
Then things went south under Johnson and continued during Nixon. Johnson expanded all these programs, assuming more state control over the economy as prices rose. Nixon exacerbated the problem by introducing price controls and adding more bloat to the government as they offered more nanny-state services to people. When the price controls were lifted, inflation skyrocketed as market equilibrium returned, forcing further government seizure to protect the people as businesses went under due to the whiplash.
Steadily, government agencies have sought to absorb more and more power, reducing competition and making problems worse as prices always rise in the face of monopoly, with bloat (corporate or government) reducing the efficiency of services provided. Some of this is philosophically driven (believing that the state can control things better than market forces), while some is people trying to improve things in the short term and making things worse in the long.
We are now approaching the point where total state control is possible for certain industries. We are currently watching to see if the government will assume the majority stake in the mortgage market and since the early 1990’s, there has been a movement to nationalize the health care industry.
Health care is a special case as excessive malpractice awards by juries have spiked the insurance premiums paid by doctors and more complicated development of drugs has led to higher medication costs. To survive these price spikes, doctors clump together in the form of mini-corporations (HMOs), further reducing competition. However, this also allows insurance companies to spike premiums even higher as the collective wealth of an HMO allows for even higher malpractice awards (i.e. you’ll get much more money by suing Coke that you would by suing a local drink firm like Faygo). What’s more, with fewer doctors available to recommend their new drugs to, drug companies waste extra money on advertizing and convincing doctors to use their product. This extra capital is then made up by jacking the price of the drug another couple of bucks a pill. Nationalizing health care would take insurance out of the equation and give a single source seller for drug companies, but it would introduce all the problems of monopoly and it is unlikely that costs would decrease. Instead, the costs would be shared by everyone and many people would take advantage to make sure they are “getting their fair share,” increasing overall costs and driving up price. Greater competition, a cap on malpractice awards, and the elimination of drug company solicitation would go a long way to bringing prices down and making health care affordable to all.
Parsing all this together, it is my belief that government sponsored solutions are important and even necessary, especially to protect those who would have no other resource. However, total state control is just as bad as total corporate control. Competition is the only thing that keeps prices low and allows people the luxury of creating higher demand, which in turn creates greater profits and higher wages. We would do better to push back against the recent stateist tendencies and return to a more balanced mix of free market with government safety nets for the downtrodden.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
How's that Knife Feel?
In case anyone might have missed it, Mr. Clinton is still very angry at Mr. Obama.
Yesterday, Mr. McCain pulled a little stunt where he announced that he was “suspending his campaign” to deal with the financial crisis. Of course, Mr. McCain could have gone back at any time, but by putting on a show and saying that he is sacrificing time with the voters, he tries to make himself look more Presidential. Good trick.
Mr. Obama promptly stepped in it, not by dismissing it as the stunt that it was, but by saying that he would be available should the Democratic leadership need him. A man running for President and is the head of his party should be the one dictating, not waiting for others to call when they think he’s needed. People don’t like cheep stunts but they hate gutlessness more. Mr. Obama should have called Mr. McCain’s bluff and been much more forceful about how he is directing things and not pulling stunts.
Then, on top of Mr. Obama’s misstep yesterday, Mr. Clinton goes on Good Morning America and promptly kicks him in the teeth. Mr. Clinton goes out of his way to remind everyone that Mr. McCain offered a series of ten townhall debates in the summer, so it looks less like Mr. McCain is afraid of debating Mr. Obama if he does in fact miss tomorrow’s debate (the VP debate is another matter). Mr. Clinton then goes and points out that Republicans have tried to reform the crisis several times over the past few years but that they were thwarted by Democratic members of Congress (with him being thwarted as well since he tried to fix the problem, he claims). Mr. Clinton is lying through his teeth about his attempts to fix the problem, but it does point out bills to try and fix the problem that were floated in 2003, 2005, and 2007 (Elizabeth Dole was the primary sponsor of all three) and were killed by both Democrats and Republicans who were getting massive amounts of money from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac for their personal and political gain.
Mr. Obama is probably appreciating the knife in his back; especially after just a couple of weeks ago he came to New York to kiss Mr. Clinton’s feet to get him to campaign for him. Mr. Clinton has not forgotten what Mr. Obama stole from him when he defeated Ms. Clinton in the primaries and pointed out the buffoonery of Mr. Clinton when he tried to support her. Mr. Clinton is now going out of his way to sabotage Mr. Obama (while Ms. Clinton looks like the loyal soldier) to ensure that Ms. Clinton will be rolled in as the savior of 2012, sweeping him back into the power and glory that he loves and desperately wants back.
Yesterday, Mr. McCain pulled a little stunt where he announced that he was “suspending his campaign” to deal with the financial crisis. Of course, Mr. McCain could have gone back at any time, but by putting on a show and saying that he is sacrificing time with the voters, he tries to make himself look more Presidential. Good trick.
Mr. Obama promptly stepped in it, not by dismissing it as the stunt that it was, but by saying that he would be available should the Democratic leadership need him. A man running for President and is the head of his party should be the one dictating, not waiting for others to call when they think he’s needed. People don’t like cheep stunts but they hate gutlessness more. Mr. Obama should have called Mr. McCain’s bluff and been much more forceful about how he is directing things and not pulling stunts.
Then, on top of Mr. Obama’s misstep yesterday, Mr. Clinton goes on Good Morning America and promptly kicks him in the teeth. Mr. Clinton goes out of his way to remind everyone that Mr. McCain offered a series of ten townhall debates in the summer, so it looks less like Mr. McCain is afraid of debating Mr. Obama if he does in fact miss tomorrow’s debate (the VP debate is another matter). Mr. Clinton then goes and points out that Republicans have tried to reform the crisis several times over the past few years but that they were thwarted by Democratic members of Congress (with him being thwarted as well since he tried to fix the problem, he claims). Mr. Clinton is lying through his teeth about his attempts to fix the problem, but it does point out bills to try and fix the problem that were floated in 2003, 2005, and 2007 (Elizabeth Dole was the primary sponsor of all three) and were killed by both Democrats and Republicans who were getting massive amounts of money from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac for their personal and political gain.
Mr. Obama is probably appreciating the knife in his back; especially after just a couple of weeks ago he came to New York to kiss Mr. Clinton’s feet to get him to campaign for him. Mr. Clinton has not forgotten what Mr. Obama stole from him when he defeated Ms. Clinton in the primaries and pointed out the buffoonery of Mr. Clinton when he tried to support her. Mr. Clinton is now going out of his way to sabotage Mr. Obama (while Ms. Clinton looks like the loyal soldier) to ensure that Ms. Clinton will be rolled in as the savior of 2012, sweeping him back into the power and glory that he loves and desperately wants back.
Anatomy of a Crisis
Why are we in the mess we are in? Well, like most crises, the history goes back about 15 years with a couple of additions along the way making it what it is now.
In the wake of the Republican sweep of Congress in 1994, Mr. Clinton knew that he had to do something to revive his own base to ensure his reelection in 1996. He seized on a report that was published noting that minority home ownership was significantly lower than the white majority. This is due to the fact that a majority of minorities are poor and banks generally don’t give mortgages to poorer people who are unlikely to pay back the loans. Mr. Clinton authorized the Justice Department to lean on Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae to increase the quota of low-income mortgages, up to 50% of the total that they deal with. These quotas were eventually put into law in 1997, when Democrats made up some of their losses in the House and Senate.
One economist equated this type of lending as picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer. You make profits slowly, but as long and liquidity and credit hold out (i.e. as long as the bulldozer doesn’t move) you’re okay. God help you if there is a credit crunch.
Things were going along dangerously, but smoothly until a new piece of legislation was passed in wake of the Enron scandal. Congress passed a law stating that companies had to report asset holding at their current value than at the projected value. Now, for Enron, this makes sense. It does not make sense for mortgages. A mortgage means that a bank has shelled out a bunch of money for property and you are required to pay them back or the bank takes possession of the property. Banks look at the long term and would report that they spent $100,000 but would be gaining $200,000 (loan plus interest) over the course of 30 years. So a bank would often list the long term value of the mortgage. Now, they have to report what the current value of the mortgage is, which is based on the value of the property and the credit rating of the person paying the mortgage. In other words, banks are reporting much lower assets and these assets are heavily dependent on the housing demand outweighing the supply.
So, now we have a ton of risky mortgages out there with banks reporting much lower assets (thus hurting their own credit rating). But then the housing market bubble bursts and the value of property goes way down. People who had been putting off paying anything (even the interest on the mortgage) suddenly find themselves owing much more than their property is worth, so they bail and the house is foreclosed on. Now the bank has a bunch of properties that it can’t sell to even responsible buyers for the value that they shelled out for it. Thus bank credit dries up. Banks then have to lean on insurance firms to cover their assets (AIG, etc.). The sudden cashing in of insurance causes the insurance firms to crash because they don’t have enough capital to cover everything at once (as is traditional in most insurance firms). So now banks have no credit available to them, no assets, and no insurance capital to keep them solvent. Thus, firms go belly up.
So, what the government is now offering is to take all of these low value mortgages off the bank’s hands in exchange for a large influx of cash. So the government will now own a ton of mortgages and since they make the money, they don’t care about reporting assets. They can afford to wait things out, wait for demand to creep back up and sell the foreclosed houses and give the people who are in trouble (but haven’t been foreclosed on) more time to pay back their loans. Once things are stabilized, the government will then start slowly selling back solvent mortgages to banks and make a killing. One paper has estimated that the government stands to gain between $1 and 2.3 trillion on their $700 billion rescue operation. Of course, the politicians in Congress will not return that money to the taxpayer. They will simply report that as income, write off the $700 billion into the deficit and increase spending programs based on the projected spending.
If the package goes through, people should start lobbying the government to either take this mortgage revenue to either pay down the deficit or send us all nice big royalty checks of several thousand dollars per taxpayer that we should be owed for getting into this business in the first place.
In the wake of the Republican sweep of Congress in 1994, Mr. Clinton knew that he had to do something to revive his own base to ensure his reelection in 1996. He seized on a report that was published noting that minority home ownership was significantly lower than the white majority. This is due to the fact that a majority of minorities are poor and banks generally don’t give mortgages to poorer people who are unlikely to pay back the loans. Mr. Clinton authorized the Justice Department to lean on Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae to increase the quota of low-income mortgages, up to 50% of the total that they deal with. These quotas were eventually put into law in 1997, when Democrats made up some of their losses in the House and Senate.
One economist equated this type of lending as picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer. You make profits slowly, but as long and liquidity and credit hold out (i.e. as long as the bulldozer doesn’t move) you’re okay. God help you if there is a credit crunch.
Things were going along dangerously, but smoothly until a new piece of legislation was passed in wake of the Enron scandal. Congress passed a law stating that companies had to report asset holding at their current value than at the projected value. Now, for Enron, this makes sense. It does not make sense for mortgages. A mortgage means that a bank has shelled out a bunch of money for property and you are required to pay them back or the bank takes possession of the property. Banks look at the long term and would report that they spent $100,000 but would be gaining $200,000 (loan plus interest) over the course of 30 years. So a bank would often list the long term value of the mortgage. Now, they have to report what the current value of the mortgage is, which is based on the value of the property and the credit rating of the person paying the mortgage. In other words, banks are reporting much lower assets and these assets are heavily dependent on the housing demand outweighing the supply.
So, now we have a ton of risky mortgages out there with banks reporting much lower assets (thus hurting their own credit rating). But then the housing market bubble bursts and the value of property goes way down. People who had been putting off paying anything (even the interest on the mortgage) suddenly find themselves owing much more than their property is worth, so they bail and the house is foreclosed on. Now the bank has a bunch of properties that it can’t sell to even responsible buyers for the value that they shelled out for it. Thus bank credit dries up. Banks then have to lean on insurance firms to cover their assets (AIG, etc.). The sudden cashing in of insurance causes the insurance firms to crash because they don’t have enough capital to cover everything at once (as is traditional in most insurance firms). So now banks have no credit available to them, no assets, and no insurance capital to keep them solvent. Thus, firms go belly up.
So, what the government is now offering is to take all of these low value mortgages off the bank’s hands in exchange for a large influx of cash. So the government will now own a ton of mortgages and since they make the money, they don’t care about reporting assets. They can afford to wait things out, wait for demand to creep back up and sell the foreclosed houses and give the people who are in trouble (but haven’t been foreclosed on) more time to pay back their loans. Once things are stabilized, the government will then start slowly selling back solvent mortgages to banks and make a killing. One paper has estimated that the government stands to gain between $1 and 2.3 trillion on their $700 billion rescue operation. Of course, the politicians in Congress will not return that money to the taxpayer. They will simply report that as income, write off the $700 billion into the deficit and increase spending programs based on the projected spending.
If the package goes through, people should start lobbying the government to either take this mortgage revenue to either pay down the deficit or send us all nice big royalty checks of several thousand dollars per taxpayer that we should be owed for getting into this business in the first place.
Monday, September 15, 2008
The Western Deciders
In the past couple of weeks in the election, there has been a renewed sense of confidence among Republicans and a smell of fear among the Democrats that they could actually lose this election. Some of this is due to the energization of the Republican base by the selection of Ms. Palin, but I think more of it is coming from ordinary people just starting to pay attention and deciding that they prefer Mr. McCain’s policies to Mr. Obama’s. At least, that’s what I like to tell myself to keep up the belief that the American people are still predominantly issues voters.
Despite Mr. Obama’s belief that he could redraw the election map, I’m seeing very little evidence that this election will be any different from the last two. Most states are settling in to their old red state-blue state pattern, with four states in particular making up the real swing states in the election. The media would have you believe that the election will turn on Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, but it is more likely to spin on Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. Granted, if Mr. McCain flips Michigan or Pennsylvania or if Mr. Obama flips Ohio, that would effectively end the race due to the tightness of things; but as of yet, I’m seeing no evidence that these three states will deviate from their 2004 result.
The state of the race at the moment is that Mr. Obama will carry all the states that Mr. Kerry won and Iowa. This puts his Electoral College total at 259. Mr. McCain would win all the states that Mr. Bush won, leaving out the four toss-up states mentioned above. This would put his Electoral College total at 247. My opinion of the four toss-up states is as follows:
Virginia (13): This would be another state that Mr. Obama would like to win and officially end the election. However, despite the more liberal population of the DC suburbs, Mr. McCain has consistently polled in front by 2-3 points. Although this is within the margin of error, a consistent showing indicates that he is ahead. What’s more, polls cannot capture the large military vote that is registered in Virginia and will likely break for Mr. McCain. Although it may take a while to show on election night, I would be surprised if Mr. McCain did not win Virginia barring a major shift in the political winds. This would improve Mr. McCain’s standing to 260 EC votes.
Nevada (5): Nevada is almost identical to Virginia, with the one caveat being that Mr. Bush only won Nevada 51-49 in 2004, while he won Virginia by nearly 8 points. However, Mr. McCain has consistently polled ahead by 2 or more points in the averages and being from neighboring Arizona might help his standing in the state (the Yucca Mountain issue not withstanding). Like Virginia, I would tentatively put this state in Mr. McCain’s column, raising his EC vote total to 265.
Colorado (9): Colorado has a very tight Senate race that is going to drive turnout. The state has Republican roots, but it has been trending Democratic, especially as the mountaineering ranchers are replaced by environmentally conscious folks fleeing the urban sprawl of California. There have been one or two outlier polls, but for the most part, Mr. Obama has been consistently ahead by about 3-4 points. There could be a shift, especially if Republicans pump up turnout for the Senate race but at this time, I would tentatively place this state in the Democratic column. This increases Mr. Obama’s EC total to 268 votes.
New Mexico (5): If the three previous states swing as I have postulated, then it is New Mexico that would decide things. That would be rather interesting given that the state swung to Mr. Gore by 366 votes out 598,605 cast in 2000 and to Mr. Bush by 5,988 votes out of 756,304 cast in 2004. Mr. Obama had been polling ahead prior to the conventions by about 2-3 points, but recent polls taken after the convention have shown Mr. McCain taking the lead by a point or two. If Mr. Obama wins the state and everything else plays out as stated, he will win the election with 273 electoral votes. However, if Mr. McCain wins New Mexico and the rest of the states play out as postulated, he would win the election with 270 electoral votes. What’s more, Mr. Obama would then be subject to not only second guessing about not selecting Ms. Clinton as his running mate, but Bill Richardson as well. The selection of the popular governor would certainly have cemented New Mexico into the blue column for this election.
But we are still fifty days out and many things could change. Perhaps a big state like Pennsylvania or Virginia will flip, rendering all these arguments moot. Perhaps not. One other little thing to the remember. Although offical victory is 270 points, a little manipulation of the toss-up states with New Hampshire thrown in the mix, could produce a 269-269 tie. In this event, the race gets decided by the House and each state delegation would get one vote. By my last count, the Democrats have majorities in 26 state delegations, which would give Mr. Obama the Presidency. In effect, if things play out as I mentioned above and Mr. McCain wins New Mexico, Mr. Obama would literally fall 1 vote short of victory as even a tie would give him victory.
Despite Mr. Obama’s belief that he could redraw the election map, I’m seeing very little evidence that this election will be any different from the last two. Most states are settling in to their old red state-blue state pattern, with four states in particular making up the real swing states in the election. The media would have you believe that the election will turn on Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, but it is more likely to spin on Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. Granted, if Mr. McCain flips Michigan or Pennsylvania or if Mr. Obama flips Ohio, that would effectively end the race due to the tightness of things; but as of yet, I’m seeing no evidence that these three states will deviate from their 2004 result.
The state of the race at the moment is that Mr. Obama will carry all the states that Mr. Kerry won and Iowa. This puts his Electoral College total at 259. Mr. McCain would win all the states that Mr. Bush won, leaving out the four toss-up states mentioned above. This would put his Electoral College total at 247. My opinion of the four toss-up states is as follows:
Virginia (13): This would be another state that Mr. Obama would like to win and officially end the election. However, despite the more liberal population of the DC suburbs, Mr. McCain has consistently polled in front by 2-3 points. Although this is within the margin of error, a consistent showing indicates that he is ahead. What’s more, polls cannot capture the large military vote that is registered in Virginia and will likely break for Mr. McCain. Although it may take a while to show on election night, I would be surprised if Mr. McCain did not win Virginia barring a major shift in the political winds. This would improve Mr. McCain’s standing to 260 EC votes.
Nevada (5): Nevada is almost identical to Virginia, with the one caveat being that Mr. Bush only won Nevada 51-49 in 2004, while he won Virginia by nearly 8 points. However, Mr. McCain has consistently polled ahead by 2 or more points in the averages and being from neighboring Arizona might help his standing in the state (the Yucca Mountain issue not withstanding). Like Virginia, I would tentatively put this state in Mr. McCain’s column, raising his EC vote total to 265.
Colorado (9): Colorado has a very tight Senate race that is going to drive turnout. The state has Republican roots, but it has been trending Democratic, especially as the mountaineering ranchers are replaced by environmentally conscious folks fleeing the urban sprawl of California. There have been one or two outlier polls, but for the most part, Mr. Obama has been consistently ahead by about 3-4 points. There could be a shift, especially if Republicans pump up turnout for the Senate race but at this time, I would tentatively place this state in the Democratic column. This increases Mr. Obama’s EC total to 268 votes.
New Mexico (5): If the three previous states swing as I have postulated, then it is New Mexico that would decide things. That would be rather interesting given that the state swung to Mr. Gore by 366 votes out 598,605 cast in 2000 and to Mr. Bush by 5,988 votes out of 756,304 cast in 2004. Mr. Obama had been polling ahead prior to the conventions by about 2-3 points, but recent polls taken after the convention have shown Mr. McCain taking the lead by a point or two. If Mr. Obama wins the state and everything else plays out as stated, he will win the election with 273 electoral votes. However, if Mr. McCain wins New Mexico and the rest of the states play out as postulated, he would win the election with 270 electoral votes. What’s more, Mr. Obama would then be subject to not only second guessing about not selecting Ms. Clinton as his running mate, but Bill Richardson as well. The selection of the popular governor would certainly have cemented New Mexico into the blue column for this election.
But we are still fifty days out and many things could change. Perhaps a big state like Pennsylvania or Virginia will flip, rendering all these arguments moot. Perhaps not. One other little thing to the remember. Although offical victory is 270 points, a little manipulation of the toss-up states with New Hampshire thrown in the mix, could produce a 269-269 tie. In this event, the race gets decided by the House and each state delegation would get one vote. By my last count, the Democrats have majorities in 26 state delegations, which would give Mr. Obama the Presidency. In effect, if things play out as I mentioned above and Mr. McCain wins New Mexico, Mr. Obama would literally fall 1 vote short of victory as even a tie would give him victory.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Money Questions
My apologies for not updating in so long. My updates might be a little less frequent due to the new position I have taken at my company. I usually updated during the down times at work or over lunch. There have been a lot fewer down times in this new position, which is good for keeping me engaged, but bad for blogging.
Anyway, the election is fully set now with the McCain/Palin ticket vs. the Obama/Biden ticket. Most polls I have seen are showing a modest boost for Mr. McCain, though this could vanish the further we get from the convention. As of yet, I’ve not seen enough of a shift in the key state polls to suggest absolute panic on Mr. Obama’s part. He’s still leading in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. He’s also still very close in Virginia and Florida, though word is that he has pulled the advertising budget in these states.
It is actually this little bit that is suggesting a small stink of fear from the Left in what I’ve read. Although Mr. Obama is still pulling in a significant amount of money, his rates seem to have been declining and he seems to be having to work harder to get it. This forces him off the trail while Mr. McCain can stay on it due to his having $84 million in taxpayer funds. What’s worse is that Mr. Obama’s continued draw on donors is pulling away money that the DNC needs to fund its Congressional candidates.
Money isn’t everything, but if Mr. Obama loses certain states by narrow margins, or if Congressional Democrats lose races by small amounts, there will be a question as to whether just one more ad buy wouldn’t have put them over the top.
Likely there will be little movement in the polls, barring a major mistake by someone, until after the debates are over. Most people are just now waking up to the race again and they will make up their minds fully when they’ve compared Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama side by side on whatever issues matter to them.
I’ll do my best to keep tabs on things and offer my own two-cents now and again.
Anyway, the election is fully set now with the McCain/Palin ticket vs. the Obama/Biden ticket. Most polls I have seen are showing a modest boost for Mr. McCain, though this could vanish the further we get from the convention. As of yet, I’ve not seen enough of a shift in the key state polls to suggest absolute panic on Mr. Obama’s part. He’s still leading in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. He’s also still very close in Virginia and Florida, though word is that he has pulled the advertising budget in these states.
It is actually this little bit that is suggesting a small stink of fear from the Left in what I’ve read. Although Mr. Obama is still pulling in a significant amount of money, his rates seem to have been declining and he seems to be having to work harder to get it. This forces him off the trail while Mr. McCain can stay on it due to his having $84 million in taxpayer funds. What’s worse is that Mr. Obama’s continued draw on donors is pulling away money that the DNC needs to fund its Congressional candidates.
Money isn’t everything, but if Mr. Obama loses certain states by narrow margins, or if Congressional Democrats lose races by small amounts, there will be a question as to whether just one more ad buy wouldn’t have put them over the top.
Likely there will be little movement in the polls, barring a major mistake by someone, until after the debates are over. Most people are just now waking up to the race again and they will make up their minds fully when they’ve compared Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama side by side on whatever issues matter to them.
I’ll do my best to keep tabs on things and offer my own two-cents now and again.
Friday, August 08, 2008
The Dangers of Ignorance
If you ever wanted to read something that speaks to the absolute asinine ignorance of people, read this Time article about reaction to Mr. McCain's The One ad.
Let's dispense with the faux outrage. Every campaign makes attack ads and this is no exception. What's more, people have been mocking Mr. Obama as a secular messiah long before this. Back in February, when he was mopping the floor with Ms. Clinton, there were numerous snarky comments made by her supporters and rightys of his messianic following. Mr. Obama's tendency towards grandiose statements ("we are the one's we've been waiting for") and over the top statements by his supporters (he is a "Light-worker") haven't helped. But trying to read images of Antichrist into is just stupid and displays a great deal of theological ignorance on top. This is even more concerning because if people are ignorant of the real signs of the coming of Antichrist, they're much more likely to be deceived.
First, comparing things to the Left Behind books is not proper interpretation. Left Behind is a work of fiction based on one man's interpretation of Scripture regarding end time events. There are several interpretations that Mr. LeHaye makes that I and people much more learned than I disagree with. Believing that Mr. Obama is Antichrist because a scene looks like the cover of a fiction book is silly.
Second, is the seal metaphor. One fellow in the Time article noted that the briefly used Obama seal rising out of the Red Sea is like the Antichrist rising out of the sea with wings of an eagle. Incorrect. There are two creatures rising out of the sea with wings of an eagle out of the four in Dan. 7:4-8: the first is a lion with wings and the third is a leopard with four heads and wings. But neither of these is the Antichrist. All four beasts that rise represent kingdoms (interpretation is mixed on whether they are historic or modern) an not men specifically. In fact, the Antichrist is heavily implied as the little horn that pops out of one of the ten horns of the 4th beast (which does not have wings). Even in Revelation 13:1-3, where the beast representing the Antichrist is given a much more fleshed out appearance, it does not have wings.
Third, Mr. Obama's lineage precludes him from being Antichrist. Daniel 9:26 mentions that Antichrist will come from the people that destroyed the second Temple. This means that he will either be of Roman or Syrian heritage (Rome commanded the legions but the three legions that actually destroyed the Temple were all recruited from the province of Syria and the territory of Edom (covering modern Syria, Lebanon, southern Turkey, northern Iraq, and Jordan). Isaiah also refers to Antichrist as "the Assyrian." I don't know the lineage of Mr. Obama's mother but the inherited lineage in Biblical interpretation is through the father, and Mr. Obama's father is African, making him of Hamitic stock, completely excluded from the prophecy of Daniel.
Fourth, and this the one that irritates me to no end with this and any other Antichrist claims, Antichrist CANNOT be revealed until the restraining hand of God is withdrawn. 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 states that the Man of Lawlessness (Antichrist) is being restrained through the power of the Holy Spirit and he will only be revealed when the Holy Spirit is withdrawn. Now, as the Holy Spirit dwells within the heart of any one who has been forgiven of their sins, this means that Antichrist cannot be revealed until those whom the Holy Spirit dwells within have been withdrawn, i.e. not until after the Rapture. Then, and only then can Antichrist be revealed.
I would also add that Antichrist is implied to come from humble origins so the idea of him being already established as President of a major world power also rubs against the grain of Scripture. I don't mean to get on a high horse about this, but hysterical shrieking about these type of things belittles their importance. Antichrist is literally the worst thing that will ever happen to the world and to either lightly accuse someone of making Antichrist allusions, backing it up with incorrect Scriptural backing is very, very dangerous. It is through ignorance first and foremost that people bring about their own destruction.
Let's dispense with the faux outrage. Every campaign makes attack ads and this is no exception. What's more, people have been mocking Mr. Obama as a secular messiah long before this. Back in February, when he was mopping the floor with Ms. Clinton, there were numerous snarky comments made by her supporters and rightys of his messianic following. Mr. Obama's tendency towards grandiose statements ("we are the one's we've been waiting for") and over the top statements by his supporters (he is a "Light-worker") haven't helped. But trying to read images of Antichrist into is just stupid and displays a great deal of theological ignorance on top. This is even more concerning because if people are ignorant of the real signs of the coming of Antichrist, they're much more likely to be deceived.
First, comparing things to the Left Behind books is not proper interpretation. Left Behind is a work of fiction based on one man's interpretation of Scripture regarding end time events. There are several interpretations that Mr. LeHaye makes that I and people much more learned than I disagree with. Believing that Mr. Obama is Antichrist because a scene looks like the cover of a fiction book is silly.
Second, is the seal metaphor. One fellow in the Time article noted that the briefly used Obama seal rising out of the Red Sea is like the Antichrist rising out of the sea with wings of an eagle. Incorrect. There are two creatures rising out of the sea with wings of an eagle out of the four in Dan. 7:4-8: the first is a lion with wings and the third is a leopard with four heads and wings. But neither of these is the Antichrist. All four beasts that rise represent kingdoms (interpretation is mixed on whether they are historic or modern) an not men specifically. In fact, the Antichrist is heavily implied as the little horn that pops out of one of the ten horns of the 4th beast (which does not have wings). Even in Revelation 13:1-3, where the beast representing the Antichrist is given a much more fleshed out appearance, it does not have wings.
Third, Mr. Obama's lineage precludes him from being Antichrist. Daniel 9:26 mentions that Antichrist will come from the people that destroyed the second Temple. This means that he will either be of Roman or Syrian heritage (Rome commanded the legions but the three legions that actually destroyed the Temple were all recruited from the province of Syria and the territory of Edom (covering modern Syria, Lebanon, southern Turkey, northern Iraq, and Jordan). Isaiah also refers to Antichrist as "the Assyrian." I don't know the lineage of Mr. Obama's mother but the inherited lineage in Biblical interpretation is through the father, and Mr. Obama's father is African, making him of Hamitic stock, completely excluded from the prophecy of Daniel.
Fourth, and this the one that irritates me to no end with this and any other Antichrist claims, Antichrist CANNOT be revealed until the restraining hand of God is withdrawn. 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 states that the Man of Lawlessness (Antichrist) is being restrained through the power of the Holy Spirit and he will only be revealed when the Holy Spirit is withdrawn. Now, as the Holy Spirit dwells within the heart of any one who has been forgiven of their sins, this means that Antichrist cannot be revealed until those whom the Holy Spirit dwells within have been withdrawn, i.e. not until after the Rapture. Then, and only then can Antichrist be revealed.
I would also add that Antichrist is implied to come from humble origins so the idea of him being already established as President of a major world power also rubs against the grain of Scripture. I don't mean to get on a high horse about this, but hysterical shrieking about these type of things belittles their importance. Antichrist is literally the worst thing that will ever happen to the world and to either lightly accuse someone of making Antichrist allusions, backing it up with incorrect Scriptural backing is very, very dangerous. It is through ignorance first and foremost that people bring about their own destruction.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Catch Up Assessment
Sorry I’ve been away for so long. I’ve recently had a change of position at my job (including a physical move to a new desk) and it’s been relatively slow in the political world. Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain remain neck and neck overall and in some very important states. One could argue that this is bad news for Mr. Obama as historically the opposition candidate is way ahead, but it’s too early to say if this is a sign of doom or if the American public is actually paying attention at the moment. Appreciable numbers should start trickling in about mid-September.
Meanwhile, things are in a bit of a holding pattern in the Middle East. Israel is now in process to change her head of state in September. The new Prime Minister will still be from the Kadima party unless things fall apart so bad that new elections are called for (they are currently slated for the latter half of 2009).
Fortunately, Israel has a bit of a reprieve from the Iranians and the Palestinians to some degree. Russia is behind on delivering their new anti-aircraft system to Iran and it is unlikely that it will be installed before the year is up. This gives Israel more time to plan and gather information on the ground before they go in and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Also, the Palestinians are busy fighting each other, committing such nefarious deeds as shaving off the mustaches of other party members as well as the standard killing them and their entire family.
All this gives Israel time to regroup and get themselves in line for the battle that is coming. No matter what the result of the American elections, Israel will probably have no choice but to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities themselves. What’s more, this will probably have to happen sometime later this year before more advanced defense methods are ready. Israel probably already has the green light from Mr. Bush and he will just ask for a few minutes warning so he can tell his commanders to ignore any aircraft signals flying over Iraq.
It is likely that the attack on Iran will trigger a rocket assault from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. I’m not sure if Fatah or Islamic Jihad will join in with attacks from Judea or not. However, Israel’s new Prim Minister will have to steel themselves and be prepared to finish the job when beating back her attackers, or she will just be that much weaker when the next round of fighting comes again.
I don’t know if Israel will wait until after the November elections or not to attack. Of course, they want a US President that’s friendly to them and who knows how an attack on Iran would influence American voters (right and left). But, Israel should not be beholden to the US either and should make the attack when her commanders and the Mossad (who should have agents in Iran) say so.
I’ve always thought that the attack will come at night, around the time of the new moon. This would give the Israelis the maximum advantage with their superior technology. The next few new moons should be around Aug. 29, Sept. 26, Oct. 24, and Nov. 21. Hot times are coming.
Meanwhile, things are in a bit of a holding pattern in the Middle East. Israel is now in process to change her head of state in September. The new Prime Minister will still be from the Kadima party unless things fall apart so bad that new elections are called for (they are currently slated for the latter half of 2009).
Fortunately, Israel has a bit of a reprieve from the Iranians and the Palestinians to some degree. Russia is behind on delivering their new anti-aircraft system to Iran and it is unlikely that it will be installed before the year is up. This gives Israel more time to plan and gather information on the ground before they go in and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Also, the Palestinians are busy fighting each other, committing such nefarious deeds as shaving off the mustaches of other party members as well as the standard killing them and their entire family.
All this gives Israel time to regroup and get themselves in line for the battle that is coming. No matter what the result of the American elections, Israel will probably have no choice but to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities themselves. What’s more, this will probably have to happen sometime later this year before more advanced defense methods are ready. Israel probably already has the green light from Mr. Bush and he will just ask for a few minutes warning so he can tell his commanders to ignore any aircraft signals flying over Iraq.
It is likely that the attack on Iran will trigger a rocket assault from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. I’m not sure if Fatah or Islamic Jihad will join in with attacks from Judea or not. However, Israel’s new Prim Minister will have to steel themselves and be prepared to finish the job when beating back her attackers, or she will just be that much weaker when the next round of fighting comes again.
I don’t know if Israel will wait until after the November elections or not to attack. Of course, they want a US President that’s friendly to them and who knows how an attack on Iran would influence American voters (right and left). But, Israel should not be beholden to the US either and should make the attack when her commanders and the Mossad (who should have agents in Iran) say so.
I’ve always thought that the attack will come at night, around the time of the new moon. This would give the Israelis the maximum advantage with their superior technology. The next few new moons should be around Aug. 29, Sept. 26, Oct. 24, and Nov. 21. Hot times are coming.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Drawing the Battle Lines
A divide is coming. The divide has been a long time in coming, but other events are finally starting to push it to the breaking point. Yesterday, Iraq opened up its oil fields to development by Western oil companies. Saudi Arabia has also recently talked about how they are willing to increase production by small amounts. This is in contrast to many other oil companies who are run by dictatorial regimes and simply want a lot of money.
Iraq has no real choice but to invite Western companies in, simply because it still lacks the complete infrastructure to put out what they are capable of producing. Plus, the Iraqi government is generally pro-Western given their recent situation. Saudi Arabia on the other hand is simply being farsighted. They know the price of oil will stay high due to insane demand from China and India. But they are very worried that the rocketing prices will push the US and Canada to establish themselves as completely independent of foreign oil and develop alternatives to oil that they would in turn sell to Europe, undercutting the market.
On the other side of the fence, you have most other OPEC nations, being led by the Iran-Russia alliance. These nations are more than willing to take a short amount of pain in the effort to keep themselves rich and use oil as a weapon against more powerful nations. Iran in particular has made no secret of the fact that they will close the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic (where 40% of Middle Eastern oil passes through) if their nuclear facilities are attacked or if anyone sides with Israel in the event of an Iranian retaliation for an Israeli attack.
More than likely, the world will see two camps form. Russia and Iran will take the point and lure as many oil producing and oil processing nations into their alliance (this would include Turkey who doesn’t produce much oil, but controls a large number of oil pipelines). Counterbalancing this would be the more pro-Western oil nations who grow more and more fearful of not only loss of influence, but outright military assault.
This will probably have the effect of creating an odd looking set of concentric rings around Israel. Israel would be at the center, surrounded by a set of nations and factions that are all either pro-Iranian, or Iranian proxies. Then there would be a second ring where the countries, while not pro-Israel, are at least indifferent and opposed to Iran (Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, SA). Then there would be the outer ring of the of the oil-war nations (Iran, Russia and the various -stans, Turkey, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, etc.). What’s more, while the US, Canada, Australia, and Japan might be able to remain free of the oil-war league’s nets, other countries such as India, China, and parts of Europe might be forced to dance to whatever tune the Russians and Iranians dictate due to their own energy demands.
We know Israel will be forced to deal with Iran very soon. However, it’s actions in the face of the power of the new alliance that is forming means that Israel will soon stand alone. Even the US will probably be forced to be less vocal in its support, no matter which party wins the White House. Once that happens, woe to us all.
Iraq has no real choice but to invite Western companies in, simply because it still lacks the complete infrastructure to put out what they are capable of producing. Plus, the Iraqi government is generally pro-Western given their recent situation. Saudi Arabia on the other hand is simply being farsighted. They know the price of oil will stay high due to insane demand from China and India. But they are very worried that the rocketing prices will push the US and Canada to establish themselves as completely independent of foreign oil and develop alternatives to oil that they would in turn sell to Europe, undercutting the market.
On the other side of the fence, you have most other OPEC nations, being led by the Iran-Russia alliance. These nations are more than willing to take a short amount of pain in the effort to keep themselves rich and use oil as a weapon against more powerful nations. Iran in particular has made no secret of the fact that they will close the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic (where 40% of Middle Eastern oil passes through) if their nuclear facilities are attacked or if anyone sides with Israel in the event of an Iranian retaliation for an Israeli attack.
More than likely, the world will see two camps form. Russia and Iran will take the point and lure as many oil producing and oil processing nations into their alliance (this would include Turkey who doesn’t produce much oil, but controls a large number of oil pipelines). Counterbalancing this would be the more pro-Western oil nations who grow more and more fearful of not only loss of influence, but outright military assault.
This will probably have the effect of creating an odd looking set of concentric rings around Israel. Israel would be at the center, surrounded by a set of nations and factions that are all either pro-Iranian, or Iranian proxies. Then there would be a second ring where the countries, while not pro-Israel, are at least indifferent and opposed to Iran (Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, SA). Then there would be the outer ring of the of the oil-war nations (Iran, Russia and the various -stans, Turkey, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, etc.). What’s more, while the US, Canada, Australia, and Japan might be able to remain free of the oil-war league’s nets, other countries such as India, China, and parts of Europe might be forced to dance to whatever tune the Russians and Iranians dictate due to their own energy demands.
We know Israel will be forced to deal with Iran very soon. However, it’s actions in the face of the power of the new alliance that is forming means that Israel will soon stand alone. Even the US will probably be forced to be less vocal in its support, no matter which party wins the White House. Once that happens, woe to us all.
Monday, June 23, 2008
...Before the Dark Times
Last week, we all got a bit of a notice that Israel is fully prepared to do what it needs to do to ensure that Iran does not get nuclear weapons. Their little display out in Greece was both a warning and a legitimate dry run for an attack. There are several factors that influenced this:
First, most experts seem to agree that Iran might be able to start producing weapons-grade uranium in less than six months.
Second, the US presidential election might produce an administration that will not look very favorably on an Israeli bombing mission and turn the screws accordingly in a way that Mr. Bush has not.
Third, and most importantly, Russia has stepped in and sold Iran a set of field use anti-aircraft missiles that could destroy much of a planned Israeli attack force.
It is this third item that really stands out. If the Israelis have spies on the ground that are telling them that Iran can knock out an aerial assault force within two months, it stands to reason that they will attack before the defenses are in place.
A fellow with whom I sometimes discuss things like this noted that it would make sense for Israel to be planning their attack during a period of no moon. Since one can’t exactly depend on cloud cover over the course of a 900-mile flight, it would make sense that the attack would take place during the period of the new moon. The next two new moons will happen around July 4th and August 1st.
I also mention this because it is very obvious that Iran is not going to take the destruction of their nuclear reactor lying down. They might not do much more than seethe with their own army (they would have to either march through Turkey or fight through us and the Iraqis to get to Israel), but as they all but control Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and heavily fund Hamas; it doesn’t take much imagination to see how Iran will execute its counterpunch.
I made the note about dates because of one other little fact. I personally think that an attack over the 4th of July weekend is probably too little time for Israel, making an attack at the beginning of August much more likely. August 10th is the fast of Tisha B’Av (the ninth of Av) marking a day of fasting and repentance as Jews note the day that both Temples were destroyed (by the Babylonians and Romans respectively). There are some other fasts that lead up to this date among the more orthodox as well as the whole three week period leading up to the fast is generally referred to as the “dark times” (17 Tammuz to 9 Av).
The last time Israel’s neighbors planned a major assault on her, it coincided with Yom Kippur in 1973. I would not be shocked if Iran was already telling its proxies to be ready to make a massive attack to coincide with the “dark days.” It might catch the Israelis off guard and the psychological impact of being attacked from all sides during a period of profound mourning could be devastating. One should also not discount the possibility that Syria might take the extreme measure and use non-conventional weapons in its attempts to regain the Golan and other surrounding areas. If that happens, Israel will not hesitate in turning Damascus into a glass parking lot.
I don’t know if this is exactly where we are going, but it is a scenario that is starting to become a lot more real as we roll forward.
First, most experts seem to agree that Iran might be able to start producing weapons-grade uranium in less than six months.
Second, the US presidential election might produce an administration that will not look very favorably on an Israeli bombing mission and turn the screws accordingly in a way that Mr. Bush has not.
Third, and most importantly, Russia has stepped in and sold Iran a set of field use anti-aircraft missiles that could destroy much of a planned Israeli attack force.
It is this third item that really stands out. If the Israelis have spies on the ground that are telling them that Iran can knock out an aerial assault force within two months, it stands to reason that they will attack before the defenses are in place.
A fellow with whom I sometimes discuss things like this noted that it would make sense for Israel to be planning their attack during a period of no moon. Since one can’t exactly depend on cloud cover over the course of a 900-mile flight, it would make sense that the attack would take place during the period of the new moon. The next two new moons will happen around July 4th and August 1st.
I also mention this because it is very obvious that Iran is not going to take the destruction of their nuclear reactor lying down. They might not do much more than seethe with their own army (they would have to either march through Turkey or fight through us and the Iraqis to get to Israel), but as they all but control Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and heavily fund Hamas; it doesn’t take much imagination to see how Iran will execute its counterpunch.
I made the note about dates because of one other little fact. I personally think that an attack over the 4th of July weekend is probably too little time for Israel, making an attack at the beginning of August much more likely. August 10th is the fast of Tisha B’Av (the ninth of Av) marking a day of fasting and repentance as Jews note the day that both Temples were destroyed (by the Babylonians and Romans respectively). There are some other fasts that lead up to this date among the more orthodox as well as the whole three week period leading up to the fast is generally referred to as the “dark times” (17 Tammuz to 9 Av).
The last time Israel’s neighbors planned a major assault on her, it coincided with Yom Kippur in 1973. I would not be shocked if Iran was already telling its proxies to be ready to make a massive attack to coincide with the “dark days.” It might catch the Israelis off guard and the psychological impact of being attacked from all sides during a period of profound mourning could be devastating. One should also not discount the possibility that Syria might take the extreme measure and use non-conventional weapons in its attempts to regain the Golan and other surrounding areas. If that happens, Israel will not hesitate in turning Damascus into a glass parking lot.
I don’t know if this is exactly where we are going, but it is a scenario that is starting to become a lot more real as we roll forward.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
New AFI List
Last night, we watched AFI's latest listing of movies. This time, they took just the top 10 from 10 different genres. Mrs. X and I had seen a listing of the movies to pick from before and tried to guess what would be number 1. We got 6 of the 10 right, which isn't bad. Two of the ones we got wrong (Sci-Fi and Romantic Comedy) I have no qualms about. Especially as our guess ended up being the number two choice. However, I disagree with them on the remaining two that we got wrong (Western and Epic). In Western, the #2 movie (High Noon) should have been #1 and personally don't see any way that Lawrence of Arabia (grand in scope as it is) can possibly compare to the overwhelming scale of either Ben-Hur or Gone With the Wind.
Anyway. For grins and giggles, here are the full lists, complete with my notes on whether I have seen the movies or not (and am "cultured" by AFI definition):
Animation
1) Snow White *
2) Pinocchio *
3) Bambi +
4) Lion King *
5) Fantasia *
6) Toy Story +
7) Beauty and the Beast *
8) Shrek *
9) Cinderella *
10) Finding Nemo *
Romantic Comedy
1) City Lights
2) Annie Hall
3) It Happened One Night
4) Roman Holiday
5) The Philadelphia Story
6) When Harry Met Sally +
7) Adam’s Rib
8) Moonstruck
9) Harold and Maude
10) Sleepless in Seattle
Western
1) The Searchers
2) High Noon
3) Shane
4) Unforgiven *
5) Red River
6) The Wild Bunch
7) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid +
8) McCabe and Mrs. Miller
9) Stagecoach
10) Cat Ballou
Sports
1) Raging Bull
2) Rocky +
3) Pride of the Yankees *
4) Hoosiers
5) Bull Durham +
6) The Hustler
7) Caddyshack *
8) Breaking Away
9) National Velvet
10) Jerry Maguire *
Mystery
1) Vertigo *
2) Chinatown
3) Rear Window *
4) Laura
5) The Third Man
6) The Maltese Falcon +
7) North By Northwest *
8) Blue Velvet
9) Dial M for Murder *
10) The Usual Suspects *
Fantasy
1) Wizard of Oz *
2) Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring *
3) It’s a Wonderful Life *
4) King Kong *
5) Miracle on 34th Street *
6) Field of Dreams *
7) Harvey
8) Groundhog Day *
9) Thief of Baghdad
10) Big *
Sci-Fi
1) 2001: A Space Odyssey *
2) Star Wars: A New Hope *
3) ET: The Extra-Terrestrial *
4) A Clockwork Orange *
5) The Day the Earth Stood Still
6) Blade Runner *
7) Alien *
8) Terminator 2: Judgment Day *
9) Invasion of the Body Snatchers
10) Back to the Future *
Gangster
1) The Godfather *
2) Goodfellas *
3) The Godfather Part II *
4) White Heat
5) Bonnie and Clyde
6) Scarface: The Shame of a Nation
7) Pulp Fiction *
8) The Public Enemy
9) Little Caesar
10) Scarface
Courtroom Drama
1) To Kill a Mockingbird *
2) 12 Angry Men *
3) Kramer Vs Kramer
4) The Verdict
5) A Few Good Men *
6) Witness for the Prosecution
7) Anatomy of a Murder *
8) In Cold Blood
9) A Cry in the Dark
10) Judgment at Nuremburg
Epic
1) Lawrence of Arabia *
2) Ben-Hur *
3) Schindler’s List *
4) Gone With the Wind *
5) Spartacus *
6) Titanic *
7) All Quiet on the Western Front *
8) Saving Private Ryan *
9) Reds +
10) The Ten Commandments *
* - Seen entire movie
+ - Seen portions of the movie
My total count of these movies seen in their entirety is 50/100.
Anyway. For grins and giggles, here are the full lists, complete with my notes on whether I have seen the movies or not (and am "cultured" by AFI definition):
Animation
1) Snow White *
2) Pinocchio *
3) Bambi +
4) Lion King *
5) Fantasia *
6) Toy Story +
7) Beauty and the Beast *
8) Shrek *
9) Cinderella *
10) Finding Nemo *
Romantic Comedy
1) City Lights
2) Annie Hall
3) It Happened One Night
4) Roman Holiday
5) The Philadelphia Story
6) When Harry Met Sally +
7) Adam’s Rib
8) Moonstruck
9) Harold and Maude
10) Sleepless in Seattle
Western
1) The Searchers
2) High Noon
3) Shane
4) Unforgiven *
5) Red River
6) The Wild Bunch
7) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid +
8) McCabe and Mrs. Miller
9) Stagecoach
10) Cat Ballou
Sports
1) Raging Bull
2) Rocky +
3) Pride of the Yankees *
4) Hoosiers
5) Bull Durham +
6) The Hustler
7) Caddyshack *
8) Breaking Away
9) National Velvet
10) Jerry Maguire *
Mystery
1) Vertigo *
2) Chinatown
3) Rear Window *
4) Laura
5) The Third Man
6) The Maltese Falcon +
7) North By Northwest *
8) Blue Velvet
9) Dial M for Murder *
10) The Usual Suspects *
Fantasy
1) Wizard of Oz *
2) Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring *
3) It’s a Wonderful Life *
4) King Kong *
5) Miracle on 34th Street *
6) Field of Dreams *
7) Harvey
8) Groundhog Day *
9) Thief of Baghdad
10) Big *
Sci-Fi
1) 2001: A Space Odyssey *
2) Star Wars: A New Hope *
3) ET: The Extra-Terrestrial *
4) A Clockwork Orange *
5) The Day the Earth Stood Still
6) Blade Runner *
7) Alien *
8) Terminator 2: Judgment Day *
9) Invasion of the Body Snatchers
10) Back to the Future *
Gangster
1) The Godfather *
2) Goodfellas *
3) The Godfather Part II *
4) White Heat
5) Bonnie and Clyde
6) Scarface: The Shame of a Nation
7) Pulp Fiction *
8) The Public Enemy
9) Little Caesar
10) Scarface
Courtroom Drama
1) To Kill a Mockingbird *
2) 12 Angry Men *
3) Kramer Vs Kramer
4) The Verdict
5) A Few Good Men *
6) Witness for the Prosecution
7) Anatomy of a Murder *
8) In Cold Blood
9) A Cry in the Dark
10) Judgment at Nuremburg
Epic
1) Lawrence of Arabia *
2) Ben-Hur *
3) Schindler’s List *
4) Gone With the Wind *
5) Spartacus *
6) Titanic *
7) All Quiet on the Western Front *
8) Saving Private Ryan *
9) Reds +
10) The Ten Commandments *
* - Seen entire movie
+ - Seen portions of the movie
My total count of these movies seen in their entirety is 50/100.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Assessing the States
In light of my last two posts, I thought it might be interesting to look at each state and try to handicap the 2008 race. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have talked about moving beyond the traditional red-blue states match-up that has defined the last two elections. So let’s take a look:
Maine (4) – Despite having two Republican senators, ME is a fairly liberal state. Mr. McCain might have a chance at taking 1 electoral vote due to the second district being a little more conservative (ME divides its electoral votes). However, the Democrats are going to try very hard to capture Susan Collins’ senate seat and that will drive Democratic turnout up.
New Hampshire (4) – NH is the oddball state in New England as it is more conservative and independent than the rest. In the past few years, a number of residents of Massachusetts have moved into the southern region, trending the state more into the blue column. However, there is still a large enough independent streak that the state will remain in play until the end.
Vermont (3) – VT is solidly liberal and Mr. Obama should have no problem taking this state.
Rhode Island (4) – Like Vermont, RI is solidly liberal and should not be under any threat from Mr. McCain, although his Navy background might increase his numbers enough to force Mr. Obama to advertise a little bit in the state.
Massachusetts (12) – This will be Kennedy vs. Romney in the battle of the surrogates. However with Mr. Kerry running for reelection to increase turnout, there is no reason that Mr. Obama will not easily take this state.
Connecticut (7) – CT is a tricky nut. On the surface, Mr. Obama shouldn’t have any problems carrying this state, especially as he actually won this state in the primary. However, Mr. McCain has Mr. Lieberman at his side. There is an outside chance that if Mr. Lieberman campaigns his heart out, CT could flip. It’s very unlikely, but there is that chance. Enough so that Mr. Obama will probably have to make a stop or two in the state to keep it nailed down.
New York (31) – NY is a solidly liberal state. Mr. Giuliani will stump hard for Mr. McCain, but it’s unlikely to dent Mr. Obama’s numbers enough to put the state in peril. Besides, Mr. Giuliani will probably be a little more in tune with setting up a run at the governorship in 2010.
New Jersey (15) – NJ is difficult to gauge. People in the state do not respond to polls so taking the temperature of the state is usually fraught with errors. The Democratic base is also much more Union and blue collar than in the rest of the blue mass that is the eastern seaboard. I would expect Mr. Obama to carry New Jersey, but there is going to be a real question mark about the state until we get closer to the general election.
Pennsylvania (21) – Mr. Obama will crush Mr. McCain in Philadelphia, while Mr. McCain will slap Mr. Obama pretty hard in the northern reaches and the central portions of the state. That means the fate of the state will lie in the working-class enclaves of Bethlehem, Scranton, and the Pittsburgh suburbs. This is the first state with a danger zone for Mr. Obama. He has not performed well with these traditionally Democratic groups and Mr. McCain will work very hard for their votes. The enthusiasm of Democratic governor Ed Rendell (who was a Clinton supporter) is one of the major keys for Mr. Obama to hold the state. If his machine is on full power, I think Mr. Obama keeps it in the blue column. If he is tepid in his support, Mr. McCain could take enough traditional Democrats to steal the state.
Maryland (10) – MD’s high African-American population and wealthy DC suburbs should keep Maryland in the Democratic column, as these are Mr. Obama’s largest group of supporters.
Delaware (3) – I’ve seen no polling or any other indications about DE’s temperament. However, most pundits think that it will stay in the Democratic column.
Washington DC (3) – DC has never voted for a Republican candidate since first granted the right to vote in 1962.
Virginia (13) – VA has been trending more and more blue over the past four years. Wealthy Washington elites have moved into the northern suburbs of Alexandria and Fairfax while the percentage of military votes based in the Norfolk and Newport News region has declined. A high African-American turnout could swing Virginia, especially if rural western VA turnout is down. McCain will dominate in this region and among the military. Whether it is enough to keep the state in the red column is unknown.
West Virginia (5) – WV is a holdover from the conservative Democratic years. Local politicians tend to be Democrats who are more conservative while the state elects national politicians of a Republican stripe (Robert Byrd being the exception). Given Mr. Obama’s 40+-point loss in this state, it’s hard to imagine it turning blue in November.
North Carolina (15) – NC is somewhat similar to VA, except that its percentage of wealthy elites is not very high. It does have a larger African-American population and a high concentration of young, college-age people who might actually turn out in large numbers. I think NC is less likely to flip than VA, but there is an outside chance.
South Carolina (8) – While having a large African-American population, it is unlikely that this will overturn the large Republican advantage in the state. Having Governor Mark Sanford on the VP short-list is probably also helping Mr. McCain’s image in the state.
Georgia (15) – Left to its own devices, GA would easily stay in the Republican column. However, Libertarian Bob Barr is from the state (he used to be a Republican congressman) and he might draw a significant percentage of votes from Mr. McCain. Coupled with a high African-American turnout, it could be just enough to swing the state blue. But unless Mr. Barr consistently polls above 8 points, GA should stay red.
Florida (27) – Despite being neck-and-neck eight years ago, FL has become more and more, a solidly red state. A high military presence and a large pro-Republican Cuban population have nudged the state more and more to the right over the past few years. In addition, if Mr. Obama’s troubles with the Jewish community continue, Mr. McCain could win FL by more than 10 points in Nov.
Alabama (9) – This may be on of Mr. McCain’s safest states. He has consistently polled between 20 and 30 points ahead of Mr. Obama.
Mississippi (6) – MS has the highest African-American population of any state. This has kept the numbers a bit tighter than a Republican would like from a southern state, but the rural nature of the state and it’s still overwhelming white population, should keep the state red come election time.
Louisiana (9) – LA has been more likely to turn Democrat in years past, but Hurricane Katrina accelerated a changing tide. Not only have a significant number of African-Americans remained in Houston rather than return to New Orleans, but also those that have stayed, vented their rage on the established Democratic government. With a diminished Democratic base, it’s hard to see how LA does not stay in the red column.
Arkansas (6) – Had Ms. Clinton won the nomination, this would have been heavy fighting country. But, even though AR is generally considered the most liberal of the southern states, it is unlikely that Mr. Obama will be able to make serious inroads into this state.
Tennessee (11) – TN’s Democratic party hasn’t quite caught up with the party of the rest of the country and Republicans dominate most of the statewide offices. Mr. McCain has consistently polled very far ahead of Mr. Obama in this state.
Kentucky (8) – Mr. Obama’s poor performance in Appalachia, coupled with a relatively low African-American population should keep this state solidly in the Republican column this election.
Ohio (20) – Despite OH’s vaunted claims of importance, I think the true battleground will move to a different state this election. OH will be close and there is certainly a chance that Mr. Obama could take the state if he plays his cards right. However, aside from one outlier poll, Mr. Obama has not performed well in the state. Unless there is a massive sit out by conservatives or Mr. Obama convinces the poor working classes along the river in the eastern portions of the state to vote for him, OH will stay in the red column.
Michigan (17) – MI is a state that should go for Mr. Obama, but so far is refusing to bend that way. Detroit is solidly African-American and the UAW and Teamsters unions control the suburbs. In past elections, these have been enough to overcome the more conservative regions to the north and west. However, voter anger over the fate of MI’s votes in the Democratic primary and working-class trepidation over Mr. Obama has kept this state in play. Although it’s likely that the state will fall back into the blue column as the primary fades from memory, a good push from the Republicans (especially if headed by Mr. Romney) could keep things up in the air enough to slide it into the red column.
Indiana (11) – Mr. Obama’s domination of the media market in the north of the state will keep things interesting, but IN is probably still too dominated by the Republicans for Mr. Obama to have any real shot at the state.
Illinois (21) – Mr. Obama’s home state and already pretty blue. Enough said.
Wisconsin (10) – WI is a true enigma in this race. In the past two elections, WI has been decided by a difference of 0.22% and 0.38%, the third closest and closest margins respectively. Both were decided for the Democrats and Mr. Obama’s domination in the primary as well as the power of the Chicago media market over Milwaukee would suggest that he has a leg up in the state. Still, a history of tight elections and very independent thinking suggest that either side could take WI this time.
Minnesota (10) – Mr. Obama’s brand of populism should play well in MN. Although Republicans are holding their convention in St. Paul and the state has swung back and forth in the Governor’s mansion and the Senate, there is little reason to believe that Mr. McCain has a real chance to take this state.
Iowa (7) – IA will probably stay in the blue column due to Mr. McCain’s consistent opposition to farm subsidies (a big item in IA politics) and Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for door to door politicking. The numbers will probably swing back and forth, but I would expect IA to settle in the blue column.
Missouri (11) – MO has been trending Republican, but it sways back and forth depending on the race. Democrats dominate in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City as well as the college town of Columbia. Republicans then dominate the rural portions of the rest of the state, leaving the outer suburbs of the large cities to decide the state. Mr. McCain starts with an advantage in this state, but it is certainly possible for Mr. Obama to rally the open-minded voters to swing his way.
Texas (34) – Although Mr. Obama believes that he will make significant inroads into the Hispanic community; it is unlikely that he will do enough to swing TX into the blue column. Mr. McCain has decent standing with Hispanics as well and given that the core of the Bush White House is from TX, it would be seen as a personal insult if TX went the other way.
Oklahoma (7) – OK is one of the more conservative states and Mr. McCain champions the no-pork cause of OK’s two very popular senators.
Kansas (6) – If Mr. Obama selects the Democratic Governor of KS, it might give him an outside shot at this fairly conservative state. But the last poll I saw had Mr. McCain leading by 20 points so I think it will stay red come November.
Nebraska (5) – NE is like KS in that there is little chance that it will go blue without a major Republican meltdown. However NE, like ME, splits its electoral votes by congressional district. There is an outside chance that Mr. Obama could take one electoral vote from this state even if he can’t win the whole thing.
South Dakota (3) – SD folks aren’t jazzed about either candidate due to the strong desire to process the oil sands of the state in opposition to their green standings. However, the conservative nature of this state is more in line with most of Mr. McCain’s other views.
North Dakota (3) – Most of the state officials are Democratic, but in the conservative Democratic vein as seen in WV. It is unlikely that this state will switch from red to blue.
Montana (3) – Of all the Great Plains states, this is the one that Mr. Obama has a real shot in. It’s conservative like its neighbors, but MT is also home to a large green movement that trends liberal. Mr. McCain’s own green stance will help him with this crowd and should deliver the state to him, but it does give Mr. Obama an opening that he is lacking in other states.
Wyoming (3) – The least populous state is dominated by the oil industry. Although I’m sure they aren’t thrilled about Mr. McCain, they are terrified of Mr. Obama. Plus with Mr. Cheney working behind the scenes, it is very unlikely that this state will be anything but deep red.
Colorado (9) – Now we come to one of the main battlegrounds of this election. CO has been trending more and more Democratic in recent elections. There is a large Hispanic population and CO’s population is also becoming more and more wealthy. The percentage of military stationed in CO is also declining. Capping it all off, the Democrats are having their convention in Denver, which will give them a lot more exposure and an open platform to present themselves to the state. Mr. Obama has been polling ahead just outside the margin of error in this state. Whoever wins, the margin is going to be razor thin.
New Mexico (5) – Like WI, NM has been decided by razor thin margins in the past two elections, the first for Mr. Gore and the second for Mr. Bush. With Gov. Richardson strongly backing Mr. Obama (and putting him in line for a possible position – maybe VP) NM seems to be swinging back into the blue column. However, Mr. McCain being from neighboring AZ and his general good standing with Hispanics will prevent Mr. Obama from pulling away and should keep NM in the thin margin for at least one more election.
Arizona (10) – This is Mr. McCain’s home state. The last poll taken had him ahead 57-37.
Nevada (5) – NV is likely to be close as well. Mr. Obama is making a push in the state, but he’s not quite gotten as much traction as he would like. The service unions in Las Vegas will help him, but the rest of the state has a very liaise-faire attitude that favors Republicans. Some work could swing the state, but its natural inclination at the moment is to the red side of the aisle.
Utah (5) – UT is very conservative is probably one of the most reliable Republican states. It’s only competitor for that title might be…
Idaho (4) – One could make a good wager as to whether it will ID or UT that will give Mr. McCain the larger margin in November. (In 2004 UT won 71.5 to 68.4)
Washington (11) – WA is a very green state and the large liberal population outweighs the more conservative population on the eastern side of the Cascades. Mr. Obama should have little trouble carrying this state in November.
Oregon (7) – OR is almost exactly like WA in its liberal coast and conservative east divide. However, OR is not quite as sharply divided as WA is. Until fairly recently, OR was a genuine battleground state. However, I would be surprised if Mr. McCain can do better than token resistance against Mr. Obama.
California (55) – Mr. McCain has talked about trying to take CA and he will certainly get a lot of help from the Governor. However, the race will probably come down to whether the large population of Hispanics in southern CA believes Mr. McCain record that favors amnesty or his rhetoric about enforcement first that he is laying on thick for the conservative base. Mr. Obama is currently running about 14 points ahead. I do not serious expect CA to flip as the loss of CA means instant defeat for the Democrats.
Alaska (3) – Alaska has been safely conservative for a number of elections. However, there is a general thought that Democrats could take both the at-large congressional seat as well as one of the Senate seats in this election. That could make Alaska a little more in play than previous elections. Alaska’s female governor is rumored to be on Mr. McCain’s VP short list.
Hawaii (4) – HI is a fairly liberal state and Mr. Obama’s birth state. He should carry it without any trouble.
In conclusion, I would suspect that most of the battlegrounds will be limited to states that we have seen before with two or three new ones thrown in for interest (CO and VA most notably). Still, it is a long way to go and much could change in the near future.
Maine (4) – Despite having two Republican senators, ME is a fairly liberal state. Mr. McCain might have a chance at taking 1 electoral vote due to the second district being a little more conservative (ME divides its electoral votes). However, the Democrats are going to try very hard to capture Susan Collins’ senate seat and that will drive Democratic turnout up.
New Hampshire (4) – NH is the oddball state in New England as it is more conservative and independent than the rest. In the past few years, a number of residents of Massachusetts have moved into the southern region, trending the state more into the blue column. However, there is still a large enough independent streak that the state will remain in play until the end.
Vermont (3) – VT is solidly liberal and Mr. Obama should have no problem taking this state.
Rhode Island (4) – Like Vermont, RI is solidly liberal and should not be under any threat from Mr. McCain, although his Navy background might increase his numbers enough to force Mr. Obama to advertise a little bit in the state.
Massachusetts (12) – This will be Kennedy vs. Romney in the battle of the surrogates. However with Mr. Kerry running for reelection to increase turnout, there is no reason that Mr. Obama will not easily take this state.
Connecticut (7) – CT is a tricky nut. On the surface, Mr. Obama shouldn’t have any problems carrying this state, especially as he actually won this state in the primary. However, Mr. McCain has Mr. Lieberman at his side. There is an outside chance that if Mr. Lieberman campaigns his heart out, CT could flip. It’s very unlikely, but there is that chance. Enough so that Mr. Obama will probably have to make a stop or two in the state to keep it nailed down.
New York (31) – NY is a solidly liberal state. Mr. Giuliani will stump hard for Mr. McCain, but it’s unlikely to dent Mr. Obama’s numbers enough to put the state in peril. Besides, Mr. Giuliani will probably be a little more in tune with setting up a run at the governorship in 2010.
New Jersey (15) – NJ is difficult to gauge. People in the state do not respond to polls so taking the temperature of the state is usually fraught with errors. The Democratic base is also much more Union and blue collar than in the rest of the blue mass that is the eastern seaboard. I would expect Mr. Obama to carry New Jersey, but there is going to be a real question mark about the state until we get closer to the general election.
Pennsylvania (21) – Mr. Obama will crush Mr. McCain in Philadelphia, while Mr. McCain will slap Mr. Obama pretty hard in the northern reaches and the central portions of the state. That means the fate of the state will lie in the working-class enclaves of Bethlehem, Scranton, and the Pittsburgh suburbs. This is the first state with a danger zone for Mr. Obama. He has not performed well with these traditionally Democratic groups and Mr. McCain will work very hard for their votes. The enthusiasm of Democratic governor Ed Rendell (who was a Clinton supporter) is one of the major keys for Mr. Obama to hold the state. If his machine is on full power, I think Mr. Obama keeps it in the blue column. If he is tepid in his support, Mr. McCain could take enough traditional Democrats to steal the state.
Maryland (10) – MD’s high African-American population and wealthy DC suburbs should keep Maryland in the Democratic column, as these are Mr. Obama’s largest group of supporters.
Delaware (3) – I’ve seen no polling or any other indications about DE’s temperament. However, most pundits think that it will stay in the Democratic column.
Washington DC (3) – DC has never voted for a Republican candidate since first granted the right to vote in 1962.
Virginia (13) – VA has been trending more and more blue over the past four years. Wealthy Washington elites have moved into the northern suburbs of Alexandria and Fairfax while the percentage of military votes based in the Norfolk and Newport News region has declined. A high African-American turnout could swing Virginia, especially if rural western VA turnout is down. McCain will dominate in this region and among the military. Whether it is enough to keep the state in the red column is unknown.
West Virginia (5) – WV is a holdover from the conservative Democratic years. Local politicians tend to be Democrats who are more conservative while the state elects national politicians of a Republican stripe (Robert Byrd being the exception). Given Mr. Obama’s 40+-point loss in this state, it’s hard to imagine it turning blue in November.
North Carolina (15) – NC is somewhat similar to VA, except that its percentage of wealthy elites is not very high. It does have a larger African-American population and a high concentration of young, college-age people who might actually turn out in large numbers. I think NC is less likely to flip than VA, but there is an outside chance.
South Carolina (8) – While having a large African-American population, it is unlikely that this will overturn the large Republican advantage in the state. Having Governor Mark Sanford on the VP short-list is probably also helping Mr. McCain’s image in the state.
Georgia (15) – Left to its own devices, GA would easily stay in the Republican column. However, Libertarian Bob Barr is from the state (he used to be a Republican congressman) and he might draw a significant percentage of votes from Mr. McCain. Coupled with a high African-American turnout, it could be just enough to swing the state blue. But unless Mr. Barr consistently polls above 8 points, GA should stay red.
Florida (27) – Despite being neck-and-neck eight years ago, FL has become more and more, a solidly red state. A high military presence and a large pro-Republican Cuban population have nudged the state more and more to the right over the past few years. In addition, if Mr. Obama’s troubles with the Jewish community continue, Mr. McCain could win FL by more than 10 points in Nov.
Alabama (9) – This may be on of Mr. McCain’s safest states. He has consistently polled between 20 and 30 points ahead of Mr. Obama.
Mississippi (6) – MS has the highest African-American population of any state. This has kept the numbers a bit tighter than a Republican would like from a southern state, but the rural nature of the state and it’s still overwhelming white population, should keep the state red come election time.
Louisiana (9) – LA has been more likely to turn Democrat in years past, but Hurricane Katrina accelerated a changing tide. Not only have a significant number of African-Americans remained in Houston rather than return to New Orleans, but also those that have stayed, vented their rage on the established Democratic government. With a diminished Democratic base, it’s hard to see how LA does not stay in the red column.
Arkansas (6) – Had Ms. Clinton won the nomination, this would have been heavy fighting country. But, even though AR is generally considered the most liberal of the southern states, it is unlikely that Mr. Obama will be able to make serious inroads into this state.
Tennessee (11) – TN’s Democratic party hasn’t quite caught up with the party of the rest of the country and Republicans dominate most of the statewide offices. Mr. McCain has consistently polled very far ahead of Mr. Obama in this state.
Kentucky (8) – Mr. Obama’s poor performance in Appalachia, coupled with a relatively low African-American population should keep this state solidly in the Republican column this election.
Ohio (20) – Despite OH’s vaunted claims of importance, I think the true battleground will move to a different state this election. OH will be close and there is certainly a chance that Mr. Obama could take the state if he plays his cards right. However, aside from one outlier poll, Mr. Obama has not performed well in the state. Unless there is a massive sit out by conservatives or Mr. Obama convinces the poor working classes along the river in the eastern portions of the state to vote for him, OH will stay in the red column.
Michigan (17) – MI is a state that should go for Mr. Obama, but so far is refusing to bend that way. Detroit is solidly African-American and the UAW and Teamsters unions control the suburbs. In past elections, these have been enough to overcome the more conservative regions to the north and west. However, voter anger over the fate of MI’s votes in the Democratic primary and working-class trepidation over Mr. Obama has kept this state in play. Although it’s likely that the state will fall back into the blue column as the primary fades from memory, a good push from the Republicans (especially if headed by Mr. Romney) could keep things up in the air enough to slide it into the red column.
Indiana (11) – Mr. Obama’s domination of the media market in the north of the state will keep things interesting, but IN is probably still too dominated by the Republicans for Mr. Obama to have any real shot at the state.
Illinois (21) – Mr. Obama’s home state and already pretty blue. Enough said.
Wisconsin (10) – WI is a true enigma in this race. In the past two elections, WI has been decided by a difference of 0.22% and 0.38%, the third closest and closest margins respectively. Both were decided for the Democrats and Mr. Obama’s domination in the primary as well as the power of the Chicago media market over Milwaukee would suggest that he has a leg up in the state. Still, a history of tight elections and very independent thinking suggest that either side could take WI this time.
Minnesota (10) – Mr. Obama’s brand of populism should play well in MN. Although Republicans are holding their convention in St. Paul and the state has swung back and forth in the Governor’s mansion and the Senate, there is little reason to believe that Mr. McCain has a real chance to take this state.
Iowa (7) – IA will probably stay in the blue column due to Mr. McCain’s consistent opposition to farm subsidies (a big item in IA politics) and Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for door to door politicking. The numbers will probably swing back and forth, but I would expect IA to settle in the blue column.
Missouri (11) – MO has been trending Republican, but it sways back and forth depending on the race. Democrats dominate in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City as well as the college town of Columbia. Republicans then dominate the rural portions of the rest of the state, leaving the outer suburbs of the large cities to decide the state. Mr. McCain starts with an advantage in this state, but it is certainly possible for Mr. Obama to rally the open-minded voters to swing his way.
Texas (34) – Although Mr. Obama believes that he will make significant inroads into the Hispanic community; it is unlikely that he will do enough to swing TX into the blue column. Mr. McCain has decent standing with Hispanics as well and given that the core of the Bush White House is from TX, it would be seen as a personal insult if TX went the other way.
Oklahoma (7) – OK is one of the more conservative states and Mr. McCain champions the no-pork cause of OK’s two very popular senators.
Kansas (6) – If Mr. Obama selects the Democratic Governor of KS, it might give him an outside shot at this fairly conservative state. But the last poll I saw had Mr. McCain leading by 20 points so I think it will stay red come November.
Nebraska (5) – NE is like KS in that there is little chance that it will go blue without a major Republican meltdown. However NE, like ME, splits its electoral votes by congressional district. There is an outside chance that Mr. Obama could take one electoral vote from this state even if he can’t win the whole thing.
South Dakota (3) – SD folks aren’t jazzed about either candidate due to the strong desire to process the oil sands of the state in opposition to their green standings. However, the conservative nature of this state is more in line with most of Mr. McCain’s other views.
North Dakota (3) – Most of the state officials are Democratic, but in the conservative Democratic vein as seen in WV. It is unlikely that this state will switch from red to blue.
Montana (3) – Of all the Great Plains states, this is the one that Mr. Obama has a real shot in. It’s conservative like its neighbors, but MT is also home to a large green movement that trends liberal. Mr. McCain’s own green stance will help him with this crowd and should deliver the state to him, but it does give Mr. Obama an opening that he is lacking in other states.
Wyoming (3) – The least populous state is dominated by the oil industry. Although I’m sure they aren’t thrilled about Mr. McCain, they are terrified of Mr. Obama. Plus with Mr. Cheney working behind the scenes, it is very unlikely that this state will be anything but deep red.
Colorado (9) – Now we come to one of the main battlegrounds of this election. CO has been trending more and more Democratic in recent elections. There is a large Hispanic population and CO’s population is also becoming more and more wealthy. The percentage of military stationed in CO is also declining. Capping it all off, the Democrats are having their convention in Denver, which will give them a lot more exposure and an open platform to present themselves to the state. Mr. Obama has been polling ahead just outside the margin of error in this state. Whoever wins, the margin is going to be razor thin.
New Mexico (5) – Like WI, NM has been decided by razor thin margins in the past two elections, the first for Mr. Gore and the second for Mr. Bush. With Gov. Richardson strongly backing Mr. Obama (and putting him in line for a possible position – maybe VP) NM seems to be swinging back into the blue column. However, Mr. McCain being from neighboring AZ and his general good standing with Hispanics will prevent Mr. Obama from pulling away and should keep NM in the thin margin for at least one more election.
Arizona (10) – This is Mr. McCain’s home state. The last poll taken had him ahead 57-37.
Nevada (5) – NV is likely to be close as well. Mr. Obama is making a push in the state, but he’s not quite gotten as much traction as he would like. The service unions in Las Vegas will help him, but the rest of the state has a very liaise-faire attitude that favors Republicans. Some work could swing the state, but its natural inclination at the moment is to the red side of the aisle.
Utah (5) – UT is very conservative is probably one of the most reliable Republican states. It’s only competitor for that title might be…
Idaho (4) – One could make a good wager as to whether it will ID or UT that will give Mr. McCain the larger margin in November. (In 2004 UT won 71.5 to 68.4)
Washington (11) – WA is a very green state and the large liberal population outweighs the more conservative population on the eastern side of the Cascades. Mr. Obama should have little trouble carrying this state in November.
Oregon (7) – OR is almost exactly like WA in its liberal coast and conservative east divide. However, OR is not quite as sharply divided as WA is. Until fairly recently, OR was a genuine battleground state. However, I would be surprised if Mr. McCain can do better than token resistance against Mr. Obama.
California (55) – Mr. McCain has talked about trying to take CA and he will certainly get a lot of help from the Governor. However, the race will probably come down to whether the large population of Hispanics in southern CA believes Mr. McCain record that favors amnesty or his rhetoric about enforcement first that he is laying on thick for the conservative base. Mr. Obama is currently running about 14 points ahead. I do not serious expect CA to flip as the loss of CA means instant defeat for the Democrats.
Alaska (3) – Alaska has been safely conservative for a number of elections. However, there is a general thought that Democrats could take both the at-large congressional seat as well as one of the Senate seats in this election. That could make Alaska a little more in play than previous elections. Alaska’s female governor is rumored to be on Mr. McCain’s VP short list.
Hawaii (4) – HI is a fairly liberal state and Mr. Obama’s birth state. He should carry it without any trouble.
In conclusion, I would suspect that most of the battlegrounds will be limited to states that we have seen before with two or three new ones thrown in for interest (CO and VA most notably). Still, it is a long way to go and much could change in the near future.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Electoral College Fun
Despite the various espousements from both campaigns, the electoral map is unlikely to change much from the two that we have seen in 2000 and 2004. In fact, I was checking a couple of things out and came up with a vary amusing scenario.
The various state polls are currently showing an electoral map very similar to that of the kind that Mr. Bush beat Mr. Gore with:
Mr. Bush beat Mr. Gore 271-267. If one applied the current electoral college breakdown to that map, Mr. Bush would have beaten Mr. Gore 278-260.
Now, there are three small differences in the current polling from the above map. Mr. McCain is currently leading (within the margin of error) in Michigan while Mr. Obama is leading just outside the margin of error in New Hampshire and Colorado. For amusement (and to reflect my own inklings on how the race will go), lets say that that Michigan swings to Mr. Obama and New Hampshire swings to Mr. McCain. This would make the electoral map exactly like the one in 2000, except that Mr. Obama wins Colorado:
Colorado has 9 electoral votes so the net result is a 269-269 tie. This would push the election into the hands of the House of Representatives where every state delegation gets one vote. In the House, I believe that Democrats control the majority of the state delegations: 26-22 with 2 states split evenly.
Now, adding another fun wrinkle is the fact that Nebraska and Maine do not award their electoral votes winner take all. Two votes go to the overall winner and then one vote is awarded based on who wins each congressional district (3 for Nebraska and 2 for Maine). While there is little chance that Nebraska and Maine will switch overall, it has been noted that Mr. McCain is polling ahead in Maine's second district and Mr. Obama is only a little behind in Nebraska's third district. So it is not out of the question that the race could seem to be tied, only to find out that one candidate has taken a stray vote available to them and has won the contest 270-268.
Such are the fun and games of electoral college math. Of course, much will probably change as we get closer to November, but its fun to see where we could go.
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Board is Set
Now that Mr. Obama has officially claimed the Democratic nomination, we can officially gauge his chances against Mr. McCain. On the surface, this would seem to be a no-brainer. Democrats may come close to winning 60 or more seats in the Senate while the House will become a deeper shade of blue as well. There is no reason that the Democratic nominee should bully his way to the Presidency without too much trouble.
However, things are not quite as they seem. Mr. Obama is starting to see a bit of a bounce in the polls as Ms. Clinton’s supporters begin bowing to the inevitable. However, for as bad a climate as it is for the Republicans, Mr. Obama is not surging to levels that one should expect.
What’s more, Mr. Obama is not surging in states that he needs to carry if he wants to win. Yes, Mr. Obama is ahead in states that Mr. Bush carried in the past (Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada), but not by overwhelming margins. What’s more, he’s not surging in Ohio, Michigan, or Wisconsin (though he is polling slightly ahead in Wisconsin as well as Pennsylvania). Michigan and Ohio represent 38 electoral votes while Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa only represent 26 electoral votes.
To give this scenario the proper lighting, if Mr. Obama flips these four western states while Mr. McCain flips Michigan and New Hampshire (a state that Mr. McCain has practically made his second home) while all other states remain as they were in 2004, Mr. McCain wins 273-265. Mrs. X, who has a better bead on the mood of Ohio politics than I do, remains quite certain that Ohio will go for Mr. McCain. Ohio staying in the Republican column will put additional pressure on the working class, conservative Democrats of Michigan and western Pennsylvania.
Mr. Obama must make peace and bring these voters back into the Democratic fold if he wants to win, or else pray that he can hold Pennsylvania through overwhelming African-American and youth turnout and that there will be enough conservative defection to Libertarian Bob Barr that he can steal Virginia or Georgia.
However, things are not quite as they seem. Mr. Obama is starting to see a bit of a bounce in the polls as Ms. Clinton’s supporters begin bowing to the inevitable. However, for as bad a climate as it is for the Republicans, Mr. Obama is not surging to levels that one should expect.
What’s more, Mr. Obama is not surging in states that he needs to carry if he wants to win. Yes, Mr. Obama is ahead in states that Mr. Bush carried in the past (Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada), but not by overwhelming margins. What’s more, he’s not surging in Ohio, Michigan, or Wisconsin (though he is polling slightly ahead in Wisconsin as well as Pennsylvania). Michigan and Ohio represent 38 electoral votes while Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa only represent 26 electoral votes.
To give this scenario the proper lighting, if Mr. Obama flips these four western states while Mr. McCain flips Michigan and New Hampshire (a state that Mr. McCain has practically made his second home) while all other states remain as they were in 2004, Mr. McCain wins 273-265. Mrs. X, who has a better bead on the mood of Ohio politics than I do, remains quite certain that Ohio will go for Mr. McCain. Ohio staying in the Republican column will put additional pressure on the working class, conservative Democrats of Michigan and western Pennsylvania.
Mr. Obama must make peace and bring these voters back into the Democratic fold if he wants to win, or else pray that he can hold Pennsylvania through overwhelming African-American and youth turnout and that there will be enough conservative defection to Libertarian Bob Barr that he can steal Virginia or Georgia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
