eBodyPolitic

08 Nov 2012

Irrelephant – the death of a political party

Is the elephant irrelevant?

It was not really the fact of, but rather the manner of, President Barack Obama’s re-election that was a mortal blow.

The Republican Party as we have come to know it in the last few decades is in political bankruptcy.

In a Democracy, the currency that governments spend is the will of the people. Last night, as the election results poured in, it appeared clear that the Republican Party is running out of currency. The demographic of the American voter has shifted, just as the parties sensibility of inclusiveness has contracted. Social policies ranging from abortion to immigration did much of the damage. While the Romney campaign tried to make the entire election dialog about the economy, voters clearly had something on their minds.

For example, exit polls in Ohio, which the Republican electoral strategy absolutely required, showed an almost 2 to 1 ratio of voters saying that the economy was the most important issue, and that Romney would probably be better at handling the economy. This was very clear in exit polling. Yet Romney lost.

Now let me be clear. The Republican Party will be fine. Political parties are no more ‘people’ than corporations are. They do not die, as I suggested in the title tongue in cheek. But they do need to occasionally deconstruct themselves so that they can rebuild from the ground up. That is where the Republican party finds itself right now.

I believe that the Republican Party is worth working to resurrect. Their fundamental message of fiscal conservancy is an important thing for our political culture. But it is not going to be easy, and it is not going to be fast.

The massive generation Y voter base, a rising Latino population (10% of the electorate for the first time), rising urban voting percentages, the now significant gender gap in voting… all of these things have coalesced not once, not twice, but three times for the Democratic presidential candidate. There is good evidence that their voting patterns, while not hard coded, are now predictable. This adds up to a demographic, electoral problem that will be the topic of conversation for years to come.

In 2008 when John McCain lost, many described the inward turbulence in the Republican party as ‘a knife fight.’ In 2012, no one is bringing a knife to this fight. This is a very bad thing for America, as we desperately need both of our political parties to have a clear sense of their parties vision, and their top priorities. We need these so that we can find ground to compromise and move forward.

Our nation is almost evenly divided. Sure, Obama won the popular vote by a convincing margin. It was hardly a significant margin. Sure, all the logic above seems to indicate that this gap will increase in 2016 without a drastic change. But the margin will still not allow the Democrats to truly wield the power of the legislature. This is the way our government was designed; it sacrifices decisiveness to enforce a move to the center, to compromise.

Over the last 4 years we have seen our ability to actually execute a vision, any vision, shrink immensely. Without compromise, the Republican parties fate could become the nations as well.

Posted in 2012 Elections, electoral process, history, trends

07 Nov 2012

Obama wins!

President Obama will serve a second term. Democrats retain the Senate, Republicans retain the House.

With Florida, Nevada and Colorado still in play, the race has been called. As this and so many other pundits predicted, Ohio would be pivotal. Obama stands at 274 electoral votes, and Romney at 201.

This election night race took 18 minutes longer than in 2008.

Obama just peeled the final vote from the split EV voting state Maine, adding one more to his tally. Nevada and Colorado just broke for Obama too, adding 5 and 9 more respectively.

Posted in 2012 Elections, electoral process

29 Oct 2012

Election Season Dating Guide

Was asked to post this – kind of cute, so why not. Enjoy some election cycle inter-party dating humor.

mingle2.com

Posted in 2012 Elections, humor

21 Oct 2012

The road to Pennsylvania Ave goes through Ohio

At this point in the election, there appear to be 130 electoral votes ‘up for grabs.’ These are the swing states.

Of these 130, 60 votes are in states leaning Obama by a slight margin. Nevada (6), Iowa (6), Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20) and Ohio (18).

26 are in states that are a tossup (Colorado (9), Virginia (13), and New Hampshire (4).

44 are in NC (15) and Florida (29), which are leaning slightly towards Romney.

Absent these swing states, Obama stands with 217 Electoral Votes strongly in his column. Romney stands with 191 Electoral Votes strongly in his column.

Simple math tells us that to win the presidency, Romney has 16 days to convert 79 votes. Obama has 16 days to convert 53 votes.

Let’s make some assumptions. Let’s assume that Romney gets both states leaning his way, Florida and N.C. That brings his total to 235, 35 more votes needed.

Let’s also cede that it feels more likely he will win both Virginia and Colorado. That is an additional 22, bringing Romney to 257.

For Obama’s part, it seems quite likely that he will win Pennsylvania, Nevada and Wisconsin, all three of which lean more his direction than the states that we just awarded to Romney. This is an additional 36 votes for Obama, bringing his total to 253.

The only states that we have not yet assigned are Iowa, New Hampshire and Ohio. Let’s give both the tossup state New Hampshire, and the slightly Obama leaning Iowa to Romney. That brings Romney to 269.

Please note that we have been fairly generous to Romney in this hypothetical. We have given only 3 swing states, totaling 36 votes, to Obama. Obama leads by an average of 4% in these states according to aggregate polling (5% in Penn., 4% in Nevada, and 3% in Wisconsin).

Of all the 6 states, totaling 78 electoral votes, that we are awarding to Romney, he does not enjoy more than a 1% lead in any. In fact in most he is tied or behind by the polls.

We only have one state left. That state, at least by this narrative, will select our next president. Why is Ohio still left? Well, there are three big prizes for grabs in the swing states. Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. All have more votes at stake than any 2 or three of the other states at play.

Based on careful consideration, Ohio seems to be the game-changer state most likely to remain in play until the last possible moment. Florida seems likely to go to Romney, even though it polls a tie. Pennsylvania has leaned Obama for at least 6 months. That leaves Ohio.

Hence, in our estimation, the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. runs right through Buckeye country. So let’s take a look at Ohio polling at key moments over the last few months. Our polling data comes from an aggregation of dozens of polling models. The columns in our graphs represent the polls taken just after the event listed… so the ‘Debate 1′ column represents aggregate polling info in the days after the 1st debate, but before the VP debate.

Ohio aggregate polling over the last several months

If Romney is to ascend to the Oval Office, here is his battleground. These 20 electoral votes are the hinge on which swings the political future of America. Please Note, real time numbers are still coming in even as this is written… the impact at the moment looks to be a ~1.3% bump for Obama, and a ~1% bump for Romney. This means that the lead Obama maintains in polls remains within the margin of error.

The only poll that matters of course happens on November 6, and every eye in the nation will be on the swing states, and in particular Ohio. Don’t be surprised if both Romney’s and Obama’s campaign buses are in Ohio that day, both hoping to drive through Ohio to Pennsylvania Ave.

This is not great news for the Romney Team. Of the 9 swing states before Ohio, we gave 6 to Romney, 3 to Obama. Romney’s team either has to figure out how to pry either Nevada, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin away from Obama, or figure out how to pull from behind in Ohio, to win the presidency. It seems just as likely, or more likely, that Obama will woo one of the Romney states above; say Iowa, to his side, than that Romney can get Pennsylvania or Nevada, let alone Wisconsin.

So here we are again, all eyes on the Buckeyes.

Posted in 2012 Elections, electoral process and tagged 2012, election, ohio, poll, swing

12 Oct 2012

The truth about Scranton, PA – fact checking the VP debate

Paul Ryan is on record as saying that if you torture statistics enough, they can tell you anything you want. This speaks volumes about the efficacy of torture. It also tells you a little bit about Paul Ryan.

I will write a separate article questioning the details surrounding Joe Biden’s own fact check moment, when he stated that ‘we were not aware that the consulate in Benghazi was requesting additional security’ as I believe that is turning into it’s own soap opera of complexity after the hearings called by Congressional Republicans essentially outed the CIA operations in that region. For the moment, I want to attempt to clear the record on our favorite blue collar city; Scranton, PA.

Now of course, Scranton is Joe Biden’s home town. This is why Paul Ryan chose to make it’s unemployment rate a political football, and see what happened when he handed that football to Joe Biden.

Ryan stated that unemployment in Scranton currently sits at 10%.

Scanton unemployment since the Bush era recession began.

Unemployment in Scranton does indeed sit at 10% right now. But it peaked at 10.6%, after skyrocketing during George W. Bush’s last few lame duck months… you remember those times, back when the ‘fundamentals of the economy are strong?’ (see also Romney’s own Lehman moment)

Inertia is a function of mass. Obama arrested the free fall, brought Scranton back from the 10.6% Bush shoved it to, back down to 8.4% twice this calendar year. It is a rocky recovery, to be sure, that is what we mean when we say inertia is a function of mass. That is what it means when every single economic expert that has ever lived says hiring always lags behind the real recovery.

Paul Ryan has already said that if you torture statistics enough, you can make them say anything… and he is a master of torture. But there is only one way to spin these facts. The past 4 years have been the most remarkable reversal of course our economy has ever witnessed. Has it sucked? Yes, that is because of just how bad the meltdown was.

I am happy to entertain conversations about fiscal conservancy, about human rights (where the Obama administration has really failed our nation, about the future of health care and our nations debt… all of these are fair game from my humble perspective. But when it comes to assertions that Obama has mishandled our current economic situation… well, I am sorry, but I will call BS every time on that. Come to think of it, I am not even sorry. It is malarkey, plain and simple.

Posted in 2012 Elections, economics, wealth

04 Oct 2012

Romney wins first debate, loses fact check acid test

Mitt Romney clearly appeared more zealous, and perhaps better prepared for this first presidential debate this evening.

The question on many Republicans mind is what will this mean for his polling, particularly in swing states? Will this translate into greater enthusiasm in his base? Will his performance influence the few remaining undecided voters?

What was holding back President Obama from calling Romney out on the carpet, as Romney repeatedly did to him? This was a strategy, clearly, but one I do not understand…

The biggest question that Democrats are asking is what was holding President Obama back? He seemed listless and almost disinterested. One would have to presume that he went into this debate with the stern advice of his team to simply avoid a debacle, rather than go for the throat. Romney was going for the throat, clearly, and so many folks are asking themselves where this moment was (see inset photo).

To my eyes there were a lot of loosely strewn facts on both sides, but Governor Romney seemed to be the most liberal with the truth. In particular, his claim that he (that’s ‘we,’ as he corrected himself) will create 12 million jobs, if elected. Moodys estimates that America will create 12 million jobs by 2016 regardless of who is elected. His claim that he would have to get another tax adviser, as he was unaware of a tax credit for shipping jobs overseas, when of course any business can deduct the costs of closing down an American based business as they port the operation overseas.

Dodd-Frank is not damaging local banks, least according to politifact, an assertion which Romney repeatedly stressed. And of course the Palin-esque reference to a panel of appointed advisers (death boards as Palin put it) is patently false. Massachusetts, to my knowledge, was already leading the nation in education when he took office, yet he twice took credit for that fac. His most accurate, telling point was that gasoline prices have doubled… that tends to happen when you destabilize the entire Middle East with a few wars. It is also a very good reason to invest in clean American green based energy solutions.

Yet despite all of that, he hammered on Obama and painted him into a corner on his record, which the Obama team has explicitly stated that they do not want this election to be about; a choice election. It puts Obama in an untenable position of blaming the country’s lot on factors that he inherited (despite how true that may be, it only carries weight for so long).

Obamas worst factual gaffe was his reference that the fundamentals of Medicaids economics are strong (almost a Lehman moment there, at least if we were in 2020). The fact is that it is on a slow trajectory towards insolvency, and that will need to be addressed in coming years.

There was a strategy at work in the soft-spoken, almost meek tone that Obama struck tonight… Perhaps if they move the next debate outside and a driving rain begins to fall, we will see the fiery orator that we have seen in the past? Romney wins this round; it will be very interesting to see what effect that has on the polls, and ultimately on voter turnout and sentiment.

Posted in 2012 Elections, economics, history, trends | Leave a Comment

18 Sep 2012

Out of the frying pan…

Well, suffice it to say that it has been a hellish week for the Romney campaign. Fresh off a very incongruous and highly inaccurate, not to mention ineffectual, attempt to convert a tragedy into cheap political points with his ‘Libya-as-Lehman-moment’ gaffe, Romney is bedeviled by his own mouth again.

And this time, there is no real way to spin it to the heat of the moment, or constantly shifting information, as could in a very generous construing of events, be applied to the Libya statement.

No, this time Mr. Romney was caught somehow behind closed doors, in a political strategy fundraising Q&A session, literally writing off 47% of Americans as ‘hopelessly addicted to the governmental system and not contributing much of anything anyways.’ Since there is no walking back the video which was released by Mother Jones today, the campaigns inner circle has apparently decided to circle the wagons around the supposed 53% of Americans who do mean something, and is defending his remarks; to the point of doubling down on them.

Who is Romneys target? The 53% he think can be saved, or the middle of the money – the 10% of Americans controlling the ‘middle’ of the money in America?

In remarks from Romney in response to the tape, his campaign is all about a “focus on the people in the middle.” Apparently former president Clinton was on to something when he accused Republicans of being unable to do arithmetic. When you exclude 47%, you are not focusing on the middle, you are focusing on the other half. In his mind perhaps the better half.

Or is it perhaps that what Romney is really saying is that since wealth in this nation continues to flow up hill, as we have demonstrated on this site already, that Romney is not focusing on the commonly referred to ‘Middle America’ but rather those that are not fortunate enough to be in his 1% elite class, but do retain the middle bulk of the wealth in the nation?

The fall out from this incident will not end before election day, we can be sure. This author regrets that all semblance of intelligent discussion and debate just got thrown out the window, baby with the bath water. But the fact is that it has, and that the remainder of this election is now going to be about what in the hell happened to the Republican Party?

This is NOT your grandfathers Republican Party. They certainly could do math, and their dogged focus on economic accountability applied not just to Washington, but to the nation at large. Today, we learned that the leader of this party is apparently content to say that 47% of Americans are not capable of fiscal responsibility, and not worth trying to ‘save.’ We can debate the economic sensibility of old school conservative core values, while still respecting them. But this… I find little to respect in this.

After the last failed Republican candidacy for President, the word was that the party faithful turned on each other in what was described as a knife fight. If we are heading for a repeat of that, do you think anyone is going to bother bringing a knife to the resulting gun fight?

Posted in 2012 Elections, economics

16 Sep 2012

Why QE3 is wrong

Does the Democratic Party think we are made out of money?

When Ben Bernanke issued the open ended statement this past week of a third round of Quantitative Easing, in the form of 40 Billion dollars a month of Fed purchases of mortgage backed securities, he essentially tripled down on a bad policy.

Please don’t misunderstand me; I favor a stimulus approach. In my mind, it averted the second great depression, and can keep the US economy from imminently slipping back into a recession. But buying mortgage backed securities is essentially code for propping up Wall Street. The basic concept here is that if we make rich people richer, they will invest more in hiring and business creation, and the effects will trickle down to the average consumer.

Whether you believe in trickle down economics or not, my issue with this strategy is that it is every bit as likely that this free money will trickle it’s way out of the country in foreign investments or (ahem) offshore accounts. Even if the money stays inside the US, the time that it takes to feel the effects on the economy does not justify the expense.

If we want to dump 40 billion dollars a month into the economy, I can see justification for that. But I think the money is far better spent on helping actual homeowners who are underwater and therefore completely unable to open their wallets and do what Americans do so well – buy things. Better yet, where are the shovel ready projects that were all the rage 3-4 years ago? Where are the boots on the ground projects that put average Americans to work today, tomorrow, and for months to come? That creates an immediate stimulus of buying, which translates into hiring.

Another concern is of course that the timing of this stimulus, coming so close to the election, calls into serious question to role of, and supposed impartiality of, the Federal Reserve. Ostensibly the Fed exists to protect the US currencies viability. I think there are a lot of folks asking whether this is really what they are supposed to be doing, and a lot more asking why now?

My simple suggestion? Fix the roads and the bridges. Train and support our teachers, invest in new schools and better classrooms and equipment. Do that today, and you will have a far more effective, and impartial, stimulus in my opinion.

Posted in economics, history, wealth

16 Sep 2012

Mitt me with your best shot

McCain and his ‘Lehman Moment’

“The fundamentals of the economy are strong.” The moment those words left John McCains lips four years ago almost to the day, his bid for the White House was over. It took a few weeks for the reality of that to sink in, of course, abetted by the continuing unraveling of our economy. His subsequent bizarre two day suspension of his campaign to fly back to Washington, roll up his sleeves, and help avert economic disaster only exacerbated the disaster (the political one, not, presumably, the economic one).

He uttered those words in response to the growing panic triggered by the Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy, an event that itself sent shock waves through the economic firmament that continue to be felt to this day. Now, four years later, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has helped to further immortalize McCains gaffe by making a statement so incongruous that it is being described as a ‘Lehman moment.’

After the horrific events at the Benghazi consulate in Libya, in which four American citizens lost their lives, it was obviously a time for Americans to reflect on the sacrifice of the individuals, whether service members, staffers, or diplomats, who seek to further our foreign policy and relationships with the nations of the world. It was a time to contemplate why America is often viewed negatively in parts of the world, and what we can collectively do to help others understand the fundamental values that we espouse, ideally creating a better, more tolerant image of America abroad. Values which can empower both the best examples of what freedom of speech and expression can produce, and also the depths of cynicism and manipulation that were embodied in the anti-Islamic video which ostensibly was responsible for the violence which cost those four lives.

Is Romney hitting the panic button?

Instead of doing any of those things, Mitt Romney took a calculated political chance to try to score points in the election by pandering to the baser elements of American nationalism. First, let’s understand what happened.

An idiot, exercising his rights for freedom of speech and expression, made a very distasteful film about Islam. This was posted to YouTube. It was obviously done, once you understand the people behind it, to not only create controversy, but quite likely violence. Islam is possibly the fastest growing religion on the planet, with 1 in 4 living people being Muslim. As with any movement, there are extremes. Extremism in Christianity gave us the Crusades. Extremism in Islamic context gives us the equally ugliness of violent Jihad. Mocking and politicizing the religion of a quarter of the people on the planet is a right given to us by our freedom of speech, but it has consequences.

As this video was generating increasing tension and violence throughout the Middle East and Africa, the Egyptian embassy put out a statement chastising the ‘misguided individuals’ who had created this video. Let’s imagine that neo-nazis painted swastikas on a synagogue… you might be inclined to say ‘that was a misguided thing to do.’ The Egyptian embassy did this before the attack on the Libyan consulate, and without clearance from Washington.

The next day, a very well armed and coordinated attack on the Libyan consulate in Benghazi Libya left 4 Americans dead, including two Marines and the Ambassador to Libya. This is the first time since 1988 that a US Ambassador to a foreign nation has been killed in the line of duty. While the violence appeared to at least be related to the protests and outrage over this video, there is growing speculation that there was at least a component of organized and targeted violence as well.

Apparently shooting from the hip, with precious little information, Romney issued this statement:

“It is disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

To make matters worse, he double down on his criticism the next day. This seems to indicate that this may not have actually been just poorly planned, poorly thought out politicization of a tragedy, but rather a calculated ploy that, if it reveals anything, reveals that Romneys advisers do not believe that his campaign can win the election without manufacturing a game changing event.

Posted in 2012 Elections

04 Sep 2012

3 does not come before 4

Are 2 choices really representative of ‘we the people’?

Now that the Republican convention has officially presented a ticket, we can start to discuss the race for the presidency.

Certainly, the chair cannot remain empty (although perhaps Clint Eastwood would prefer that it did). So presumably either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will occupy that seat.

Before we delve into new posts invoking the discussion of who deserves that role, I think it is worth pointing out that the decision of who should be our president is far too important to narrow your choices to only two candidates.

Granted, we have made strides recently with Third Parties. Ross Perot is probably the most memorable recent example. The reality is that the Libertarian Party consistently field a candidate for president, as do several other increasingly unrecognizable groups.

Occasionally a high profile candidate will suggest (read this as threaten) a third party bid. Ron Paul is an excellent current example. And the invocation of the word ‘threaten’ here really drives my point home.

Aren’t the stakes too high for the decision of who leads us to basically be a coin flip?

Because we are stuck with two parties, it is impossible to have an additional option without causing real damage to one of the two existing dominant parties. Regardless of who the candidate is, they will inevitably divide the vote of one of the major parties.

If Ron Paul were to run, for example, he would inevitably be siphoning voters from the Republican ticket. The institutional barriers to such a ticket, the outcry and backlash from the establishment, make it essentially a non-starter. Ross Perot pulled it off because he had the deep pockets to fund his own ticket.

Yet I would suggest that America would be immensely better off if we had more than the same tired two choices every few years. I think an increasing number of Americans feel this way; that in essence Republican and Democratic politicians have far more in common with each other than they do with the people they are meant to represent.

How do you break that gridlock? If a third party will always be rejected by the established party they will siphon votes from, won’t it always be a nonstarter? Perhaps, but for me, the solution is in a little creative math. Simply put, 4 must come before 3.

I think there are a great many deeply conservative people that would love to see a fundamentalist approach embodied by a ‘Tea Party candidate. Similarly, I think there are a large number of progressives that are tired of the mainstreaming of their movement, and might appreciate an Occupy candidacy.

I am not trying to decide the parties for America. I am simply pointing out that with the system we have right now; with the complete lack of substantive debate, with the absurd mendacity, with the ‘winner takes all, zero sum, it is us or them‘ approach, we are doomed to keep doing nothing.

We need to insert the possibility that it is neither ‘us, nor them’ but rather the other party. Doing so is the only way to inject some actual honesty, some real debate, and ultimately perhaps some genuine accountability back into the process.

What is the lesser of undifferentiated evils?

Otherwise, you might as well get your novelty silver dollar out with the heads emblem on both sides, walk into the polling booth, and punch buttons blindly. More doesn’t always mean better, but when it comes to choices, it seems likely that it does… and in this case, 4 has to come before 3.

Posted in 2012 Elections, electoral process, history