Injustice in Japan.
In its March 15, 2008 print issue, the Economist wrote about Japan's criminal justice system. For those not in the know, Japan works very differently than the west in the criminal justice arena. Criminal defendants are generally expected to confess, and most do so. The conviction rate is "over 99%." "Investigations" often take years.
Recently, there was a case of alleged vote-buying which collapsed where it became "plain that the police had fabricated the evidence -- though not before one defendant had died and another been subjected to over 700 hours of interrogation and 400 days in detention."
700 hours of interrogation. Stop and think about that. That's 24 full days of interrogation. Or, assuming 10 hours for sleep and other activities per day, 50 full calendar days of interrogation. That's completely insane.
Heaven knows the US has enormous injustices in our criminal prosecutions. But sometimes you read something from an allegedly civilized country that just jumps off the page at you. This is a screaming injustice of the very first order. In fact, I wonder if a case could be made (literally and figuratively) that at some point this interrogation crossed over into torture. 50 days of interrogation (with 8 hours of sleep and 2 miscellaneous hours per day). 50 days. I just can't get past that. Japan should be ashamed of itself, and fix, root to branch, a system which allows this awful result. And the individuals involved in the ultra-marathon of interrogation should at the very least be fired.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Fed will cut rates 75 or 100 basis points today. Full fledged, all out panic has set in at the Federal Reserve. The Fed's coordination of Bear Stearns' rescue over the weekend typifies the fear at the Fed that the problems in the credit markets will worsen, and that financial institutions may fail. This would be disastrous for a variety of reasons which I don't have time to go into right now.
The Fed has chosen to follow a course of action I have advocated, which is to cut rates to the floor, fast, flood the financial markets with money/loans as needed, and generally err heavily on the side of aggressive measures to limit the duration and magnitude of the recession we are now in, and protect the financial system from a disaster. I will go into much more detail in a post I've been meaning to put up for days explaining why an analogy to Japan's severe problems of the 1990s is badly inapt in discussing the United States' current problems. For now, I'll leave you all with this: the fed will cut rates at least 3/4 of a point today, which will leave the federal funds rate (assuming a 3/4 point cut) at 2.25%. Given that inflation is higher than that at the moment (by a fair bit), this means that in the jargon, real (inflation adjusted) short term interest rates will be sharply negative. This means that in terms of the economy the fed has the gas pedal to the floor and is pushing almost as hard as it possibly can to try and get the economy moving. This is, imo, exactly what the fed should be doing to mitigate the spread of the mortgage based credit crisis, inflation be damned, and the dollar be damned. This is an incredibly bold course of action, kudos to Bernanke. I think I'm in love!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Spitzer will go. He both should resign and will resign. Fundamentally, no one loves a hypocrite. Both as Attorney General and as Governor he aggressively marketed himself as a totally upright (holier than thou!) fine man who would protect us from society's degenerate elements, such as prostitution rings (he zealously prosecuted these), gambling and Wall Street shenanigans. He has now been revealed as a full blown hypocrite. Everyone from the Village idiot to me to William F. Buckley, Albert Einstein et al, can can smell a hypocrite a mile away. And no one loves a hypocrite.
This however has almost nothing to do with why he WILL resign or why he should.
He will resign because he was already deeply unpopular among his fellow democrats in New York for his ham-handed imperious style and his my-way or the highway attitude. Unlike Republicans (see Congressional, Republicans), democrats really don't like when an autocrat tells them what to do. His natural friends aren't being real friendly right now. There are myriad other reasons. Here is one article detailing just how lousy a fellow Spitzer is.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112008/news/columnists/bully_gets_his_comeuppance_101383.htm
To give you a flavor of his standing in New York these days, democratic House Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Spitzer ally (if he had any) said, "The allegations against the governor are before the public. I have nothing to add at this time."
When your friends pull out the long knives and ask you to turn around, you know things aren't going real well....
An incredibly sharp friend in the PR biz told me yesterday he would resign by the end of the week. My friend is right. My guess is that he resigns Thursday. He COULD try and stay, but the democrats might well impeach his sorry ass. Goodbye Elliot. You won't be missed.
This however has almost nothing to do with why he WILL resign or why he should.
He will resign because he was already deeply unpopular among his fellow democrats in New York for his ham-handed imperious style and his my-way or the highway attitude. Unlike Republicans (see Congressional, Republicans), democrats really don't like when an autocrat tells them what to do. His natural friends aren't being real friendly right now. There are myriad other reasons. Here is one article detailing just how lousy a fellow Spitzer is.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03112008/news/columnists/bully_gets_his_comeuppance_101383.htm
To give you a flavor of his standing in New York these days, democratic House Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Spitzer ally (if he had any) said, "The allegations against the governor are before the public. I have nothing to add at this time."
When your friends pull out the long knives and ask you to turn around, you know things aren't going real well....
An incredibly sharp friend in the PR biz told me yesterday he would resign by the end of the week. My friend is right. My guess is that he resigns Thursday. He COULD try and stay, but the democrats might well impeach his sorry ass. Goodbye Elliot. You won't be missed.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Israel & Gaza-- Take 5,381
The New York Times recently opined about Israel and the ongoing Gaza situation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/opinion/08sat1.html
Continuing its perfect record, the Times is, yet again, almost entirely wrong regarding what Israel should do.
First, the Times reflexively calls for a ceasefire every time Israel defends itself. Now I'm the first to admit that Israel generally manages to be both ham-handed (attacking and often killing people not directly responsible for attacks on it, or engaging in collective punishment, such as checkpoints with dubious security rationales) and ineffective (in general Israel recoils from taking the sort of military actions which would actually make a difference in its security, such as enforcing a large exclusion zone in southern Lebanon during the 2006 war, which would be depopulated and thus could not be used for rocket attacks against Israel. Israel prefers looking tough (partial blockade of Gaza, air strikes, pinprick strikes against militants) to taking decisive actions which would actually be tough. Israel's current actions in Gaza fit this tragic pattern all too well.
Still, the New York Times advocates:
1) A cease fire;
2) Negotiations between Abbas and Israel; and
3) Outside pressure on Hamas to behave.
I am absolutely opposed to numbers 1 and 2 above, while # 3 is surely destined to fail and fail spectacularly. Thus the New York Times has it almost perfectly wrong. Impressive, but unsurprising, the Times is always wrong about Israel.
I'll address in turn:
A) I am opposed to a cease fire
A nation does not enter into a cease fire with an enemy bent on its destruction and actively doing damage (lobbing rockets) as Hamas is without a really good reason. Now if Hamas put out a statement, "we recognize Israel's right to exist but only on its 1948 borders. As long as it occupies one millimeter beyond that we are at war, but we are willing to talk to it," that would be a sea change, and could and would justify a cease fire. But the Times seems to think a cease fire is a good thing for its own sake. That is where I part company with the vast majority of the unthinking Israeli left (of which the Times, sadly, is a proud member as the above editorial makes painfully clear).
Now violence for violence's sake is even worse than a cease-fire for the sake of a cease-fire. Accordingly, I sadly agree with this piece from Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546390315&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Glick is a right wing hawk, opposed to a Palestinian state regardless, and seeing the Ps as always wrong. However, she sees Israel's government as nearly always wrong, incompetent, and bone-headed when it comes to Israel's security. Thus although I vigorously disagree with her on settlements and the benefits of a P state (I am bitterly opposed to any Israeli settlement whatsoever, and am strongly opposed to the ongoing occupation, 40 years and counting), I do very much agree that Israel's security efforts are generally lame and lacking. Specifically, Israel's military actions rarely have clear goals, and when they do those goals rarely result in Israel's security being enhanced.
Andrew has often criticized Caroline Glick for not taking her own ideas to their logical conclusion. She is pretty much an unrelenting hawk on how Israel should respond to P actions, yet rarely spells out just what she does want Israel to do, preferring instead to viciously criticize Israeli actions. Now bitterly criticizing the Olmert government is low hanging fruit indeed. Rarely if ever have I seen an elected government so grossly incompetent, and so obviously disinterested in the welfare of the country and instead solely interested in its self-preservation. These people are enough to make me long for the Bushies....
To circle back, I am bitterly opposed to a cease fire. Hamas has fired any number of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel, resulting in some casualties. The quality of the rockets has improved, and Iran is almost certainly supplying them. This is intolerable! I support whatever level of force is necessary to eliminate this threat, or at least to very very radically reduce it. If that requires reoccupying Gaza, I support it. If that requires that Israel evict every civilian for several kilometers or more from the border so as to provide a buffer zone, I support it. Needless to say, I do not support reintroducing settlements, which I imagine even the stupid bumbling land-grabbing Israelis won't do.
B) I am opposed to negotiations between Abbas and Israel.
I believe in diplomacy and peace generally, so it very much goes against my beliefs to oppose negotiations. Yet I have been opposed for several years and remain so. The reason is simple. Abbas speaks for almost no one. He sure as heck doesn't speak for Hamas, and really barely speaks for Fatah. As I understand it, he has very little sway with the average P. In short, even if Israel and Abbas came to an "agreement," it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on, because no one on the P side would take it seriously. In particular, Hamas, the most virulent P enemy, certainly wouldn't. Indeed they have repeatedly condemned negotiations with the "Zionist entity." So why on earth would Israel negotiate with a man (stipulating to his good will and good faith) who cannot deliver any peace? It defies imagination.
You may ask, Ok, what's YOUR solution? Well here it is. Israel should decide on what it sees as the endgame, and simply impose it. Israel should call on the world to recognize a P state, right now, on 100% of Gaza (less perhaps a piece from which civilians have been excluded, as a buffer zone) and whatever percentage of the West Bank Israel is prepared to leave. It should of course police the borders of the P state indefinitely. (That Israel apparently relied on Egypt and the Ps to police the Gaza/Egypt border is an action of such rank idiocy as to defy imagination, but what can I tell you, Israel didn't ask me). That's it. No negotiations, no discussions, no handshakes, no contact, no trade, no nothing. Israel should then bar any Ps from entering its territory, no exceptions. Israel should not trade at all with the fledgling P state, and should disentangle from any assistance/cooperation. Israel should police the borders of the P state, vigorously. But it should end the occupation, immediately. It should have no role in the lives of the Ps, period. If military action against this state is necessary, as is almost certain, Israel should of course take such action, as it would against Jordan, Syria, etc. But with the occupation over, and a P flag hanging in the UN, Israel would be in a good position to tell the world, "that's it, we're done with the Ps." Now I realize Israel would get zero credit for this in the Muslim world, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to clarify the security situation nicely, and so that there are no more damn negotiations.
Look, if I thought negotiations with Abbas even might yield security benefits, I'd be all for them. But I don't. So why negotiate?
C) Pressure on Hamas. Yeah, right. Egypt and Co. are going to exert REAL pressure on Hamas? And how about Iran? Maybe if Israel and Hamas held hands and sang songs that would help too? What on earth is the Times smoking? I'm not opposed to such pressure per se, but I am highly dubious that it would work, and even if it did it would only prove a temporary expedient at best, with Hamas resuming firing rockets at a time and place and manner of its choosing.
There. Comment away.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Here is how the democratic primary race may end.
First, Hillary absolutely cannot catch up to Obama in pledged delegates. Here is a piece (thanks Bryan!) which outlines a long string of Hillary upsets and landslides from here on out
http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240
Under this scenario, enormously favorable to Hillary, she ends up 58 delegates behind Obama. If Florida and Michigan re vote, which looks increasingly likely, Hillary will clean Obama's clock in Florida and probably win Michigan, and could cut this lead to almost nothing. But remember, this scenario has Hillary winning EVERY state from here on out, which simply won't happen. In other words, when all the voting is over in June, Obama will have more pledged delegates (and more popular votes) in all likelihood.
Under a more plausible scenario, Obama will be up more than a token number of delegates, but still short of the 2,025 needed for nomination without a lot of superdelegate support. Fill in your own scenarios using slate's delegate calculator,
http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/, if you're really motivated.
Here's what I'm beginning to think may happen.
First, this race is very likely not to be decided until all the votes are cast. Even if Obama wins in Pennsylvania on April 22nd, Hillary's position will be strong enough that she's unlikely to be persuaded to drop out.
Second, there will likely be a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. The current situation, with neither state getting any delegates or superdelegates at the democratic convention stinks on ice and everyone knows it. The "problem," is that those states are very favorable for Clinton, especially Florida, which she won in a landslide in January, even though no one campaigned. Seniors are her best demographic bloc, and Florida has a few.
So sometime in June all will be said and done and most likely Obama will have more pledged delegates and more votes overall than Hillary. At that point, the combined total of the pledged delegates he has earned in the primaries and caucuses plus the number of superdelegates who have said they will vote for him will be somewhat close to the 2,025 needed to be nominated. Let's make up a number and say he's 150 short. That's where Al Gore comes in.
With Bill Clinton an interested party, Gore is the most prominent democrat not directly involved in the race. He is thus in the best position to try and organize the superdelegates. Gore should, starting about today, reach out to the uncommitted superdelegates and say the following: Hey folks. Don't commit to either of them until mid-June. Let all the votes play out. Then, when its over and Obama is a given number short, say 150, Gore should get 175 superdelegates to agree in essence to vote for Obama on the conditions he outlines. Stay with me. Gore would (after disclosing his plans to all the superdelegates before earning their support) go to Obama and say, "Barack, I'm prepared to deliver you these 175 uncommitted superdelegates, which will give you the nomination. All you have to do in return is to give me your word, man to man, that you will pick Hillary as your #2, whether she accepts or not. If you don't agree, the race is in chaos, and you could lose the nomination." I think Obama would readily agree. This would (if the 175 superdelegates were believed), end the race and give Obama the nomination, regardless of Hillary's response.
Next, Gore can go to Hillary with an ultimatum. He'd say, "Hillary: I have 175 superdelegates who have promised me that they will vote for Obama, thus putting him over the 2,025, and giving him the nomination. Its over, he has won. Obama has privately promised me he will make you the Vice Presidential nominee. Agree to drop out now and it all ends, you get the # 2 slot, and we wipe the floor with McCain and live happily ever after. You're still young enough to run again. Disagree and you lose everything. The 175 superdelegates will vote for Obama anyway (think they would change their minds if Obama agreed to Gore's plans and she didn't?) and there will be a ton of general bitterness towards you. You lost the delegate race, you lost the popular vote. Yes, yes, you were very close. Trust me, I know the feeling!!!! Under those conditions, Obama will likely be DISinclined to pick you as the Vice President, and I know I will speak for a lot of people who wouldn't want him to.
Hillary may conceivably not play along, but if the 175 superdelegates stuck together she'd lose any floor fight, and would, I think, be vilified by democrats all the while, spoiling her chances competely for the future. Heads she gets the V.P. slot, tails she gets nothing.
Gore's role is necessary because the 175 people need to be organized, and he's in by far the best position to do it. So I call on Al to get to work!
First, Hillary absolutely cannot catch up to Obama in pledged delegates. Here is a piece (thanks Bryan!) which outlines a long string of Hillary upsets and landslides from here on out
http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240
Under this scenario, enormously favorable to Hillary, she ends up 58 delegates behind Obama. If Florida and Michigan re vote, which looks increasingly likely, Hillary will clean Obama's clock in Florida and probably win Michigan, and could cut this lead to almost nothing. But remember, this scenario has Hillary winning EVERY state from here on out, which simply won't happen. In other words, when all the voting is over in June, Obama will have more pledged delegates (and more popular votes) in all likelihood.
Under a more plausible scenario, Obama will be up more than a token number of delegates, but still short of the 2,025 needed for nomination without a lot of superdelegate support. Fill in your own scenarios using slate's delegate calculator,
http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/, if you're really motivated.
Here's what I'm beginning to think may happen.
First, this race is very likely not to be decided until all the votes are cast. Even if Obama wins in Pennsylvania on April 22nd, Hillary's position will be strong enough that she's unlikely to be persuaded to drop out.
Second, there will likely be a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. The current situation, with neither state getting any delegates or superdelegates at the democratic convention stinks on ice and everyone knows it. The "problem," is that those states are very favorable for Clinton, especially Florida, which she won in a landslide in January, even though no one campaigned. Seniors are her best demographic bloc, and Florida has a few.
So sometime in June all will be said and done and most likely Obama will have more pledged delegates and more votes overall than Hillary. At that point, the combined total of the pledged delegates he has earned in the primaries and caucuses plus the number of superdelegates who have said they will vote for him will be somewhat close to the 2,025 needed to be nominated. Let's make up a number and say he's 150 short. That's where Al Gore comes in.
With Bill Clinton an interested party, Gore is the most prominent democrat not directly involved in the race. He is thus in the best position to try and organize the superdelegates. Gore should, starting about today, reach out to the uncommitted superdelegates and say the following: Hey folks. Don't commit to either of them until mid-June. Let all the votes play out. Then, when its over and Obama is a given number short, say 150, Gore should get 175 superdelegates to agree in essence to vote for Obama on the conditions he outlines. Stay with me. Gore would (after disclosing his plans to all the superdelegates before earning their support) go to Obama and say, "Barack, I'm prepared to deliver you these 175 uncommitted superdelegates, which will give you the nomination. All you have to do in return is to give me your word, man to man, that you will pick Hillary as your #2, whether she accepts or not. If you don't agree, the race is in chaos, and you could lose the nomination." I think Obama would readily agree. This would (if the 175 superdelegates were believed), end the race and give Obama the nomination, regardless of Hillary's response.
Next, Gore can go to Hillary with an ultimatum. He'd say, "Hillary: I have 175 superdelegates who have promised me that they will vote for Obama, thus putting him over the 2,025, and giving him the nomination. Its over, he has won. Obama has privately promised me he will make you the Vice Presidential nominee. Agree to drop out now and it all ends, you get the # 2 slot, and we wipe the floor with McCain and live happily ever after. You're still young enough to run again. Disagree and you lose everything. The 175 superdelegates will vote for Obama anyway (think they would change their minds if Obama agreed to Gore's plans and she didn't?) and there will be a ton of general bitterness towards you. You lost the delegate race, you lost the popular vote. Yes, yes, you were very close. Trust me, I know the feeling!!!! Under those conditions, Obama will likely be DISinclined to pick you as the Vice President, and I know I will speak for a lot of people who wouldn't want him to.
Hillary may conceivably not play along, but if the 175 superdelegates stuck together she'd lose any floor fight, and would, I think, be vilified by democrats all the while, spoiling her chances competely for the future. Heads she gets the V.P. slot, tails she gets nothing.
Gore's role is necessary because the 175 people need to be organized, and he's in by far the best position to do it. So I call on Al to get to work!
Got my mojo back.
For my abject failures in predicting the outcome of the March 4 Ohio and Texas races, I have had my hearing before the Accuracy Police Commission of the Blogosphere. The Accuracy police sentenced me to 5 months of remedial future prediction training. I was lucky it wasn't 10 years.... In any event, that's it, my blogging license has been reaffirmed, and I have my mojo back.
First a little back-patting and history. Towards the end of last year, both my friend Andrew and I agreed with the strong consensus of the pundits that McCain was finished. No money, unpopular with the voters due to immigration, and very unpopular with the GOP moneyed interests because he is notoriously hard to buy, I figured that the GOP would settle on someone more malleable, and that McCain was finished. Oops.
On January 15th, when only the Iowa caucuses (won by Huckabee) and the New Hampshire primary (won by McCain) had been completed, I told you all that McCain would be the nominee, and that I was certain of it. Andrew, the inspiration of many of my ideas (but not this one) demanded that a price be paid for such certainty if it proved wrong, and I agreed in a blog post on January 30th to a series of pricey and humiliating things I would do if I were proven wrong. Of course, McCain clinched the GOP nomination on Tuesday. Good to be so right about something I was so sure about. Happens now and then.
So where does the Presidential race go from here? If the dem race were over today as I'd hoped, Obama/Clinton, or Obama/Mark Warner (fmr Gov, Va), or Obama/Barney (the Purple Dinosaur) would beat McCain. Say 55-43. Clinton/Obama would also win, but much much closer. 51-48 or 50-49. (Hillary aint exactly beloved, and McCain's great appeal to indys would really really hurt her). But she'd win. With the dem primaries looking to go on and on and on and on, I'm not sure right now of the general. Karl Rove (today's WSJ) may well be right that the ongoing dem primary HELPS the dems in November. But not if Hill tears Obama to pieces and Obama wins anyway (the slightly most likely scenario).
Which is a long winded way of saying I don't know. The dems are still the clear favorite to win in November, as of now. The situation favors them, the electoral map favors them, and McCain's being probably 4-5 points better than a random ok Republican in a national election because of how compelling he is STILL probably isn't enough to make up for it in 2008. As of now. But who knows what will happen, how badly the dems will damage each other, and even if the party will unify afterwards. If Clinton savages Obama and superdelegates her way to the nomination, Obama may well NOT accept the # 2 slot, and his followers will take their marbles and go home. In that scenario, McCain probably wins. That is nowhere near impossible. Sorry, not clean predictions, because the dem field is still unsettled, and there's always the possibility of a big outside event (Iran tests, Al Queda hits the USA, Pakistan goes to hell in a handbasket) that could seriously favor McCain.
Still, if I had to put money on the winner of the 2008 election, dem or GOP, I'd pick Dem w/o hesitation. Then again, I picked the dems in 2000 and 2004.....
For my abject failures in predicting the outcome of the March 4 Ohio and Texas races, I have had my hearing before the Accuracy Police Commission of the Blogosphere. The Accuracy police sentenced me to 5 months of remedial future prediction training. I was lucky it wasn't 10 years.... In any event, that's it, my blogging license has been reaffirmed, and I have my mojo back.
First a little back-patting and history. Towards the end of last year, both my friend Andrew and I agreed with the strong consensus of the pundits that McCain was finished. No money, unpopular with the voters due to immigration, and very unpopular with the GOP moneyed interests because he is notoriously hard to buy, I figured that the GOP would settle on someone more malleable, and that McCain was finished. Oops.
On January 15th, when only the Iowa caucuses (won by Huckabee) and the New Hampshire primary (won by McCain) had been completed, I told you all that McCain would be the nominee, and that I was certain of it. Andrew, the inspiration of many of my ideas (but not this one) demanded that a price be paid for such certainty if it proved wrong, and I agreed in a blog post on January 30th to a series of pricey and humiliating things I would do if I were proven wrong. Of course, McCain clinched the GOP nomination on Tuesday. Good to be so right about something I was so sure about. Happens now and then.
So where does the Presidential race go from here? If the dem race were over today as I'd hoped, Obama/Clinton, or Obama/Mark Warner (fmr Gov, Va), or Obama/Barney (the Purple Dinosaur) would beat McCain. Say 55-43. Clinton/Obama would also win, but much much closer. 51-48 or 50-49. (Hillary aint exactly beloved, and McCain's great appeal to indys would really really hurt her). But she'd win. With the dem primaries looking to go on and on and on and on, I'm not sure right now of the general. Karl Rove (today's WSJ) may well be right that the ongoing dem primary HELPS the dems in November. But not if Hill tears Obama to pieces and Obama wins anyway (the slightly most likely scenario).
Which is a long winded way of saying I don't know. The dems are still the clear favorite to win in November, as of now. The situation favors them, the electoral map favors them, and McCain's being probably 4-5 points better than a random ok Republican in a national election because of how compelling he is STILL probably isn't enough to make up for it in 2008. As of now. But who knows what will happen, how badly the dems will damage each other, and even if the party will unify afterwards. If Clinton savages Obama and superdelegates her way to the nomination, Obama may well NOT accept the # 2 slot, and his followers will take their marbles and go home. In that scenario, McCain probably wins. That is nowhere near impossible. Sorry, not clean predictions, because the dem field is still unsettled, and there's always the possibility of a big outside event (Iran tests, Al Queda hits the USA, Pakistan goes to hell in a handbasket) that could seriously favor McCain.
Still, if I had to put money on the winner of the 2008 election, dem or GOP, I'd pick Dem w/o hesitation. Then again, I picked the dems in 2000 and 2004.....
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Oops. I was completely, absolutely and utterly WRONG about Hillary. Please post any and all mocking, laughing comments in this post, not in any others. Kick me. Make fun of me. Ask why you should bother reading my blog. Insert red face here.
Clinton won Texas narrowly and absolutely cleaned Obama's clock in the small, obscure, and utterly unimportant state of, um, Ohio. Oops.
What a stunning comeback for the comeback Queen. What a stunning margin of victory in Ohio. Hey, they stayed on one message, muzzled Bill, and attacked Obama. I think they have stumbled upon a winning formula, and just in the nick of time. Get ready for weeks and weeks of partially negative campaigning. Oh joy!
Even if my prediction was reasonable when I wrote it, and it may well have been, I didn't even begin to see how much the campaign changed in the last week. Hill finally had a really good week, and questions finally began to really hit Obama hard. In Ohio both candidates were insincerely campaigning on reforming or ending NAFTA (which wouldn't save a single job, literally, as I said a few days ago). However, one of Obama's staffers was caught having in essence told a Canadian consular official, don't worry about the silly things Obama is saying, this is just politics, we won't disturb NAFTA. When confronted about it, Obama's people said the meeting didn't happen. Obama himself said the meeting did happen. Well, the Canadian consular official wrote a memo, leaked of course, about the meeting. Then the Obama people lied, then they stopped lying and started spinning. All in all not an optimal situation for the "above politics candidate."
Texas was close, but Hill's huge lead among Hispanics was dispositive, from what I have seen.
So where does the campaign go from here? I'll write more on this, but the short answer is, "how the heck should I know?" It is EASY to see how this could go all the way to the convention, in late August in Colorado. Obama's lead in pledged delegates is slightly under 100 at the moment. The most likely scenario is that at the end of all the primaries and caucuses he has a small lead. There is also the issue of what to do about Michigan (where no one campaigned and where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot) and Florida (where no one campaigned, both names were on the ballot, and Hillary kicked Obama's arse). There is just no way either state's delegates will count as is, but there is a real possibility of a re vote in either or both states. None of which changes the fact that neither of them are likely to be able to come real close to the magic # of delegates needed for nomination without a lot of help from superdelegates. So it seems to me that this campaign is no longer about delegates alone, but is also very much about superdelegates, and public relations.
Clinton won Texas narrowly and absolutely cleaned Obama's clock in the small, obscure, and utterly unimportant state of, um, Ohio. Oops.
What a stunning comeback for the comeback Queen. What a stunning margin of victory in Ohio. Hey, they stayed on one message, muzzled Bill, and attacked Obama. I think they have stumbled upon a winning formula, and just in the nick of time. Get ready for weeks and weeks of partially negative campaigning. Oh joy!
Even if my prediction was reasonable when I wrote it, and it may well have been, I didn't even begin to see how much the campaign changed in the last week. Hill finally had a really good week, and questions finally began to really hit Obama hard. In Ohio both candidates were insincerely campaigning on reforming or ending NAFTA (which wouldn't save a single job, literally, as I said a few days ago). However, one of Obama's staffers was caught having in essence told a Canadian consular official, don't worry about the silly things Obama is saying, this is just politics, we won't disturb NAFTA. When confronted about it, Obama's people said the meeting didn't happen. Obama himself said the meeting did happen. Well, the Canadian consular official wrote a memo, leaked of course, about the meeting. Then the Obama people lied, then they stopped lying and started spinning. All in all not an optimal situation for the "above politics candidate."
Texas was close, but Hill's huge lead among Hispanics was dispositive, from what I have seen.
So where does the campaign go from here? I'll write more on this, but the short answer is, "how the heck should I know?" It is EASY to see how this could go all the way to the convention, in late August in Colorado. Obama's lead in pledged delegates is slightly under 100 at the moment. The most likely scenario is that at the end of all the primaries and caucuses he has a small lead. There is also the issue of what to do about Michigan (where no one campaigned and where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot) and Florida (where no one campaigned, both names were on the ballot, and Hillary kicked Obama's arse). There is just no way either state's delegates will count as is, but there is a real possibility of a re vote in either or both states. None of which changes the fact that neither of them are likely to be able to come real close to the magic # of delegates needed for nomination without a lot of help from superdelegates. So it seems to me that this campaign is no longer about delegates alone, but is also very much about superdelegates, and public relations.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Tomorrow's the Big Day.
Looks like the polls aren't cooperating with my predictions of a blowout in both Ohio and Texas for Obama. Still, the polls have been way wrong before, as have I. I still think he wins both and she drops out by Friday. But if she wins Ohio, even by 1 or 2 points, she may well soldier bravely on, to the benefit of no one. Here's hoping Ohio lives up to its usual role of voting with the winner (as it almost always does in the general election) and votes for the dem winner (Obama) tomorrow evening.
Looks like the polls aren't cooperating with my predictions of a blowout in both Ohio and Texas for Obama. Still, the polls have been way wrong before, as have I. I still think he wins both and she drops out by Friday. But if she wins Ohio, even by 1 or 2 points, she may well soldier bravely on, to the benefit of no one. Here's hoping Ohio lives up to its usual role of voting with the winner (as it almost always does in the general election) and votes for the dem winner (Obama) tomorrow evening.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Democrats and NAFTA.
The GOP candidates said a world of insane things in their debates. I was not kind to them in this space, and I don't take back a comma of what I wrote. The democrats were quite insane on the issue of NAFTA last night in what may be the last debate, and I'm going to tell you about it.
NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) apparently allows the US to pull out from the agreement with 6 months notice. On Tuesday the two big states voting are Texas (which borders Mexico, and has seen an economic boom in no small part because of increased trade with Mexico) and Ohio (which has lost a LOT of good-paying manufacturing jobs in the last 20-25 years, mostly NOT due to NAFTA, but some surely due to NAFTA). As the candidates pander to the voters of Ohio, both Obama and Clinton promised to renegotiate NAFTA to improve labor and environmental standards, and to pull out entirely if negotiations were unsuccessful.
They are lying through their teeth. They would do no such thing, and if they did, it would have precisely ZERO impact on manufacturing jobs in Ohio. Literally zip.
A) They won't actually pull out of NAFTA, no matter what happens. I can't prove it, or even logically back it up well, but that's my opinion. Even if they did it wouldn't save a single job in Ohio, as discussed below.
B) The proposed improvements in NAFTA have nothing to do with past or future job losses in manufacturing in Ohio (or anywhere else): Um, have these people ever heard of CHINA. To refresh, its in Asia, has 1.3 billion people, lots of new manufacturing in recent years, a rapidly growing economy, will host the Olympics this year..... They managed to discuss the impact of NAFTA as it effects manufacturing jobs in Ohio without mentioning CHINA. Well let me help them. Jobs moving to Mexico is the day before yesterday's news. Nowadays even China isn't the only destination; jobs are moving to Vietnam and Indonesia as well. But let's focus on China.
Let me back up. LOTS of manufacturing jobs HAVE left Ohio in the last 20 years. Why? Is it because of high taxes and oppressive regulation, like the GOP seems to say? Lawsuits? Because the owners hated America? Well, no. Its because wages in Mexico, China and elsewhere are FAR lower than here, and ESPECIALLY far lower than the high wages union workers receive. Think $50-60 an hour (counting benefits) in the US (higher for UAW workers), and maybe $4 an hour in Mexico (counting all costs associated with the worker, the individual worker gets well less than that) and maybe $2 an hour in China, if that. These differences are enormous, and REALLY add up. There are other advantages to manufacturing in Mexico or that tiny obscure Asian country called, oh, what is it called again? China, that's right. And yes, these include laxer labor and environmental laws. If we could somehow force Mexico to tighten up its labor and environmental laws that may be a positive outcome, but it will NOT save jobs. It won't bring Mexican labor costs anywhere remotely near those of the US (that will take decades) and, of course, will not address the even lower wages and welcoming economic climate of China. The savings from lower wages which result when jobs are moved to China or Mexico will absolutely overwhelm any additional tariffs required due to NAFTA's possible termination. It won't even be close. Even if NAFTA disappeared tomorrow jobs would still be moved overseas as economics and convenience allowed. Only ultra-drastic measures would stop this from happening.
In other words, Obama and Clinton were lying through their teeth, and saying something with about as much basis in reality as a flying pink unicorn. See any flying pink unicorns recently? I'll venture you've seen precisely as many flying pink unicorns in the last month as jobs which would be saved by the proposed changes in NAFTA or its elimination.
The GOP candidates said a world of insane things in their debates. I was not kind to them in this space, and I don't take back a comma of what I wrote. The democrats were quite insane on the issue of NAFTA last night in what may be the last debate, and I'm going to tell you about it.
NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) apparently allows the US to pull out from the agreement with 6 months notice. On Tuesday the two big states voting are Texas (which borders Mexico, and has seen an economic boom in no small part because of increased trade with Mexico) and Ohio (which has lost a LOT of good-paying manufacturing jobs in the last 20-25 years, mostly NOT due to NAFTA, but some surely due to NAFTA). As the candidates pander to the voters of Ohio, both Obama and Clinton promised to renegotiate NAFTA to improve labor and environmental standards, and to pull out entirely if negotiations were unsuccessful.
They are lying through their teeth. They would do no such thing, and if they did, it would have precisely ZERO impact on manufacturing jobs in Ohio. Literally zip.
A) They won't actually pull out of NAFTA, no matter what happens. I can't prove it, or even logically back it up well, but that's my opinion. Even if they did it wouldn't save a single job in Ohio, as discussed below.
B) The proposed improvements in NAFTA have nothing to do with past or future job losses in manufacturing in Ohio (or anywhere else): Um, have these people ever heard of CHINA. To refresh, its in Asia, has 1.3 billion people, lots of new manufacturing in recent years, a rapidly growing economy, will host the Olympics this year..... They managed to discuss the impact of NAFTA as it effects manufacturing jobs in Ohio without mentioning CHINA. Well let me help them. Jobs moving to Mexico is the day before yesterday's news. Nowadays even China isn't the only destination; jobs are moving to Vietnam and Indonesia as well. But let's focus on China.
Let me back up. LOTS of manufacturing jobs HAVE left Ohio in the last 20 years. Why? Is it because of high taxes and oppressive regulation, like the GOP seems to say? Lawsuits? Because the owners hated America? Well, no. Its because wages in Mexico, China and elsewhere are FAR lower than here, and ESPECIALLY far lower than the high wages union workers receive. Think $50-60 an hour (counting benefits) in the US (higher for UAW workers), and maybe $4 an hour in Mexico (counting all costs associated with the worker, the individual worker gets well less than that) and maybe $2 an hour in China, if that. These differences are enormous, and REALLY add up. There are other advantages to manufacturing in Mexico or that tiny obscure Asian country called, oh, what is it called again? China, that's right. And yes, these include laxer labor and environmental laws. If we could somehow force Mexico to tighten up its labor and environmental laws that may be a positive outcome, but it will NOT save jobs. It won't bring Mexican labor costs anywhere remotely near those of the US (that will take decades) and, of course, will not address the even lower wages and welcoming economic climate of China. The savings from lower wages which result when jobs are moved to China or Mexico will absolutely overwhelm any additional tariffs required due to NAFTA's possible termination. It won't even be close. Even if NAFTA disappeared tomorrow jobs would still be moved overseas as economics and convenience allowed. Only ultra-drastic measures would stop this from happening.
In other words, Obama and Clinton were lying through their teeth, and saying something with about as much basis in reality as a flying pink unicorn. See any flying pink unicorns recently? I'll venture you've seen precisely as many flying pink unicorns in the last month as jobs which would be saved by the proposed changes in NAFTA or its elimination.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Goodbye Hillary. She's toast.
The democratic campaign effectively ended yesterday, in cold Wisconsin. In a very white middle class state, where demographics favored Clinton, Obama wiped the floor with her, winning among white men by 19 points and losing white women, CLINTON'S BASE, by only 2. This race is over, Obama has won. I am now 99.9% positive. Its pretty obvious really. Counting Wisconsin, Obama has now won 10 states in a row, and won them all BIG. The closest Hillary has come to a win since Super Duper Tuesday was yesterday in Wisconsin, which she lost by "only" 17 points. She's a political corpse. Its been obvious for a week, I should have seen it sooner. I'm sorry, I let you down a bit.
Why has Obama been cleaning her clock? Like Kerry and Gore before her, Hill doesn't wear well. The more you see of her the less you like her/more you dislike her. Obama does wear well. After Super Duper Tuesday, when it was clear that Obama might win, voters in states still to come took a careful look, liked what they saw, and easily said "NO," to voting for Hillary. In short, she has just no mass appeal, despite having a great deal going for her policy-wise and otherwise.
Here's what will happen next. Hillary will get more and more negative, to no good end. Bill will get back in the spotlight, making some wild charge or another. Obama will win Ohio decisively and Texas much less decisively (hispanics will be the last to flock to Obama) but he WILL win Texas. Calls will then mount for Hillary to drop out. She and Bill are nobody's quitters, so although I can't be sure when she'll drop out, after she loses both Ohio and Texas it will be clear to Hillary that she won't win. I now predict she will drop out by March 7. In addition, more and more superdelegates will either SWITCH their promised votes from her to Obama, or will change from undecided to Obama, as the results sink in. The risk of a protracted fight all the way to the convention has all but ended.
The democratic campaign effectively ended yesterday, in cold Wisconsin. In a very white middle class state, where demographics favored Clinton, Obama wiped the floor with her, winning among white men by 19 points and losing white women, CLINTON'S BASE, by only 2. This race is over, Obama has won. I am now 99.9% positive. Its pretty obvious really. Counting Wisconsin, Obama has now won 10 states in a row, and won them all BIG. The closest Hillary has come to a win since Super Duper Tuesday was yesterday in Wisconsin, which she lost by "only" 17 points. She's a political corpse. Its been obvious for a week, I should have seen it sooner. I'm sorry, I let you down a bit.
Why has Obama been cleaning her clock? Like Kerry and Gore before her, Hill doesn't wear well. The more you see of her the less you like her/more you dislike her. Obama does wear well. After Super Duper Tuesday, when it was clear that Obama might win, voters in states still to come took a careful look, liked what they saw, and easily said "NO," to voting for Hillary. In short, she has just no mass appeal, despite having a great deal going for her policy-wise and otherwise.
Here's what will happen next. Hillary will get more and more negative, to no good end. Bill will get back in the spotlight, making some wild charge or another. Obama will win Ohio decisively and Texas much less decisively (hispanics will be the last to flock to Obama) but he WILL win Texas. Calls will then mount for Hillary to drop out. She and Bill are nobody's quitters, so although I can't be sure when she'll drop out, after she loses both Ohio and Texas it will be clear to Hillary that she won't win. I now predict she will drop out by March 7. In addition, more and more superdelegates will either SWITCH their promised votes from her to Obama, or will change from undecided to Obama, as the results sink in. The risk of a protracted fight all the way to the convention has all but ended.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The democrats will win the presidency, and will do extremely well in the congressional elections. My much hoped for GOP wipeout will happen.
First the presidential. As you all know, I think McCain is an extremely strong candidate. I think in practically every election cycle since 1948 (perhaps literally every one except 1964 and 1996) McCain would win. But not in 2008. A combination of a recession and severe Bush fatigue has combined for a country raring and ready to elect Barney the Purple dinosaur if he were running as a democrat. This year, the GOP just can't win.
I'll write more soon about why the dems will do so very very well in 2008. In this post I'm going way out on a limb and predicting which states the dems will win. I hope I look back on this post in November and don't feel absolutely stupid. Here goes.
Start with the states Al Gore won in 2000. There are many web sites which tell you this, including www.270towin.com. Select 2000. Obama (or Clinton in the very unlikely event she is the nominee) will carry every state Gore carried). The democrat will also carry: Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and New Hampshire. This would give the democrat 364 electoral votes, way more than the 270 needed. This margin is solid enough that the democrat could lose BOTH Ohio and Florida and still win with room to spare. This map that I am projecting is similar to Bill Clinton's easy 1996 reelection win.
As for Congress, the dems will gain seats in both chambers. I couldn't guess at the number in the house, but it won't be tiny. There is a gigantic $$ and enthusiasm gap, and that will translate into D gains, especially with a large number of open seats.
As for the Senate, the GOP has TOUGH seats to defend. First, the GOP retirements. The Senate seats in Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico and Virginia are open due to GOP retirements. Mark Warner, a former Governor of Virginia, is nearly a sure thing to pick up that seat. Colorado also looks very good. New Mexico is possible, and Nebraska and Idaho will stay with the GOP unless 2008 is a wipeout for the GOP. I thus predict that the dems pick up Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico.
GOP incumbents in trouble include Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConell, the Senate Minority Leader, in Kentucky, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and possibly Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina (who has been a real disappointment). I could see a bunch of these losing on a good night for the democrats. As of now I pick the dems in Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon. This is a total of a 6-seat gain for the democrats.
The only democratic held Senate seats that are seriously up for grabs are in South Dakota and Louisiana. In South Dakota, a very GOP state, Tim Johnson, who won very narrowly in 2002, suffered a serious stroke a few years back, and is recovering. I'm guessing he wins, but I have no confidence in this guess. I predict that Mary Landrieu loses in Louisiana, for the GOP's only pickup on what will be a disastrous night for them. So I predict the dems will pick up 5 Senate seats. Those seats, plus a bunch of house seats, plus 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will be a big night indeed for the Dems. There'll be a lot of crying elephants.
It'll be fun to look back on this post after the election and see how I did.
First the presidential. As you all know, I think McCain is an extremely strong candidate. I think in practically every election cycle since 1948 (perhaps literally every one except 1964 and 1996) McCain would win. But not in 2008. A combination of a recession and severe Bush fatigue has combined for a country raring and ready to elect Barney the Purple dinosaur if he were running as a democrat. This year, the GOP just can't win.
I'll write more soon about why the dems will do so very very well in 2008. In this post I'm going way out on a limb and predicting which states the dems will win. I hope I look back on this post in November and don't feel absolutely stupid. Here goes.
Start with the states Al Gore won in 2000. There are many web sites which tell you this, including www.270towin.com. Select 2000. Obama (or Clinton in the very unlikely event she is the nominee) will carry every state Gore carried). The democrat will also carry: Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and New Hampshire. This would give the democrat 364 electoral votes, way more than the 270 needed. This margin is solid enough that the democrat could lose BOTH Ohio and Florida and still win with room to spare. This map that I am projecting is similar to Bill Clinton's easy 1996 reelection win.
As for Congress, the dems will gain seats in both chambers. I couldn't guess at the number in the house, but it won't be tiny. There is a gigantic $$ and enthusiasm gap, and that will translate into D gains, especially with a large number of open seats.
As for the Senate, the GOP has TOUGH seats to defend. First, the GOP retirements. The Senate seats in Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico and Virginia are open due to GOP retirements. Mark Warner, a former Governor of Virginia, is nearly a sure thing to pick up that seat. Colorado also looks very good. New Mexico is possible, and Nebraska and Idaho will stay with the GOP unless 2008 is a wipeout for the GOP. I thus predict that the dems pick up Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico.
GOP incumbents in trouble include Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConell, the Senate Minority Leader, in Kentucky, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and possibly Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina (who has been a real disappointment). I could see a bunch of these losing on a good night for the democrats. As of now I pick the dems in Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon. This is a total of a 6-seat gain for the democrats.
The only democratic held Senate seats that are seriously up for grabs are in South Dakota and Louisiana. In South Dakota, a very GOP state, Tim Johnson, who won very narrowly in 2002, suffered a serious stroke a few years back, and is recovering. I'm guessing he wins, but I have no confidence in this guess. I predict that Mary Landrieu loses in Louisiana, for the GOP's only pickup on what will be a disastrous night for them. So I predict the dems will pick up 5 Senate seats. Those seats, plus a bunch of house seats, plus 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will be a big night indeed for the Dems. There'll be a lot of crying elephants.
It'll be fun to look back on this post after the election and see how I did.
Obama is the nominee. He will be the democratic nominee, and the next president. I will discuss his upcoming November election landslide over McCain in another post.
I'm not quite as certain as I was when I wrote on January 15th that McCain would be the GOP nominee, but close. The lead paragraph in an article in the most recent edition of the economist perfectly sums up why I think Obama will win the nomination:
That pretty much tells you all you need to know about democratic enthusiasm for Obama. He is a phenomenon. Hillary is a candidate, an appealing one to some. I supported Gore for president, with Hillary my strong second choice. See my post on my support for Hillary analogizing to the prom. http://flyingpinkunicorns.blogspot.com/search?q=prom. I always recognized that she left a lot to be desired as a candidate. And that her signs were left to be stomped on while Obama's were treated like $100 bills to be fought over tells you all you really need to know about the relative enthusiasm each generates among democrats. I can't tell you precisely how Obama will get the nomination. My best guess is that he wins Wisconsin today, solidly (5-10 points, maybe more), wins Ohio, is competitive in Texas and wins Pennsylvania. Under that scenario, there is every chance Hillary will actually drop out long before the convention, although "quitter," isn't a word that even her harshest enemies would toss her way. Many of the superdelegates supporting Hillary are apparently dying to jump ship and ride the winner's wave in Obama. But they don't want to piss of the Clintons, just in case. But as soon as they can, a goodly number of Clinton's delegates will move over to Obama. At some point the dam will burst, and a flood of them will move over to Obama. That's the most likely scenario. He's up in the national polls (for the first time) he has MUCH more money, he has MUCH more enthusiasm, and he's won a whole bunch of primaries and caucuses in a row, by a wide margin. He has more popular votes and more pledged delegates. It was a close competitive race, but Obama will prevail.
I'm not quite as certain as I was when I wrote on January 15th that McCain would be the GOP nominee, but close. The lead paragraph in an article in the most recent edition of the economist perfectly sums up why I think Obama will win the nomination:
ON SATURDAY February 9th an overflowing crowd of Virginians got a chance to see
the Democratic presidential candidates giving dueling speeches at the
Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Richmond. More interesting than anything the
candidates said, however, was the detritus afterwards. The crowds stripped the
place clean of Obama signs, tearing every last one off the walls. Hillary signs were abandoned on chairs and trampled under foot.
That pretty much tells you all you need to know about democratic enthusiasm for Obama. He is a phenomenon. Hillary is a candidate, an appealing one to some. I supported Gore for president, with Hillary my strong second choice. See my post on my support for Hillary analogizing to the prom. http://flyingpinkunicorns.blogspot.com/search?q=prom. I always recognized that she left a lot to be desired as a candidate. And that her signs were left to be stomped on while Obama's were treated like $100 bills to be fought over tells you all you really need to know about the relative enthusiasm each generates among democrats. I can't tell you precisely how Obama will get the nomination. My best guess is that he wins Wisconsin today, solidly (5-10 points, maybe more), wins Ohio, is competitive in Texas and wins Pennsylvania. Under that scenario, there is every chance Hillary will actually drop out long before the convention, although "quitter," isn't a word that even her harshest enemies would toss her way. Many of the superdelegates supporting Hillary are apparently dying to jump ship and ride the winner's wave in Obama. But they don't want to piss of the Clintons, just in case. But as soon as they can, a goodly number of Clinton's delegates will move over to Obama. At some point the dam will burst, and a flood of them will move over to Obama. That's the most likely scenario. He's up in the national polls (for the first time) he has MUCH more money, he has MUCH more enthusiasm, and he's won a whole bunch of primaries and caucuses in a row, by a wide margin. He has more popular votes and more pledged delegates. It was a close competitive race, but Obama will prevail.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Hillary's in trouble. At least that what it seems like, though during this campaign season many things which seemed to be true (Rooody the GOP front runner, Hillary inevitable) sure didn't turn out to be true.
Nevertheless, the margins of victory for Obama in yesterday's DC area (Obama got 60% of the vote in Maryland and a stunning 64% in Virginia, a state democrats have their eye on flipping in November, as well as an expected 75% of the vote in DC itself tells us that he is on a serious roll. Hillary's hoping to win in both Texas and Ohio on March 4, which would again make this a total toss up race. But if Obama wins both of those states (difficult but not impossible) the race will probably be over. Theoretically Hillary can do better with the superdelegates (important democrats like congressman, governors, etc, who can go with whoever they want regardless of the delegates voted by the states), and these could push her over the top, but if Obama wins noticeably more delegates than Clinton and the superdelegates flip the nomination to Clinton there would be holy hell to pay within the democratic party. Think the fiasco of 1968, which led to a narrow Nixon victory (and the 72 landslide that followed). An awful lot of people do NOT want to see that happen. Hill's not a quitter, to be damn sure, but I could forsee a scenario where Obama is up by enough of the pledged delegates (the ones won in the state primaries and caucuses) that a movement ensues among the superdelegates to ratify the voters' choice and nominate Obama.
Among pledged delegates (those won in state contests and NOT counting the superdelegates) Obama is now up about 1104-979. 2,025 are needed for nomination.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Hardly insurmountable, but it is a clear lead. There is also the matter of Michigan and Florida, which as of now will not be sending ANY delegates to the dem convention in Colorado. This is of course completely intolerable, and it is entirely possible that there will be fresh elections in both states, which should, in theory, favor Hillary strongly.
So its all a bit of a mess still. Dick Morris has predicted for nearly 4 years now that Hillary would be the nominee and next president. Yesterday for the first time he predicted Obama would win the nomination. Its easy to see why. He probably will. I sure as heck hope he's ready. A lot will depend on him if he's the nominee.
Nevertheless, the margins of victory for Obama in yesterday's DC area (Obama got 60% of the vote in Maryland and a stunning 64% in Virginia, a state democrats have their eye on flipping in November, as well as an expected 75% of the vote in DC itself tells us that he is on a serious roll. Hillary's hoping to win in both Texas and Ohio on March 4, which would again make this a total toss up race. But if Obama wins both of those states (difficult but not impossible) the race will probably be over. Theoretically Hillary can do better with the superdelegates (important democrats like congressman, governors, etc, who can go with whoever they want regardless of the delegates voted by the states), and these could push her over the top, but if Obama wins noticeably more delegates than Clinton and the superdelegates flip the nomination to Clinton there would be holy hell to pay within the democratic party. Think the fiasco of 1968, which led to a narrow Nixon victory (and the 72 landslide that followed). An awful lot of people do NOT want to see that happen. Hill's not a quitter, to be damn sure, but I could forsee a scenario where Obama is up by enough of the pledged delegates (the ones won in the state primaries and caucuses) that a movement ensues among the superdelegates to ratify the voters' choice and nominate Obama.
Among pledged delegates (those won in state contests and NOT counting the superdelegates) Obama is now up about 1104-979. 2,025 are needed for nomination.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Hardly insurmountable, but it is a clear lead. There is also the matter of Michigan and Florida, which as of now will not be sending ANY delegates to the dem convention in Colorado. This is of course completely intolerable, and it is entirely possible that there will be fresh elections in both states, which should, in theory, favor Hillary strongly.
So its all a bit of a mess still. Dick Morris has predicted for nearly 4 years now that Hillary would be the nominee and next president. Yesterday for the first time he predicted Obama would win the nomination. Its easy to see why. He probably will. I sure as heck hope he's ready. A lot will depend on him if he's the nominee.
Friday, February 08, 2008
McCain is the strongest GOP candidate since Eisenhower. He really is. I know that sounds real strong, so let me back it up.
I'll begin with a few anecdotes. My late mother was a reliable democratic voter. She almost never voted for a Republican period (voted for Rooooooody both times if I recall, and voted for Pataki the first time). She never, not a once, voted for a Republican for President. Mom was also not political, and not at all politically knowledgeable. She told me in 2000 that if McCain was the GOP nominee, she would have voted for him.
Similarly, a few democrats have recently told me that they know die-hard democrats who say they will vote for McCain over Hillary at least. These people speak for an awful lot of others. I'll try and explain why.
John McCain is the son and grandson of Navy Admirals. He requested a combat assignment in Vietnam, and boy did he get one. As most or all of you know, he was flying a bombing mission when his plane was hit, he was forced to eject, and he was captured by the Vietnamese, spending more than 5 years as a POW, the first several under absolutely awful conditions. He was grieviously wounded in the initial shoot-down, and was often beaten senseless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain#Naval_training.2C_early_assignments.2C_first_marriage_and_children
In the most famous incident of his POW-hood, he was offered early release when the Vietcong realized how powerful his father was. He refused, unless everyone taken prisoner before him was also released. His refusal is required by the Code of the US fighting force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_U.S._Fighting_Force
Still, I imagine a lot of people, having been seriously injured, and having been repeatedly tortured, would have leapt at the chance to accept early release, damn the code. One assumes the Vietnamese could have simply ignored his wishes and thrown him out of prison and told him he'd be shot if he didn't make his way back to US lines, but still, the courage he showed is almost unimaginable.
While in the Senate, McCain bucked his party by taking on big tobacco by, among other things, calling for increased cigarette taxes to reduce smoking, co-sponsoring the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law (more on that later), working with Bush on the only sensible measure of the entire Bush presidency, the immigration reform/amnesty bill that died last year, opposing both rounds of Bush tax cuts, saying of the first round, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." He has also supported certain gun control measures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain#Naval_training.2C_early_assignments.2C_first_marriage_and_children
Most significantly perhaps, although McCain was a strong and valuable supporter of Bush's reelection in 2004 (a fact which Hill or Obama SHOULD make great hay out of in 2008), he was, virtually alone among Republicans (Chuck Hegal a notable exception), critical of the Bush war effort in Iraq, at times FIERCELY critical. As far back as 2004 (right after the election, note), McCain said he had "no confidence," in Rumsfeld. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141374,00.html That may not sound impressive now, in 2008, but it was a radical position for a Republican then, with the Presidential etc. talking points being that Iraq was tough but going reasonably well. At that time he called for an additional 110,000 additional troops. (I note parenthetically that I was calling for huge #s of additional troops at the time as well. Given that what I know about the nitty gritty of fighting a ground war would fit inside of a thimble leaving plenty of room for your thumb, I give McCain little credit here). So although he's been properly branded as a supporter of the war effort in Iraq, the reality is quite a bit more complicated.
McCain has made his brand as a straight talker-- he calls his campaign bus the "straight talk express," and is, in my view, significantly more honest/less dishonest than any Republican has been in my lifetime, and is in fact more of a straight shooter than nearly anyone in our political class. In Iowa, each of the other GOP candidates pandered to local farming interests by supporting an enormous Ethanol subsidy. McCain didn't, either in 2000 or in 2008, and he did very poorly in Iowa, in part as a direct result.
Not to say that the Straight Talk Express hasn't come off the rails a time or two.
Campaigning for Bush in 2004 calling him a great leader in the war on terror, knowing what he knew THEN, constitutes at least the lead car of the straight talk express heading off the rails. Some of his other Iraq comments are a few more cars careening off of the tracks and down the valley.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/01/bush-talk_not_s.php
Also, on the campaign trail this time around, McCain is claiming that he opposed the Bush tax cuts because there were no spending cuts along with them. This is directly at odds with what he said at the time, which was that the tax cuts were giveaways to the rich, and appears geared to winning over GOP primary voters' hearts. When you market yourself as the straight talk express, lies which in another candidate would be no big deal become somewhat glaring.
But to return to my original thesis-- Here's a Republican who is, imho, a genuine war hero, who is NOT wedded to tax cuts for the wealthy, took on tobacco, has a sensible position on immigration, and is significantly more honest than most politicians. Its no wonder he appeals so strongly to independents.
I'll begin with a few anecdotes. My late mother was a reliable democratic voter. She almost never voted for a Republican period (voted for Rooooooody both times if I recall, and voted for Pataki the first time). She never, not a once, voted for a Republican for President. Mom was also not political, and not at all politically knowledgeable. She told me in 2000 that if McCain was the GOP nominee, she would have voted for him.
Similarly, a few democrats have recently told me that they know die-hard democrats who say they will vote for McCain over Hillary at least. These people speak for an awful lot of others. I'll try and explain why.
John McCain is the son and grandson of Navy Admirals. He requested a combat assignment in Vietnam, and boy did he get one. As most or all of you know, he was flying a bombing mission when his plane was hit, he was forced to eject, and he was captured by the Vietnamese, spending more than 5 years as a POW, the first several under absolutely awful conditions. He was grieviously wounded in the initial shoot-down, and was often beaten senseless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain#Naval_training.2C_early_assignments.2C_first_marriage_and_children
In the most famous incident of his POW-hood, he was offered early release when the Vietcong realized how powerful his father was. He refused, unless everyone taken prisoner before him was also released. His refusal is required by the Code of the US fighting force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_U.S._Fighting_Force
Still, I imagine a lot of people, having been seriously injured, and having been repeatedly tortured, would have leapt at the chance to accept early release, damn the code. One assumes the Vietnamese could have simply ignored his wishes and thrown him out of prison and told him he'd be shot if he didn't make his way back to US lines, but still, the courage he showed is almost unimaginable.
While in the Senate, McCain bucked his party by taking on big tobacco by, among other things, calling for increased cigarette taxes to reduce smoking, co-sponsoring the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law (more on that later), working with Bush on the only sensible measure of the entire Bush presidency, the immigration reform/amnesty bill that died last year, opposing both rounds of Bush tax cuts, saying of the first round, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." He has also supported certain gun control measures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_mccain#Naval_training.2C_early_assignments.2C_first_marriage_and_children
Most significantly perhaps, although McCain was a strong and valuable supporter of Bush's reelection in 2004 (a fact which Hill or Obama SHOULD make great hay out of in 2008), he was, virtually alone among Republicans (Chuck Hegal a notable exception), critical of the Bush war effort in Iraq, at times FIERCELY critical. As far back as 2004 (right after the election, note), McCain said he had "no confidence," in Rumsfeld. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141374,00.html That may not sound impressive now, in 2008, but it was a radical position for a Republican then, with the Presidential etc. talking points being that Iraq was tough but going reasonably well. At that time he called for an additional 110,000 additional troops. (I note parenthetically that I was calling for huge #s of additional troops at the time as well. Given that what I know about the nitty gritty of fighting a ground war would fit inside of a thimble leaving plenty of room for your thumb, I give McCain little credit here). So although he's been properly branded as a supporter of the war effort in Iraq, the reality is quite a bit more complicated.
McCain has made his brand as a straight talker-- he calls his campaign bus the "straight talk express," and is, in my view, significantly more honest/less dishonest than any Republican has been in my lifetime, and is in fact more of a straight shooter than nearly anyone in our political class. In Iowa, each of the other GOP candidates pandered to local farming interests by supporting an enormous Ethanol subsidy. McCain didn't, either in 2000 or in 2008, and he did very poorly in Iowa, in part as a direct result.
Not to say that the Straight Talk Express hasn't come off the rails a time or two.
Campaigning for Bush in 2004 calling him a great leader in the war on terror, knowing what he knew THEN, constitutes at least the lead car of the straight talk express heading off the rails. Some of his other Iraq comments are a few more cars careening off of the tracks and down the valley.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/01/bush-talk_not_s.php
Also, on the campaign trail this time around, McCain is claiming that he opposed the Bush tax cuts because there were no spending cuts along with them. This is directly at odds with what he said at the time, which was that the tax cuts were giveaways to the rich, and appears geared to winning over GOP primary voters' hearts. When you market yourself as the straight talk express, lies which in another candidate would be no big deal become somewhat glaring.
But to return to my original thesis-- Here's a Republican who is, imho, a genuine war hero, who is NOT wedded to tax cuts for the wealthy, took on tobacco, has a sensible position on immigration, and is significantly more honest than most politicians. Its no wonder he appeals so strongly to independents.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Romney quit today. McCain will be the GOP nominee.
I congratulate Romney for finally doing something right; he quit exactly at the time he should have-- after the results from Super Duper Tuesday showed everyone that McCain is the certain nominee. Its the first thing he's done right during his entire campaign.
Romney's departure reminds me of the old saying: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Romney leaves no discernible imprint on the Republican body politic. He stood for nothing at all of his own, merely adopting positions he thought would be pleasing to GOP primary voters. He repeatedly said, "Washington is broken," but couldn't bring himself to criticize George W. Bush, as though some democrat had been in Washington for the last 7 years, and the GOP hadn't controlled Congress for the vast majority of that time. He stood for no outside the box thinking, for no rethinking of conservative principles. He ran away from much that he believes in.
The REAL Mitt Romney, the moderate reasonably successful governor, the wildly successful businessman, the guy who rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics, would have been a very attractive candidate for president. The one that ran in the GOP primaries was nothing of the kind.
Mitt Romney had a lot to offer American voters (though maybe not GOP voters...) he spent a TON of money and left no footprint at all. Goodbye Mitt, and good riddance. You stood for nothing and you won't be missed.
I congratulate Romney for finally doing something right; he quit exactly at the time he should have-- after the results from Super Duper Tuesday showed everyone that McCain is the certain nominee. Its the first thing he's done right during his entire campaign.
Romney's departure reminds me of the old saying: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Romney leaves no discernible imprint on the Republican body politic. He stood for nothing at all of his own, merely adopting positions he thought would be pleasing to GOP primary voters. He repeatedly said, "Washington is broken," but couldn't bring himself to criticize George W. Bush, as though some democrat had been in Washington for the last 7 years, and the GOP hadn't controlled Congress for the vast majority of that time. He stood for no outside the box thinking, for no rethinking of conservative principles. He ran away from much that he believes in.
The REAL Mitt Romney, the moderate reasonably successful governor, the wildly successful businessman, the guy who rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics, would have been a very attractive candidate for president. The one that ran in the GOP primaries was nothing of the kind.
Mitt Romney had a lot to offer American voters (though maybe not GOP voters...) he spent a TON of money and left no footprint at all. Goodbye Mitt, and good riddance. You stood for nothing and you won't be missed.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Well, it came and went.
On the GOP side, Romney is like another Mass. pretty boy, Tom Brady, the Patriots' Quarterback. John McCain went New York Giants on Romney, pounding him, sacking him, knocking him down, until by the end of the game, Romney felt like Tom Brady. He was lying on the ground, battered and bruised, looking out his earhole.
Sure, Romney completed a few short passes, winning his home states of Mass., and Utah, which is heavily Mormon, and a few caucus. But Romney is now fresh out of home states, and has yet to win a PRIMARY (as opposed to a caucus, in which money and organization matter more) in a state other than one of his 3 home states (Michigan, where his father was governor, and Utah, which is heavily mormon, are the others).
In the end, like the New York Giants, McCain won the big ones, winning the winner take all states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Missouri and his home state of Arizona, as well as decisively winning the biggest state of them all in American politics, California.
McCain will be the GOP nominee barring a heart attack or the like. I knew it, and you all out there knew it a few weeks ago, and everyone knows it now. Apparently neither Romney nor Huckabee will drop out right away, but Romney just doesn't have enough support to render effective opposition, and Huckabee probably won't win another state, except for perhaps Mississippi and maybe Louisiana. Its McCain.
The democratic side is MUCH more interesting. My girl Hillary did very well in some of the big states, winning huge in NY, winning stunningly big in California, (10 points), and winning convincingly in Mass (15 points), and New Jersey (10 points). She also won Tennessee and a few others. Obama had his strengths, to say the very least, destroying Hillary in his home state of Illinois (she was born and raised there, but like Al Gore long ago lost touch with her home state), Missouri (by the very slimmest of margins), and winning big in Georgia, the critical November state of Colorado (by an amazing 35 points) and a bunch of others.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
In short, last night, for all of the action, was basically a tie, and settled precisely nothing. At the moment, Clinton apparently leads in delegates by about 80 with 2,025 needed for nomination, a microscopic lead. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
The next several races favor Obama from what I have read, so we should be looking at pretty much a tie for a while. The big states of Texas (where I would expect Clinton to do extremely well due to the high latino population) and Ohio loom on March 4, the next BIG BIG day in the campaign for the democrats. A week from yesterday, the 12th, is what is being dubbed the Potomac primary, with Maryland, DC and Virginia all voting. Virginia is red state target # 2 (behind Colorado) in November, so a lot of the pundits will examine Virginia very closely.
Virginia barely matters. This is now a race for delegates, and a race that, worryingly, looks like it may go all the way to the Convention. The Convention begins on August 25th, and its possible that the race will be so close that neither concedes before then. One would imagine that this would be a nightmare for the democrats as the GOP unites behind the strong McCain.
On the GOP side, Romney is like another Mass. pretty boy, Tom Brady, the Patriots' Quarterback. John McCain went New York Giants on Romney, pounding him, sacking him, knocking him down, until by the end of the game, Romney felt like Tom Brady. He was lying on the ground, battered and bruised, looking out his earhole.
Sure, Romney completed a few short passes, winning his home states of Mass., and Utah, which is heavily Mormon, and a few caucus. But Romney is now fresh out of home states, and has yet to win a PRIMARY (as opposed to a caucus, in which money and organization matter more) in a state other than one of his 3 home states (Michigan, where his father was governor, and Utah, which is heavily mormon, are the others).
In the end, like the New York Giants, McCain won the big ones, winning the winner take all states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Missouri and his home state of Arizona, as well as decisively winning the biggest state of them all in American politics, California.
McCain will be the GOP nominee barring a heart attack or the like. I knew it, and you all out there knew it a few weeks ago, and everyone knows it now. Apparently neither Romney nor Huckabee will drop out right away, but Romney just doesn't have enough support to render effective opposition, and Huckabee probably won't win another state, except for perhaps Mississippi and maybe Louisiana. Its McCain.
The democratic side is MUCH more interesting. My girl Hillary did very well in some of the big states, winning huge in NY, winning stunningly big in California, (10 points), and winning convincingly in Mass (15 points), and New Jersey (10 points). She also won Tennessee and a few others. Obama had his strengths, to say the very least, destroying Hillary in his home state of Illinois (she was born and raised there, but like Al Gore long ago lost touch with her home state), Missouri (by the very slimmest of margins), and winning big in Georgia, the critical November state of Colorado (by an amazing 35 points) and a bunch of others.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
In short, last night, for all of the action, was basically a tie, and settled precisely nothing. At the moment, Clinton apparently leads in delegates by about 80 with 2,025 needed for nomination, a microscopic lead. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
The next several races favor Obama from what I have read, so we should be looking at pretty much a tie for a while. The big states of Texas (where I would expect Clinton to do extremely well due to the high latino population) and Ohio loom on March 4, the next BIG BIG day in the campaign for the democrats. A week from yesterday, the 12th, is what is being dubbed the Potomac primary, with Maryland, DC and Virginia all voting. Virginia is red state target # 2 (behind Colorado) in November, so a lot of the pundits will examine Virginia very closely.
Virginia barely matters. This is now a race for delegates, and a race that, worryingly, looks like it may go all the way to the Convention. The Convention begins on August 25th, and its possible that the race will be so close that neither concedes before then. One would imagine that this would be a nightmare for the democrats as the GOP unites behind the strong McCain.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Today's the big day. Not to mention parade day for the Giants here in Manhattan. WHAT A GAME!
As for the democrats today, I'm going to confidently predict what's going to happen: I have no idea. Hillary will win New York, big, but don't be fooled, New York is not representative of the national democratic party at the moment, and its not only because its Hillary's adopted home state.
The real surprise today on the democratic side would be if there's a very clear winner. Obama has virtually erased Hillary's national polling lead, which she's held nonstop since this process began. Like Hillary he has enormously passionate committed supporters. I handed out literature for the Clinton campaign last night and this morning, and more than a few people smirked at me, or even said, "Obama."
If we dems have a foodfight for another month or even two, that won't hurt us any-- lots of pubicity. But if it goes on into the Summer (unlikely, but not impossible), that could spell disaster in the Fall.
Finally, I want to address what I am calling McCain Panic. A few democrats I know are in mortal terror of McCain and think we can't possibly win in November, especially if Hill is the nominee. I have told them to calm down. If there were a snap election held next week Hill would clean his clock, because she's not a Republican. The country is fed up with the Bushies. Bush has well less than 10% support among democrats, and (I'm guessing) less than 20% among independents. Yes, some of these people would support McCain now, and some will in November. But as of this instant the country wants to elect a democrat by more than 10 points. This will of course close big time by November; I assess the chances of a democrat landslide as very low (last one LBJ 64, last one before that, sort of, 1944 (which was only 53/46, but was an electoral college landslide). But the idea that the dems can't beat McCain is silly. Yes, he's their best candidate by far. Yes he'll attract independents and some democrats. But here's a simple fact: Obama had a rally in Idaho yesterday. Idaho has almost no democrats. He attracted 15,000 people. That's more than voted in the Idaho democratic primaries in 2004. Clinton is also generating wild enthusiasm. If they are both on a ticket together, as I expect, they could generate enough enthusiasm and new voters to simply overwhelm McCain's ability to attract swing voters. I'm not predicting any of this, I don't begin to begin to know what will happen. But McCain Panic is not justified, at least not yet.
As for the democrats today, I'm going to confidently predict what's going to happen: I have no idea. Hillary will win New York, big, but don't be fooled, New York is not representative of the national democratic party at the moment, and its not only because its Hillary's adopted home state.
The real surprise today on the democratic side would be if there's a very clear winner. Obama has virtually erased Hillary's national polling lead, which she's held nonstop since this process began. Like Hillary he has enormously passionate committed supporters. I handed out literature for the Clinton campaign last night and this morning, and more than a few people smirked at me, or even said, "Obama."
If we dems have a foodfight for another month or even two, that won't hurt us any-- lots of pubicity. But if it goes on into the Summer (unlikely, but not impossible), that could spell disaster in the Fall.
Finally, I want to address what I am calling McCain Panic. A few democrats I know are in mortal terror of McCain and think we can't possibly win in November, especially if Hill is the nominee. I have told them to calm down. If there were a snap election held next week Hill would clean his clock, because she's not a Republican. The country is fed up with the Bushies. Bush has well less than 10% support among democrats, and (I'm guessing) less than 20% among independents. Yes, some of these people would support McCain now, and some will in November. But as of this instant the country wants to elect a democrat by more than 10 points. This will of course close big time by November; I assess the chances of a democrat landslide as very low (last one LBJ 64, last one before that, sort of, 1944 (which was only 53/46, but was an electoral college landslide). But the idea that the dems can't beat McCain is silly. Yes, he's their best candidate by far. Yes he'll attract independents and some democrats. But here's a simple fact: Obama had a rally in Idaho yesterday. Idaho has almost no democrats. He attracted 15,000 people. That's more than voted in the Idaho democratic primaries in 2004. Clinton is also generating wild enthusiasm. If they are both on a ticket together, as I expect, they could generate enough enthusiasm and new voters to simply overwhelm McCain's ability to attract swing voters. I'm not predicting any of this, I don't begin to begin to know what will happen. But McCain Panic is not justified, at least not yet.
Monday, February 04, 2008
As you all surely know, tomorrow, Tuesday February 5, is Super Duper Tuesday. A ton of states vote, including New York, New Jersey and California. Other than Massachusetts, McCain will win ALL the big states, including California. And, I predict, none will be close. New York and New Jersey will be blowouts, and I doubt California will be all that close either, despite several close polls to the contary. New York, Missouri, Arizona, New Jersey and Connecticut are winner take all states. The winner gets ALL the delegates. McCain will win all of these barring a real surprise in Missouri. Romney will win Mass. and Utah, but is fighting over Montana and the like while McCain walks away with NY, NJ and Connecticut.
Romney will win some delegates, but the scope and margin of the McCain blowout tomorrow will be such that I expect Romney to drop out, perhaps as soon as Wednesday. He's not going to want to blow a zillion more dollars on a lost cause. Huckabee will drop out on Wednesday. Or he won't, no one really cares, except the Romney campaign, who thinks he is hurting them.
Romney will win some delegates, but the scope and margin of the McCain blowout tomorrow will be such that I expect Romney to drop out, perhaps as soon as Wednesday. He's not going to want to blow a zillion more dollars on a lost cause. Huckabee will drop out on Wednesday. Or he won't, no one really cares, except the Romney campaign, who thinks he is hurting them.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Do we want McCain to win? No.
Someone I know, a swing voter no less, has suggested the following:
There is some truth in this, particularly if you think America is basically on the right path and needs only a few tweaks rather than more radical surgery. I believe it needs some radical surgery.
First, I will stipulate that after the 2008 elections the dems will control both houses. They are very likely to keep the House; there have been a bunch of GOP retirements.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/house_republicans_face_late_ex.html
In the Senate, it is almost a sure thing that the Democrats will expand their narrow majority, as the GOP is defending many more seats, due to their success in 2002 (Senate seats are up every 6 years) and the Republicans are defending several tough seats the democrats are favored to win, while the only democratic seat which the GOP has a good chance to win is Mary Landreau's (my guess is she loses).
So given a democratic congress, why do I think the country is so broken as to risk total democratic control under Hillary (or Obama)?
First, by far most important, and last, if necessary, is health care. Many of America's short and long term problems begin and end with health care. America as a nation now spends more than $2 trillion a year, or more than 1/6 of our GDP on health care. And, in my opinion the system is badly badly broken. This is one of those issues where the GOP is out to lunch and the democrats are basically sensible. Even "socialized medicine" (ever hear of Medicare? VA care?) is hugely preferable to the mess we have now. Either of the dems will push hard with a dem congress to begin to begin to fixing it. McCain likely won't. We just have to fix health care!
Second, and almost as important, maybe even more important, is that sad, sick state of the GOP itself. Argue with me if you wish, but the GOP is sick-- this is the party that used to stand for restrained spending and balanced budget for heaven's sake!!! Now its the party where Rudy Giuliani had to pretend to believe on the campaign trail that his income tax cuts in New York caused city revenues to soar (It wasn't the soaring stock market and the booming economy, but CITY TAX CUTS that caused city revenues to soar). This is just idiotic, rather like believing in FLYING PINK UNICORNS. (See my earlier post about stupid things said in a GOP debate). The modern GOP is wedded to pretending to believe in idiotic nonsense like this, and plenty of the masses of GOP-voting dittoheads actually do believe it. Well, people believe in the earth being flat, and that we were not evolved from primates. Some people will believe anything (a dispiriting number of the people who will believe anything in America these days are Republicans).
It is my opinion that a big democratic victory in November, including the Presidency, might well cause the Republicans to actually rethink who they are and what they stand for. This would be a very good thing. America has only one sensible party on policy these days, and that party, the democrats, has flaws all its own, notably backbone. In a 2-party system, it is disastrous to have one of the two parties go off of the deep end believing in flying pink unicorns. And this, along with health care, is why a president McCain could be very bad for America, even if McCain himself wasn't.
Someone I know, a swing voter no less, has suggested the following:
One point you may not have considered. For most of the past 40 years, we
have been protected from most presidents' extreme positions by
Congress. Often it has resulted in gridlock, which was preferable to
the President's desires.
It is almost a foregone conclusion the next Congress will be heavily Democratic. The numbers in the Senate are overwhelming. Hilary with this Congress would be
dangerous. Viva McCain!
There is some truth in this, particularly if you think America is basically on the right path and needs only a few tweaks rather than more radical surgery. I believe it needs some radical surgery.
First, I will stipulate that after the 2008 elections the dems will control both houses. They are very likely to keep the House; there have been a bunch of GOP retirements.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/house_republicans_face_late_ex.html
In the Senate, it is almost a sure thing that the Democrats will expand their narrow majority, as the GOP is defending many more seats, due to their success in 2002 (Senate seats are up every 6 years) and the Republicans are defending several tough seats the democrats are favored to win, while the only democratic seat which the GOP has a good chance to win is Mary Landreau's (my guess is she loses).
So given a democratic congress, why do I think the country is so broken as to risk total democratic control under Hillary (or Obama)?
First, by far most important, and last, if necessary, is health care. Many of America's short and long term problems begin and end with health care. America as a nation now spends more than $2 trillion a year, or more than 1/6 of our GDP on health care. And, in my opinion the system is badly badly broken. This is one of those issues where the GOP is out to lunch and the democrats are basically sensible. Even "socialized medicine" (ever hear of Medicare? VA care?) is hugely preferable to the mess we have now. Either of the dems will push hard with a dem congress to begin to begin to fixing it. McCain likely won't. We just have to fix health care!
Second, and almost as important, maybe even more important, is that sad, sick state of the GOP itself. Argue with me if you wish, but the GOP is sick-- this is the party that used to stand for restrained spending and balanced budget for heaven's sake!!! Now its the party where Rudy Giuliani had to pretend to believe on the campaign trail that his income tax cuts in New York caused city revenues to soar (It wasn't the soaring stock market and the booming economy, but CITY TAX CUTS that caused city revenues to soar). This is just idiotic, rather like believing in FLYING PINK UNICORNS. (See my earlier post about stupid things said in a GOP debate). The modern GOP is wedded to pretending to believe in idiotic nonsense like this, and plenty of the masses of GOP-voting dittoheads actually do believe it. Well, people believe in the earth being flat, and that we were not evolved from primates. Some people will believe anything (a dispiriting number of the people who will believe anything in America these days are Republicans).
It is my opinion that a big democratic victory in November, including the Presidency, might well cause the Republicans to actually rethink who they are and what they stand for. This would be a very good thing. America has only one sensible party on policy these days, and that party, the democrats, has flaws all its own, notably backbone. In a 2-party system, it is disastrous to have one of the two parties go off of the deep end believing in flying pink unicorns. And this, along with health care, is why a president McCain could be very bad for America, even if McCain himself wasn't.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
I sent my aforementioned friend Andrew, the one so instrumental in my thinking on so many issues, an e-mail bragging about how right I was that McCain would win the GOP nomination. Given my record of getting the last 2 presidential elections, and other races, quite spectacularly wrong, he asked what I would do if I was wrong. As he put it, certainty should have a price. And he was quite right.
Here's what I told him in response:
Assuming McCain's health does not change dramatically (assassination god forbid, heart attack), if he is not the nominee, I will do the following (with Andrew agreeing to do nothing in return except profusely give me my props when McCain wins):
1) I will buy Andrew a nice lunch/dinner the next time he's in the Empire State; AND
2) I will purchase Romney (or the eventual GOP nominee's) t-shirts and buttons and wear them, conspicuously, among my friends, at Central Park, and the like; AND
3) Purchase a Red Sox cap and wear it to at least one Yankee game, preferably a Yankee-Red Sox game.
I'm on record here, and putting a little money and a considerable amount of pride on the line. I'm not merely predicting McCain to win the nomination, I'm quite damn sure of it, and putting myself out there.
Here's what I told him in response:
Assuming McCain's health does not change dramatically (assassination god forbid, heart attack), if he is not the nominee, I will do the following (with Andrew agreeing to do nothing in return except profusely give me my props when McCain wins):
1) I will buy Andrew a nice lunch/dinner the next time he's in the Empire State; AND
2) I will purchase Romney (or the eventual GOP nominee's) t-shirts and buttons and wear them, conspicuously, among my friends, at Central Park, and the like; AND
3) Purchase a Red Sox cap and wear it to at least one Yankee game, preferably a Yankee-Red Sox game.
I'm on record here, and putting a little money and a considerable amount of pride on the line. I'm not merely predicting McCain to win the nomination, I'm quite damn sure of it, and putting myself out there.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
