Former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb has been nominated to be a public delegate to the United Nations General Assembly. It isn't a traditional ambassordorship, but we hear that life is quite civilized in New York City, where the UN meets, despite the fact that rents are way down there. So, the hardships of foreign service in the Third World can be avoided.
Also, notably, since this Presidential nomination would traditionally have to be cleared by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Webb has shown that he was able to make it through the hard fought 2008 Presidential primary without long to harm to his relationship with either of the contenders for the Democratic nomination.
Showing posts with label Federal Elections 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Elections 2008. Show all posts
24 September 2009
01 September 2009
Why Weren't Democrats Birthers?
In 2008, Barack Obama ran as the Democratic Presidential nominee against John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee. To be eligible for the post, one must be a "natural born citizen." Several prominent political figures in the United States, who are naturalized citizens of the United States, are not eligible for this post. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes that anyone born in the United States, regardless of paternity (with the now spent exception of Indians not taxed), is a citizen of the United States.
Obama was born in Hawaii, at at time when it was a U.S. state, to a U.S. citizen mother and a Kenyan father. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Territory, which was not part of any U.S. state. The legal arguments that McCain might not be a natural born citizen of the United States are more weighty.
Yet, in many states, there are still more Republicans who believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States than there are who don't doubt Obama's citizenship. This was an issue well before the election was over in conservative circles. Partisans can believe odd things. Conservative intellectuals and leaders, who know better, are content to play demagogue, rather than correct the error that is widespread in their base.
But, there is more to it than that. While knowledge of McCain's citizenship issue was widespread, appearing in major newspapers and widely known to the liberal equivalent of the hard core political activists who churned up the "birther" movement among conservatives, the issue never gained traction with liberals. Liberal opinion leaders considered the issue, acknowledged the ambiguity, and determined that it wasn't appropriate to make the case against McCain on these grounds.
Two factors were at play, and both mattered.
First, a campaign smear aimed at showing that John McCain was unAmerican had little voter appeal. The white, senior citizen, long time U.S. Senator, former war hero fit what the conservative and independent voters that he sought felt was an American, regardless of the facts, so the issue had no emotional appeal.
Moreover, conservatives, generally, are uncomfortable with the notion of birthright citizenship, as opposed to paternity based citizenship, something often expressed by their frequent mischaracterization of the U.S. born children of illegal aliens as illegal aliens. Distaste for the 14th Amendment isn't too surprising. Today's birthers are the political descendants of those who favored secession to defend the institution of slavery, and late sought to protect the Southern segregation system from the Civil Rights movement. The 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision was enacted for the express purpose of undermining them politically.
In contrast, for conservatives, the fear that Obama (an adult convert to Christianity who had a secular upbringing) was a secret Muslim were real, and they distrusted his black skin, the fact that he had a Kenyan Muslim father, and the fact that Obama is not culturally coming from the same place as most African Americans despite looking the part. The birther claim is baseless, but has emotional resonance for xenophobes who really care about the "natural born citizen" requirement because they want to keep out Presidential candidates who are culturally different from them, without regard to the actual rules for determining who is a natural born citizen.
Second, liberals value rule of law, fairness, civility and honesty in political discourse. Conservatives don't. A birther smear goes against a typical liberal's ethical framework, and so it doesn't sell to liberals. Conservatives, in contrast, don't understand what is wrong with lying about an opposing Presidential candidate's personal life in an effort to prevent him from being elected. They care more about the result than the process.
Liberals think that politicians should behave like cricketers. Conservatives think that politics is war by other means.
Unbossed argues, and I agree, that the media should confront and run stories about prominent people who wantonly distribute misinformation about public issues.
Obama was born in Hawaii, at at time when it was a U.S. state, to a U.S. citizen mother and a Kenyan father. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Territory, which was not part of any U.S. state. The legal arguments that McCain might not be a natural born citizen of the United States are more weighty.
Yet, in many states, there are still more Republicans who believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States than there are who don't doubt Obama's citizenship. This was an issue well before the election was over in conservative circles. Partisans can believe odd things. Conservative intellectuals and leaders, who know better, are content to play demagogue, rather than correct the error that is widespread in their base.
But, there is more to it than that. While knowledge of McCain's citizenship issue was widespread, appearing in major newspapers and widely known to the liberal equivalent of the hard core political activists who churned up the "birther" movement among conservatives, the issue never gained traction with liberals. Liberal opinion leaders considered the issue, acknowledged the ambiguity, and determined that it wasn't appropriate to make the case against McCain on these grounds.
Two factors were at play, and both mattered.
First, a campaign smear aimed at showing that John McCain was unAmerican had little voter appeal. The white, senior citizen, long time U.S. Senator, former war hero fit what the conservative and independent voters that he sought felt was an American, regardless of the facts, so the issue had no emotional appeal.
Moreover, conservatives, generally, are uncomfortable with the notion of birthright citizenship, as opposed to paternity based citizenship, something often expressed by their frequent mischaracterization of the U.S. born children of illegal aliens as illegal aliens. Distaste for the 14th Amendment isn't too surprising. Today's birthers are the political descendants of those who favored secession to defend the institution of slavery, and late sought to protect the Southern segregation system from the Civil Rights movement. The 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision was enacted for the express purpose of undermining them politically.
In contrast, for conservatives, the fear that Obama (an adult convert to Christianity who had a secular upbringing) was a secret Muslim were real, and they distrusted his black skin, the fact that he had a Kenyan Muslim father, and the fact that Obama is not culturally coming from the same place as most African Americans despite looking the part. The birther claim is baseless, but has emotional resonance for xenophobes who really care about the "natural born citizen" requirement because they want to keep out Presidential candidates who are culturally different from them, without regard to the actual rules for determining who is a natural born citizen.
Second, liberals value rule of law, fairness, civility and honesty in political discourse. Conservatives don't. A birther smear goes against a typical liberal's ethical framework, and so it doesn't sell to liberals. Conservatives, in contrast, don't understand what is wrong with lying about an opposing Presidential candidate's personal life in an effort to prevent him from being elected. They care more about the result than the process.
Liberals think that politicians should behave like cricketers. Conservatives think that politics is war by other means.
Unbossed argues, and I agree, that the media should confront and run stories about prominent people who wantonly distribute misinformation about public issues.
30 June 2009
Minnesota Race For U.S. Senate Over
As has been clear for months, Democrat Al Franken has defeated incumbent Norm Coleman (who has finally conceded) in the three way race for U.S. Senate by a little more than 300 votes, after a unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court rejected his election challenge. The decision comes about a week short of eight months after the election, and almost six months after the U.S. Senate convened in 2009. The Senate had the power to resolve the contested election, but refrained from doing so.
Franken will give Democrats a sixty vote filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate (although filibuster voters are rarely decided on straight party lines), something that will help President Obama win approval for is judicial nominees and help Democrats win approval for legislative priorities like health care reform (if they choose to exercise their power).
Franken's win appears to be the final piece Democrats needs to move the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) with swift (five to seven days from card submission) unionization elections in lieu of the controversial but not terribly important "card check" provision which would dispese with unionization elections if a majority of employees signed pro-union petitions in advance.
Franken will give Democrats a sixty vote filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate (although filibuster voters are rarely decided on straight party lines), something that will help President Obama win approval for is judicial nominees and help Democrats win approval for legislative priorities like health care reform (if they choose to exercise their power).
Franken's win appears to be the final piece Democrats needs to move the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) with swift (five to seven days from card submission) unionization elections in lieu of the controversial but not terribly important "card check" provision which would dispese with unionization elections if a majority of employees signed pro-union petitions in advance.
06 April 2009
GOP Outnumbered in Colorado
Yes, Colorado is a blue state.
As of this April, voters who affliate as Democrats now outnumber those who affliate as Republicans in Colorado. This follows an eight year reversal of control in electoral politics. Political identity as show in voter registration is a lagging indicator of actual voting practice. This also reflects a grass roots orientation in Obama's Presidential campaign not shared by the McCain campaign, and the impact of a long contested Democratic party primary that kept the Dems organized and involved to a greater extent.
Of course, a large share of Colorado voters remain unaffiliated, at least publicly, although Democrats have been getting a larger share of the independent vote than Republicans in recent years.
As of this April, voters who affliate as Democrats now outnumber those who affliate as Republicans in Colorado. This follows an eight year reversal of control in electoral politics. Political identity as show in voter registration is a lagging indicator of actual voting practice. This also reflects a grass roots orientation in Obama's Presidential campaign not shared by the McCain campaign, and the impact of a long contested Democratic party primary that kept the Dems organized and involved to a greater extent.
Of course, a large share of Colorado voters remain unaffiliated, at least publicly, although Democrats have been getting a larger share of the independent vote than Republicans in recent years.
02 March 2009
Porn and Republicans
One of the most interesting stories of the 2008 election in Denver that I never got around to blogging was relentless pro-McCain and anti-Obama campaigning on the street sign for Shotgun Willies, a strip club at the corner of Colorado Boulevard and Virginia Avenue in Glendale, Colorado (a small Arapahoe County enclave surrounded on all sides by the City and County of Denver). It is a prominent sign. One of my previous employers who had an office nearby used it as our main landmark when giving people directions to our office for years. One or two other strip clubs also had pro-GOP signage when they had any political messages at all.
At the time, I'd chalked it up to the adultery factor. McCain has had lots of wives and admitted in his memoirs to having numerous affairs while married. Obama's romantic life was decidedly more monogamous.
Well, it turns out that the connection between the porn industry and the Republican party is more than mere coincidence. It wasn't just based upon personal factors that distinguished particular candidates in a particular election either. The proof comes from yet another red state, blue state comparison that undermines the image of Republicans as morally virtuous family values types:
Hat Tip: The Big Orange Giant.
Also, while high per capita porn consumption rates are associated with conservative turf, the same is not true when it comes to per capita condom consumption. Reliably Democratic Denver leads the nation on the measure, at at 189% of the average for the nation's 50 largest cities. As in economics, Republicans are big on talk, and Democrats prefer action.
At the time, I'd chalked it up to the adultery factor. McCain has had lots of wives and admitted in his memoirs to having numerous affairs while married. Obama's romantic life was decidedly more monogamous.
Well, it turns out that the connection between the porn industry and the Republican party is more than mere coincidence. It wasn't just based upon personal factors that distinguished particular candidates in a particular election either. The proof comes from yet another red state, blue state comparison that undermines the image of Republicans as morally virtuous family values types:
Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. . . . Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32. Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.
Hat Tip: The Big Orange Giant.
Also, while high per capita porn consumption rates are associated with conservative turf, the same is not true when it comes to per capita condom consumption. Reliably Democratic Denver leads the nation on the measure, at at 189% of the average for the nation's 50 largest cities. As in economics, Republicans are big on talk, and Democrats prefer action.
23 February 2009
Bush Appointees Out Of Work
"Only 25 to 30 percent of 3,000 political appointees who served President George W. Bush have found work."
From here.
From here.
20 January 2009
President Obama
In an hour and a half, the term of our 43rd President, George W. Bush, will end, and the term of President Barack Hussein Obama, our 44th President, will begin.
Bush leaves with Nixonian approval ratings, a widespread belief that his war in Iraq has accomplished nothing and that his war in Afghanistan is not going well, an economy in shambles, the legacy of losing a major American city in Hurricane Katrina, and international contempt.
Obama faces the highest expectations. He is seen as FDR to Bush 43's Herbert Hoover. His biography bears similarities to that of President Lincoln, another state senator from Illinois promising change. He is seen by many as bearing the mantle of Martin Luther King, Jr., completing our nation's journey towards racial harmony and equality. The French President proclaimed that under Obama, Europe will once again have a United States that shares its values. The youthfulness of Obama and his family, and his idealism, evoke John F. Kennedy's Camelot. He is compared to Moses, leading a people out of an oppressive period in their history, and Jesus, a Messiah to save us all.
The nation hungers for change, and Obama has the mandate and supporting cast in Congress, to accomplish a great deal. Through his campaign and transition team, Obama has already developed a reputation for being a consumate planner. His cabinet picks has been rushed through the Senate approval process, ready to fill their posts on day one, or close to it. The first 100 days legislative agenda is waiting in the wings, receiving finishing touches, but ready to define his admininstration and give it some consensus accomplishments. There are Executive Orders waiting in a stack, carefully vetted by his closest advisors and reviewed in detail, ready to be signed. Those Executive Orders will immediately turn back Bush Administration policies on key issues (like torture) in a way that prolonged efforts from Congress could not.
President Lyndon Johnson, like Obama, came from humble origins and had an amibtious legislative agenda. History remembers how he struggled to salvage his positive agenda from the all absorbing negativity of the Vietnam War that threatened it.
The consensus of Congress, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the Iraqi civilian government, a consensus that ultimately absorbed even John McCain who had proclaimed a willingness to fight a hundred year war in Iraq, forced the hand of President Bush who cut a deal with the Iraqi government that is already winding down the war in Iraq. An era of impunity for occupying foreign military forces ended with the New Year, under the new status of forces agreement there. U.S. troops (there are scarcely any other memebers of the "Coalition of the Willing" left), are scheduled with withdraw from Iraqi cities in June. There is a date on the calendar for complete withdrawal of U.S. troops, and there is every reason to believe that substantial withdrawals of U.S. forces will take place before then.
There is every reason to be optimistic about Obama's handling of the economy. The "Great Recession" is already so far advanced that its end is, while not around the corner, not hopelessly distant either. Obama can be trusted to do, at least, some of the right things from a policy perspective, to address the financial crisis, and to put together a group of people who understand and are skilled at working with government to implement those policies appropriately.
The greatest anxiety is that a weak economy and possibly escalating conflicts in Afghanistan may derail Obama's positive social agenda on issues like major health care reform to cover the bulk of the uninsured, and reforms designed to improve access to higher education. For now, all we can do is hope, wait and see.
But, today, I still have hope, higher than I've had for a very long time, that we are heading on the right track.
Bush leaves with Nixonian approval ratings, a widespread belief that his war in Iraq has accomplished nothing and that his war in Afghanistan is not going well, an economy in shambles, the legacy of losing a major American city in Hurricane Katrina, and international contempt.
Obama faces the highest expectations. He is seen as FDR to Bush 43's Herbert Hoover. His biography bears similarities to that of President Lincoln, another state senator from Illinois promising change. He is seen by many as bearing the mantle of Martin Luther King, Jr., completing our nation's journey towards racial harmony and equality. The French President proclaimed that under Obama, Europe will once again have a United States that shares its values. The youthfulness of Obama and his family, and his idealism, evoke John F. Kennedy's Camelot. He is compared to Moses, leading a people out of an oppressive period in their history, and Jesus, a Messiah to save us all.
The nation hungers for change, and Obama has the mandate and supporting cast in Congress, to accomplish a great deal. Through his campaign and transition team, Obama has already developed a reputation for being a consumate planner. His cabinet picks has been rushed through the Senate approval process, ready to fill their posts on day one, or close to it. The first 100 days legislative agenda is waiting in the wings, receiving finishing touches, but ready to define his admininstration and give it some consensus accomplishments. There are Executive Orders waiting in a stack, carefully vetted by his closest advisors and reviewed in detail, ready to be signed. Those Executive Orders will immediately turn back Bush Administration policies on key issues (like torture) in a way that prolonged efforts from Congress could not.
President Lyndon Johnson, like Obama, came from humble origins and had an amibtious legislative agenda. History remembers how he struggled to salvage his positive agenda from the all absorbing negativity of the Vietnam War that threatened it.
The consensus of Congress, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the Iraqi civilian government, a consensus that ultimately absorbed even John McCain who had proclaimed a willingness to fight a hundred year war in Iraq, forced the hand of President Bush who cut a deal with the Iraqi government that is already winding down the war in Iraq. An era of impunity for occupying foreign military forces ended with the New Year, under the new status of forces agreement there. U.S. troops (there are scarcely any other memebers of the "Coalition of the Willing" left), are scheduled with withdraw from Iraqi cities in June. There is a date on the calendar for complete withdrawal of U.S. troops, and there is every reason to believe that substantial withdrawals of U.S. forces will take place before then.
There is every reason to be optimistic about Obama's handling of the economy. The "Great Recession" is already so far advanced that its end is, while not around the corner, not hopelessly distant either. Obama can be trusted to do, at least, some of the right things from a policy perspective, to address the financial crisis, and to put together a group of people who understand and are skilled at working with government to implement those policies appropriately.
The greatest anxiety is that a weak economy and possibly escalating conflicts in Afghanistan may derail Obama's positive social agenda on issues like major health care reform to cover the bulk of the uninsured, and reforms designed to improve access to higher education. For now, all we can do is hope, wait and see.
But, today, I still have hope, higher than I've had for a very long time, that we are heading on the right track.
13 January 2009
The Gaza Conflict
According to one estimate of casualties in the military conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians in Gaza since December 27 last year, there have been about 4,000 casualties so far, about 98% Arab (i.e. fewer than 100 Israeli casualties, and considerably fewer Israeli deaths), including about 900 Arab deaths. The source estimates these 900 Arab deaths involve about 450 Hamas deaths, 225 deaths from other militant groups, and about 225 deaths of Arabs who are not militants, and further estimates that:
Prior to the latest clash, the same source reported in late December that "Violence along the Gaza border fence continues, with several Israeli troops injured each week by rocks, explosions or bullets. . . . A dozen or more [Kassam] rockets are still being fired each week. For every 40 or so rockets fired, an Israeli is killed or wounded." Egyptian border guards have also apparently suffered casualties.
I could source media sources for confirmation or more accurate data, but I'm not sure that those details matter much for the big issues.
It is entirely possible that the numbers quoted above are propaganda numbers that overstate the extent to which Israeli military action has limited itself to militants. It is also entirely possible that the total number of casualties are somewhat higher or somewhat lower. And, it would not be shocked if some of the strikes were directed at innocent civilians as a form of collective punishment without a valid military purpose.
But, I also strongly suspect that the numbers are accurate within an order of magnitude, that the casualties are overwhelmingly Arab, and that the Israeli military is primarily and predominantly trying to hit militant targets, even if its motives are not always pure and even if it is not always successful in meeting this objective.
A couple of the big barriers to the two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that seems the obvious solution and has been touted by the international community for decades, are that (1) it doesn't work for Israel to have a sovereign neighbor that organized groups not controlled by the local government that shoots rockets at you, and (2) neither the West Bank, nor Gaza, nor both territories combined, are ready to immediately transition to sovereign democratic economically autonomous self-government without a huge amount of outside assistance. The two problems are interrelated. An ineffective civilian government, even if it is well intentioned, may be incapable of preventing attacks against Israel by organized groups from its soil. Northern Ireland faced similar difficulties when no one had the authority and practical ability to reign in militants in that fight.
Israel is also, justifiably, terrified that the casualties among its own citizens, while modest so far, could dramatically escalate if the Palestinians gained access to more modern and accurate missiles that could return Israeli carnage to the levels experienced when suicide bombings within Israel proper were common. The fact that those domestic suicide bombings have virtually ended with the erection of the wall between Israeli and Palestinian areas, despite the controversies involved, make it highly unlikely that the Israelis will go back on the decision to build the wall and partially explains why Gaza tunnels have such powerful psychological force as a threat to the Israelis.
There is also a deeper problem that crops up repeatedly around the world. Humanitarian aid arguably prolongs wars by preventing any side from being so utterly defeated that they give up. Palestine there are parents and children who have lived their entire lives in "refugee camps," and the international aid has been a core part of the Palestinian economy for decades. The world has, again and again, probably morally correctly, decided the preventing civilians from suffering immediate extreme harm is more important than the possibility that allowing hundreds of thousands of people to starve and die and waste away from illness without aid might end a conflict once and for all, ending suffering more in the long run. But, international involvement in sustaining the status quo creates international responsibility for ending the highly problematic status quo.
The latest editorial cartoons have blamed rocket attacks on Israel from both the North and the South on Iranian proxy forces. This isn't the easiest point to prove. But, certainly there is no love lost between Israel and Iran, or for that matter much of the rest of the Islamic world. And, there is no doubt that covert military aid for militant groups from the rest of the Islamic world has been an important fact in sustaining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Likewise, it is no secret that the U.S. has provided significant military aid to Israel from the beginning, and that the U.S. has been pretty much unwavering in its support for Israel, as have many other Western nations to a lesser extent. The impact this support has had on the strength of the Israeli military is an important reason that Israel still exists.
The U.S. is a natural ally for Israel. The vast majority of the world's Jews live in either Israel or the United States, and those numbers are roughly evenly split between the two nations. Many American Jewish communities have strong personal ties to Israelis, and Zionism, while not universal in the American Jewish community, is common there. Jews have been, for most of the history of the United States, the largest non-Christian religious minority in the U.S., although the number of American Muslims is growing.
Barack Obama's nomination of his Presidential primary opponent Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, was in part a way to emphasize the importance of U.S. foreign policy ties to Israel. Clinton was, rightly or wrongly, widely seen as a more staunch supporter of Israel than Obama during the Presidential election in 2008, and her appointment reassures those who were concerned about Obama on that score.
Of course, major military action in Gaza does little in the long run to promote a lasting peace with the Palestinians for Israel. Palestinians have been on the losing end of countless battles over the last half century and haven't given up. A wounded or killed family member or friend, whether or not that family member or friend is a militant, provides more than enough of a motive for a substantial core of militants to continue fighting as long as they live. A dramatic illustration that ultimately the Israelis are in control in Gaza City undermines the authority and credibility of the local government, and thereby undermines its capacity to make peace.
Excessive force, unnecessary casualties, and hardships for average people undermine the legitimacy of Israeli rule even as it emphasizes Israeli authority. The percentage of Palestinians who would never consider Israeli occupation to be legitimate will probably always be too high, as a result of all that has happened so far, for a one state unitary solution, that gives Arabs equal political rights to Israelis, or the current neo-colonial arrangement viable as a peaceful, long term arrangement. Any significant minority that fails to recognize the legitimacy of the state is a nearly guaranteed recipe for indefinite insurgency. A state can survive as few wackos who don't acknowledge its legitimacy, but significant minority percentages who feel uprising against it is justified (as opposed to merely disliking the current ruling regime) produce endless turmoil. Also, it is hard to pummel the Palestinians into submission with military force and economic sanctions when they already have almost nothing to lose.
I increasingly think that the best solution would be for Egypt to absorb the Gaza, and act as a guarantor of Israeli security on its Gazan border, and for Jordan to absorb the West Bank, and act as a guarantor of Israeli security on its West Bank border. Both nations have functional governments and a great deal to lose from international sanctions.
Obviously, this couldn't happen overnight. Egypt has no desire to take on the problem that is Gaza or devote its resources to protecting Israel. And, Jordan is even less inclined to take on the West Bank's radicalized Palestinian population. Previous efforts along these lines have failed. Major inducements, along the lines of the Camp David accords that brought grudging recognition of Israel from its neighbors, but sweeter, would be required. Israelis would have have to make major concessions by ceding all settlements now in place in the West Bank.
But, Jordan seems more capable of instituting competent government in the West Bank and honoring its international obligations, and Egypt seems more capable of doing so in Gaza, than any reasonably conceivable autonomous government in either territory. While a large share of West Bank Palestinians will never recognize Israel as legitimate, it is less obvious that widespread, albeit reluctant, recognition of Jordanian legitimacy is impossible. Also, judged by the crude measure of rocket attack frequency, the situation is less out of hand in the West Bank than it is in Gaza in the first place.
Egypt, moreover, is in a position from a practical perspective, to relocate much of the smaller population of the near wasteland that is Gaza, to its own interior urban centers where its one party government rules with an iron fist.
Both Egypt and Jordan would also have the benefit of being able to immediately provide a major boost to the economies of Gaza and the West Bank, respectively, by reopening these territories to reliable international trade.
The division of the territories into the possession of two different nation-states as a fait accompli, would also discourage efforts to revive a Palestinian national movement.
Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel are declining, to about ten a day. . . . Hamas has boated of having up to 20,000 armed fighters, but few of these have shown up so far. There appear to be less than a thousand armed Palestinians fighting more than ten times that number of Israeli troops.
Prior to the latest clash, the same source reported in late December that "Violence along the Gaza border fence continues, with several Israeli troops injured each week by rocks, explosions or bullets. . . . A dozen or more [Kassam] rockets are still being fired each week. For every 40 or so rockets fired, an Israeli is killed or wounded." Egyptian border guards have also apparently suffered casualties.
I could source media sources for confirmation or more accurate data, but I'm not sure that those details matter much for the big issues.
It is entirely possible that the numbers quoted above are propaganda numbers that overstate the extent to which Israeli military action has limited itself to militants. It is also entirely possible that the total number of casualties are somewhat higher or somewhat lower. And, it would not be shocked if some of the strikes were directed at innocent civilians as a form of collective punishment without a valid military purpose.
But, I also strongly suspect that the numbers are accurate within an order of magnitude, that the casualties are overwhelmingly Arab, and that the Israeli military is primarily and predominantly trying to hit militant targets, even if its motives are not always pure and even if it is not always successful in meeting this objective.
A couple of the big barriers to the two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that seems the obvious solution and has been touted by the international community for decades, are that (1) it doesn't work for Israel to have a sovereign neighbor that organized groups not controlled by the local government that shoots rockets at you, and (2) neither the West Bank, nor Gaza, nor both territories combined, are ready to immediately transition to sovereign democratic economically autonomous self-government without a huge amount of outside assistance. The two problems are interrelated. An ineffective civilian government, even if it is well intentioned, may be incapable of preventing attacks against Israel by organized groups from its soil. Northern Ireland faced similar difficulties when no one had the authority and practical ability to reign in militants in that fight.
Israel is also, justifiably, terrified that the casualties among its own citizens, while modest so far, could dramatically escalate if the Palestinians gained access to more modern and accurate missiles that could return Israeli carnage to the levels experienced when suicide bombings within Israel proper were common. The fact that those domestic suicide bombings have virtually ended with the erection of the wall between Israeli and Palestinian areas, despite the controversies involved, make it highly unlikely that the Israelis will go back on the decision to build the wall and partially explains why Gaza tunnels have such powerful psychological force as a threat to the Israelis.
There is also a deeper problem that crops up repeatedly around the world. Humanitarian aid arguably prolongs wars by preventing any side from being so utterly defeated that they give up. Palestine there are parents and children who have lived their entire lives in "refugee camps," and the international aid has been a core part of the Palestinian economy for decades. The world has, again and again, probably morally correctly, decided the preventing civilians from suffering immediate extreme harm is more important than the possibility that allowing hundreds of thousands of people to starve and die and waste away from illness without aid might end a conflict once and for all, ending suffering more in the long run. But, international involvement in sustaining the status quo creates international responsibility for ending the highly problematic status quo.
The latest editorial cartoons have blamed rocket attacks on Israel from both the North and the South on Iranian proxy forces. This isn't the easiest point to prove. But, certainly there is no love lost between Israel and Iran, or for that matter much of the rest of the Islamic world. And, there is no doubt that covert military aid for militant groups from the rest of the Islamic world has been an important fact in sustaining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Likewise, it is no secret that the U.S. has provided significant military aid to Israel from the beginning, and that the U.S. has been pretty much unwavering in its support for Israel, as have many other Western nations to a lesser extent. The impact this support has had on the strength of the Israeli military is an important reason that Israel still exists.
The U.S. is a natural ally for Israel. The vast majority of the world's Jews live in either Israel or the United States, and those numbers are roughly evenly split between the two nations. Many American Jewish communities have strong personal ties to Israelis, and Zionism, while not universal in the American Jewish community, is common there. Jews have been, for most of the history of the United States, the largest non-Christian religious minority in the U.S., although the number of American Muslims is growing.
Barack Obama's nomination of his Presidential primary opponent Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, was in part a way to emphasize the importance of U.S. foreign policy ties to Israel. Clinton was, rightly or wrongly, widely seen as a more staunch supporter of Israel than Obama during the Presidential election in 2008, and her appointment reassures those who were concerned about Obama on that score.
Of course, major military action in Gaza does little in the long run to promote a lasting peace with the Palestinians for Israel. Palestinians have been on the losing end of countless battles over the last half century and haven't given up. A wounded or killed family member or friend, whether or not that family member or friend is a militant, provides more than enough of a motive for a substantial core of militants to continue fighting as long as they live. A dramatic illustration that ultimately the Israelis are in control in Gaza City undermines the authority and credibility of the local government, and thereby undermines its capacity to make peace.
Excessive force, unnecessary casualties, and hardships for average people undermine the legitimacy of Israeli rule even as it emphasizes Israeli authority. The percentage of Palestinians who would never consider Israeli occupation to be legitimate will probably always be too high, as a result of all that has happened so far, for a one state unitary solution, that gives Arabs equal political rights to Israelis, or the current neo-colonial arrangement viable as a peaceful, long term arrangement. Any significant minority that fails to recognize the legitimacy of the state is a nearly guaranteed recipe for indefinite insurgency. A state can survive as few wackos who don't acknowledge its legitimacy, but significant minority percentages who feel uprising against it is justified (as opposed to merely disliking the current ruling regime) produce endless turmoil. Also, it is hard to pummel the Palestinians into submission with military force and economic sanctions when they already have almost nothing to lose.
I increasingly think that the best solution would be for Egypt to absorb the Gaza, and act as a guarantor of Israeli security on its Gazan border, and for Jordan to absorb the West Bank, and act as a guarantor of Israeli security on its West Bank border. Both nations have functional governments and a great deal to lose from international sanctions.
Obviously, this couldn't happen overnight. Egypt has no desire to take on the problem that is Gaza or devote its resources to protecting Israel. And, Jordan is even less inclined to take on the West Bank's radicalized Palestinian population. Previous efforts along these lines have failed. Major inducements, along the lines of the Camp David accords that brought grudging recognition of Israel from its neighbors, but sweeter, would be required. Israelis would have have to make major concessions by ceding all settlements now in place in the West Bank.
But, Jordan seems more capable of instituting competent government in the West Bank and honoring its international obligations, and Egypt seems more capable of doing so in Gaza, than any reasonably conceivable autonomous government in either territory. While a large share of West Bank Palestinians will never recognize Israel as legitimate, it is less obvious that widespread, albeit reluctant, recognition of Jordanian legitimacy is impossible. Also, judged by the crude measure of rocket attack frequency, the situation is less out of hand in the West Bank than it is in Gaza in the first place.
Egypt, moreover, is in a position from a practical perspective, to relocate much of the smaller population of the near wasteland that is Gaza, to its own interior urban centers where its one party government rules with an iron fist.
Both Egypt and Jordan would also have the benefit of being able to immediately provide a major boost to the economies of Gaza and the West Bank, respectively, by reopening these territories to reliable international trade.
The division of the territories into the possession of two different nation-states as a fait accompli, would also discourage efforts to revive a Palestinian national movement.
15 December 2008
Happy Election Day!
Today, December 15, 2008, is the day that the United States conducts its Presidential election.
Members of the electoral college, who were selected by voters on November 4, 2008, cast their votes in each of the nation's state capital today (with paper ballots counted by hand).
The Rocky Mountain News reports on an immaterial hitch in that process today in Colorado.
From a practical perspective, today is notable for several reasons:
1. Today's vote renders further state level challenges to the Presidential election untimely; and
2. If the President-Elect or Vice President-Elect chosen by voters were incapacitated or died prior to today, the electoral college could have filled the vacancy today; and
3. Today's eliminates the slight possibility that an elector might be unfaithful to his or her pledge to vote for the candidate selected in the general election by ordinary voters.
There is an elector or two who devitates from their pledge every election or two, but this has never been outcome determinative. In some states, an unfaithful vote is a crime, but to my knowledge, no one has ever been punished for a violation of the duty to vote as pledged. In practice, loyalty to a candidate is a foremost consideration in determining who will be honored with the privilege of serving as an elector, so the degree to which the obligation is binding is rarely material.
The results of the votes in each of the state capitals today will be transmitted to Congress with the result officially announced on January 20, 2009. The new Congress itself is installed earlier in January.
Members of the electoral college, who were selected by voters on November 4, 2008, cast their votes in each of the nation's state capital today (with paper ballots counted by hand).
The Rocky Mountain News reports on an immaterial hitch in that process today in Colorado.
Elector Margaret Atencio could not make it in because of the weather, so state officials must go through the process of electing someone to replace her.
From a practical perspective, today is notable for several reasons:
1. Today's vote renders further state level challenges to the Presidential election untimely; and
2. If the President-Elect or Vice President-Elect chosen by voters were incapacitated or died prior to today, the electoral college could have filled the vacancy today; and
3. Today's eliminates the slight possibility that an elector might be unfaithful to his or her pledge to vote for the candidate selected in the general election by ordinary voters.
There is an elector or two who devitates from their pledge every election or two, but this has never been outcome determinative. In some states, an unfaithful vote is a crime, but to my knowledge, no one has ever been punished for a violation of the duty to vote as pledged. In practice, loyalty to a candidate is a foremost consideration in determining who will be honored with the privilege of serving as an elector, so the degree to which the obligation is binding is rarely material.
The results of the votes in each of the state capitals today will be transmitted to Congress with the result officially announced on January 20, 2009. The new Congress itself is installed earlier in January.
11 November 2008
Promising News From Alaska and Minnesota
There were two U.S. Senate races that were too close to call.
These matter more than the several close U.S. House races (where a Democratic majority is clear and there are no filibusters), and the President race where Missouri remains close, but the electoral college victor is clear so it doesn't matter. In contrast, each additional U.S. Senate win for the Democrats reduced the viability of Republican filibuster threats. It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but moderates in each party often differ with fellow party members on filibuster voters, so each vote matters.
An analysis from last Friday of the votes remaining to be counted in Alaska suggests that Democrat Mark Begich who is currently trailing in the count, is likely to prevail over incumbent Republican U.S. Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens. New information about the number of votes still uncounted in that race improve the Democrat's chance.
Minnesota Democrat Al Franken is also closing the gap with incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota which is likely to produce a recount after the first round of voting is over. At last count, 206 votes out of 2.88 mllion cast separated the candidates (with Coleman's early lead eroding).
There will be a runoff election in Georgia, but it would be very hard for the Democrat in that race to prevail. The Republican won 49.9% in the first round, and about 3% went to a Libetarian candidate who is not in the runoff. The Democrat will need to win essentially 100% of the Libertarian vote to prevail, or will have to win over a lot of people who voted for the Republican the first time, and will have to maintain excellent voter turnout. The runoff is in early December.
These matter more than the several close U.S. House races (where a Democratic majority is clear and there are no filibusters), and the President race where Missouri remains close, but the electoral college victor is clear so it doesn't matter. In contrast, each additional U.S. Senate win for the Democrats reduced the viability of Republican filibuster threats. It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but moderates in each party often differ with fellow party members on filibuster voters, so each vote matters.
An analysis from last Friday of the votes remaining to be counted in Alaska suggests that Democrat Mark Begich who is currently trailing in the count, is likely to prevail over incumbent Republican U.S. Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens. New information about the number of votes still uncounted in that race improve the Democrat's chance.
Minnesota Democrat Al Franken is also closing the gap with incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota which is likely to produce a recount after the first round of voting is over. At last count, 206 votes out of 2.88 mllion cast separated the candidates (with Coleman's early lead eroding).
There will be a runoff election in Georgia, but it would be very hard for the Democrat in that race to prevail. The Republican won 49.9% in the first round, and about 3% went to a Libetarian candidate who is not in the runoff. The Democrat will need to win essentially 100% of the Libertarian vote to prevail, or will have to win over a lot of people who voted for the Republican the first time, and will have to maintain excellent voter turnout. The runoff is in early December.
10 November 2008
State Races In 2008
Tim Storey, at the non-partisan National Conference of State Legislatures has prepared an interesting recap of the 2008 elections results at the state government level. Among the highlights (facts his, analysis mine):
State Legislatures
Democrats have a majority of state legislative seats. This has been the case for most of the period from the aftermath of the 1938 election to the aftermath of the current election. Democrats fell behind in 1948, and were tied in 1952 and from about 1998-2000. Democratic strength in state legislatures peaked around 1974 at almost 70%. Democrats now hold a majority of the seats, but well under 60% of them.
The Democratic share of state legislative seats in the South has fallen from a peak of 94% in the late 1950s, that had been steady since 1938 at least, to 53.5% after the 2008 election, a decline that has occurred steadily since, with the exception of a small boost for Democrats in the early 1970s.
Democrats have controlled state legislatures in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama since Reconstruction (despite the fact that the parties themselves have flipped their positions on the liberal to conservative scale at the national level in this time frame), which suggests that the Democratic party in these states may differ materially from the Democratic party nationally. In the South, only Arkansas and North Carolina have Democratic party controlled state legislatures and Democratic Governors. The fact that Obama lost handily in Arkansas and just barely won North Carolina, despite Democratic party control of state government, is notable. While not strictly in the South, West Virginia, where Democrats also control state government is also trending towards the Republican party.
The 2008 elections continued Democratic declines in Southern state legislatures. Republicans picked up a net six state legislative seats in the South, while Democrats picked up a net 38 state legislative seats in the East, 41 in the Midwest and 25 in the West. Republicans took control of state legislature in Tennessee and Oklahoma that previously had divided control.
Democrats took control of state legislatures in New York, Wisconsin and Nevada that were previously under divided control. In Ohio and Alaska, a Republican controlled legislatures are now under divided control.
The only state that voted for Obama in which Republicans control the state legislature after the 2008 election is Florida. Six states that voted for McCain have state legislatures controlled by Democrats (West Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana).
Every state legislature in the Northeast, except Pennsylvania (which has divided control) is controlled by Democrats after this election. There are only three states in the Northeast with Republican Governors (Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island).
Governors
Republican Governors preside in every Gulf Coast state from Texas to South Carolina. Democratic Governors now preside in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. Nevada, Idaho and Utah are the only states in the Mountain West with Republican Governors.
Divided Control Still The Norm
The Governorship and both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by the same party in only a few states. Democrats hold seventeen states. Republicans hold eight. Twenty four states have split control. Nebraska is theoretically split in control because its unicameral legislature is officially non-partisan, but in practice this state is also held by Republicans as most state legislators would be Republican if they declared a party affiliation.
Redistricting
Louisiana and Missouri are the only states that voted for McCain that are projected to lose seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2010 census. McCain's states are expected to gain a net eight seats in reapportionment.
North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and Oregon are the only states that voted for Obama that are projected to gain states in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2010 census. Obama's states are expected to lose eight states in reapportionment.
The Northeast and Midwest will lose twelve seats. The South will gain eight seats.
Realignment
State legislative race results re-emphasize the notion from the federal elections in 2008 that we are seeing the continued progress of Republicans in the South, and their continued decline in the East. Reapportionment will encourage Republicans to stick to a strategy that cements their character as a Southern regional party.
But, Republicans are losing their stranglehold of the Mountain West and Alaska, even as they make progress in Appalachia and hold fast in the Great Plain states and in the Mormon dominated states of Utah and Idaho.
Also, the "New South" is beginning to emerge as a challenge to Republican hegemony. Virginia, lead by District of Columbia suburbs in Northern Virginia, seems on its way to joining Maryland in its Democratic political leanings.
State Legislatures
Democrats have a majority of state legislative seats. This has been the case for most of the period from the aftermath of the 1938 election to the aftermath of the current election. Democrats fell behind in 1948, and were tied in 1952 and from about 1998-2000. Democratic strength in state legislatures peaked around 1974 at almost 70%. Democrats now hold a majority of the seats, but well under 60% of them.
The Democratic share of state legislative seats in the South has fallen from a peak of 94% in the late 1950s, that had been steady since 1938 at least, to 53.5% after the 2008 election, a decline that has occurred steadily since, with the exception of a small boost for Democrats in the early 1970s.
Democrats have controlled state legislatures in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama since Reconstruction (despite the fact that the parties themselves have flipped their positions on the liberal to conservative scale at the national level in this time frame), which suggests that the Democratic party in these states may differ materially from the Democratic party nationally. In the South, only Arkansas and North Carolina have Democratic party controlled state legislatures and Democratic Governors. The fact that Obama lost handily in Arkansas and just barely won North Carolina, despite Democratic party control of state government, is notable. While not strictly in the South, West Virginia, where Democrats also control state government is also trending towards the Republican party.
The 2008 elections continued Democratic declines in Southern state legislatures. Republicans picked up a net six state legislative seats in the South, while Democrats picked up a net 38 state legislative seats in the East, 41 in the Midwest and 25 in the West. Republicans took control of state legislature in Tennessee and Oklahoma that previously had divided control.
Democrats took control of state legislatures in New York, Wisconsin and Nevada that were previously under divided control. In Ohio and Alaska, a Republican controlled legislatures are now under divided control.
The only state that voted for Obama in which Republicans control the state legislature after the 2008 election is Florida. Six states that voted for McCain have state legislatures controlled by Democrats (West Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana).
Every state legislature in the Northeast, except Pennsylvania (which has divided control) is controlled by Democrats after this election. There are only three states in the Northeast with Republican Governors (Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island).
Governors
Republican Governors preside in every Gulf Coast state from Texas to South Carolina. Democratic Governors now preside in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. Nevada, Idaho and Utah are the only states in the Mountain West with Republican Governors.
Divided Control Still The Norm
The Governorship and both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by the same party in only a few states. Democrats hold seventeen states. Republicans hold eight. Twenty four states have split control. Nebraska is theoretically split in control because its unicameral legislature is officially non-partisan, but in practice this state is also held by Republicans as most state legislators would be Republican if they declared a party affiliation.
Redistricting
Louisiana and Missouri are the only states that voted for McCain that are projected to lose seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2010 census. McCain's states are expected to gain a net eight seats in reapportionment.
North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and Oregon are the only states that voted for Obama that are projected to gain states in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2010 census. Obama's states are expected to lose eight states in reapportionment.
The Northeast and Midwest will lose twelve seats. The South will gain eight seats.
Realignment
State legislative race results re-emphasize the notion from the federal elections in 2008 that we are seeing the continued progress of Republicans in the South, and their continued decline in the East. Reapportionment will encourage Republicans to stick to a strategy that cements their character as a Southern regional party.
But, Republicans are losing their stranglehold of the Mountain West and Alaska, even as they make progress in Appalachia and hold fast in the Great Plain states and in the Mormon dominated states of Utah and Idaho.
Also, the "New South" is beginning to emerge as a challenge to Republican hegemony. Virginia, lead by District of Columbia suburbs in Northern Virginia, seems on its way to joining Maryland in its Democratic political leanings.
06 November 2008
Republican Geography II: Red States, Blue States
This post continues ideas explored in a post yesterday.
How many of the Republicans in the next session in Congress come from states that McCain won in 2008?
West Virginia: 1 Representative
Kentucky: 2 Senators, 4 Reresentatives
Missouri: 1 Senator, 5 Representatives
South Carolina: 2 Senators, 4 Representatives
Georgia: 1 Senator (and possibly another Senator), 7 Representatives
Tennessee: 2 Senators, 4 Representatives
Alabama: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Mississippi: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Arkansas: 1 Representative
Louisiana: 1 Senator, 6 Representatives
Texas: 2 Senators, 20 Representatives
Kansas: 2 Senators, 3 Representatives
Nebraska: 1 Senator, 3 Representatives
South Dakota: 1 Senator
North Dakota: None
Wyoming: 2 Senators, 1 Representative
Montana: 1 Representative
Arizona: 2 Senators, 3 Representatives
Utah: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Idaho: 2 Senators, 1 Representative
Alaska: 1 Senator (and possibly another Senator and possibly 1 Representative)
Total: 28 plus possibly 2 more Republican Senators, 70 Republican Representatives
In states Obama won, there are 12 plus possibly 1 more Republican Senators, and 105 plus possibly 5 more Republican Representatives.
The states with the most Republican members of Congress that Obama won are:
California: 19 Representatives
Florida: 1 Senator, 15 Representatives
Ohio: 1 Senator, 9 Representatives
Pennsylvania: 1 Senator, 7 Representatives
Illinois: 8 Representatives
Virginia: 1 Senator, 6 Representatives
Michigan: 7 Representatives
North Carolina: 1 Senator, 5 Representatives
Indiana: 1 Senator, 4 Representatives
New Jersey: 5 Representatives
Why bother compiling these numbers? Because they go towards identifying the ongoing historical trend of realignment.
In May of this year, a post noted that "the net decline in support for Democratic presidential candidates among white voters over the past half-century is entirely attributable to partisan change in the South."
Also notable when evaluating the impact of the current election is that there were 44 Blue Dogs (i.e. conservative Democrats) in the House prior to this election. A majority in the House is 217 votes. Democrats need about 261 votes in the House to pass legislation over the objections of the Blue Dogs. The Democrats are just shy of having a majority that large.
A post written in advance of the 2006 election notes something that was true then and remains true of the few Republicans who continue to hold federal office in the Northeast. By and large they are moderates. At the time, the post noted that:
Sununu just lost his bid for re-election in 2008. Thus, there are four Republican Senators from the Northeast, including all three of the least conservative Republican Senators in the U.S. Senate, and one who leans moderate compared to his caucus.
The three moderate Republican Senators of the group are in the same political territory as independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who is steadily drifting to the political right, despite caucusing with the Democrats so far (Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President this year, for example), Ben Nelson, the Democratic Senator from Nebraska, Gene Taylor who is a Democratic Senator from Mississippi, Bill Nelson who is a Democratic Senator from Florida, Senator Byrd from West Virginia and Senator Landrieu from Louisiana who are also among the ranks of the most conservative Democrats in the U.S. Senate. Of these six conservatives who caucus with the Democrats, five come from states that McCain won in 2008. All other members of the Democratic caucus are more liberal than these six individuals (except Lieberman who has a moderately liberal overall voting record despite his immense symbolic estrangement from the Democratic party) and all Republicans.
There are no Republican representatives in New England, there are just three of them in New York, there are five in New Jersey, there are seven in Pennsylvania, there are two in Maryland and there is one in Delaware.
Two of the remaining three Republican Representatives from New York, McHugh and King, are exceptionally moderate for Republicans. So are four of the five remaining Republican Representatives from New Jersey (LoBiondo, Chris Smith, Ferguson, and Frelinghuysen), four of the remaining seven Republican Representatives from Pennsylvania (Gerlach, Dent, Murphy and Platts), Republican Representative Gilchrest from Maryland (one of two Republicans from the state in Congress) and Representative Castle from Delaware.
Thus, of the four Republican Senators and eighteen Republican Representatives left in the Northeast, three of the Senators and twelve of the Representatives are very moderate as Republicans go. There is just one truly conservative Republican Senator and there are just six truly conservative Republican Representatives left in the Northeast.
Republican Senator Voinovich from Ohio is another blue state Senator who has tried to put at least a little distance between himself and both President Bush and the hard core conservatives of his party. Blue State Minnesota Republican Coleman, who is currently facing a recount in his bid for re-election is also moderate as Republicans go, as are both of Alaska's Senators, one of whom is also facing a recount in the wake of his criminal convictions for fraud. The rest of the Republican caucus is more conservative. Thus, all moderate Republican Senators outside Alaska hail from states that Obama won in 2008.
The existence of these moderate Republicans from blue states is important because they make the filibuster a less potent threat than it might otherwise appear to be in a party that was completely disciplined, as the Republican party once had a reputation for being. Even if Democrats fail to secure a filibuster proof sixty vote caucus, there are several moderates in the Republican party who may be unwilling to invoke a filibuster in support of conservative causes when their party colleagues might.
There will be, at most, about seven moderate Republicans (two of whom are struggling to be re-elected this year), and about six moderates in the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate, who frequently break with their party. In addition to illustrating the difficulty Republicans may mount in overcoming a filibuster, however, this also illustrates that the Democratic caucus is less united than it might seem. While Senate Democrats can pass legislation without votes from any of these Democratic or Republican moderates, a threat of a filibuster that includes some conservative Democrats and all moderate Republicans can still stop a bill in the Senate.
Also, the existence and geography of moderate Republicans establish that the conservative brand of Republicanism is a Southern regional phenomena to a greater extent that mere party identification numbers (recited above) would suggest.
How many of the Republicans in the next session in Congress come from states that McCain won in 2008?
West Virginia: 1 Representative
Kentucky: 2 Senators, 4 Reresentatives
Missouri: 1 Senator, 5 Representatives
South Carolina: 2 Senators, 4 Representatives
Georgia: 1 Senator (and possibly another Senator), 7 Representatives
Tennessee: 2 Senators, 4 Representatives
Alabama: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Mississippi: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Arkansas: 1 Representative
Louisiana: 1 Senator, 6 Representatives
Texas: 2 Senators, 20 Representatives
Kansas: 2 Senators, 3 Representatives
Nebraska: 1 Senator, 3 Representatives
South Dakota: 1 Senator
North Dakota: None
Wyoming: 2 Senators, 1 Representative
Montana: 1 Representative
Arizona: 2 Senators, 3 Representatives
Utah: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Idaho: 2 Senators, 1 Representative
Alaska: 1 Senator (and possibly another Senator and possibly 1 Representative)
Total: 28 plus possibly 2 more Republican Senators, 70 Republican Representatives
In states Obama won, there are 12 plus possibly 1 more Republican Senators, and 105 plus possibly 5 more Republican Representatives.
The states with the most Republican members of Congress that Obama won are:
California: 19 Representatives
Florida: 1 Senator, 15 Representatives
Ohio: 1 Senator, 9 Representatives
Pennsylvania: 1 Senator, 7 Representatives
Illinois: 8 Representatives
Virginia: 1 Senator, 6 Representatives
Michigan: 7 Representatives
North Carolina: 1 Senator, 5 Representatives
Indiana: 1 Senator, 4 Representatives
New Jersey: 5 Representatives
Why bother compiling these numbers? Because they go towards identifying the ongoing historical trend of realignment.
In May of this year, a post noted that "the net decline in support for Democratic presidential candidates among white voters over the past half-century is entirely attributable to partisan change in the South."
Also notable when evaluating the impact of the current election is that there were 44 Blue Dogs (i.e. conservative Democrats) in the House prior to this election. A majority in the House is 217 votes. Democrats need about 261 votes in the House to pass legislation over the objections of the Blue Dogs. The Democrats are just shy of having a majority that large.
A post written in advance of the 2006 election notes something that was true then and remains true of the few Republicans who continue to hold federal office in the Northeast. By and large they are moderates. At the time, the post noted that:
[Maine Senator] Olympia Snowe is rated as the third most liberal Republican in the U.S. Senate by the American Conservative Union. . . The remaining Northeastern Republicans in the Senate [are] moderate Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the moderate Republican Susan Collins of Maine, and the Republican incumbents from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg and John Sununu . . . Specter is rated by the American Conservative Union as the second most liberal Republican in the U.S. Senate, after Lincoln Chafee [who is no longer a Senator]. They rate Susan Collins is the fourth more liberal Republican, coming right after third most liberal Olympia Snowe, also from Maine. Neither of New Hampshire's Republicans are particularly conservative, although Gregg is less prone to voting the party line than Sununu.
Sununu just lost his bid for re-election in 2008. Thus, there are four Republican Senators from the Northeast, including all three of the least conservative Republican Senators in the U.S. Senate, and one who leans moderate compared to his caucus.
The three moderate Republican Senators of the group are in the same political territory as independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who is steadily drifting to the political right, despite caucusing with the Democrats so far (Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President this year, for example), Ben Nelson, the Democratic Senator from Nebraska, Gene Taylor who is a Democratic Senator from Mississippi, Bill Nelson who is a Democratic Senator from Florida, Senator Byrd from West Virginia and Senator Landrieu from Louisiana who are also among the ranks of the most conservative Democrats in the U.S. Senate. Of these six conservatives who caucus with the Democrats, five come from states that McCain won in 2008. All other members of the Democratic caucus are more liberal than these six individuals (except Lieberman who has a moderately liberal overall voting record despite his immense symbolic estrangement from the Democratic party) and all Republicans.
There are no Republican representatives in New England, there are just three of them in New York, there are five in New Jersey, there are seven in Pennsylvania, there are two in Maryland and there is one in Delaware.
Two of the remaining three Republican Representatives from New York, McHugh and King, are exceptionally moderate for Republicans. So are four of the five remaining Republican Representatives from New Jersey (LoBiondo, Chris Smith, Ferguson, and Frelinghuysen), four of the remaining seven Republican Representatives from Pennsylvania (Gerlach, Dent, Murphy and Platts), Republican Representative Gilchrest from Maryland (one of two Republicans from the state in Congress) and Representative Castle from Delaware.
Thus, of the four Republican Senators and eighteen Republican Representatives left in the Northeast, three of the Senators and twelve of the Representatives are very moderate as Republicans go. There is just one truly conservative Republican Senator and there are just six truly conservative Republican Representatives left in the Northeast.
Republican Senator Voinovich from Ohio is another blue state Senator who has tried to put at least a little distance between himself and both President Bush and the hard core conservatives of his party. Blue State Minnesota Republican Coleman, who is currently facing a recount in his bid for re-election is also moderate as Republicans go, as are both of Alaska's Senators, one of whom is also facing a recount in the wake of his criminal convictions for fraud. The rest of the Republican caucus is more conservative. Thus, all moderate Republican Senators outside Alaska hail from states that Obama won in 2008.
The existence of these moderate Republicans from blue states is important because they make the filibuster a less potent threat than it might otherwise appear to be in a party that was completely disciplined, as the Republican party once had a reputation for being. Even if Democrats fail to secure a filibuster proof sixty vote caucus, there are several moderates in the Republican party who may be unwilling to invoke a filibuster in support of conservative causes when their party colleagues might.
There will be, at most, about seven moderate Republicans (two of whom are struggling to be re-elected this year), and about six moderates in the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate, who frequently break with their party. In addition to illustrating the difficulty Republicans may mount in overcoming a filibuster, however, this also illustrates that the Democratic caucus is less united than it might seem. While Senate Democrats can pass legislation without votes from any of these Democratic or Republican moderates, a threat of a filibuster that includes some conservative Democrats and all moderate Republicans can still stop a bill in the Senate.
Also, the existence and geography of moderate Republicans establish that the conservative brand of Republicanism is a Southern regional phenomena to a greater extent that mere party identification numbers (recited above) would suggest.
Federal Elections Crib Sheet
U.S. House of Representatives (255D-175R 5 toss ups Dems +19):
Democratic Pick Ups: VA-2 VA-11 OH-1 ID-1 OH-16 AL-2 AZ-1 CO-4 CT-4 FL-24 FL-8 IL-11 MI-7 MI-9 NV-3 NJ-3 NM-1 NM-2 NY-13 NY-25 NY-29 NC-8 PA-3
Republican Pick Ups: FL-16 KS-2 LA-6 TX-22
Toss Ups (Seat, Dem, GOP):
Alaska (AL) Berkowitz 96,929 Young 113,816 (99%)
California (4) Brown 155,320 McClintock 155,771 (100%)
Maryland (1) Kratovil 160,915 Harris 160,000 (100%)
Virginia (5) Perriello 157,456 Goode 157,375 (100%)
Washington (8) Burner 93,368 Reichert 95,221 (55%)
U.S. Senate (57D+I-40R Dems +6, 3 tossups):
Of the two independents that caucus with the Democrats, one of them Joe Lieberman (CT) seems likely to lose a committee seat or to be kicked out of the Democratic caucus. A decision will likey be made in mid-November. In the case of a tie vote, Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, will break the tie.
Dem Pickups: CO, NH, NM, NC, OR, VA
GOP Pickups: None
Toss Ups (Seat, Dem, GOP):
Alaska Begich 47% Stevens 48% (99%)
Georgia Martin 46% Chambliss 50% (99%) Runoff
Minnesota Franken 42% Coleman 42% (99%) Recount
Final Presidential results are here. The total is 364-163, but Obama looks likely to pick up 1 more electoral vote from Nebraska, while McCain looks likely to pick up 11 more electoral votes from Missouri. A map is here.
Democratic Pick Ups: VA-2 VA-11 OH-1 ID-1 OH-16 AL-2 AZ-1 CO-4 CT-4 FL-24 FL-8 IL-11 MI-7 MI-9 NV-3 NJ-3 NM-1 NM-2 NY-13 NY-25 NY-29 NC-8 PA-3
Republican Pick Ups: FL-16 KS-2 LA-6 TX-22
Toss Ups (Seat, Dem, GOP):
Alaska (AL) Berkowitz 96,929 Young 113,816 (99%)
California (4) Brown 155,320 McClintock 155,771 (100%)
Maryland (1) Kratovil 160,915 Harris 160,000 (100%)
Virginia (5) Perriello 157,456 Goode 157,375 (100%)
Washington (8) Burner 93,368 Reichert 95,221 (55%)
U.S. Senate (57D+I-40R Dems +6, 3 tossups):
Of the two independents that caucus with the Democrats, one of them Joe Lieberman (CT) seems likely to lose a committee seat or to be kicked out of the Democratic caucus. A decision will likey be made in mid-November. In the case of a tie vote, Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, will break the tie.
Dem Pickups: CO, NH, NM, NC, OR, VA
GOP Pickups: None
Toss Ups (Seat, Dem, GOP):
Alaska Begich 47% Stevens 48% (99%)
Georgia Martin 46% Chambliss 50% (99%) Runoff
Minnesota Franken 42% Coleman 42% (99%) Recount
Final Presidential results are here. The total is 364-163, but Obama looks likely to pick up 1 more electoral vote from Nebraska, while McCain looks likely to pick up 11 more electoral votes from Missouri. A map is here.
The Case For Majority Rule
Georgia and Minnesota Compared
There are four close U.S. Senate races that have not yet been resolved. In Alaska and Oregon, they are still counting votes. In Minnesota and Georgia, strong third party bids denied either major party candidate a majority.
The vote in Minnesota was Democrat Al Franken 1,211,167 to incumbent Republican Norm Coleman 1,211,643 to Independent Dean Barkley 437,381 to Libertarian Charles Aldrch 13,915 to Constitutional Party candidate James Niemacki 8,907. Thus, the two leading candidates virtually tied at 42% of the vote. Almost 16% of the voters chose a third party candidate. Minnesota has a first past the post system in which the individual winning the most votes wins the race. The winner will be determined in a recount.
The vote in Georgia was Democrat Jim Martin 1,727,626 to incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss 1,841,454 to Libertarian Allen Buckley 126,328. Georgia requires a majority of the vote to win, so the top two candidates will face off in a run off election.
Precedent and History
The notion of requiring a winner to receive a majority of the vote is as old as our Constitution. To be elected President, a candidate must receive a majority of the electoral college vote, not just a plurality, or the decision is thrown to a runoff in the House of Representatives, which must also produce a winner who has majority support to select a winner.
Denver uses the Georgia rule to determine who wins its municipal races. In Denver, you need a majority to win, and if no candidate gets a majority there is a runofff. France, Louisiana and San Francisco also require winners to win by majorities. In Colorado state races, the Minnesota rule applies.
One doesn't have to look back very far to see situations when the difference between the Georgia rule and the Minnesota rule make an important difference.
In Florida in 2000, neither candidate in the Bush v. Gore race that was instead decided by the U.S. Supreme Court had a majority, because Nader and other third party candidates had more votes than the difference between the two major party candidates.
In the 4th Congressional District in Colorado in 2006, Eric Eidness made a strong third party run that left neither Republican Marilyn Musgrave, nor Democrat Angie Paccione with a majority.
The rule would have made a difference in the Presidential races of Bill Clinton, where Ross Perot was a decisive factor in a few states.
This year, in Colorado, a majority requirement would have produced runoff elections in three RTD Board Districts (A, F and H), and in the race for Jefferson County Commissioner for District 2, in which Democrat Jason Bane got 45% of the vote, Kevin McCasky got 47% of the vote, and Green Party candidate Scott Zulauf got 8% of the vote.
Analysis
I favor the Georgia rule. It is simple. It is more fair to third parties and those who vote for them by discouraging strategic voting for major party candidates. It favors having voters resolve close races based upon their preferences among the top contenders after further deliberation, rather having courts and partisan election officials resolve races based upon technicalities. And, it gives winners a stronger electoral mandate. The rule can be adopted with a simple state statute.
A Simple Rule
The Georgia rule is very simple to apply and understand. In the vast majority of races, where there are only one or two candidates seeking an office, or one candidate receives a majority of the votes cast for an office, nothing changes at all.
In the small percentage of races where no candidate receives a majority, a runoff election is scheduled between the top two candidates and operates like any other two candidate election. One could also establish a rule that dispenses with a runoff in the very rare case where there is a three or more candidate race for a single post, and there is a tie for second place, instead, granting victory to the top vote getting in the first round (since a three way runoff is unlikely to produce a majority for any candidate).
Ideally, a Georgia rule system should also permit a runner up to concede, dispensing with a runoff election when the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion (perhaps because the third party voters are very likely to favor the top vote getter), and forcing a runoff where there would otherwise be a tie for the second spot in the runoff.
There would be no need to change voting equipment or procedures in any way (unlike instant runoff voting), or to offer special training to voters, or to anyone below the top election official for a particular race.
It is simpler than "instant runoff voting" (previously known as the single transferable vote system) because voters don't have to consider hypothetical second choices, voting machines don't have to be equipped to register second choices, and considering hypothetical situations turns out to be a difficult thing for typical voters to do. Voters have to inform themselves about second choices only in the unlikely event that there is a runoff.
It is also a far less profound change than reforms like proportional representation with voters choosing parties rather than candidates, while still affording a level playing field to third parties.
Fair To Third Parties While Discouraging Strategic Behavior
It is also easier for voters to interface with, because strategic voting is discouraged.
Under the Georgia rule, if you prefer a third party candidate, you can vote for that candidate in Georgia, knowing that if your third party vote would have made a difference in the outcome, that there will be a runoff. You only have to choose the lesser of two evils (or not voting at all), when that really is a necessary choice.
Under the Minnesota rule, a voter who favors a third party candidate must agonize between supporting the candidate that the voter really likes, or strategically voting for a second choice with a better chance of winning. A voter who favors a third party candidate can't cast a rational vote without having some idea of how the polling is going in the race (something unavailable in most down ticket races).
Because the Minnesota rule strongly encourages strategic voting by people who favor a third party candidate, the rule suppressed the vote for third party candidates. The Minnesota rule allows conventional wisdom about who other voters will prefer to undermine voter's actual preferences. If Minnesota had a majority requirement, independent Dean Barkley would probably have won even more than 15% of the vote and might have even made it into a runoff election.
The Minnesota rule also encourages perverse campaign behavior. In close Presidential races, conservative Republicans who hate everything that the Green Party stands for, have an incentive to support Green Party candidates financially and politically, because most Green party voters would favor a Democrat over a Republican if forced to make that choice, since the Green Party is to the left of the Democratic party. Likewise, liberal Democrats have an incentive to support conservative third party candidates for similar reasons.
We should have election rules that create incentives for people to support their friends and not their enemies.
A Voter Centered Process
The Georgia rule supports important process values.
Under the Georgia rule, many very close elections will produce runoffs, because many very close elections involve some votes cast for third party or write in candidates. This gives voters a second chance to focus in on a race where their vote really matters between the two candidates who could possibly win the race. It allows voters to hear out and evaluate the runoff candidates in a close election greater length, when a third party voter's second choice is no longer hypothetical.
There is a process benefit to having many close races decided by the people, rather than by recounts or the courts. The focus returns in many close races to who is the better candidate in the eyes of the voters, rather than the technicalities of the election process itself.
Wouldn't a two way runoff vote have been a better way to resolve the Bush v. Gore race, than intense recounts and elaborate court challenges that ultimately was resolved by a 5-4 vote in the U.S. Supreme Court that stained the Court's reputation and public confidence in the electoral process?
A Stronger Mandate For Winners
When someone can't command a majority, we are left with an election were a majority of voters favored someone else than the person who will take office. Indeed, the majority of voters may even be firmly opposed to the winner.
This possibility undermines the legitimacy of an elected official who fails to secure majority support to some extent, even if they would have won in a runoff election if one were held.
In Minnesota, how can either candidate really claim securely that he speaks for the people of Minnesota after winning just 42% of the vote. Bill James in RTD District A has been elected with just 36% of the vote. This does neither the public, nor Mr. James and RTD, a favor, in a year when RTD is facing some crucial challenges.
An Easy Change To Make
The Georgia rule can be achieved with a simple statutory amendment to election laws.
As the Minnesota v. Georgia example illustrates, there is no federal mandate to use one rule or the other. (Louisiana also uses a version of the Georgia rule.)
The choice between a Minnesota or Georgia rule for determining the winner of an election is also not constrained by the Colorado constitution, which doesn't address the matter. The only factor the determines the outcome are a couple of sections in Article 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Colorado's General Assembly could make the change this year, without voter approval or supermajority requirements. It should do so.
There are four close U.S. Senate races that have not yet been resolved. In Alaska and Oregon, they are still counting votes. In Minnesota and Georgia, strong third party bids denied either major party candidate a majority.
The vote in Minnesota was Democrat Al Franken 1,211,167 to incumbent Republican Norm Coleman 1,211,643 to Independent Dean Barkley 437,381 to Libertarian Charles Aldrch 13,915 to Constitutional Party candidate James Niemacki 8,907. Thus, the two leading candidates virtually tied at 42% of the vote. Almost 16% of the voters chose a third party candidate. Minnesota has a first past the post system in which the individual winning the most votes wins the race. The winner will be determined in a recount.
The vote in Georgia was Democrat Jim Martin 1,727,626 to incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss 1,841,454 to Libertarian Allen Buckley 126,328. Georgia requires a majority of the vote to win, so the top two candidates will face off in a run off election.
Precedent and History
The notion of requiring a winner to receive a majority of the vote is as old as our Constitution. To be elected President, a candidate must receive a majority of the electoral college vote, not just a plurality, or the decision is thrown to a runoff in the House of Representatives, which must also produce a winner who has majority support to select a winner.
Denver uses the Georgia rule to determine who wins its municipal races. In Denver, you need a majority to win, and if no candidate gets a majority there is a runofff. France, Louisiana and San Francisco also require winners to win by majorities. In Colorado state races, the Minnesota rule applies.
One doesn't have to look back very far to see situations when the difference between the Georgia rule and the Minnesota rule make an important difference.
In Florida in 2000, neither candidate in the Bush v. Gore race that was instead decided by the U.S. Supreme Court had a majority, because Nader and other third party candidates had more votes than the difference between the two major party candidates.
In the 4th Congressional District in Colorado in 2006, Eric Eidness made a strong third party run that left neither Republican Marilyn Musgrave, nor Democrat Angie Paccione with a majority.
The rule would have made a difference in the Presidential races of Bill Clinton, where Ross Perot was a decisive factor in a few states.
This year, in Colorado, a majority requirement would have produced runoff elections in three RTD Board Districts (A, F and H), and in the race for Jefferson County Commissioner for District 2, in which Democrat Jason Bane got 45% of the vote, Kevin McCasky got 47% of the vote, and Green Party candidate Scott Zulauf got 8% of the vote.
Analysis
I favor the Georgia rule. It is simple. It is more fair to third parties and those who vote for them by discouraging strategic voting for major party candidates. It favors having voters resolve close races based upon their preferences among the top contenders after further deliberation, rather having courts and partisan election officials resolve races based upon technicalities. And, it gives winners a stronger electoral mandate. The rule can be adopted with a simple state statute.
A Simple Rule
The Georgia rule is very simple to apply and understand. In the vast majority of races, where there are only one or two candidates seeking an office, or one candidate receives a majority of the votes cast for an office, nothing changes at all.
In the small percentage of races where no candidate receives a majority, a runoff election is scheduled between the top two candidates and operates like any other two candidate election. One could also establish a rule that dispenses with a runoff in the very rare case where there is a three or more candidate race for a single post, and there is a tie for second place, instead, granting victory to the top vote getting in the first round (since a three way runoff is unlikely to produce a majority for any candidate).
Ideally, a Georgia rule system should also permit a runner up to concede, dispensing with a runoff election when the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion (perhaps because the third party voters are very likely to favor the top vote getter), and forcing a runoff where there would otherwise be a tie for the second spot in the runoff.
There would be no need to change voting equipment or procedures in any way (unlike instant runoff voting), or to offer special training to voters, or to anyone below the top election official for a particular race.
It is simpler than "instant runoff voting" (previously known as the single transferable vote system) because voters don't have to consider hypothetical second choices, voting machines don't have to be equipped to register second choices, and considering hypothetical situations turns out to be a difficult thing for typical voters to do. Voters have to inform themselves about second choices only in the unlikely event that there is a runoff.
It is also a far less profound change than reforms like proportional representation with voters choosing parties rather than candidates, while still affording a level playing field to third parties.
Fair To Third Parties While Discouraging Strategic Behavior
It is also easier for voters to interface with, because strategic voting is discouraged.
Under the Georgia rule, if you prefer a third party candidate, you can vote for that candidate in Georgia, knowing that if your third party vote would have made a difference in the outcome, that there will be a runoff. You only have to choose the lesser of two evils (or not voting at all), when that really is a necessary choice.
Under the Minnesota rule, a voter who favors a third party candidate must agonize between supporting the candidate that the voter really likes, or strategically voting for a second choice with a better chance of winning. A voter who favors a third party candidate can't cast a rational vote without having some idea of how the polling is going in the race (something unavailable in most down ticket races).
Because the Minnesota rule strongly encourages strategic voting by people who favor a third party candidate, the rule suppressed the vote for third party candidates. The Minnesota rule allows conventional wisdom about who other voters will prefer to undermine voter's actual preferences. If Minnesota had a majority requirement, independent Dean Barkley would probably have won even more than 15% of the vote and might have even made it into a runoff election.
The Minnesota rule also encourages perverse campaign behavior. In close Presidential races, conservative Republicans who hate everything that the Green Party stands for, have an incentive to support Green Party candidates financially and politically, because most Green party voters would favor a Democrat over a Republican if forced to make that choice, since the Green Party is to the left of the Democratic party. Likewise, liberal Democrats have an incentive to support conservative third party candidates for similar reasons.
We should have election rules that create incentives for people to support their friends and not their enemies.
A Voter Centered Process
The Georgia rule supports important process values.
Under the Georgia rule, many very close elections will produce runoffs, because many very close elections involve some votes cast for third party or write in candidates. This gives voters a second chance to focus in on a race where their vote really matters between the two candidates who could possibly win the race. It allows voters to hear out and evaluate the runoff candidates in a close election greater length, when a third party voter's second choice is no longer hypothetical.
There is a process benefit to having many close races decided by the people, rather than by recounts or the courts. The focus returns in many close races to who is the better candidate in the eyes of the voters, rather than the technicalities of the election process itself.
Wouldn't a two way runoff vote have been a better way to resolve the Bush v. Gore race, than intense recounts and elaborate court challenges that ultimately was resolved by a 5-4 vote in the U.S. Supreme Court that stained the Court's reputation and public confidence in the electoral process?
A Stronger Mandate For Winners
When someone can't command a majority, we are left with an election were a majority of voters favored someone else than the person who will take office. Indeed, the majority of voters may even be firmly opposed to the winner.
This possibility undermines the legitimacy of an elected official who fails to secure majority support to some extent, even if they would have won in a runoff election if one were held.
In Minnesota, how can either candidate really claim securely that he speaks for the people of Minnesota after winning just 42% of the vote. Bill James in RTD District A has been elected with just 36% of the vote. This does neither the public, nor Mr. James and RTD, a favor, in a year when RTD is facing some crucial challenges.
An Easy Change To Make
The Georgia rule can be achieved with a simple statutory amendment to election laws.
As the Minnesota v. Georgia example illustrates, there is no federal mandate to use one rule or the other. (Louisiana also uses a version of the Georgia rule.)
The choice between a Minnesota or Georgia rule for determining the winner of an election is also not constrained by the Colorado constitution, which doesn't address the matter. The only factor the determines the outcome are a couple of sections in Article 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Colorado's General Assembly could make the change this year, without voter approval or supermajority requirements. It should do so.
05 November 2008
Around The Nation
Good news in New York State
From here.
New York State's legislative process has been fraught with gridlock for as long as I can remember. Maybe this will change the tide.
Bad News For Gay Rights
According to CNN a variety of anti-gay rights measures passed.
Gay marriage was banned in Arizona (Prop 102), California (Prop 8), and Florida (Amendment 2). Gay adoptions were banned in Arkansas (Initiative 1). The California measure was particularly troubling as many Californians have entered into same sex marriages during the period when the California Supreme Court declared that gay marriage was a state constitutional right this year. The California vote was 52-48 with 95% of the vote counted.
Good News For Choice
South Dakota defeated an abortion limitation measure (Initiative 11), as did California (Prop 4). Colorado defeated the "egg as a person" Amendment 48. Michigan voted to allow stem cell research. A measure allowing doctor assisted suicide passed in Washington State (Initiative 1000).
Editors at the South Dakota Argus Leader aren't too familiar with what abortion is, however. Terry Woster, writing in a November 5, 2008 write up on the South Dakota vote for the measure reported that "The margin for Initiated Measure 11- a proposed law to criminalize abortion unless done in cases of rape or pregnancy or to safe the life or health of a woman- was 55-45 with 736 of 799 precincts reported early Wednesday." Perhaps South Dakotans simply weren't too impressed with the pregnancy exception.
Other Measures
Michigan joined the ranks of states legalizing medical marijuana under state law. Given the current administration, this looks like a hopeful possibility.
An anti-immigration measure in Arizona (Prop 202) failed.
A measure ending affirmative action passed in Nebraska (Intiative 424), but the measure to end affirmative action in Colorado (Initiative 46) is very close but looks likely to fail.
Democrats captured control of the state Senate on Tuesday for the first time in more than 40 years, knocking off at least two Republican incumbent senators.
A third Republican incumbent was locked in a tight race . . .
If the results hold up, the Senate next year will have 32 Democrats and 30 Republicans. That will give Democrats control of every statewide office and both houses of the Legislature for the first time since the Great Depression.
From here.
New York State's legislative process has been fraught with gridlock for as long as I can remember. Maybe this will change the tide.
Bad News For Gay Rights
According to CNN a variety of anti-gay rights measures passed.
Gay marriage was banned in Arizona (Prop 102), California (Prop 8), and Florida (Amendment 2). Gay adoptions were banned in Arkansas (Initiative 1). The California measure was particularly troubling as many Californians have entered into same sex marriages during the period when the California Supreme Court declared that gay marriage was a state constitutional right this year. The California vote was 52-48 with 95% of the vote counted.
Good News For Choice
South Dakota defeated an abortion limitation measure (Initiative 11), as did California (Prop 4). Colorado defeated the "egg as a person" Amendment 48. Michigan voted to allow stem cell research. A measure allowing doctor assisted suicide passed in Washington State (Initiative 1000).
Editors at the South Dakota Argus Leader aren't too familiar with what abortion is, however. Terry Woster, writing in a November 5, 2008 write up on the South Dakota vote for the measure reported that "The margin for Initiated Measure 11- a proposed law to criminalize abortion unless done in cases of rape or pregnancy or to safe the life or health of a woman- was 55-45 with 736 of 799 precincts reported early Wednesday." Perhaps South Dakotans simply weren't too impressed with the pregnancy exception.
Other Measures
Michigan joined the ranks of states legalizing medical marijuana under state law. Given the current administration, this looks like a hopeful possibility.
An anti-immigration measure in Arizona (Prop 202) failed.
A measure ending affirmative action passed in Nebraska (Intiative 424), but the measure to end affirmative action in Colorado (Initiative 46) is very close but looks likely to fail.
The Day After
On election day, I canvassed for eight hours, until fifteen minutes before it was too late to vote. In truth, almost everyone I spoke with had either voted or was on their way to vote anyway. Short lines made efforts to keep people in line unimportant. I had enough energy to glimpse at the results afterwards, but not much more. The Denver Election Division, predictably, suffered a sustained "critical error" at its website as results came in, although the results came in sooner than anticipated due to better pre-election day counting and better staffing and space resources. The Rocky Mountain News has bar charts that contradicted the vote numbers it was slinging for most of the night.
This morning, I took the kids to school. It was wet. The rain storm had held off until after voting was over. In the elementary school yard, a group of boys playing around with a football spontaneously broke out into a rousing cheer of "O-bam-a, O-bam-a" for a minute or so, before returning to their game.
The newspapers were sold out at the local gas station. I was going to buy a Denver Post to pour over numbers with, but I will have to go to a newspaper box instead.
I collected the ghost cutouts, the luminaries, and a Day of the Dead banner and brought them inside. I hauled three jack-o-lanterns to the dumpster. I took down all of my campaign signs, except for the Obama-Biden one, and put them in the garage, to be salvaged for parts next election season.
Until an election is over, campaigning is about anxiety, real or imagined. You work as hard as you can to avert the worst case scenarios, the sudden twists and turns in public opinion, bad weather and bad advertisements. You prepare for dirty tricks and apathy. Now, the votes are cast and mostly, the results are in hand.
Democrats have a couple of years, at least, in control of the Presidency and Congress. Obama's win was unequivocal, only the margin by which the Democrats have improved their standing in the federal government remains to be determined. Democrats have a couple more years, at least, in control of the Colorado General Assembly and the Governorship (as well as picking up the Secretary of State's office, and already holding the position of state treasurer). Years of toil by Democrats to regain power have paid off. Our long national nightmare is over.
Most of the bad ballot issues that could have passed have been defeated. A couple, one to discontinue affirmative action, the other to ban participation in politics by government contractors and government unions, are very close right now. The affirmative action ban looks poised to fail. The campaign restrictions look poised to pass -- but all the results are not in yet, and a 1st Amendment challenge will no doubt follow in the courts and may narrow its scope.
Ironically, Amendment 54 may end up hurting Republicans. Many government contractors are conservative Republican small business owners whose money could be kept out of politics if the measure is upheld. Colorado Republicans tend to favor transportation spending (which will be down 33% in the Governor Ritter's 2009 budget due mostly to weak gas tax collections) more than Democrats. And, I'm not convinced that loopholes won't be found in the ban on contributions on union political money with parallel labor oriented fund raising groups.
Denver has funded its schools again, by a 2-1 margin, this time for half a billion dollars of capital improvements.
Republicans have lost not only their political power, but some of the high profile personalities that defined them. Xenophobic hot head Tom Tancredo known for his anti-immigrant stances left voluntarily. Gay hating Marilyn Musgrave was trounced, winning only about 44% of vote in a heavily Republican rural district, in favor of a Democratic woman (Besty Markey) cut from the same moderate political cloth as Ken and John Salazar. Wayne Allard, a man in a gray flannel suit best known for his extremely conservative voting record and strong support for the President's prerogative to torture people has retired. Bob Schaffer's defeat to Mark Udall, in part, is a rejection of his voting record when he was in Congress as the 15th most conservative person to serve in Congress since World War II, and also of his brusque personal manner.
Republicans continued to tarnish their brand this election cycle. Mike Coffman was the center of multiple scandals during his brief tenure as Colorado Secretary of State. Schaffer's associations with corrupt lobbyists, junkets to Pacific Islands and a fraudulent energy company compromised his image as a man of integrity.
The ugly campaign ads, dirty tricks, deceptive robocalls and tolerance of violent racists that distinguished the McCain campaign undermined his calls for civility in stump speeches. McCain's inexplicable move to the right during the general election, emphasizing his closeness to President Bush on many issues and his unwillingness to be open to the press as he was as a Senator, undermine his image as a moderate maverick. McCain's decision to pick Palin as his running mate, despite the fact that he barely knew her and had vetted her even less (she was found to have committed ethical violations by an Alaska ethics panel mid-campaign), undermined any sense that he had good judgment.
Dishonesty and ugliness was rank in many Republican campaigns. Musgrave attempted to paint Markey is a criminal. The ham handed attempt failed. Elizabeth Dole, whose imagine is that of a compassionate conservative, undermined herself with an ad trying to label her opponent, a Christian who is now Senator Hagan, as godless. Guilt by association campaigns with Barack Obama's pastor and a campaign supporter didn't work either.
One of the few ballot measures to come even close to passing in Colorado, Amendment 54, which was designed as a union busting measure, did far better than its union busting companions, Amendments 47 and 49, because it was viewed as an anti-corruption measure, and Americans are sick of corruption in their government.
While the Democratic party was not without ugly or inaccurate campaign advertisements, Republican ads were consistently more deceptive and vile nationwide, and while Republicans don't hold a monopoly on corruption, they do predominate in that endeavor. It took a Republican like Alaska's Ted Stevens to be convicted of multiple counts of felony fraud one day, and then go on the campaign trail claiming that he wasn't convicted of anything the next.
With a Democratic President and a safe majority in the majoritarian House of Representatives, where filibusters don't exist and the Democratic majority is solid enough that conservative Democrats will have to be completely unified to have even a swing vote, attention turns to the U.S. Senate.
We don't know exactly how many Senators will be Democrats, a couple of seats hang in the balance right now, but it will be a safe majority that is close to filibuster proof even if Democrats don't have all sixty seats they need to meet that goal. Moreover, the Republicans, in order to sustain filibusters, will have to bring in moderates like independent former Democrat Joe Lieberman and just re-elected moderate Republican Susan Collins, if they want to succeed. They probably won't, for example, be able to unify themselves to block moderately liberal court appointments.
Democrats will welcome the handful of moderate Republicans into their fold (I wouldn't be surprised to see a party switch or two from Republican to Democrat either), since the compromises that they need to win them over differ little from the compromises necessary to bring moderates in their own party on board, and because it is always better to be able to call a measure "bipartisan." The continuing moderate Republican balance of power in the federal courts also makes compromises that moderate Republicans insist upon a good idea. But, conservative Republicans are now out in the cold, removed entirely from the political disucssion, in both Colorado and federal politics. This is a warm thought on a cold day.
This morning, I took the kids to school. It was wet. The rain storm had held off until after voting was over. In the elementary school yard, a group of boys playing around with a football spontaneously broke out into a rousing cheer of "O-bam-a, O-bam-a" for a minute or so, before returning to their game.
The newspapers were sold out at the local gas station. I was going to buy a Denver Post to pour over numbers with, but I will have to go to a newspaper box instead.
I collected the ghost cutouts, the luminaries, and a Day of the Dead banner and brought them inside. I hauled three jack-o-lanterns to the dumpster. I took down all of my campaign signs, except for the Obama-Biden one, and put them in the garage, to be salvaged for parts next election season.
Until an election is over, campaigning is about anxiety, real or imagined. You work as hard as you can to avert the worst case scenarios, the sudden twists and turns in public opinion, bad weather and bad advertisements. You prepare for dirty tricks and apathy. Now, the votes are cast and mostly, the results are in hand.
Democrats have a couple of years, at least, in control of the Presidency and Congress. Obama's win was unequivocal, only the margin by which the Democrats have improved their standing in the federal government remains to be determined. Democrats have a couple more years, at least, in control of the Colorado General Assembly and the Governorship (as well as picking up the Secretary of State's office, and already holding the position of state treasurer). Years of toil by Democrats to regain power have paid off. Our long national nightmare is over.
Most of the bad ballot issues that could have passed have been defeated. A couple, one to discontinue affirmative action, the other to ban participation in politics by government contractors and government unions, are very close right now. The affirmative action ban looks poised to fail. The campaign restrictions look poised to pass -- but all the results are not in yet, and a 1st Amendment challenge will no doubt follow in the courts and may narrow its scope.
Ironically, Amendment 54 may end up hurting Republicans. Many government contractors are conservative Republican small business owners whose money could be kept out of politics if the measure is upheld. Colorado Republicans tend to favor transportation spending (which will be down 33% in the Governor Ritter's 2009 budget due mostly to weak gas tax collections) more than Democrats. And, I'm not convinced that loopholes won't be found in the ban on contributions on union political money with parallel labor oriented fund raising groups.
Denver has funded its schools again, by a 2-1 margin, this time for half a billion dollars of capital improvements.
Republicans have lost not only their political power, but some of the high profile personalities that defined them. Xenophobic hot head Tom Tancredo known for his anti-immigrant stances left voluntarily. Gay hating Marilyn Musgrave was trounced, winning only about 44% of vote in a heavily Republican rural district, in favor of a Democratic woman (Besty Markey) cut from the same moderate political cloth as Ken and John Salazar. Wayne Allard, a man in a gray flannel suit best known for his extremely conservative voting record and strong support for the President's prerogative to torture people has retired. Bob Schaffer's defeat to Mark Udall, in part, is a rejection of his voting record when he was in Congress as the 15th most conservative person to serve in Congress since World War II, and also of his brusque personal manner.
Republicans continued to tarnish their brand this election cycle. Mike Coffman was the center of multiple scandals during his brief tenure as Colorado Secretary of State. Schaffer's associations with corrupt lobbyists, junkets to Pacific Islands and a fraudulent energy company compromised his image as a man of integrity.
The ugly campaign ads, dirty tricks, deceptive robocalls and tolerance of violent racists that distinguished the McCain campaign undermined his calls for civility in stump speeches. McCain's inexplicable move to the right during the general election, emphasizing his closeness to President Bush on many issues and his unwillingness to be open to the press as he was as a Senator, undermine his image as a moderate maverick. McCain's decision to pick Palin as his running mate, despite the fact that he barely knew her and had vetted her even less (she was found to have committed ethical violations by an Alaska ethics panel mid-campaign), undermined any sense that he had good judgment.
Dishonesty and ugliness was rank in many Republican campaigns. Musgrave attempted to paint Markey is a criminal. The ham handed attempt failed. Elizabeth Dole, whose imagine is that of a compassionate conservative, undermined herself with an ad trying to label her opponent, a Christian who is now Senator Hagan, as godless. Guilt by association campaigns with Barack Obama's pastor and a campaign supporter didn't work either.
One of the few ballot measures to come even close to passing in Colorado, Amendment 54, which was designed as a union busting measure, did far better than its union busting companions, Amendments 47 and 49, because it was viewed as an anti-corruption measure, and Americans are sick of corruption in their government.
While the Democratic party was not without ugly or inaccurate campaign advertisements, Republican ads were consistently more deceptive and vile nationwide, and while Republicans don't hold a monopoly on corruption, they do predominate in that endeavor. It took a Republican like Alaska's Ted Stevens to be convicted of multiple counts of felony fraud one day, and then go on the campaign trail claiming that he wasn't convicted of anything the next.
With a Democratic President and a safe majority in the majoritarian House of Representatives, where filibusters don't exist and the Democratic majority is solid enough that conservative Democrats will have to be completely unified to have even a swing vote, attention turns to the U.S. Senate.
We don't know exactly how many Senators will be Democrats, a couple of seats hang in the balance right now, but it will be a safe majority that is close to filibuster proof even if Democrats don't have all sixty seats they need to meet that goal. Moreover, the Republicans, in order to sustain filibusters, will have to bring in moderates like independent former Democrat Joe Lieberman and just re-elected moderate Republican Susan Collins, if they want to succeed. They probably won't, for example, be able to unify themselves to block moderately liberal court appointments.
Democrats will welcome the handful of moderate Republicans into their fold (I wouldn't be surprised to see a party switch or two from Republican to Democrat either), since the compromises that they need to win them over differ little from the compromises necessary to bring moderates in their own party on board, and because it is always better to be able to call a measure "bipartisan." The continuing moderate Republican balance of power in the federal courts also makes compromises that moderate Republicans insist upon a good idea. But, conservative Republicans are now out in the cold, removed entirely from the political disucssion, in both Colorado and federal politics. This is a warm thought on a cold day.
04 November 2008
Election Day
This is it. Today is the Presidential election (and a lot of other important decisions down ticket). In Colorado, you can vote in person until 7 p.m., and in Denver, you vote at your precinct (unless you have a mail-in ballot, which can be hand delivered through 7 p.m. today).
Officials expect about 1 million voters in person today, and there are several hundred thousand mail-in ballots not yet received.
If you've been sleeping through it all, this is a year to throw the Republicans out of power, and there are also many issues on the Colorado ballot. The short version:
Vote "No" on everything except, Amendment 50 (gambling), Amendment 51 (developmentally disabled funding with sales tax), Amendment 58 (severance tax increase), Amendment 59 (DeBruce Colorado), the lettered referrenda, and Denver issue 3A (school bonds).
Officials expect about 1 million voters in person today, and there are several hundred thousand mail-in ballots not yet received.
If you've been sleeping through it all, this is a year to throw the Republicans out of power, and there are also many issues on the Colorado ballot. The short version:
Vote "No" on everything except, Amendment 50 (gambling), Amendment 51 (developmentally disabled funding with sales tax), Amendment 58 (severance tax increase), Amendment 59 (DeBruce Colorado), the lettered referrenda, and Denver issue 3A (school bonds).
29 October 2008
The Trouble With Economists
The quality of scholarship in contemporary academic economics is regrettably low. It focuses too much on complex mathematical theory that makes unreasonable assumptions, and hence proves nothing, while devoting too little effort to describing the empirical reality. Their colleagues in the business schools of the United States typically do a better job of explaining the same things.
A recent, sloppy and inaccurate analysis of effective marginal tax rates under the McCain and Obama tax plans by Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist, is typical of the discipline's sins.
He concludes, based upon a grossly oversimplified mathematical model, that his true marginal rate is 93% under Obama and 83% under McCain. But, his assumptions about how someone with high income actually invests, and actually makes work or don't work decisions, in the face of the incentives before them, are profoundly flawed. He isn't a tax practioner and it shows. Opportunities to cap tax liabilities abound, and decisions about whether or not to do the work that produces income turn out to be far more "lumpy," and less amenable to incentives, than a conventional marginal income tax rate analysis suggests.
A recent, sloppy and inaccurate analysis of effective marginal tax rates under the McCain and Obama tax plans by Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist, is typical of the discipline's sins.
He concludes, based upon a grossly oversimplified mathematical model, that his true marginal rate is 93% under Obama and 83% under McCain. But, his assumptions about how someone with high income actually invests, and actually makes work or don't work decisions, in the face of the incentives before them, are profoundly flawed. He isn't a tax practioner and it shows. Opportunities to cap tax liabilities abound, and decisions about whether or not to do the work that produces income turn out to be far more "lumpy," and less amenable to incentives, than a conventional marginal income tax rate analysis suggests.
26 October 2008
Weekend Reflections
The Borders Bookstore in Northfield, Stapleton (a shopping district in Denver), is truly delightful. One of the best in Denver. Among other things, it has an excellent collection of Manga, a good mix of classics and new releases -- many not available at the many book stores that chase the best seller lists, instead of driving it, and does an excellent job of displaying books in a way that makes you want to buy them. Their kid's activity was also well attended, and their cafe (run by Seattle's Best) had a healthy following as well.
While my daughter was at a birthday party at Northfield, my son and I made our way to Dick's Field, which, in addition to being home to the Colorado Rapids, also has many soccer fields used by amateur teams. While he and I honed his goal keeping skills, a woman's rubgy game played in the background. I'd never seen women's rugby before, which was interesting, as was the post game ritual in which all the women on both teams stripped down to their sports bras to return their jerseys.
A new modern apartment complex has sprung up between Colfax and 17th on Colorado Boulevard. It is an infill development that replaced some sorry small houses in poor repair that had filled the block before, and no doubt will improve the neighborhood, despite bringing dreaded density, and even worse, renters.
Further North on Colorado Boulevard, Lefty Martins, one of the best loved appliance stores and local businesses in that neighborhood is still in business, surviving by becoming part of the Appliance Factory Outlet chain. Churches Chicken, a stunted franchise, manages to do a good trade nearby.
Predominantly black churches are on every corner. Some are large and present an aura of modest respectibility. Others look they they are held together with gum and duct tape, and have names that sound like they come out of bad 1970s sit-coms. Are they suffering the same kinds of declining enrollments that mainline Christian churches are experiencing? Most predeominantly white churches from evangelical to Catholic to mainline, are moving towards a worship style closer to one that predominantly black churches have been distinguished by for decades. What are the worship style trends in these churches? I have no idea.
A neighborhood hardware store on South Broadway, General Hardware, is going out of business. Home Depot dealt the first blow. Ace Hardware near Alameda and South Broadway dealt the killing blow. But, much of the harm was self-inflicted. While I preferred the store and its service to the competitors, it was never open when I needed to go there. It closed early on weekdays, it was closed on many banker's holidays, and it was closed on Sundays. Working homeowners like me have to shop then, so what can I do.
In good times and bad, the endless parade of weddings in Washington Park is unabated.
Disney's dominance in kid's entertainment these days is undeniable. Between their radio, movie and television offerings, both of which are dominanted by their own products, they determine what is "in," dominant character merchandising to kids, and are really creating their own independent voice distinct from adult genres. Disney's world has a big tent. There is significant country cross over in their musical mix, along with R&B influences. Almost every production is consciously multi-racial to a far greater degree than almost all of the kids in their audiences. Unlike their competition for the youth market, which is more influenced by adult genres, Disney seems to see emotional depth as a vice, and bubbly optimism as the sine quo non of professionalism.
According to the Sunday newspaper, it has finally dawned upon the computer industry that people are utterly exasperated with having to spend three minutes waiting for their computers to boot up, and are working on a new line of products to remedy the problem. According to Microsoft, only 35% of Vista users can boot up in less than 30 seconds, which sounds optimistic to me.
In real life, I saw a $300 laptop computer at Target with all open source software. I'd heard about them months ago, but this weekend was the first time that I'd actually seen one. Acer is also offering a $300 computer, but its offering runs Windows XP.
Also in the Sunday newspaper, a new rotavirus vaccine for kids under two (first offered in 2006) is dramatically reducing ER visits and hospitalizations for severe childhood diarhea, even though only about half of kids get the vaccine. Estimates are that incidence is down 80% or more. Several other diseases like pnemonia, menengitis and strep are also being reduced with new childhood vaccines. This vaccine, along with the new HPV vaccine, seem to show that the highly effective public health measure of vaccines continues to have major room to improve health outcomes. I got my flu shot this weekened and hope that we won't have a dud this year as we have in the last couple of years.
Obama signs outnumber McCain signs in my neighborhood by ten to one or more.
There are a number of "Yes on 47" (anti-closed shop) billboards, but I've seen only one "Yes on 47" sign in front of a person's home. It was a Country Club mansion. I'm sure that the owner is terribly worried that he might have to pay a management fee of the union that covers his job, which he opted out of membership in.
A flyer in favor of 47, 49 and 54, the three anti-union measures, lie about what each of those measures will do. Contrary to the flier, with or without 47, there is "no forced unionization" in the United States. Contrary to the flier, 49 does not "Stop unwanted payroll deductions from employee checks for political activity," as those deductions can be made only voluntarily under current law. And contrary to the flier, 54 bans far more than "pay to play schemes between corporations and politicians handing out contracts." There is also, contrary to the flier, no credible economic evidence that 47, 49 or 54 will help "the little guy" in the face of Wall Street problems, help workers survive "the coming economic depression," help retailers, reduce bankruptcies, or provide bailout options, as the flier impies, nor does it eliminate fraud and expensive government mandates, or support small business and hard-working Coloradans. In short, the "Western Skies Coalition," operating out of a post office box in Littleton, is nothing more than a craven bunch of big money fat cats willing to lie brazenly to support an anti-worker, anti-union agenda. Misrepresenting what ballot issues actually say shows just how despicable scum like Jake Jabs and Coors and John Andrews, who are helping to back these measures are as people. They could have taken a high road and described their measures accurately and argued for them on the basis of the reasons that they actually want them -- to cripple unions in Colorado. But, they didn't.
CORRECTION: Jon Caldara, and not John Andrews, was the intended target of my rant. I regret the error.
While my daughter was at a birthday party at Northfield, my son and I made our way to Dick's Field, which, in addition to being home to the Colorado Rapids, also has many soccer fields used by amateur teams. While he and I honed his goal keeping skills, a woman's rubgy game played in the background. I'd never seen women's rugby before, which was interesting, as was the post game ritual in which all the women on both teams stripped down to their sports bras to return their jerseys.
A new modern apartment complex has sprung up between Colfax and 17th on Colorado Boulevard. It is an infill development that replaced some sorry small houses in poor repair that had filled the block before, and no doubt will improve the neighborhood, despite bringing dreaded density, and even worse, renters.
Further North on Colorado Boulevard, Lefty Martins, one of the best loved appliance stores and local businesses in that neighborhood is still in business, surviving by becoming part of the Appliance Factory Outlet chain. Churches Chicken, a stunted franchise, manages to do a good trade nearby.
Predominantly black churches are on every corner. Some are large and present an aura of modest respectibility. Others look they they are held together with gum and duct tape, and have names that sound like they come out of bad 1970s sit-coms. Are they suffering the same kinds of declining enrollments that mainline Christian churches are experiencing? Most predeominantly white churches from evangelical to Catholic to mainline, are moving towards a worship style closer to one that predominantly black churches have been distinguished by for decades. What are the worship style trends in these churches? I have no idea.
A neighborhood hardware store on South Broadway, General Hardware, is going out of business. Home Depot dealt the first blow. Ace Hardware near Alameda and South Broadway dealt the killing blow. But, much of the harm was self-inflicted. While I preferred the store and its service to the competitors, it was never open when I needed to go there. It closed early on weekdays, it was closed on many banker's holidays, and it was closed on Sundays. Working homeowners like me have to shop then, so what can I do.
In good times and bad, the endless parade of weddings in Washington Park is unabated.
Disney's dominance in kid's entertainment these days is undeniable. Between their radio, movie and television offerings, both of which are dominanted by their own products, they determine what is "in," dominant character merchandising to kids, and are really creating their own independent voice distinct from adult genres. Disney's world has a big tent. There is significant country cross over in their musical mix, along with R&B influences. Almost every production is consciously multi-racial to a far greater degree than almost all of the kids in their audiences. Unlike their competition for the youth market, which is more influenced by adult genres, Disney seems to see emotional depth as a vice, and bubbly optimism as the sine quo non of professionalism.
According to the Sunday newspaper, it has finally dawned upon the computer industry that people are utterly exasperated with having to spend three minutes waiting for their computers to boot up, and are working on a new line of products to remedy the problem. According to Microsoft, only 35% of Vista users can boot up in less than 30 seconds, which sounds optimistic to me.
In real life, I saw a $300 laptop computer at Target with all open source software. I'd heard about them months ago, but this weekend was the first time that I'd actually seen one. Acer is also offering a $300 computer, but its offering runs Windows XP.
Also in the Sunday newspaper, a new rotavirus vaccine for kids under two (first offered in 2006) is dramatically reducing ER visits and hospitalizations for severe childhood diarhea, even though only about half of kids get the vaccine. Estimates are that incidence is down 80% or more. Several other diseases like pnemonia, menengitis and strep are also being reduced with new childhood vaccines. This vaccine, along with the new HPV vaccine, seem to show that the highly effective public health measure of vaccines continues to have major room to improve health outcomes. I got my flu shot this weekened and hope that we won't have a dud this year as we have in the last couple of years.
Obama signs outnumber McCain signs in my neighborhood by ten to one or more.
There are a number of "Yes on 47" (anti-closed shop) billboards, but I've seen only one "Yes on 47" sign in front of a person's home. It was a Country Club mansion. I'm sure that the owner is terribly worried that he might have to pay a management fee of the union that covers his job, which he opted out of membership in.
A flyer in favor of 47, 49 and 54, the three anti-union measures, lie about what each of those measures will do. Contrary to the flier, with or without 47, there is "no forced unionization" in the United States. Contrary to the flier, 49 does not "Stop unwanted payroll deductions from employee checks for political activity," as those deductions can be made only voluntarily under current law. And contrary to the flier, 54 bans far more than "pay to play schemes between corporations and politicians handing out contracts." There is also, contrary to the flier, no credible economic evidence that 47, 49 or 54 will help "the little guy" in the face of Wall Street problems, help workers survive "the coming economic depression," help retailers, reduce bankruptcies, or provide bailout options, as the flier impies, nor does it eliminate fraud and expensive government mandates, or support small business and hard-working Coloradans. In short, the "Western Skies Coalition," operating out of a post office box in Littleton, is nothing more than a craven bunch of big money fat cats willing to lie brazenly to support an anti-worker, anti-union agenda. Misrepresenting what ballot issues actually say shows just how despicable scum like Jake Jabs and Coors and John Andrews, who are helping to back these measures are as people. They could have taken a high road and described their measures accurately and argued for them on the basis of the reasons that they actually want them -- to cripple unions in Colorado. But, they didn't.
CORRECTION: Jon Caldara, and not John Andrews, was the intended target of my rant. I regret the error.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)