Early Analysis (Too Early for the Facts)
It's not like any of the pundits worried about facts before the election.
The Tribune dropped the Perspective section this week; the columns now appear at the back of the tabloid-format news section on Sunday. I just don't think my stuff looks as good in a tabloid format, I'm more of a broadsheet kind of guy, but it's a "transforming" industry. Hey, at least newspapers are more profitable than the banks.
Results still aren't final in AZ, and won't be for another week. Turnout should creep up, but there's no way it'll get to pre-election estimates and I strongly doubt it'll reach 2004 levels. The third Corporation Commission seat is still undetermined; the Democrat in third place had it Friday afternoon, but additional votes over the weekend switched to the Republican formerly in fourth place. The margins are now about 3,000 votes out of 5.2 million (800,000 per position) cast, above the mandatory recount threshold.
EARLY ELECTION ANALYSIS (WAITING FOR ALL THE FACTS)
East Valley Tribune, Nov. 9, 2008
It's still too early for election punditry, because Arizona now has a six-week election "day." Early ballots are mailed a month before, and counting the votes takes an additional week. So fine distinctions (turnout was down from 2004 -- but by how much?) wait until next week.
Maricopa County election officials estimated that 113,000 early ballots were dropped off at polling places on election day (which must be checked before being counted) and another 80,000 to 100,000 voters cast provisional ballots (which have to be checked more thoroughly, and up to 40 percent may not be counted). We have to wait to start the real number-crunching, but here are some preliminary thoughts.
First, we know that (except for Arizona and Alaska) polling works. And with statistical sampling validated by the voters, the next time my doctor orders a blood test, I can get by with that little smear, I don't have to make her take it all.
The biggest innovation for political junkies this cycle was the polling aggregation websites that crunched numerous polls into models and graphical trendlines. You even have your choice: left (fivethirtyeight.com), right (realclearpolitics.com), and wonky (pollster.com). As a 5 percent margin of error means that even a perfectly-designed and executed poll will be wrong once every 20 times, I've become a believer in putting multiple polls together to get a better overall result.
We now know that the 2008 presidential election was easy to predict. Only seven (seven!) states were closer than 5 percentage points; only 15 were closer than 10 percent. Those are notable decreases from 2004 (10 and 21) and 2000 (12 and 22). If margins are that large, it's easier to predict the winner. Still, pollsters are having a difficult time figuring out whether and how to call cellphones; turnout models need to be tweaked for every election. So despite all these graphs and aggregations, nothing stopped me from being very, very nervous until the networks called Ohio for Obama.
Second, I guessed completely wrong on Arizona turnout. Our GOP Secretary of State also thought we'd set a record, based on registration and early ballot requests; instead, turnout was around 65 percent, a bit above the 2006 off-year gubernatorial election (61 percent) but well below the 2004 presidential election (77 percent).
The other state with turnout well under 2004 levels? Alaska, where turnout appears to be well beneath 2004's 66 percent and possibly lower than 2000's 60 percent. So if you think too many people vote, or that ballot-counters need less work, there's a simple solution: Put somebody from your state on the national GOP ticket.
Nationally, turnout soared; (preliminary) national turnout of 64 percent is the highest in more than 40 years, and a considerable leap from 2004's 55 percent and 2000's 51 percent. In Arizona, Democrats assumed that Arizona turnout would rise, and concentrated on urging low-efficacy voters to complete the entire ballot. Instead, with Arizona never really "in play" until the last minute, voter enthusiasm here (and Alaska) never matched what we saw in the rest of the country. New Arizona state slogan: "We found the 2008 election less interesting than Bush vs. Kerry."
Low turnout yielded the most anomalous result, at least for somebody who cut their political teeth here during the 1980's. I grew up seeing national and statewide Democrats get creamed, while local candidates could survive and thrive. Instead, last week national and statewide Democratic candidates did fabulously well -- for Congress, Harry Mitchell wins by 10 points, Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabrielle Giffords by even more, and Democrats sweep the three Corporation Commission races (subject to a potential recount on the third seat) and take control in one fell swoop -- while D's also lost a state Senate seat and two to four state House seats.
Maybe it's just the "native son" effect, which here depresses turnout. Or maybe we have more in common with Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho (where McCain got over 60 percent) than we do with Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. You bet I'll want to look at the numbers -- when we finally get them.
Friday, November 07, 2008
In Which I Interrupt A Political Discussion So A Proud Father Can Brag About His Daughter
From Tuesday's Horizon broadcast: Analysis of Rep. Harry Mitchell's easy re-election begins at 20:00 but you want to go to 21:30 for the real scoop. If the embed doesn't work, try this link.
From Tuesday's Horizon broadcast: Analysis of Rep. Harry Mitchell's easy re-election begins at 20:00 but you want to go to 21:30 for the real scoop. If the embed doesn't work, try this link.
Monday, November 03, 2008
For Change. Real Change
I had thought that we weren’t supposed to do election stuff beginning this weekend, but my opposite number did a piece entitled “Democratic victory can only bring danger” (no exclamation points, but you could feel they were supposed to be there), which you can see here. I then wrote a counterpart (newspaper version here) so both could be packaged together. My suggested headline was above but that wasn’t upset enough to match up properly with the other side. Sometimes it’s just so tiring to be the angry left.
Again, I’m the D talking head on Horizon (PBS Channel 8 Tempe) Tuesday night, 10 – 11 pm, doing local and AZ election punditry, then again on the McMahon Group, which will air Sunday 11/9 at 4 pm on KTAR radio.
GOP’S EXCLUSIONIST VIEW OF THE ‘REAL’ AMERICA
East Valley Tribune, Nov. 2, 2008
I’m getting slightly woozy over which McCain argument I’m supposed to rebut this weekend. First, the Republicans argue that we should elect the Arizona Republican because he’ll be real change -- from the incumbent Republican. We need change!
Then they argue that we can’t elect Obama because then the Democratic Congress will have a free reign to do things. We must stop the Democrats from giving us change!
Change! No, stop change from happening! Remember when politicians were supposed to stay “on message” with just one message? The good old days, when you needed two candidates, not just one, to have a debate?
You wonder where these “we need gridlock!” Republicans were the past 3 presidential elections. With the GOP firmly in control of Congress, shouldn’t they have supported Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry, to provide a much-needed check on the partisan excesses of Trent Lott and Tom Delay? Oh, wait.
There’s also a weird quality to GOP demands that Democrats must work “across the partisan divide,” that only bipartisan solutions can solve our problems. McCain is supposedly a better choice because of his past record of working with Democrats -- so we should elect him Tuesday so he can become president and refuse to work with Democrats.
These are rather politically-oriented arguments from those who claim to be rising “above politics.” I’m not much of a believer in the deeply-held American myth that politics and government are best populated by amateurs. “I’m not a politician,” cry people running for elective office, the very definition of a politician. Or that you’re not a “career politician,” because unlike every other form of human endeavor, in politics having experience apparently makes you less competent.
I’m also not big on anti-partisanship, the belief that there are somewhere-in-the-middle solutions around which we all can coalesce if only both sides’ extremists would let us. So what exactly are these incredibly obvious compromises, that the Iraq war would have been wise and popular if we had invaded with 65,000 troops instead of 130,000? That gay marriage would be resolved if gays could marry but then had to get divorced after 5 years?
Then when both parties do reject their extremists and come together at a time of a national crisis, the same anti-partisans reject these “expert” solutions of those back-scratching “Washington insiders.” McCain found out how well an immigration compromise played with GOP primary voters, and didn’t everybody just absolutely love the bank bailout?
But even if you believe that politics is beneath you and that ideologically-consistent political parties -- rather than making voting generally clearer, and allowing like-minded people to organize for greater impact -- are bad, the closing days of this campaign, at least on the GOP side, aren’t going well for this faux bipartisanship.
I’ve learned that because (like John McCain, or at least the 2000 version) I support a graduated income tax, and support taking money from one group (taxpayers) and giving to another (teachers and schools), I’m a socialist. So which one of us is the extremist?
It’s no big deal to call me a redistributionist; it makes me nostalgic for my brief political career. And I don’t take it that seriously when McCain or Palin talk about the “real America” that clearly excludes me.
But as Matthew Yglesias wrote last week, there are lots of Americans who might take this “real America” business differently. You might think differently about whether the Constitution was “perfect” if your ancestors were legally not “real” and got counted as 3/5ths of a person. Lots of pundits talk about crucial voting demographics as if the only votes that “really” count are white, blue-collar males. There are Arizonans who happen to be Hispanic whose families have lived here for dozens of generations getting lectured on what it means to be a “real” American by recent transplants from the Midwest.
I don’t think America has much to fear from Tuesday’s election. At least not the America that includes us all, not just GOP-approved “real” Americans.
I had thought that we weren’t supposed to do election stuff beginning this weekend, but my opposite number did a piece entitled “Democratic victory can only bring danger” (no exclamation points, but you could feel they were supposed to be there), which you can see here. I then wrote a counterpart (newspaper version here) so both could be packaged together. My suggested headline was above but that wasn’t upset enough to match up properly with the other side. Sometimes it’s just so tiring to be the angry left.
Again, I’m the D talking head on Horizon (PBS Channel 8 Tempe) Tuesday night, 10 – 11 pm, doing local and AZ election punditry, then again on the McMahon Group, which will air Sunday 11/9 at 4 pm on KTAR radio.
GOP’S EXCLUSIONIST VIEW OF THE ‘REAL’ AMERICA
East Valley Tribune, Nov. 2, 2008
I’m getting slightly woozy over which McCain argument I’m supposed to rebut this weekend. First, the Republicans argue that we should elect the Arizona Republican because he’ll be real change -- from the incumbent Republican. We need change!
Then they argue that we can’t elect Obama because then the Democratic Congress will have a free reign to do things. We must stop the Democrats from giving us change!
Change! No, stop change from happening! Remember when politicians were supposed to stay “on message” with just one message? The good old days, when you needed two candidates, not just one, to have a debate?
You wonder where these “we need gridlock!” Republicans were the past 3 presidential elections. With the GOP firmly in control of Congress, shouldn’t they have supported Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry, to provide a much-needed check on the partisan excesses of Trent Lott and Tom Delay? Oh, wait.
There’s also a weird quality to GOP demands that Democrats must work “across the partisan divide,” that only bipartisan solutions can solve our problems. McCain is supposedly a better choice because of his past record of working with Democrats -- so we should elect him Tuesday so he can become president and refuse to work with Democrats.
These are rather politically-oriented arguments from those who claim to be rising “above politics.” I’m not much of a believer in the deeply-held American myth that politics and government are best populated by amateurs. “I’m not a politician,” cry people running for elective office, the very definition of a politician. Or that you’re not a “career politician,” because unlike every other form of human endeavor, in politics having experience apparently makes you less competent.
I’m also not big on anti-partisanship, the belief that there are somewhere-in-the-middle solutions around which we all can coalesce if only both sides’ extremists would let us. So what exactly are these incredibly obvious compromises, that the Iraq war would have been wise and popular if we had invaded with 65,000 troops instead of 130,000? That gay marriage would be resolved if gays could marry but then had to get divorced after 5 years?
Then when both parties do reject their extremists and come together at a time of a national crisis, the same anti-partisans reject these “expert” solutions of those back-scratching “Washington insiders.” McCain found out how well an immigration compromise played with GOP primary voters, and didn’t everybody just absolutely love the bank bailout?
But even if you believe that politics is beneath you and that ideologically-consistent political parties -- rather than making voting generally clearer, and allowing like-minded people to organize for greater impact -- are bad, the closing days of this campaign, at least on the GOP side, aren’t going well for this faux bipartisanship.
I’ve learned that because (like John McCain, or at least the 2000 version) I support a graduated income tax, and support taking money from one group (taxpayers) and giving to another (teachers and schools), I’m a socialist. So which one of us is the extremist?
It’s no big deal to call me a redistributionist; it makes me nostalgic for my brief political career. And I don’t take it that seriously when McCain or Palin talk about the “real America” that clearly excludes me.
But as Matthew Yglesias wrote last week, there are lots of Americans who might take this “real America” business differently. You might think differently about whether the Constitution was “perfect” if your ancestors were legally not “real” and got counted as 3/5ths of a person. Lots of pundits talk about crucial voting demographics as if the only votes that “really” count are white, blue-collar males. There are Arizonans who happen to be Hispanic whose families have lived here for dozens of generations getting lectured on what it means to be a “real” American by recent transplants from the Midwest.
I don’t think America has much to fear from Tuesday’s election. At least not the America that includes us all, not just GOP-approved “real” Americans.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Passing The Ideological Buck
That was my suggested headline, but I really didn't like it; but I certainly didn't expect the editor to go all Latin on me instead.
IN THE ECONOMIC BLAME GAME, GREENSPAN OFFERS A MEA CULPA
East Valley Tribune, Oct. 26, 2008
In their increasingly desperate attempt to find something ideologically comfortable to blame for the credit crunch and recession, ‘wingers have grasped at any conceivable economic flotsam. “Pay no attention to that iceberg,” they cry, “because something else sank this Titanic!”
They first seized upon the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA prohibits redlining, where banks refuse to lend where they take deposits. Of course, nothing in the CRA requires banks to make bad loans; the CRA prohibits banks from taking money out of a community where the bank isn’t willing to invest.
There are a couple of problems with blaming the CRA. First, ‘wingers have no explanation of how a 1977 law passed created the real estate and subprime bubble 25 years later. If banks managed to make CRA loans successfully for two decades, but then suddenly became wildly irresponsible, the problem isn’t the CRA.
More technically, as Robert Gordon of the Center for American Progress, and Ellen Seidman, former head of the Office of Thrift Regulation, have noted, the CRA only applies to federally-insured banks and thrifts, which accounted for about 25 percent of subprime loans; half of that market was controlled by independent mortgage companies not covered by CRA, and another 25 to 30 percent from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which don’t have nearly as significant responsibilities under the CRA. Also, institutions covered by CRA made fewer such loans than did comparable exempt or partially-exempt lenders.
Finally, the CRA usually becomes an issue only when banks or thrifts seek to merge -- and the previous wave of bank mergers generally ended by 2001, just as the real estate boom, and subprime lending, took off. Blaming the CRA requires that you believe the Bush administration was serious about enforcing one, and only one, type of bank regulation.
Hey, ‘wingers, if it’s all the CRA’s fault, let’s trade the CRA for getting back the 1993 tax code. Deal?
The next attempt to pass the blame goes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which does have some plausibility because the two did participate, big time, in subprime lending. But Fannie and Freddie got to the party late, and while they contributed to the crisis, none of the ‘wingers can explain how bad real estate loans securitized or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, which have since been guaranteed by the U.S. government, brought down Lehmann Brothers, Bear Stearns, and AIG, or how low-income borrowers with bad loans have cratered the global financial system by falling behind on their mortgages.
At a congressional hearing last week, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, SEC chairman Christopher Cox, and former Treasury secretary John Snow each were asked if Fannie and Freddie were the cause of the financial crisis. All three said no.
Greenspan is an interesting case. He steadfastly argued against government regulation of financial derivatives. He said that we need not fear concentration in banking and investment, because “many of the larger risks are dramatically -- I should say, fully -- hedged.” But at the hearing last week, Greenspan conceded that his fundamental world view was flawed. As quoted in The New York Times:
If Alan Greenspan -- the High Priest of the Temple of Ayn Rand, the very face of Libertarian market triumphalism -- is rethinking his philosophy, then maybe the problem really wasn’t “too much government.” Not when it’s a GOP administration nationalizing the banks. Welcome to reality, ‘wingers!
That was my suggested headline, but I really didn't like it; but I certainly didn't expect the editor to go all Latin on me instead.
IN THE ECONOMIC BLAME GAME, GREENSPAN OFFERS A MEA CULPA
East Valley Tribune, Oct. 26, 2008
In their increasingly desperate attempt to find something ideologically comfortable to blame for the credit crunch and recession, ‘wingers have grasped at any conceivable economic flotsam. “Pay no attention to that iceberg,” they cry, “because something else sank this Titanic!”
They first seized upon the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA prohibits redlining, where banks refuse to lend where they take deposits. Of course, nothing in the CRA requires banks to make bad loans; the CRA prohibits banks from taking money out of a community where the bank isn’t willing to invest.
There are a couple of problems with blaming the CRA. First, ‘wingers have no explanation of how a 1977 law passed created the real estate and subprime bubble 25 years later. If banks managed to make CRA loans successfully for two decades, but then suddenly became wildly irresponsible, the problem isn’t the CRA.
More technically, as Robert Gordon of the Center for American Progress, and Ellen Seidman, former head of the Office of Thrift Regulation, have noted, the CRA only applies to federally-insured banks and thrifts, which accounted for about 25 percent of subprime loans; half of that market was controlled by independent mortgage companies not covered by CRA, and another 25 to 30 percent from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which don’t have nearly as significant responsibilities under the CRA. Also, institutions covered by CRA made fewer such loans than did comparable exempt or partially-exempt lenders.
Finally, the CRA usually becomes an issue only when banks or thrifts seek to merge -- and the previous wave of bank mergers generally ended by 2001, just as the real estate boom, and subprime lending, took off. Blaming the CRA requires that you believe the Bush administration was serious about enforcing one, and only one, type of bank regulation.
Hey, ‘wingers, if it’s all the CRA’s fault, let’s trade the CRA for getting back the 1993 tax code. Deal?
The next attempt to pass the blame goes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which does have some plausibility because the two did participate, big time, in subprime lending. But Fannie and Freddie got to the party late, and while they contributed to the crisis, none of the ‘wingers can explain how bad real estate loans securitized or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, which have since been guaranteed by the U.S. government, brought down Lehmann Brothers, Bear Stearns, and AIG, or how low-income borrowers with bad loans have cratered the global financial system by falling behind on their mortgages.
At a congressional hearing last week, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, SEC chairman Christopher Cox, and former Treasury secretary John Snow each were asked if Fannie and Freddie were the cause of the financial crisis. All three said no.
Greenspan is an interesting case. He steadfastly argued against government regulation of financial derivatives. He said that we need not fear concentration in banking and investment, because “many of the larger risks are dramatically -- I should say, fully -- hedged.” But at the hearing last week, Greenspan conceded that his fundamental world view was flawed. As quoted in The New York Times:
“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.
Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”
Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.
“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied.
If Alan Greenspan -- the High Priest of the Temple of Ayn Rand, the very face of Libertarian market triumphalism -- is rethinking his philosophy, then maybe the problem really wasn’t “too much government.” Not when it’s a GOP administration nationalizing the banks. Welcome to reality, ‘wingers!
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Good Lord, The Tribune Backs Me Up
Some people might think a prosecutor shouldn't jump to conclusions and make erroneous charges based on newspaper articles that were later corrected by the newspaper. Apparently that doesn't include Andrew Thomas and his supporters.
I had toyed with the idea, in response to state Rep. Russell Pearce's attempt Friday to distract people from Thomas's mistakes and inaccurate charges, that I would in turn call for the Attorney General to investigate Pearce's call for the Attorney General to investigate how the Attorney General awarded a contract to my law firm for health care law specialty work used by the state for the Arizona Veterans Home. But I couldn't figure out where to put the jokes, or exactly how the AG could investigate the AG's investigation of the AG's office. Didn't bother Pearce, but I worry about those sorts of things.
I like the Tribune's headline better: "Tribune: Thomas accusations against Nelson wrong." (Key quote: "The Tribune found multiple inaccuracies within statements made by Thomas and his campaign.") Maybe Russell Pearce should investigate that.
Some people might think a prosecutor shouldn't jump to conclusions and make erroneous charges based on newspaper articles that were later corrected by the newspaper. Apparently that doesn't include Andrew Thomas and his supporters.
I had toyed with the idea, in response to state Rep. Russell Pearce's attempt Friday to distract people from Thomas's mistakes and inaccurate charges, that I would in turn call for the Attorney General to investigate Pearce's call for the Attorney General to investigate how the Attorney General awarded a contract to my law firm for health care law specialty work used by the state for the Arizona Veterans Home. But I couldn't figure out where to put the jokes, or exactly how the AG could investigate the AG's investigation of the AG's office. Didn't bother Pearce, but I worry about those sorts of things.
I like the Tribune's headline better: "Tribune: Thomas accusations against Nelson wrong." (Key quote: "The Tribune found multiple inaccuracies within statements made by Thomas and his campaign.") Maybe Russell Pearce should investigate that.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Still Living Like Episcopalians and Voting Like Puerto Ricans
A new Gallup poll shows Obama now leading McCain among Jewish voters, 74-22:
UPDATE: Franklin Foer makes the inevitable Sarah Silverman reference!The current proportion of U.S. Jews backing Obama is identical to the level of support the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards received in the 2004 presidential election (74%). It is only slightly lower than what Al Gore and Joe Lieberman received in 2000 (80%) -- when the first Jewish American appeared on the presidential ticket of a major party.
Recent support for Obama is a bit higher among older Jews than among Jews younger than 55. According to combined Gallup Poll Daily tracking data from Sept. 1 through Oct. 21, an average of 74% of Jews aged 55 and older supported Obama for president across this period, compared with about two-thirds of younger Jews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)