October, 2012 | My Political Hat

Fine! Don’t take my advice!

Posted on October 30, 2012 by Justin

Earlier today I proposed a plan for the Romney/Ryan campaign: donate to the Red Cross.

Specifically, I suggested they pull their advertising for the remainder of the week and donate their entire advertising budget to the Red Cross. Call on the SuperPACs to do the same, and challenge the Obama/Biden canpaign to follow suit. I didn’t expect them to do it, but they’re clearly flailing around, looking for a way to capitalize on Sandy politically. So why not get some good publicity the old-fashioned way: buy it?

Romney has a huge hole to dig himself out of. He’s on record advocating the privatization of FEMA:

And his performance as Governor of Massachusetts during the Green River flood in 2005 was less than stellar..

Instead, the R/R camp has done the opposite. They’ve doubled down on the “Jeep is leaving Ohio for China” lie Romney first voiced in a speech and later made into an ad. They’re spending $100k to run a radio version of it in the Toledo market.

It is so bad, Chrysler’s CEO Sergio Marchionne felt compelled to respond.

They’re also starting to air commercials attacking Obama for the closure of coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania:

Here in PA, we have a love/hate relationship with coal. The mines have been good to us employment-wise, and the power plants have been a cheap source of electricity for decades, but we also have a history of mine fires, Black Lung, and acid rain.* Fortunately, the recent boom in natural gas is allowing us to replace our coal-fired electricity generation capacity with cleaner-burning natural gas plants.

Like I said, I never expected R/R to take my advice. But just about anything would be better than this: Mitt Romney attends storm relief event. In Ohio. Sponsored by his campaign. You can’t make this stuff up!

And who is coming out looking the best in all of this? Chris Christie, the Republican Governor of New Jersey. By all accounts, he’s acquitted himself quite well in the disaster. He’s praised the Federal response in general, and President Obama’s hands-on approach in particular. And he rejected the opportunity to have a photo op with Romney. (I suspect he can smell the stench of defeat on the R/R campaign and is already thinking about 2016.)

*Our acid rain problem was attributed to plants upwind from us. The stuff we burn comes back down in New England.

Ignore The Polls, Follow The River!

Posted on October 29, 2012 by Justin

Whenever I see an article asking “What Do The Polls Mean?” (as this one does) and similar sentiments, I think of this scene from the modern classic film Willow:

And Then There Were None!

Posted on October 23, 2012 by Justin

We made it, people! The 2012 Presidential Debate Death March is over! Congratulations on surviving your various drinking games, meme onslaughts, and spin room prevarications! (There will be a moment of silence at the end of this article for those who didn’t make it to the end, the lightweights.)

I think we saw one Commander-in-Chief on the stage last night. I was looking for consistency from Governor Romney, and I didn’t get it. I don’t expect him to hold the same views he’s had all his adult life, or even for the six years he’s been running for President. I recognize that people can and do change. They learn new things. Circumstances change, and we should allow for that without automatically labeling someone a “flip-flopper.” Governor Romney, unfortunately, couldn’t remain consistent through the ninety minutes he appeared on stage last night.

Not to denigrate the mentally ill, but his positions were positively schizophrenic. On one issue, he seemed eager to reassure the public he wasn’t afraid to strike first, hard, and with vigor. On others, he was trying to project calm and reasoned reflection before acting. Neither position was convincing, and I think he pretty much reversed when each was appropriate.

A lot of political hay (and memeage) will be made of the “horses and bayonets” moment, but I don’t think it was that significant. Very few voters – outside the shipyards of Virginia – are going to make their decision on how many ships the government procures over the next four years. That being said, it was a devastating take-down of an unprepared candidate by a Commander-in-Chief who clearly knows his stuff.

I was hesitant about Obama in 2008. I wasn’t sure he was ready to be President, primarily for foreign policy reasons. I’m glad to say he’s proven me wrong. I disagree with about 75%-80% of his foreign policy positions, but I can’t deny that he knows what he’s doing and that he has a vision for the future of the world and America’s role in it. I wish I could say the same about Romney. Perhaps he will grow into it, but on balance I’m not willing to take that chance.

All in all, it was a good debate. Nowhere near as good as the second one, which really was one for the ages, but still a good example of the genre. Onward to November 6th!

[insert moment of silence here]

A Failed Experiment

Posted on October 23, 2012 by Justin

Timothy B. Lee has a feature article up at Ars Technica today on the state of e-voting in America. It isn’t pretty.

A decade ago, there was a great deal of momentum toward paperless electronic voting. Spooked by the chaos of the 2000 presidential election in Florida, Congress unleashed a torrent of money to buy new high-tech machines. Today, momentum is in the opposite direction. Computer security researchers have convinced most observers that machines like the ones in Fairfield Township degrade the security and reliability of elections rather than enhancing them. Several states passed laws mandating an end to paperless elections. But bureaucratic inertia and tight budgets have slowed the pace at which these flawed machines can be retired.

Voter-verifiable ballot advocates may have won most of the battles, but they’re in danger of losing the war. The reason? There was plenty of money under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to help counties and municipalities buy electronic voting machines, but there isn’t any money available to help those that want to go back to more secure voting systems.

Conspicuous in Their Absence

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Justin

I didn’t realize it earlier, but the topics for tonight will be:

* America’s role in the world
* Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
* Red Lines – Israel and Iran
* The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
* The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
* The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World

Conspicuously absent will be:

1) The eurozone crisis
2) Latin America
3) Russia
4) Africa
5) Foreign economic policy
6) India
7) North Korea

I really doubt this thing moves beyond the Middle East (specifically: Libya and Iran/Israel) and a smattering of “he said/he did” saber-rattling on China.
Expect no or very little mention of any of the following: the incipient civil war in Syria; extrajudicial execution via drone strikes pretty much everywhere; any discussion about Israel and the Palestinians that doesn’t involve what time of day it’d be best to nuke Iran; and the ever-absent global threat of climate change.

What don’t you expect to come up tonight?

The Most Important Issue

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Justin

The Most Important Foreign Policy Issue hasn’t been discussed in the debates. And odds are it won’t be mentioned tonight.

Climate change continues to be the single most important, most pressing, and most urgent foreign policy issue facing the United States. A report out today from reinsurance company Munich Re reinforces this fact. Munich RE have no reason to lie about the details. They’re the ones who are left footing the bill as our coastal cities wash away and our inland cities blow away.

From the press release:

…[T]he study now provides new evidence for the emerging impact of climate change. For thunderstorm-related losses the analysis reveals increasing volatility and a significant long-term upward trend in the normalized figures over the last 40 years. These figures have been adjusted to account for factors such as increasing values, population growth and inflation. A detailed analysis of the time series indicates that the observed changes closely match the pattern of change in meteorological conditions necessary for the formation of large thunderstorm cells. Thus it is quite probable that changing climate conditions are the drivers. The climatic changes detected are in line with the modelled changes due to human-made climate change.

There is next to no chance climate change will come up in tonight’s third and final 2012 Presidential debate, and we will be all the poorer for its absence.

Even David Brooks agrees with me.

Taxonomy of Indecision

Posted on October 19, 2012 by Justin

(This is the second in a series of articles about undecided voters)

Who are all of these Undecided Voters? I’ve so far come up with four types. I’m open to expanding or narrowing the list.

I’m not an undecided voter, but I play one on television / Attention Whores

Once ever four years, the world turns to these undecided deciders. These self-styled last true men (and women) enjoy the sense of power and the possibility that the candidates for the Most Powerful Job in the World are vying for their personal vote. In the end, they’ll probably write in Mickey Mouse or Homer Simpson and think themselves witty or clever with their little act of civic protest.

Fish or Cut Bait? / Indecisive people make indecisive voters

These voters can’t decide what to cook for dinner, or even if they’re hungry. What chance do they have of picking a President?

Just Fooling Themselves / Republicans and Democrats in Denial

If you looked at these voters’ record, they consistently pick one party or the other. They’ll tell you they are Independent and they look down on partisans as they believe party membership is for the sheeple. They’ll often misquote George Washington as saying the US shouldn’t have political parties.

Too Busy, but know they should Care

They can barely find time to sleep, let alone think about the election. (The ones who show up in focus groups are actually Attention Whores.) They know they should be engaged, and they really want to be good citizens, but they just don’t have the time. So they rely on mass media to inform them. On that basis, can you really blame this group for being undecided?

Binders Full of Libya

Posted on October 19, 2012 by Justin

I have been quiet about the second 2012 Presidential debate for several reasons. First, I agree with Lawrence O’Donnell that picking a winner is difficult. That being said, I do have some thoughts on the debate and what it means.

I thought it was a good debate. I certainly enjoyed watching it. The questions could have been better, but you can only work with what you get in a forum like this.

Romney let his inner asshole out to play, and was a bit too aggressive with the moderator, but sometimes that plays well at home with voters. It comes across as asshollery to most of us, but to a substantial minority it looks like strength. “He made the President sit down and wait his turn.” “He didn’t take any guff from the moderator.” “He caught the President in a lie about calling the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi a terrorist attack.” (Even though everyone agrees he lost that point when he got bogged down in the word used.)

Professor Obama showed up. If you believe in 11-Dimensional Chess, which I don’t, then you can see the first debate as the ultimate rope-a-dope approach. The same Romney showed up for the second debate. Against a real opponent – Professor Obama instead of Uncle Fluffy – his approach was much less effective.

This was a make-or-break moment for the President. He needed to reassure his base that he still wanted the job. I think he did that. He also needed to reframe Romney as an out-of-touch Plutocrat. The jury is still out on whether he managed this or not.

On the topic of Libya and the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, I thought Romney had a good point. The Administration dropped the ball on this, and the President is rightly criticized for his handling. The argument that Congress cut funding for embassy security holds no water for me. If it is a priority, you have to fight for it. the Administration did not. In the aftermath, it was several days before it was clear that the reports of demonstrations at the Consulate preceding the attack were incorrect. The Administration is rightly criticized for either not knowing this or for not being clear about it.

Romney screwed this one up, however, by focusing on whether the President said the magic words “terrorist” or “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech. The real criticism is the handling of the following weeks. Romney missed his chance to raise this issue when he thought he’d caught the President in a lie. Incidentally, I think Paul Ryan in the Vice Presidential debate did a much better job of pinning the issue on the Administration than Romney’s Gotcha! tactic did.

I’m looking forward to the third and final debate. Perhaps the topic of climate change will finally put in an appearance. It is a national security issue, after all.

When Undecided Voters Attack!

Posted on October 19, 2012 by Justin

(This is the first in a series of articles about undecided voters)

I’ve been thinking about undecided voters a lot this week. I really want to know what makes them tick.

I think Thomas Frank got close to the problem in What’s the Matter with Kansas? Frank describes a disconnect between what people identified as their concerns and their own interests. For instance, a voter who is concerned about their job and the economy will not vote for the candidate that would best help on that issue because they don’t see the issue as being a political issue. In other words, they lack the vocabulary to talk about their needs and concerns in a productive way.

I believe undecided voters, on the whole, are in a similar situation. They lack the ability to ask the questions they really want answered, and instead get bogged down in minutia. Take, for example, today’s story about Katherine Fenton, the woman who asked about gender equality in the workplace at the Presidential debate the other night. In an interview with Salon.com’s Irin Carmon, she said she wasn’t satisfied with either candidate’s answer. She wanted specifics, you see; not what they’ve done before. If you accept, however, that past acts reveal priorities, then you know Mitt Romney will probably have women in his cabinet, and that President Obama will probably champion and sign legislation leading to mor equal pay between men and women. Both candidates were admittedly short on policy specifics, but you can get those from a position paper. Debates are where candidates tell you who they are as people.

The kicker for Ms. Fenton, however, was that $16 trillion dollars is “a huge figure” and that made her inclined to fire President Obama. Here we see the disconnect. This is what the candidates are running against.

How To Read a Poll

Posted on October 16, 2012 by Justin

I’ve been citing this piece from Kevin Drum for years (I thought it was from his CalPundit days, but the version I found tonight is from The Washington Monthly): Margin of Error.

The idea of a “statistical tie” is based on the theory that (a) statistical results are credible only if they are at least 95% certain to be accurate, and (b) any lead less than the MOE is less than 95% certain.

There are two problems with this: first, 95% is not some kind of magic cutoff point, and second, the idea that the MOE represents 95% certainty is wrong anyway. A poll’s MOE does represent a 95% confidence interval for each individual’s percentage, but it doesn’t represent a 95% confidence for the difference between the two, and that’s what we’re really interested in.

This is some wonky statistical stuff, but you have a responsibility to understand it if you are relying on polls to tell you what the state of this race – or any race – is. Numeracy is nearly as important as literacy.

Part of being numerate is understanding your tools. This technique works for individual polls based on sample error, but is not appropriate for polls of polls, like Pollster or RCP, which have their own internal rules and checks on margins of error. Those polls have their own set of problems.