Bachmann Comes Up Lame in Iowa Horse Race

Michele Bachmann’s candidacy for POTUS is now officially the first casualty of the Iowa Caucuses.   Receiving just 5% of the vote was not enough to justify continuing the very expensive task of running for President.  Thus, once again, we see what the Iowa Caucuses do best.  They don’t pick the winners, they thin the field.

It looked for a moment as if Rick Perry would join the Congresswoman on the sidelines until he tweeted a confirmation that he will travel on to South Carolina.  He figures to gain a significant portion of the Bachmann’s vote, so his campaign believes he can take some momentum from Iowa despite his disappointing 10.3%, fifth place finish.  Unlike Bachmann, Perry has a significant amount of money and can afford at least a short term war of attrition with Mitt Romney.

The Santorum surge could not have come at a better time- coinciding with the first votes that actually count.  But his surge is just the latest in what has become the search for the perfect non-Romney candidate.  Veterans of such polling (now voting) bumps include Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and now Rick Santorum.  Thus far, every rise in the polls has been accompanied by an increase in scrutiny and a subsequent drop off.  Eventually the non-Romney vote may coalesce around one candidate but as yet the electorate has not been able to make up its mind.  The timing of the Santorum surge is ideal, but he needs to keep his momentum and his brand of retail politicking worked best in Iowa because he could spend months meeting its people.  Now that the primary season is underway, Santorum will need to ramp up the speed and focus of his campaign in order to compete with the spending power of Mitt Romney and Rick Perry’s organizations.

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul had nights that met expectations.   Paul and Romney had numbers that reflected their steady poll numbers.  They avoided anything disastrous but didn’t come out as big winners.  Gingrich got clobbered from all sides with relentless negative advertising by his opponents and escaped with a fourth place finish.  He outperforms his national numbers in the next three primaries (NH, SC, FL) and is leading in the polls in South Carolina and Florida.

Overall, here’s how the Iowa Caucuses went for the GOP candidates…

Had a good day: Santorum, Perry

Had a bad day: Bachmann

Had a day: Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Huntsman

 

 

2012 Election Cycle Begins in Earnest

Iowa Caucus time is almost upon us and that means the political horse races are about to begin in earnest.  These votes count, and they are meaningful.  Although the Iowa Caucus doesn’t always do a great job predicting the eventual winners, it is a key indicator as to where the socially conservative Republican base is leaning and, in this primary, that might be a solid voting bloc.

 So, with just days to go before Iowans make their opening statement, here we go with our Current Assessment of the Republican Primary (CARP), here accompanied by the latest PPP polling figures (12-27-11). 

Ron Paul (24%)

His supporters are loyal and they intend to caucus.  Ron Paul is not well liked by the folks over at Fox News and his inability to disentangle himself from a web of problems involving race and conspiracy theories will cap his national potential.  An Iowa win, however, is not out of the question and it is difficult to see Paul finishing any lower than third.

Mitt Romney (20%)

After reversing his original decision to skip the Caucuses, Romney and his SuperPac are relentlessly pushing for a win in Iowa.  The thinking is that a strong Iowa victory would bolster Romney’s conservative credentials and help make this a quick primary season.  This week he has Republican darling Chris Christie stumping for him in the Hawkeye State.

Newt Gingrich (13%)

Free falling from his polling highs, Gingrich is getting hit harder on the airwaves than anyone in Iowa.  He is hurting as a result.  He is now essentially in a four way tie for third place but still taking hits as if he were a frontrunner.

Michelle Bachmann (11%)

Iowa is the state where she was born.  It is a state with a friendly ear to her brand of social conservatism.  She won the Iowa Straw Poll earlier this year.  She better have a strong showing because things will not get easier for Bachmann as primary season progresses.

Rick Perry (10%)

Perry has made significant media investment of late touting his social conservative credibility.  His debate performances have hurt him.  Like the rest of the pack here, he needs a strong showing.

Rick Santorum (10%)

Santorum knows that if he doesn’t get support in Iowa, he is likely finished.  No one questions his conservatism and Iowa is friendly territory.  If he can’t overtake some of his

Jon Huntsman (4%)

Huntsman will not fare well in Iowa.  He sees New Hampshire as his first true measuring stick.  If he finishes with 5% or better he will have been more successful than expected.

Common Sense and the Minnesota Recount

Take a minute to peruse this article from the Minnesota Public Radio website, detailing some of the challenged ballots up for recount in the Minnesota Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.  It is interesting to see the actual photographs of a sample of challenged ballots as well as the reasons for the challenge.  At first I thought it might be fun to play along.  It was not.  This is not because there is any great difficulty in figuring out voter intent (or deciding when voter intent cannot be determined).  There is not. My problem is with the discrepancy between how simple this should be and how complex it will be.

The actual recount is going to be long, expensive, and arduous.  We know this because such characteristics are the hallmark of all things political in America.  Our culture has reached the point where the slightest shadow of doubt serves as plausible deniability.  We are so worried about technicality, and its litigious implications, that we fail to acknowledge that common sense can ever be the answer.  A quick glance at some of the ballots in question is enough to deem their challenge frivolous.  Common sense in this process is fast, cheap, and simple.

I understand that there is much at stake in the outcome of this election, and that the ballots on MPR are only a selected sample, but the process should really not be that difficult.  Some of the ballots have clear intent, others do not.  I submit that two judges, whose interest lies with the electoral process and not the outcome, should go through challenged ballots.  If there is legitimate disagreement in intent, or if intent is agreeably impossible to determine, the vote is thrown out.  If the judges concur, the vote is counted thusly.

The fact that the outcome is vital does not lead automatically to the conclusion that the recount has to be immensely complicated.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t think there is legitimate dispute to any of the ballots posted here. Some of them should be thrown out because of our limits to judging intent, but most are clear to any reasonable, unbiased eye.  Simple right?  Now watch how difficult politics can make things…

Spit from the Horse’s Mouth – Paulson Editorializes Himself

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wrote an article for todays New York Times Op/Ed page.  Topic: Henry Paulson.  In efforts for full disclosure, the article, entitled Fighting the Financial Crisis, One Challenge at a Time, was actually an account of where we stand a few short months after the announcement of the crisis.  As Secretary Paulson was the one who declared the crisis, asked for the money, and has discretion over its usage, he was, for all intents and purposes, editorializing himself.  

So where do we stand?  It isn’t the easiest question to answer, as we can garner from Paulson’s attempt.  The truth is, hiding behind assumptions and hopeful declarations, that we really don’t know.  ”There is no playbook for responding to turmoil we have never faced,” Paulson writes.  There is no real meeting of the minds, no consensus.  Even the facts are in doubt, as information delays and lagging effects demand.  The decision not to use the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to offer any troubled asset relief underscores the problem.  Less than one month after we were told that troubled asset relief was the one and only thing that could save our economy, we are being told that there are better ideas.

It seems a lot like trial and error.  And this may be the only technique because the one common ground for all economists is that we have never seen anything like this.  Even the Great Depression did not share the scale of this financial crisis.  The good news is that we are able to analyze data more quickly and efficiently than ever before (mostly due to the facility of the exchange of information).  Thus, we can react to our trials and errors faster than ever before.  But the positive news ends there, because the costs of our trials and errors is more expensive than ever.  And money isn’t quite as cheap as it once was.

I do not envy Mr. Paulson or his staff (especially Neel Kashkari).  They face an uphill battle, equipped with theories and techniques that helped cause the problem, and answering to an angry population with the only rhetoric they know, a transparent mask of the fact that they simply don’t know.  That money is the solution to monetary problems would be a dubious claim if our officials had any other effective tools at their disposal.  It seems, however, that we will continue to throw good money after bad, and hope something works.  Sooner or later, however, we are going to have to fix the problem.  Mr. Paulson, in his optimism, will not be around to guide that phase, but he will certainly be around to editorialize it.  We’ll see if he maintains his cheery confidence once his name isn’t attached so conspicuously to the crisis.

A Quick Financial Crisis Update

 

When Secretary Paulson announced the need for a massive 700 billion dollar bailout of the financial sector, it seemed like an immense amount of money.  He said that the stability of the US financial institutions were at stake.  The taxpayers trust, the treasure of our country, was offered as the stopgap.  Congress passed legislation, pundits debated, and US citizens, on the advice of the “experts” (the same, for lack of alternatives with requisite experience, who facilitated the onslaught of the crisis), crossed their fingers and watched as the transfer of wealth began.

$700,000,000,000 is a large amount of money, but it is less than one fifth of an even larger number, $3,800,000,000,000.  (Okay, AverageTodd, but what is the importance of that observation?)  According to CNBC the tab for the current financial crisis is now $3.8 trillion (and growing).  We haven’t spent, printed, or borrowed all of that money yet, but more and more is drafting out the door as we speak.  

Big numbers and large scales have become increasingly meaningless to the average person.  We hear these numbers thrown around all the time.  It is difficult, however, to wrap our brains around millions, billions, and trillions.  We work with averages, ratios, and smaller numbers much better.  

Just for fun, let’s play some numbers games…

How much is 3.8 trillion?

The capacity of Fenway Park is listed at 36,108 people.  You would have to fill the stadium 105 million times to reach total attendance of 3.8 trillion people.

The weight of any denomination of US paper currency is 1 gram. The weight of $3.8 trillion, in one dollar bills, is 8,377,572,797 pounds.  

The current US population, as estimated by the Census Bureau, is approximately 305 million persons.  If we all paid an equal share of the cost, we would each write a check for $12,459.02. 

Federal Minimum Wage is currently $6.55 per hour.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 144,958,000 employed persons over the age of 16 in the United States.  If all employed persons worked at this wage (full time), it would take 2 years to cover the bailout tab.  

Growing each day at an alarming rate, the approximate cost to US taxpayers for the Iraq War (11/17/08) is over $600 billion.  If operations ended today, we could fund six more of these conflicts, with money left over, for the same price as our financial rescue.

Copy paper has a thickness of about .1 millimeters.  3.8 trillion sheets would stack from the surface of the earth to the surface of the moon.

Bailout Pie in our Face

The Washington Post is reporting that, although we have committed over $290 billion of the original $700 billion bailout, we have not begun serious implementation of a system of oversight.  

Barney Frank is claiming that, because the nature of the giant rescue package has changed, the need for oversight is not as pressing as it once appeared.  This line of reasoning is shocking.  The fact that the bailout has changed its direction since its passage means that the massive corrections have occurred without congressional approval.  We have shifted focus from the original intent, purchasing troubled assets, to purchasing equity and injecting capital directly into companies.  (We may not purchase a single “troubled asset” at this point according to Secretary Paulson)  This could be a vast improvement from the bill that passed, as seems to be general consensus, but it should be troubling that oversight is losing as a result.  

The people making the decisions are not infallible, in fact they are some of the same who helped cause, or at least allowed, the crisis in the first case.  And I seem to recall being told by the Bush Administration and Congress that the original bailout plan was urgent and necessary to avoid collapse.  Now it has taken on a different look, a life of its own.  I submit that this is exactly why we need oversight, more than ever.  $700 billion of taxpayer money will be dispersed to thousands of places to save an economy so complex that no one fully understands.  We need to be certain that we are spending this enormous amount of our treasure wisely.  Simply telling us, with every change to the original plan, “This is urgent and absolutely necessary,” is not enough.  This is our money, our investment, and we were guaranteed oversight, regulation, and accountability.  

Also disturbing is that lobbyists, apparently predicting a boon from this massive transfer of money, have begun lining up for their slice of the pie before they even have a client.  Whether that is just how the system works or not, it is appalling.  

From the New York Times, Thursday, November 13 2008

Some lobbyists, Mr. Mason told The Times, had called him even though they did not have any clients looking to get into the program or worried about its restrictions. They were merely seeking intelligence on which industries would be deemed eligible for assistance. He suspects they were representing hedge funds that wanted to trade on that information.

The Times article addresses the rush from lobbyists for business and industry to find ways to get a piece of the bailout pie. 

We just came off an election in which all sides called for oversight, transparency, and curbing of lobbyist influence.  Why should the government use even one taxpayer dollar without a public disclosure and explanation?  If the failure of oversight was a part of the cause of the problem, then the success of oversight has to be part of the solution.  I want to be able to read about every transaction immediately as it occurs.  We have the technology to make that happen.  It would not be difficult or expensive.  We were told that such things would be a priority.  The next dollar spent should be to provide the public assurance that we will not be swindled.  We are sick of talk, especially the kind that substitutes resolute insistence for actual substance.

American Politics and Argumentative Fallacy

Sometimes I wonder if our entire political system is based on argumentative fallacy.  This is a very sad prospect to someone who prizes logic.  Is it a hasty generalization (irony intended)?  Perhaps, however, this election cycle, I too often found myself referencing the ideas of Ad Hominem, Ad Populum, straw man, and moral equivalence arguments.  These are not fact-checkable, but they are easily as damaging as the proliferation of patently false information.  

In fact, argumentative fallacy can be significantly more damaging to a society than misinformation.  It makes the facts irrelevant and the truth impossible to determine.  In the absence of logic, our decision making abilities vanish.  I have many problems with the media and the production and distribution of information in America.  Upon further reflection, however, I believe that societal rejection of logical argument is a broader problem than Fox News or MSNBC. 

Think about the 2008 Presidential election and read this collection of common logical argumentative fallacies.  How many of them do you recognize from the election cycle?  I can think of concrete evidence of each and every example discussed therein.  The sources of these fallacies include mainstream media, pundits, the campaigns and their candidates, and the average Joe on the street.  It is pandemic throughout our system, and it is tacitly, perhaps unknowingly, accepted by society.

FactCheck, and other sites like it, can be very helpful when sifting through the information of a campaign.  Factual accuracy, however, is only half the game.  You get one vote in an election.  Theoretically, people use facts in an election to help draw a single logical conclusion.  If they do not process these facts logically, the conclusion will be flawed.  

It is bad enough that practicality, in our two-party system, necessitates an “either/or” conclusion.  We should at least mitigate that problem by logically arriving at our decisions.  

 

Feel free to share ideas or examples of logical fallacy from the election in the comments section below.

On Veterans Day

When I think of Joe the Soldier…

I remember when my parents took me to see the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.  I was very young and the Memorial was one stop of many as we took in as much as we could on our brief visit.  We toured the FBI building, the White House, the Capitol Building, and the major monuments, museums, and memorials.  It wasn’t Disney World, but I had a good time.  I remember being upset that we couldn’t climb the Washington Monument because of construction and the such, but then we hit the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and I scored some uncut $2 bills.  I liked D.C., it was clean (I clearly spent most of my time in touristy spaces), it was grand in scale, and it felt important.  With all that I experienced on the trip, however, seven year old AverageTodd’s most vivid memory, the video I can still see when I close my eyes, is of the Vietnam Memorial.  

It was not just the impressive span of the black wall, the uncountable number of names on its facade, or the fact that I was at the spot from the Time-Life commercial (Who won the war, daddy?), that I recall.  What I remember most dynamically were the people at the Memorial.  Approaching the wall felt like entering a bubble.  The wind died down and the silence was deafening.  Some people were stoically searching, others in quiet contemplation.  People (strangers?) were embracing and I watched my mothers eyes glass over and then leak.  The emotion was inescapable.  I did not understand fully what I was witnessing but I certainly grasped the gravity.  I asked the questions of a young boy.  Did you know these people?  How many people died?  Why were we fighting?  I’m sure I got answers, but it was the visceral reaction to the visual spectacle that I remember to this day.  That is what I think about on Veterans day.  Crying friends, widows, sacrifice, lives lost. I think about that wall, the real power of that symbol, and I think about the people, the Veterans.  

My generation has a variable view of Veterans Day.  I asked my friend Eric Hartman what he thought of, the images that came to mind, when he thought about Veterans Day.  His mental picture is always of the servicemen and women of World War II.  But he is also quick to add that he doesn’t honor Veterans differently based upon the conflict in which they served, their branch of service, or the existence or extent of their injuries.  I think this is important to note because sometimes I fear that we do differentiate between such things.  But Veterans Day is about service and sacrifice of individuals, indifferent to the politics of conflict.  Vets didn’t choose their conflict, they followed orders.  Those serving now are risking the same life that their grandfathers risked.  The stakes are no different.  

Everyone is going to conjure something different on Veterans Day, separate images, icons, thoughts.  The commonality should be that we honor the people who have kept us safe, secure, and free.  We should honor them equally and earnestly.  And Veterans Day should remind us that these people did/do not sacrifice one day each year, they deserve a constant honorarium.  Every day someone cries at that big black wall in D.C.  Every day.

Thanks to all who have worn the uniform.  

What do you think of on Veterans Day?

Winners and Losers From This Election Cycle

Fresh Faces, Old Faithfuls, First Looks, and Last Hurrahs Part I

 

When Senator Obama reached the 270 electoral vote threshold last Tuesday, he was announced as the President Elect of the United States of America.  Senator McCain conceded soon after, and the most tangible winner and loser were defined.  They were not, however, the only winners and losers of this election cycle.  New faces burst on the political scene, some to great acceptance and others just for their fifteen minutes.  The following is the first installment…

 

Winner: Robert Gibbs: Gibbs’ high point, prior to being appointed White House Press Secretary in the days after the election, was when he took on Sean Hannity after the Second Presidential Debate.  Like Obama, Gibbs has a calm demeanor, vast intelligence, a certain eloquence and fact-based pragmatism.  He has shown the ability to play on any field, under any rules.  He will be an excellent public facade for the Obama White House.

Winner: Sarah Palin: She is certainly a winner from the standpoint that, coming from relative obscurity, she has become a household name.  Her brand is the hottest thing in the Republican Party right now.  A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that 91% of Republicans have a favorable view of the Alaska Governor and 64% suggest she is their current top of the ticket choice for 2012.  

Loser: Fox News, Roger Ailes:  The unprecedented access that Fox News had under a Bush Administration has come to an end.  During the election, while Governor Palin was refusing to talk to the media, Fox News kept scoring interviews with the Republican ticket.  Fox News was responsible for the salience of issues like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and (believe it or not) the focus on media criticism.  Without a candidate to back or secret talking point memos from the White House, they will find themselves running short on reporting and long on sensationalism.  Okay, so that’s nothing new.

Loser: Rick Davis, Steve Schmidt & Co.: Don’t cry to hard for these guys, or any of McCain’s chief strategists.  They will all be fine, find work, and greatly increase their wealth.  For the moment, however, they are responsible for running perhaps the worst campaign in Presidential history.  It didn’t help that their counterparts ran the best campaign in history, or that they faced such a strong Bush rejection headwind.  But this campaign was continually off base in its projections, decisions and estimates.  The campaign flailed from one issue to the next, denying what polls and common sense told us were the  most important issue to voters.  They seemed to throw everything they could at the Obama Camp, hoping something would eventually stick.  It didn’t.  In the end, you pandered to the base, got their votes, and lost the election convincingly.  

Loser: Ralph Nader: It appears that his buzz is gone.  This photograph is telling.  I don’t think this is a general rejection of Mr. Nader, or of alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats.  What happened here is just that the messengers time seems to have passed.  This was a last political gasp.  This is the guy that made seat belts standard in cars.  I hope he continues his consumer advocacy.  He has done phenomenal work in that arena.

Loser: Two Party System: What options did the fiscally conservative, socially progressive folks have?  It seems to me that this group represents a large portion of the electorate.  The breaking of ranks by influential Republicans like Colin Powell, David Brooks, and Andrew Sullivan begs the question, where will they fit in in the future.  There is a mutual rejection between intellectual conservatives and an increasingly anti-intellectual Republican Party.  This is a very complicated issue but this may be the beginning of the end for a two party system in a country with a plurality of beliefs.

Winner: Maverick Republicans: Not McCain, I refer to the real mavericks, under the true definition.  The Republicans who refused to be branded as such, and jumped ship to vote for Barack Obama, increased their credibility immensely.  They didn’t change their minds, they didn’t stab their party in the back, they made a choice based on the facts presented to them.  They made a decision independent of the party line.  This type of action is far too rare in politics, where running with the herd as seen as the norm and often rewarded.  I’d love to see more of this, coming from all directions.   

Winner: Newt Gingrich:  This is a very smart individual.  He seemed to sense weakness and kept his hands off this election for the most part.  He keeps writing books, appearing on television, and speaking to anyone who will listen.  But he did not attach his name to the McCain-Palin ticket as much as he was simply against Obama.  Mr. Gingrich is one of the most politically shrewd players in America.  I believe his days of running for office are over but i think he will play a major role as the man behind the curtain in 2016 and get a sweet appointment out of the deal.

Loser: Tucker Bounds: The newest “Tucker” came on the scene, got his time, and he is done.  I try to avoid ad hominem attacks but this guy is a total clown.  It is disingenuous to claim that everything your candidate does is perfect in motive and execution, while the opponent has never done anything well.  He was in the bubble this election.  He even tried to make Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama into a negative for his opponent.  Things are not so black and white, Tucker.  You have no credibility.

Winner: The People of the United States of America:  We elected a non-white President of the United States.  This is a major accomplishment.  Our country, as diverse as any in the world, was built on the backs of slaves.  We have an appalling record when it comes to equality and race relations and, though we preach opportunity, this is a proud proof that our ideals can eventually match our actions.  

Winner: International Relations:  The way the world views America is important for national security, world economy, and human rights.  Our policy for the past eight years has been arrogant, divisive, and deceptive.  The world will benefit from an open-minded president, willing to listen and debate.  Obama has the opportunity to start over and repair strained international relations.  If we can mend our status in the world, we may be able to facilitate conversations between factions and warring parties worldwide.  The world is better off with an honest, open, intelligent, pragmatic United States.

There are many more to come.  Feel free to comment and offer your winners and losers.

Waiting in Line to Vote

Some of the things I heard while standing in line at my polling place in West Philadelphia this morning…  

 

“We’re making history today, boy!”

“Oh my Lord, you’re all grown up, I haven’t seen you in, what, 15 years!”

“Don’t let them turn you away.  You have the right to cast a provisional ballot.”

“He’s said he ain’t.  He can’t.  Said he has a warrant and there’s gonna be cops there.”

“I’m still recovering from my Phillies hangover.  Where’s the party tonight?”

“It stopped working altogether at #XXXX.  It was having problems from #XXXY to #XXXZ.”

“Call him.  Get his ass up.  Tell him I said so.  He’s going to vote.”

“Ain’t no stopping us now.  We’re on the move.”

 

I, personally, had fun standing in line.  I waited for about 60 minutes to cast my ballot.  That was 60 minutes of people watching and light chat.  It struck me as a particularly neighborly experience.  Several old friends were catching up.  People were generally excited.  I didn’t hear one complaint about the length of the line.  I think people in my neighborhood felt proud today, felt good about themselves.  That’s a wonderful thing to be a part of.  It was a phenomenally positive energy.