Independent candidate Chris Daggett has continued to gain ground in New Jersey's gubernatorial race, and is now up to about 14 percent of the vote whereas the race between Jon Corzine and Chris Christie has turned into a dead heat.
The rise in support for Daggett has coincided with a fall in support for Christie, which has led many observers, including myself, to conclude that Daggett is "stealing" votes from Christie. The reason that could be important is because support for third party candidates sometimes collapses on Election Day, if their potential voters feel like their ballots might be wasted. In addition, third-party candidates in New Jersey can literally be hard to find on the ballot, which might harm Daggett's numbers further. Thus, if Daggett's voters are mostly coming from potential Christie supporters, one might conclude that Christie is in a somewhat stronger position than he appears in the polls.
Except that -- the numbers don't really bear this out.
In their latest poll, released on Wednesday, Quinnipiac asked Daggett voters directly who their second choice was. 40 percent said Christine and 33 percent said Corzine, with the remaining 27 percent saying they weren't sure or they wouldn't vote. If Daggett were to withdraw tomorrow, taking his 14 percent of the vote with him, then this would be distributed 6 percent to Christie, 5 percent to Corzine, and 3 percent to undecided. That would make the numbers Christie 47, Corzine 45 -- not much better for Christie than the 41-40 lead they gave him with Daggett included.
In addition, a New York Times poll today which gave Corzine a 3-point lead among likely voters found the same 3-point lead for Daggett were eliminated as an option.
And, of course, it's not necessarily safe to assume that Daggett's support will collapse. His name recognition is still quite low, which means that it could potentially improve as more voters become familiar with him. And if Daggett starts to poll in the 20s, a lot of voters might conclude that he actually has a shot at winning and wouldn't abandon him on Election Day. Alternatively, Daggett's numbers might not improve, but his voters might stay home rather than voting for one of the other two alternatives, which would have no effect on the relative standing of Corzine and Christie.
But what consequences does this have for the other narrative about the race -- that the decline in Christie's support is the result of an increase in support for Daggett? Actually, it doesn't necessarily contradict it. Keep in mind that Daggett is fairly liberal -- having been endorsed, for instance, by the Sierra club -- and that third-party votes are generally thought of as protests against the incumbent. That might imply that initially at least, Daggett's vote was coming more from Corzine than Christie. But perhaps the newcomers to Daggett's campaign over the past month or so have been coming more from Christie's side. Unfortunately, this hypothesis would be hard to test -- until very recently, the pollsters generally haven't been asking Daggett voters about their second choices.
Either way, the general point is the same -- I don't think that Christie can count on more than 1 or 2 additional points worth of support as a result of the Daggett Effect, and even that might be generous.
10.16.2009
On the Meaning of Snowe Leopards
@ 2:18 PM
This is a thinking-aloud post about the meaning and import of political cover in American politics today which, by and large, refers to the achieving by one party of partisan political cover from the other via useful defectors. I'm sure readers have their own thoughts on the matter.
Let's start with the most obvious and timely of subjects: Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe. Her vote in committee this week in support of the Senate's version of the health care reform bill was literally front-page news. President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised her courage. On the flip side, liberal House Democrats complained that she was a policy hostage-taker. The best quote from the latter group belongs to California's Lynn Woolsey, who in her frustration seems to have forgotten how the Senate operates: "This is the United States of America. This is not the United States of Maine. I mean that one senator cannot hold the entire nation's health care plan hostage." (The same could be said for her fellow Democrat, Max Baucus, of course.) Somewhere in between these poles falls the semi-compliment from the Washington Post's Dana Milbank who, in comparing Snowe to football's Brett Favre, wrote that, like the Vikes' QB, Snowe "has trouble making up her mind, but she sure knows how to play ball."
Snowe is the belle of the ball this week because, in American politics, where party-line voting has been steadily increasing over the decades and cable television is equally polarized, the emergence of a rare partisan-political defector is like the sighting of a snow(e) leopard. (Yes, pun intended and no, not that Snow Leopard.) We stop in our tracks and, as a frustrated David Sirota laments, we marvel. But why?
The short and perhaps oversimplified answer is rooted in the us-v-them preoccupations of the national media. (I do not exempt myself, for the record.) Just as Joe Lieberman was, and still is, raised high in the production meetings of FOX News, so too is Snowe cited by liberals attempting to cast the health care reform in a bipartisan light. Or Bill Frist, who is a physician, which adds a further dollop of credibility to his recent admission to Time's Karen Tumulty that he would vote for reform if he were still in the Senate. Of course, it's easy for Frist to make such boasts now that he's out of the Senate; when he claims he would have helped shepherd such a measure through despite resistance from his own caucus methinks the former majority leader recalls his legislative courage and independence too favorably.
The longer answer derives from the fact that, as the two parties have geo-demographically realigned--southern Democrats and northern Republicans slowly replaced by retirement or their defeat in primaries or general elections--the party cross-over types, whether self-styled "Blue Dogs" or dismissed as "RINO's," are heading for extinction. But when politics sits tenderly balanced on the fulcrum, as median voter theorem demonstrates even a single moderate has the potential to paralyze the political process. Oddly, were there more of them collectively, any one of them would not be so consequential. And so, as the middle shrinks the few still situated near the fulcrum rise in individual importance. This is what made listening to Lieberman or Zell Miller often so insufferable to Democrats, and likewise for Republicans who long endured the complaints of Arlen Specter or Christine Todd Whitman.
And so both parties--and particularly whatever party is momentarily in the majority party, and thus in search of even the smallest patina of political cover--must engage in this ritual of high praise and salutation of the partisan defector. There are so few snow leopards left, and all of us must stop in our tracks, binoculars in hand, to marvel at them.
Let's start with the most obvious and timely of subjects: Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe. Her vote in committee this week in support of the Senate's version of the health care reform bill was literally front-page news. President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised her courage. On the flip side, liberal House Democrats complained that she was a policy hostage-taker. The best quote from the latter group belongs to California's Lynn Woolsey, who in her frustration seems to have forgotten how the Senate operates: "This is the United States of America. This is not the United States of Maine. I mean that one senator cannot hold the entire nation's health care plan hostage." (The same could be said for her fellow Democrat, Max Baucus, of course.) Somewhere in between these poles falls the semi-compliment from the Washington Post's Dana Milbank who, in comparing Snowe to football's Brett Favre, wrote that, like the Vikes' QB, Snowe "has trouble making up her mind, but she sure knows how to play ball."
Snowe is the belle of the ball this week because, in American politics, where party-line voting has been steadily increasing over the decades and cable television is equally polarized, the emergence of a rare partisan-political defector is like the sighting of a snow(e) leopard. (Yes, pun intended and no, not that Snow Leopard.) We stop in our tracks and, as a frustrated David Sirota laments, we marvel. But why?
The short and perhaps oversimplified answer is rooted in the us-v-them preoccupations of the national media. (I do not exempt myself, for the record.) Just as Joe Lieberman was, and still is, raised high in the production meetings of FOX News, so too is Snowe cited by liberals attempting to cast the health care reform in a bipartisan light. Or Bill Frist, who is a physician, which adds a further dollop of credibility to his recent admission to Time's Karen Tumulty that he would vote for reform if he were still in the Senate. Of course, it's easy for Frist to make such boasts now that he's out of the Senate; when he claims he would have helped shepherd such a measure through despite resistance from his own caucus methinks the former majority leader recalls his legislative courage and independence too favorably.
The longer answer derives from the fact that, as the two parties have geo-demographically realigned--southern Democrats and northern Republicans slowly replaced by retirement or their defeat in primaries or general elections--the party cross-over types, whether self-styled "Blue Dogs" or dismissed as "RINO's," are heading for extinction. But when politics sits tenderly balanced on the fulcrum, as median voter theorem demonstrates even a single moderate has the potential to paralyze the political process. Oddly, were there more of them collectively, any one of them would not be so consequential. And so, as the middle shrinks the few still situated near the fulcrum rise in individual importance. This is what made listening to Lieberman or Zell Miller often so insufferable to Democrats, and likewise for Republicans who long endured the complaints of Arlen Specter or Christine Todd Whitman.
And so both parties--and particularly whatever party is momentarily in the majority party, and thus in search of even the smallest patina of political cover--must engage in this ritual of high praise and salutation of the partisan defector. There are so few snow leopards left, and all of us must stop in our tracks, binoculars in hand, to marvel at them.
Quietly, Japan Is Changing Course
@ 12:00 PM
When the then-opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) was swept into power in August's re-aligning election, the storyline largely followed the rise and fall of the long-dominant Liberal Democratic Party.
While the news lasted only briefly in the mainstream media, it was clear that the political infrastructure in Japan had begun tto internalize the changes that have occured in domestic and foreign relations over the last twenty-five years.
Initial reports were that the US-Japan link would largely stay the same, with incoming Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama reaffirming that the US relationship remained the "cornerstone" of Japanese foreign policy. However, after a campaign where change from the status quo -- and it does not get much more "status quo" than 60 years of almost one party rule -- was to be the main thrust of the new government, it was clear that the cornerstone was going to have to flex.
If the US-Japan relationship was largely military focused at the end of World War II, continuing with the "Status of Forces Agreement" signed in 1960, by the 1980s a increasingly close trade relationship held the two countries together. Recent years have seen a bit of a change.
After a surge in trade from the mid eighties to the early 2000s, a big shift has occurred in the new millenium. Trade with China has rapidly outstripped any other trade partner, with China overtaking the US as Japan's biggest trading partner in 2008.
Trade with the US has taken the biggest hit, dropping from 25 percent to just 16, as has trade with European countries. At the same time, the Japanese trade advantage, while it has increased in nominal dollar terms (not adjusted for inflation), has stabilized in proportional terms. This means that while sales of Japanese export products are likely to remain strong and trade remaining a net benefit for the Japanese economy (quite reliant on trade surplus), additional markets will have to found elsewhere for major growth.
Two events have been the public face of the shift, the first being the new DPJ government's refusal to continue refueling runs in the Indian Ocean for NATO forces fighting in Afghanistan. While the U.S. has publicly downplayed any shift, pressure is also building for a fundamental re-boot of the Status of Forces Agreement that has placed two big U.S. military bases in the country for decades. While a withdrawal of US forces is unlikely in the short term, it is certain that some changes, beginning with symbolic gestures, are on the horizon.
At the same time, the East Asian Community, an anticipated economic and political arena that mixes China, India, and the ASEAN countries with Japan, Australia and New Zealand, is developing slowly but surely.
The U.S. will certainly have a seat at the table of the new economic area as a preferred and influential observer. In addition, economic integration and military cooperation with Japan will continue at a high speed. But, regional and international relationships for Japan, which have long been dominated by the specter of World War II -- whether with the US, South Korea, China or otherwise -- are beginning to take a new shape, one that reflects the changing power landscape in economic and military geopolitics.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
While the news lasted only briefly in the mainstream media, it was clear that the political infrastructure in Japan had begun tto internalize the changes that have occured in domestic and foreign relations over the last twenty-five years.
Initial reports were that the US-Japan link would largely stay the same, with incoming Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama reaffirming that the US relationship remained the "cornerstone" of Japanese foreign policy. However, after a campaign where change from the status quo -- and it does not get much more "status quo" than 60 years of almost one party rule -- was to be the main thrust of the new government, it was clear that the cornerstone was going to have to flex.
If the US-Japan relationship was largely military focused at the end of World War II, continuing with the "Status of Forces Agreement" signed in 1960, by the 1980s a increasingly close trade relationship held the two countries together. Recent years have seen a bit of a change.
After a surge in trade from the mid eighties to the early 2000s, a big shift has occurred in the new millenium. Trade with China has rapidly outstripped any other trade partner, with China overtaking the US as Japan's biggest trading partner in 2008.
Trade with the US has taken the biggest hit, dropping from 25 percent to just 16, as has trade with European countries. At the same time, the Japanese trade advantage, while it has increased in nominal dollar terms (not adjusted for inflation), has stabilized in proportional terms. This means that while sales of Japanese export products are likely to remain strong and trade remaining a net benefit for the Japanese economy (quite reliant on trade surplus), additional markets will have to found elsewhere for major growth.
Two events have been the public face of the shift, the first being the new DPJ government's refusal to continue refueling runs in the Indian Ocean for NATO forces fighting in Afghanistan. While the U.S. has publicly downplayed any shift, pressure is also building for a fundamental re-boot of the Status of Forces Agreement that has placed two big U.S. military bases in the country for decades. While a withdrawal of US forces is unlikely in the short term, it is certain that some changes, beginning with symbolic gestures, are on the horizon.At the same time, the East Asian Community, an anticipated economic and political arena that mixes China, India, and the ASEAN countries with Japan, Australia and New Zealand, is developing slowly but surely.
The U.S. will certainly have a seat at the table of the new economic area as a preferred and influential observer. In addition, economic integration and military cooperation with Japan will continue at a high speed. But, regional and international relationships for Japan, which have long been dominated by the specter of World War II -- whether with the US, South Korea, China or otherwise -- are beginning to take a new shape, one that reflects the changing power landscape in economic and military geopolitics.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
10.15.2009
In Defense of Rush Limbaugh
@ 10:22 AM
No, the headline is not sarcastic. No, I do not particularly care for the guy. Yes, Rush has said all other various and sundry sorts of racially inflammatory things.
But there's pretty compelling evidence a couple of particularly inflammatory quotes that have been attributed to Limbaugh on CNN and at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are things he simply never said. There's no audio file, there's no YouTube, there's no transcript -- there's no sourcing of any kind to speak of, and given that Rush is one of the most listened-to and tape-recorded people in the history of the world, you'd certainly think that there would be. There's not even some kind of half-assed backstory -- "Oh, he said these things off the record at a fundraiser for Alexander Haig" -- or anything like that. The quotes appear, in other words, to have been completely made up.
Rush has handled the situation pretty well, not drawing undue attention to the quotes, but making the commonsensical argument that if he had said, for instance, words to the effect that James Earl Ray (Martin Luther King's assassin) was a hero, then surely there would have been a Don-Imus-to-the-nth-power-sized blowup long before now. I'm actually a little surprised that the conservative blogs haven't made a bigger deal of this -- some of them, I suppose, are so used to reflexively alleging irresponsible behavior by the media that they've sort of been led off the scent of a case where it actually seems to have occurred. And I'm disappointed that the "liberal" media and meta-media sites have in fact not lifted a finger to verify the veracity of the quotes, nor to call out those who repeated them without checking their facts first.
But there's pretty compelling evidence a couple of particularly inflammatory quotes that have been attributed to Limbaugh on CNN and at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are things he simply never said. There's no audio file, there's no YouTube, there's no transcript -- there's no sourcing of any kind to speak of, and given that Rush is one of the most listened-to and tape-recorded people in the history of the world, you'd certainly think that there would be. There's not even some kind of half-assed backstory -- "Oh, he said these things off the record at a fundraiser for Alexander Haig" -- or anything like that. The quotes appear, in other words, to have been completely made up.
Rush has handled the situation pretty well, not drawing undue attention to the quotes, but making the commonsensical argument that if he had said, for instance, words to the effect that James Earl Ray (Martin Luther King's assassin) was a hero, then surely there would have been a Don-Imus-to-the-nth-power-sized blowup long before now. I'm actually a little surprised that the conservative blogs haven't made a bigger deal of this -- some of them, I suppose, are so used to reflexively alleging irresponsible behavior by the media that they've sort of been led off the scent of a case where it actually seems to have occurred. And I'm disappointed that the "liberal" media and meta-media sites have in fact not lifted a finger to verify the veracity of the quotes, nor to call out those who repeated them without checking their facts first.
Lieberman Flirting with Political Suicide
@ 1:57 AM
Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is making the rounds telling anyone and everyone that he's opposed to the Finance Committee's health care bill, and indeed probably the entire concept of health care reform. Whatever Lieberman's motivation -- a desire for attention, a desire to protect an insurance industry that has a large presence in his state -- he would seem to be putting his political future at risk by doing so.
Lieberman's approval rating cratered among Democrats in mid-2006, dropping from 60 in May of that year to 38 in August after he lost to Ned Lamont and the U.S. Senate primary and then announced he would seek a re-match as an independent. Although Lieberman's numbers improved among Republicans and held roughly steady among independents over this period, the net effect was a deterioration in his approval rating from the low 60's to the low-to-mid 50's.
Lieberman's numbers held steady in that position for some time, until they dropped significantly further from March to July 2008, probably coinciding with the period when he began to routinely attack then-candidate Barack Obama. (Lieberman had endorsed John McCain in December 2007 in advance of the Republican primaries, but it perhaps hadn't dawned on Connecticut Democrats that he would continue to vocally support McCain during the general election.) During this period, his approval ratings dropped another 15-20 points among Democrats, and 5-10 points among independents -- while ironically not really improving any among Republicans. His overall performance rating bottomed out at 38 percent in December.
Since then, Lieberman's standing has been somewhat rehabilitated, primarily because of improvement among Democrats, with whom his approval rating has climbed back up from the low 20's into the mid-30's. It appears that Lieberman's backing for the stimulus package, rather than the afterglow of Barack Obama's election or the Democrats' decision to allow him to remain in their caucus, was the cause, as the bounce among Democrats occurred between February and March, during which time the stimulus vote occurred.
Generally speaking, this would suggest that Lieberman has more to lose among Democrats than he has to gain among Republicans by bucking his former party, which is only natural since Democrats outnumber Republicans in Connecticut by a 39-32 margin.
Were he to vote against the health care package, or vote to filibuster it, this would just about guarantee that he wouldn't be the Democratic nominee in 2012 would be vigorously and angrily opposed by everyone from the top levels of the Democratic establishment to the netroots. Republicans would then have to decide whether to field a candidate on their own or let Lieberman duke it out with the Democratic nominee, a decision that might depend on whether popular governor Jodi Rell were interested in that seat. Were Lieberman opposed by a credible Democrat on the left as well as Rell on the right, my guess is that he's struggle to emerge with more than 15-20 percent of the vote.
The absence of a strong Republican challenger would make life somewhat easier for him, but a February poll found him losing 58-30 (!) to Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in a matchup with no Republican candidate.
Although Lieberman will probably face some sort of challenge from his left no matter what, his best chance to remain in office, by far, would seem to be to continue to make nice with the Democratic establishment, to the extent that he deterred a strong challenger like Blumenthal from running against him. That will require him to vote with the Democrats on health care. Indeed, I don't see how Lieberman has any leverage to speak of, although who's to say whether he's looking at this from anything resembling a rational perspective.
Connecticut voters favor the health care package by a 47-42 plurality, according to a Quinnipiac poll conducted in September, with support dividing itself sharply along party lines and independents splitting their preferences evenly. Connecticutians also support the public option, which Lieberman is opposed to, by a more robust 64-30 majority, according to the same poll.
Lieberman's approval rating cratered among Democrats in mid-2006, dropping from 60 in May of that year to 38 in August after he lost to Ned Lamont and the U.S. Senate primary and then announced he would seek a re-match as an independent. Although Lieberman's numbers improved among Republicans and held roughly steady among independents over this period, the net effect was a deterioration in his approval rating from the low 60's to the low-to-mid 50's.
Lieberman's numbers held steady in that position for some time, until they dropped significantly further from March to July 2008, probably coinciding with the period when he began to routinely attack then-candidate Barack Obama. (Lieberman had endorsed John McCain in December 2007 in advance of the Republican primaries, but it perhaps hadn't dawned on Connecticut Democrats that he would continue to vocally support McCain during the general election.) During this period, his approval ratings dropped another 15-20 points among Democrats, and 5-10 points among independents -- while ironically not really improving any among Republicans. His overall performance rating bottomed out at 38 percent in December.
Since then, Lieberman's standing has been somewhat rehabilitated, primarily because of improvement among Democrats, with whom his approval rating has climbed back up from the low 20's into the mid-30's. It appears that Lieberman's backing for the stimulus package, rather than the afterglow of Barack Obama's election or the Democrats' decision to allow him to remain in their caucus, was the cause, as the bounce among Democrats occurred between February and March, during which time the stimulus vote occurred.
Generally speaking, this would suggest that Lieberman has more to lose among Democrats than he has to gain among Republicans by bucking his former party, which is only natural since Democrats outnumber Republicans in Connecticut by a 39-32 margin.
Were he to vote against the health care package, or vote to filibuster it, this would just about guarantee that he wouldn't be the Democratic nominee in 2012 would be vigorously and angrily opposed by everyone from the top levels of the Democratic establishment to the netroots. Republicans would then have to decide whether to field a candidate on their own or let Lieberman duke it out with the Democratic nominee, a decision that might depend on whether popular governor Jodi Rell were interested in that seat. Were Lieberman opposed by a credible Democrat on the left as well as Rell on the right, my guess is that he's struggle to emerge with more than 15-20 percent of the vote.
The absence of a strong Republican challenger would make life somewhat easier for him, but a February poll found him losing 58-30 (!) to Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in a matchup with no Republican candidate.
Although Lieberman will probably face some sort of challenge from his left no matter what, his best chance to remain in office, by far, would seem to be to continue to make nice with the Democratic establishment, to the extent that he deterred a strong challenger like Blumenthal from running against him. That will require him to vote with the Democrats on health care. Indeed, I don't see how Lieberman has any leverage to speak of, although who's to say whether he's looking at this from anything resembling a rational perspective.
Connecticut voters favor the health care package by a 47-42 plurality, according to a Quinnipiac poll conducted in September, with support dividing itself sharply along party lines and independents splitting their preferences evenly. Connecticutians also support the public option, which Lieberman is opposed to, by a more robust 64-30 majority, according to the same poll.
10.14.2009
The Hiring Activity Index Says: Things are Getting Better for Small Businesses
@ 3:41 PM
A colleague of mine named Eric Loken has a company called Criteria Corp. that does employment testing. Eric is a psychometrician, and as a byproduct of their testing data, he and his colleague Josh Millet constructed something called the Hiring Activity Index, which is, in Millet's words, "a measure of how actively our [Criteria Corp's] customers (made up mostly of SMBs of between 10 and 500 employees) are administering pre-employment tests through our system (and presumably, therefore, hiring) . . . the HAI is the percentage of our customers who are actively hiring (administering tests) in a given month."
A few months ago I posted a report showing the Hiring Activity Index bouncing back in early 2009, a finding that Millet interpreted as a sign that the economic climate for small business was improving.
Recently Loken posted this update:
Loken writes:
P.S. After I posted on this earlier, Millet responded to some potential criticisms of his measure:
A few months ago I posted a report showing the Hiring Activity Index bouncing back in early 2009, a finding that Millet interpreted as a sign that the economic climate for small business was improving.
Recently Loken posted this update:
Loken writes:
We've plotted the initial unemployment claims data (weekly numbers, smoothed over a month) with the monthly Criteria Corp Hiring Activity Index. The trends look similar, and indeed they correlate very well. The correlation is -.79, showing excellent correspondence between the rise and fall of the jobs data and the HIA. Furthermore, when predicting the jobless claims on the basis of the concurrent HAI and the HAI from the two previous months – using a lagged regression model - the multiple R is .93 (Adjusted R2 = .85).
The point is that real time utilization data for an employee assessment service with a modest client base of small and medium sized businesses can provide very good prediction of national trends. We see this as similar to reports earlier this year that Google searches for flu related topics mapped on closely to CDC data for the spread of influenza. That was also an example where a real-time indirect indicator predicted definitive data that would be available later.
P.S. After I posted on this earlier, Millet responded to some potential criticisms of his measure:
There were some interesting comments and questions about the HAI and its potential utility as a leading economic indicator. We [Criteria Corp.] do sell our software on a subscription basis, and someone pointed out that if non-active subscribers didn't renew because of the downturn, this could artifically inflate the HAI because it is based on the percentage of our customer base that is actively doing pre-employment testing in a given month. This is a legitimate point, but I [Millet] will say that while low levels of use are a reason that customers sometimes do not renew, we haven't see non-renewal rates climb much since November, when the HAI dropped by 10 points. It was also suggested that higher numbers of job-seekers may result in applicants for positions that may not have been desirable previously--this is theoretically possible, but I don't see much evidence for it. What is most certainly true is that companies are getting far more applicants per open positon, as I previously blogged about here. However, since the HAI is based on the percentage of companies testing in a month, not the overall volume of tests, this shouldn't influence the HAI unduly, and wouldn't in any case explain the plunge in November and (partial) rebound in February.
Gun Show Loopholes Gone Wild
@ 1:01 PM
To preempt the tide of angry comments and emails, let me clarify that, despite the ambiguity of the leading clause, I support Second Amendment rights. But one of the favorite arguments used by staunch advocates of the Second Amendment is some variant of the "we don't need more guns laws, we just need to enforce the current laws." Ya think? The recent undercover operation conducted by New York City blows a giant hole in the idea that we're enforcing the current laws.
Commissioned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the sting operation used hidden cameras to expose the sale of guns by private dealers--who are exempted by the so-called "gun show loophole"--to confederates who presented themselves as people who would not be able to pass a background checks. They have a site where you can view the above video, along with raw footage of the transactions and the commissions' final report. Here's an excerpt from the AP's write-up:
Gun sellers in Tennessee were none too pleased with the report. "[Bloomberg] needs to keep his business in New York and let Tennessee deal with Tennessee," said [Stephanie] Rhodes, a Smithville resident who attended a gun show on Sunday in Franklin. Rhodes and her friend Rick Foster, who purchased a rifle at the show, said they've been going to gun shows for years and believe most dealers conduct background checks, or at least ask if someone is a felon before selling him or her a gun.
Most conduct background checks? They at least ask if you are a felon? That's comforting. It's truly amazing how much disconnect there is in post-9/11 America between guns and the monitoring of everything other security-related behavior. I flew two weeks ago and forgot to swap my regular-sized toothpaste for the travel size and had to surrender it at the security gate, of course. But if i just tell a private gun dealer that I'm not a felon--c'mon, dude, do I look like a felon?--I can get myself a semiautomatic.
Of course, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, sure, but they're killing a lot more people in red states than blue states. Holding DC aside, the ten states with the lowest per-capital gun death rates all voted for Barack Obama, and seven of the ten high highest voted for John McCain.
Commissioned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the sting operation used hidden cameras to expose the sale of guns by private dealers--who are exempted by the so-called "gun show loophole"--to confederates who presented themselves as people who would not be able to pass a background checks. They have a site where you can view the above video, along with raw footage of the transactions and the commissions' final report. Here's an excerpt from the AP's write-up:
Nine states, including New York, have passed laws to close the loophole, requiring background checks on at least all handgun purchases at gun shows. Bloomberg has long campaigned for Congress to close it, and for states to do it on their own if the federal government does not.The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms released a terse, noncommittal statement, but may take action in response to the report's release. The ATF, despite seeing its annual budget nearly double during the past decade, from just over a half billion to more than a billion, may simply be overwhelmed: There are thousands of gun shows across the country every year.
Even in states that haven't closed the loophole, federal law bars "occasional sellers" from selling guns to people they have reason to believe would fail background checks.
This is where the Bloomberg operation says 19 out of 30 sellers broke the law during the investigation, in which undercover investigators posing as buyers wore tiny cameras concealed in baseball hats and purses and audio recorders hidden in wristwatches.
In each purchase, the investigator showed interest in buying a gun, agreed on a price and then indicated that he probably could not pass a background check. Most sellers allowed the purchases anyway, responding in some cases by saying, "I couldn't pass one either," or "I don't care," according to the videos.
Two assault rifles and 20 semiautomatic handguns were bought this way, the report said.
"What you just saw was willful disregard of the law, and it happened again and again and again," Bloomberg said, after showing several videos of those sales.
The 11 dealers who refused sales showed they knew the law.
"Once you say that, I'm kind of obligated not to," said one seller on video. "I think that's what the rules are."
Gun sellers in Tennessee were none too pleased with the report. "[Bloomberg] needs to keep his business in New York and let Tennessee deal with Tennessee," said [Stephanie] Rhodes, a Smithville resident who attended a gun show on Sunday in Franklin. Rhodes and her friend Rick Foster, who purchased a rifle at the show, said they've been going to gun shows for years and believe most dealers conduct background checks, or at least ask if someone is a felon before selling him or her a gun.
Most conduct background checks? They at least ask if you are a felon? That's comforting. It's truly amazing how much disconnect there is in post-9/11 America between guns and the monitoring of everything other security-related behavior. I flew two weeks ago and forgot to swap my regular-sized toothpaste for the travel size and had to surrender it at the security gate, of course. But if i just tell a private gun dealer that I'm not a felon--c'mon, dude, do I look like a felon?--I can get myself a semiautomatic.
Of course, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, sure, but they're killing a lot more people in red states than blue states. Holding DC aside, the ten states with the lowest per-capital gun death rates all voted for Barack Obama, and seven of the ten high highest voted for John McCain.
Can Offshore Drilling Save the Climate Bill?
@ 6:43 AM
The timing is a bit odd, considering that the full Senate is finally about to take up the Democrats' health care bill. But a somewhat surprising editorial in this Sunday's New York Times by Sens. John Kerry and Lindsay Graham has given hope to some very smart climate-policy watchers that a substantive climate bill may indeed pass the Senate this year.
When last we checked in on the climate bill three months ago, after it had narrowly escaped the House, we concluded that although there are theoretically as many as 66 votes in play in the Senate, in practice it would struggle to get more than about 52-55 votes given the current political environment. In broad strokes, there are probably four factors that govern the Senate's appetite to pass a climate bill: the overall strength of the economy, the price of fossil fuels (higher is more favorable), Presidential popularity, and recent temperatures and weather conditions. Since July, the economy has improved, but not yet in a way that substantially benefits Main Street; Obama's approval rating has fallen; gas prices have held roughly steady, and we did not have a particularly warm or hurricane-y summer. Thus, the fundamentals have not really improved.
But the bill that Kerry and Graham are promoting is a different bill than the Waxman-Markey bill that the House approved. Although not yet fully formed, it appears to include support for both offshore drilling and nuclear energy, which the Waxman bill did not. It is really quite similar, actually, to the "all-of-the-above" approach advanced by John McCain on the campaign trail last year.
Let's focus on the first of those two things: offshore drilling. How many additional votes might it buy the Democrats? There are 23 U.S. states with at least some ocean coastline; let's briefly consider the political implications of expanded drilling in each of them:
Southern Atlantic Coast
Florida. Florida's coastline is both highly populated and highly valuable, and so its residents have generally been a little more trepidatious about offshore drilling than those in neighboring states. It's also a fairly strongly pro-environmental state, with its own cap-and-trade program in place, and which has ample reason to be concerned about global warming because of the potential for increased hurricane activity and eventually rising coastlines. In other words, Florida has better reasons to support the climate bill than the offshore drilling provisions. But they probably can't hurt with Republican caretaker George LeMeiux -- already a plausible 'yes' vote on climate -- depending on what signal he gets from Charlie Crist.
Georgia. Georgia has a relatively scant 100 miles of coastline, but its Congressmen have been strongly in favor of offshore drilling initiatives. Still, it's two senators are rather conservative, and it would take a lot to sway them. Johnny Isakson, who is somewhat more moderate than colleague Saxby Chambliss, is the more likely of the two to be won over.
South Carolina. The Magnolia State is very much in favor of drilling and indeed this may have been what led Lindsay Graham to lend his support to Kerry's bill. On the other hand, Jim DeMint is one of the most conservative members of the Senate and can't be expected to support the bill no matter what.
North Carolina. North Carolina has historically been less gung-ho about offshore drilling than its neighbors, as it has a somewhat environmentally sensitive coastline. But governor Bev Perdue recently commissioned a study to consider the impact of drilling off her state's coast, suggesting that attitudes might be changing. North Carolina is not also not a terribly carbon-intensive state, as it has more of a service sector economy. Still, while the conditions are theoretically right to get two votes from North Carolina, Richard Burr is running for re-election in a state where Barack Obama has become fairly unpopular, and it would take a lot for him to do anything to help the President.
Virginia. Virginia has been pretty enthusiastic about offshore drilling in the past, but since Jim Webb and Mark Warner were likely votes for the climate bill in the first place, this won't give the Democrats much additional leverage.
Mid-Atlantic
Maryland. No gains to be had here since Barb Mikulski and Ben Cardin are liberals who will support the climate bill no matter what.
Delaware. Our model likewise sees Tom Carper and Ted Kaufman as highly likely to vote for the climate bill, so providing for drilling off Delaware's 28 miles of coastline wouldn't make much difference.
New Jersey. Would likely oppose drilling efforts since it depends on its coastline for tourism revenues; Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez are sure votes for the climate bill, besides.
New York. They ain't about to start drilling off Long Island.
New England
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts. Protective enough of the property values along their coastlines that they've been reluctant to allow wind farms, let alone offshore oil platforms. In addition, exploratory efforts in these regions have generally not uncovered potentially oil-rich areas. But this is largely academic since all six senators from these states should be reliable votes on the climate bill anyway.
New Hampshire. With just 13 miles of coastline, it's not going to matter one way or another, although Judd Gregg remains an important swing vote on climate.
Maine. This one is potentially more interesting, since Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are such critical swing votes on climate, but Maine relies on its coastline for tourism and fishing, which along with logging form the backbone of its economy. In addition, Collins and Snowe have opposed offshore drilling initiatives in the past. Snowe and Collins will choose to support or oppose the bill based on criteria other than offshore drilling.
Gulf Coast
Mississippi. Although offshore drilling is already allowed off the coast of Mississippi and the other states of the Gulf Coast, Governor Haley Barbour and Sen. Roger Wicker have generally been quite outspoken about wanting to expand drilling further, with Wicker having authored a bill to that effect last August. He and Thad Cochran are probably too conservative to have their votes swayed on this basis alone, but they're worth watching.
Alabama. As in Mississippi, most of Alabama's coastline is already open to offshore drilling, although a small additional slice could be opened if the existing ban were lifted. Still, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby are even more conservative than their colleagues from Mississippi, and are unlikely to be swayed to support the climate bill.
Louisiana. Oil wells already dot the entirety of Lousiana's coastline, so there might not be much direct benefit to the state, but the state could benefit indirectly via its refining industry, and Governor Bobby Jindal recently drafted a letter to the Department of the Interior supporting expanded offshore drilling efforts. David Vitter almost certainly wouldn't come on board no matter what, but the vote to watch here is Mary Landrieu, one of the more conservative and parochial Democrats who might be looking for a bargain.
Texas. Governor Rick Perry has staked out an extremely strong stance against the climate bill, which is an impossible sell in this carbon-loving state. Kay Bailey Hutchison is not going to risk a yes vote when she's about to face off against Perry in a Republican primary, nor will a member of the Republican leadership like John Cornyn lend his support.
Pacific Coast
California, Oregon, Washington. Although the oil industry has some onshore presence in California, these pro-environment states have generally had no interest in further offshore exploration, and all six senators from the region are fairly liberal Democrats who would have voted for the Waxman bill as is.
Alaska and Hawaii
Alaska. Alaska has a complicated relationship with energy and the environment, but the state's residents are strongly supportive of expanded drilling programs both offshore and in ANWR -- no surprise, since by law each resident is entitled to a share of the profits from such efforts. Expanded drilling could all but assure the vote of Mark Begich, and put Lisa Murkowski very much into play.
Hawaii. I've never heard of any proposal to drill off Hawaii, and since Sens. Akaka and Inoyue are going to vote for the climate bill anyway, it wouldn't really make any difference politically.
...So what does this get the Democrats? It gets them Linsday Graham's vote, and possibly Lisa Murkowski's. It takes Mark Begich from a leaner to a likely yes. It might encourage Mary Landrieu, and possibly George LeMieux of Florida, to look more sympathetically at the bill. Then there are a whole host of more remote possibilities: Isakson of Georgia, and perhaps Cochran and Wicker of Mississippi or Burr of North Carolina; none of those votes are likely, but they become more plausible with offshore drilling in place. Overall, it seems to be worth something like 2-4 votes at the margin.
That would give the Kerry-Graham bill a fighting chance, especially if an additional vote or two -- possibly John McCain's -- can also be picked up as a result of the nuclear energy compromise. Of course, that's assuming that no liberals would rebel against the new provisions, but the opposition to both offshore drilling and nuclear energy seems to be fairly soft in the liberal caucus. I would not place money on the climate bill passing this year, but the odds would seem to be a lot better with the drilling compromise in place.
When last we checked in on the climate bill three months ago, after it had narrowly escaped the House, we concluded that although there are theoretically as many as 66 votes in play in the Senate, in practice it would struggle to get more than about 52-55 votes given the current political environment. In broad strokes, there are probably four factors that govern the Senate's appetite to pass a climate bill: the overall strength of the economy, the price of fossil fuels (higher is more favorable), Presidential popularity, and recent temperatures and weather conditions. Since July, the economy has improved, but not yet in a way that substantially benefits Main Street; Obama's approval rating has fallen; gas prices have held roughly steady, and we did not have a particularly warm or hurricane-y summer. Thus, the fundamentals have not really improved.
But the bill that Kerry and Graham are promoting is a different bill than the Waxman-Markey bill that the House approved. Although not yet fully formed, it appears to include support for both offshore drilling and nuclear energy, which the Waxman bill did not. It is really quite similar, actually, to the "all-of-the-above" approach advanced by John McCain on the campaign trail last year.
Let's focus on the first of those two things: offshore drilling. How many additional votes might it buy the Democrats? There are 23 U.S. states with at least some ocean coastline; let's briefly consider the political implications of expanded drilling in each of them:
Southern Atlantic Coast
Florida. Florida's coastline is both highly populated and highly valuable, and so its residents have generally been a little more trepidatious about offshore drilling than those in neighboring states. It's also a fairly strongly pro-environmental state, with its own cap-and-trade program in place, and which has ample reason to be concerned about global warming because of the potential for increased hurricane activity and eventually rising coastlines. In other words, Florida has better reasons to support the climate bill than the offshore drilling provisions. But they probably can't hurt with Republican caretaker George LeMeiux -- already a plausible 'yes' vote on climate -- depending on what signal he gets from Charlie Crist.
Georgia. Georgia has a relatively scant 100 miles of coastline, but its Congressmen have been strongly in favor of offshore drilling initiatives. Still, it's two senators are rather conservative, and it would take a lot to sway them. Johnny Isakson, who is somewhat more moderate than colleague Saxby Chambliss, is the more likely of the two to be won over.
South Carolina. The Magnolia State is very much in favor of drilling and indeed this may have been what led Lindsay Graham to lend his support to Kerry's bill. On the other hand, Jim DeMint is one of the most conservative members of the Senate and can't be expected to support the bill no matter what.
North Carolina. North Carolina has historically been less gung-ho about offshore drilling than its neighbors, as it has a somewhat environmentally sensitive coastline. But governor Bev Perdue recently commissioned a study to consider the impact of drilling off her state's coast, suggesting that attitudes might be changing. North Carolina is not also not a terribly carbon-intensive state, as it has more of a service sector economy. Still, while the conditions are theoretically right to get two votes from North Carolina, Richard Burr is running for re-election in a state where Barack Obama has become fairly unpopular, and it would take a lot for him to do anything to help the President.
Virginia. Virginia has been pretty enthusiastic about offshore drilling in the past, but since Jim Webb and Mark Warner were likely votes for the climate bill in the first place, this won't give the Democrats much additional leverage.
Mid-Atlantic
Maryland. No gains to be had here since Barb Mikulski and Ben Cardin are liberals who will support the climate bill no matter what.
Delaware. Our model likewise sees Tom Carper and Ted Kaufman as highly likely to vote for the climate bill, so providing for drilling off Delaware's 28 miles of coastline wouldn't make much difference.
New Jersey. Would likely oppose drilling efforts since it depends on its coastline for tourism revenues; Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez are sure votes for the climate bill, besides.
New York. They ain't about to start drilling off Long Island.
New England
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts. Protective enough of the property values along their coastlines that they've been reluctant to allow wind farms, let alone offshore oil platforms. In addition, exploratory efforts in these regions have generally not uncovered potentially oil-rich areas. But this is largely academic since all six senators from these states should be reliable votes on the climate bill anyway.
New Hampshire. With just 13 miles of coastline, it's not going to matter one way or another, although Judd Gregg remains an important swing vote on climate.
Maine. This one is potentially more interesting, since Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are such critical swing votes on climate, but Maine relies on its coastline for tourism and fishing, which along with logging form the backbone of its economy. In addition, Collins and Snowe have opposed offshore drilling initiatives in the past. Snowe and Collins will choose to support or oppose the bill based on criteria other than offshore drilling.
Gulf Coast
Mississippi. Although offshore drilling is already allowed off the coast of Mississippi and the other states of the Gulf Coast, Governor Haley Barbour and Sen. Roger Wicker have generally been quite outspoken about wanting to expand drilling further, with Wicker having authored a bill to that effect last August. He and Thad Cochran are probably too conservative to have their votes swayed on this basis alone, but they're worth watching.
Alabama. As in Mississippi, most of Alabama's coastline is already open to offshore drilling, although a small additional slice could be opened if the existing ban were lifted. Still, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby are even more conservative than their colleagues from Mississippi, and are unlikely to be swayed to support the climate bill.
Louisiana. Oil wells already dot the entirety of Lousiana's coastline, so there might not be much direct benefit to the state, but the state could benefit indirectly via its refining industry, and Governor Bobby Jindal recently drafted a letter to the Department of the Interior supporting expanded offshore drilling efforts. David Vitter almost certainly wouldn't come on board no matter what, but the vote to watch here is Mary Landrieu, one of the more conservative and parochial Democrats who might be looking for a bargain.
Texas. Governor Rick Perry has staked out an extremely strong stance against the climate bill, which is an impossible sell in this carbon-loving state. Kay Bailey Hutchison is not going to risk a yes vote when she's about to face off against Perry in a Republican primary, nor will a member of the Republican leadership like John Cornyn lend his support.
Pacific Coast
California, Oregon, Washington. Although the oil industry has some onshore presence in California, these pro-environment states have generally had no interest in further offshore exploration, and all six senators from the region are fairly liberal Democrats who would have voted for the Waxman bill as is.
Alaska and Hawaii
Alaska. Alaska has a complicated relationship with energy and the environment, but the state's residents are strongly supportive of expanded drilling programs both offshore and in ANWR -- no surprise, since by law each resident is entitled to a share of the profits from such efforts. Expanded drilling could all but assure the vote of Mark Begich, and put Lisa Murkowski very much into play.
Hawaii. I've never heard of any proposal to drill off Hawaii, and since Sens. Akaka and Inoyue are going to vote for the climate bill anyway, it wouldn't really make any difference politically.
...So what does this get the Democrats? It gets them Linsday Graham's vote, and possibly Lisa Murkowski's. It takes Mark Begich from a leaner to a likely yes. It might encourage Mary Landrieu, and possibly George LeMieux of Florida, to look more sympathetically at the bill. Then there are a whole host of more remote possibilities: Isakson of Georgia, and perhaps Cochran and Wicker of Mississippi or Burr of North Carolina; none of those votes are likely, but they become more plausible with offshore drilling in place. Overall, it seems to be worth something like 2-4 votes at the margin.
That would give the Kerry-Graham bill a fighting chance, especially if an additional vote or two -- possibly John McCain's -- can also be picked up as a result of the nuclear energy compromise. Of course, that's assuming that no liberals would rebel against the new provisions, but the opposition to both offshore drilling and nuclear energy seems to be fairly soft in the liberal caucus. I would not place money on the climate bill passing this year, but the odds would seem to be a lot better with the drilling compromise in place.
10.13.2009
The Price of Party Unity
@ 3:45 PM
Matt Yglesias is impressed that Republicans threatened to block Olympia Snowe's ascension to the top minority post on the Senate Commerce Committee were she to vote for Max Baucus's health care bill in committee today (which, it turns out, she did).
1. Lincoln Chafee (RI) - lost to Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006
2. Jim Jefforts (VT) -- began to caucus with Democrats on 6/6/2001. Retired in 2008.
3. Arlen Specter (PA) -- switched affiliation to Democratic Party on 4/29/2009.
4. Olympia Snowe (ME) -- voted with Democrats on stimulus; likely to do so on health care and climate bill. Won re-election in 2004.
5. Susan Collins (ME) -- voted with Democrats on stimulus; probably will not do so on health care. Won re-election in 2002 and 2008.
6. John McCain (AZ) -- has since become more conservative. Lost Presidential election in 2008.
7. Gordon Smith (OR) -- lost to Jeff Merkley in 2008.
8. Peter Fitzgerald (IL) -- retired in 2004; seat won by Barack Obama.
9. John Warner (VA) -- retired in 2008; seat won by Mark Warner.
10. Thad Cochran (MS) -- has generally been a loyal Republican vote. Won re-election in 2002 and 2008.
So, to summarize, that's two defections (Jeffords and Specter), two losses (Chafee and Smith), two retirements (Warner and Fitzgerald), two Senators that the party can pretty much no longer rely upon (Snowe and Collins), and finally, two who have indeed become more conservative and remained loyal to their party (McCain and Cochran). That's a .200 batting average, which isn't good in baseball and isn't any better in the Senate.
Again, I don't necessarily mean to suggest that the Republicans have done anything strategically wrong. They had a pretty good run during the first 5 1/2 years or so of George W. Bush's term, steering the country in a substantially conservative direction.
But to suggest that party discipline is a mere matter of cracking the whip a little harder is an incomplete explanation. Certainly, there is an art to vote-whipping -- one which, for instance, Nancy Pelosi understands a lot better than Harry Reid. But also, a lot of it is a question of what long-term price you're willing to pay for short-term gains. And a lot of it is also circumstantial: the smaller your conference and the less ideologically diverse, the easier that loyalty tends to be. If the only two Republican senators were Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, well then, by golly, they'd be really, really, really disciplined. They'd also be completely powerless to stop the 98 Democrats.
It’s also worth being clear on this: The Republicans do this the right way. The Senate Republican caucus is organized, like the House caucuses of both parties, like a partisan political organization whose objective is to advance the shared policy objectives of the party. The Senate Democratic caucus, by contrast, is organized like a fun country club trying to recruit members. Join Team Democrat and Vote However You Want Without Consequence! But it’s no way to get things done.I wouldn't dispute that in broad strokes the Republicans have run a tighter ship than the Democrats, particularly in the Senate. But, the ship has also spring a lot of leaks. Consider the fate of the 10 most liberal Republican senators as of the start of George W. Bush's first term:
1. Lincoln Chafee (RI) - lost to Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006
2. Jim Jefforts (VT) -- began to caucus with Democrats on 6/6/2001. Retired in 2008.
3. Arlen Specter (PA) -- switched affiliation to Democratic Party on 4/29/2009.
4. Olympia Snowe (ME) -- voted with Democrats on stimulus; likely to do so on health care and climate bill. Won re-election in 2004.
5. Susan Collins (ME) -- voted with Democrats on stimulus; probably will not do so on health care. Won re-election in 2002 and 2008.
6. John McCain (AZ) -- has since become more conservative. Lost Presidential election in 2008.
7. Gordon Smith (OR) -- lost to Jeff Merkley in 2008.
8. Peter Fitzgerald (IL) -- retired in 2004; seat won by Barack Obama.
9. John Warner (VA) -- retired in 2008; seat won by Mark Warner.
10. Thad Cochran (MS) -- has generally been a loyal Republican vote. Won re-election in 2002 and 2008.
So, to summarize, that's two defections (Jeffords and Specter), two losses (Chafee and Smith), two retirements (Warner and Fitzgerald), two Senators that the party can pretty much no longer rely upon (Snowe and Collins), and finally, two who have indeed become more conservative and remained loyal to their party (McCain and Cochran). That's a .200 batting average, which isn't good in baseball and isn't any better in the Senate.
Again, I don't necessarily mean to suggest that the Republicans have done anything strategically wrong. They had a pretty good run during the first 5 1/2 years or so of George W. Bush's term, steering the country in a substantially conservative direction.
But to suggest that party discipline is a mere matter of cracking the whip a little harder is an incomplete explanation. Certainly, there is an art to vote-whipping -- one which, for instance, Nancy Pelosi understands a lot better than Harry Reid. But also, a lot of it is a question of what long-term price you're willing to pay for short-term gains. And a lot of it is also circumstantial: the smaller your conference and the less ideologically diverse, the easier that loyalty tends to be. If the only two Republican senators were Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, well then, by golly, they'd be really, really, really disciplined. They'd also be completely powerless to stop the 98 Democrats.
Honey, Does This Governor Make Me Look Fat?
@ 7:30 AM
New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, who has waged a fairly effective war on his main rival Chris Christie -- played out every time I turn on the TV here in Brooklyn, New York -- seems to have adopted an insightful new line of attack: pointing out to the voters that Christie is fat.
This, insofar is it goes, is true: Chris Christie is a large man. And one thing that's certainly true of Americans is that they don't elect very many fat governors. Running through pictures of the 50 sitting governors, I come up with only about 10 (20%) who are distinctly overweight, and only 3 (6%) -- Haley Barbour, Bill Richardson, and Sonny Perdue -- who are clearly obese. This compares with percentages on the order of 65 percent and 30 percent for the U.S. adult population. The skinny on the numbers after the jump.
Bob Riley (AL) -- within the realm of average
Sean Parnell (AK) -- fit
Jan Brewer (AZ) -- pretty normal
Mike Beebe (AR) -- unexceptional
Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA) -- ripped
Bill Ritter (CO) -- moderately overweight
Jodi Rell (CT) -- roughly average
Jack Markell (DE) -- thin
Charlie Crist (FL) -- in self-assuredly fine shape
Sonny Perdue (GA) -- pudgy
Linda Lingle (HI) -- fairly thin
Butch Otter (ID) -- skinny
Pat Quinn (IL) -- paunchy
Mitch Daniels (IN) -- slight
Chet Culver (IA) -- squarish
Mark Parkinson (KS) -- on the verge of underweight
Steve Beshear (KY) -- thin, though not this thin
Bobby Jindal (LA) -- skinny, though not this skinny
John Baldacci (ME) -- trim
Martin O'Malley (MD) -- rockin' some biceps
Deval Patrick (MA) -- varies from photo to photo, but about average
Jennifer Granholm (MI) -- former swimsuit model
Tim Pawelenty (MN) -- thin, mulletted
Haley Barbour (MS) -- the opposite of skinny
Jay Nixon (MO) -- standard
Brian Schweitzer (MT) -- full-bodied
Dave Heineman (NE) -- spindly
John Lynch (NH) -- lanky
Jon Corzine (NJ) -- not like that Chris Christie fellow, thank goodness
Bill Richardson (NM) -- fat; possibly getting fatter
David Paterson (NY) -- weight, days in office are limited
Bev Perdue (NC) -- medium
John Hoeven (ND) -- needs to ditch the porn-stache, but not the pounds
Ted Strickland (OH) -- narrow
Brad Henry (OK) -- average-plus
Ted Kulongoski (OR) -- appropriate
Ed Rendell -- Flintstonian
Donald Carcieri (RI) -- customary
Mark Sanford (SC) -- a delicate, lovestruck flower
Mike Rounds (SD) -- not especially round, actually
Phil Bredesen (TN) -- average
Rick Perry (TX) -- dapper
Gary Herbert (UT) -- humdrum
Jim Douglas (VT) -- skinnyish
Tim Kaine (VA) -- not quite overweight
Christine Gregoire (WA) -- attenuated
Joe Manchin (WV) -- normal
Jim Doyle (WI) -- big
Dave Freudenthal (WY) -- blocky
Now, some of the cases are debatable -- my classifications are probably a bit conservative given that overweight is the new normal in America. Perhaps someone like Brad Henry or Oklahoma or Tim Kaine of Virgina would meet the clinical definition of overweight, along with a few others. Still, it's clear that overweight governors are considerably underrepresented as a percentage of the U.S. population. As an electoral handicap, it probably doesn't rival being atheist or (avowedly!) gay, but I'd probably bet on the skinny woman before the fat man, all else being equal.
It would take a lot of work to figure this out, but I'd guess that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. We've elected quite a few fat Presidents ... William Howard Taft, Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt -- and Bill Clinton really, though he wore it well. And those men (with the partial exception of Clinton) were elected at a time where being obese was far less typical than it is today.
Certainly, you can see where the Corzine campaign is hoping to go with this one. Let your mind run wild with the not-so-subtle implications: Christie is a fat slob who is underprepared for the pressures of office, a fat cat who will sell out to the special interests, etc. Undoubtedly, their crack research staff uncovered some evidence that Christie's weight is a vulnerability, or at least could be associated with other negatives about him.
But it's one thing for your opponent's weight to be a vulnerability, and another thing to point that out to the voters without looking like an a-hole.
There have been many, many campaigns waged over the years that deftly (or not-so-deftly) implied that the opponent was a closet homosexual, Muslim, communist, or atheist. But being fat isn't like those other things: it's something that everyone can see for themselves. There is no plus-sized closet for fat people, so to speak. And our nation's relationship with obesity and obese people is complicated. Although fat people are perhaps by default objects of disdain, it doesn't take very much to turn them into everyman-ish Bubbas -- objects of sympathy.
Corzine remains in a much better position than he was a month ago. But if this is his campaign's idea of an endgame, he's liable to send Christie's big, fat ass to Trenton.
This, insofar is it goes, is true: Chris Christie is a large man. And one thing that's certainly true of Americans is that they don't elect very many fat governors. Running through pictures of the 50 sitting governors, I come up with only about 10 (20%) who are distinctly overweight, and only 3 (6%) -- Haley Barbour, Bill Richardson, and Sonny Perdue -- who are clearly obese. This compares with percentages on the order of 65 percent and 30 percent for the U.S. adult population. The skinny on the numbers after the jump.
Bob Riley (AL) -- within the realm of average
Sean Parnell (AK) -- fit
Jan Brewer (AZ) -- pretty normal
Mike Beebe (AR) -- unexceptional
Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA) -- ripped
Bill Ritter (CO) -- moderately overweight
Jodi Rell (CT) -- roughly average
Jack Markell (DE) -- thin
Charlie Crist (FL) -- in self-assuredly fine shape
Sonny Perdue (GA) -- pudgy
Linda Lingle (HI) -- fairly thin
Butch Otter (ID) -- skinny
Pat Quinn (IL) -- paunchy
Mitch Daniels (IN) -- slight
Chet Culver (IA) -- squarish
Mark Parkinson (KS) -- on the verge of underweight
Steve Beshear (KY) -- thin, though not this thin
Bobby Jindal (LA) -- skinny, though not this skinny
John Baldacci (ME) -- trim
Martin O'Malley (MD) -- rockin' some biceps
Deval Patrick (MA) -- varies from photo to photo, but about average
Jennifer Granholm (MI) -- former swimsuit model
Tim Pawelenty (MN) -- thin, mulletted
Haley Barbour (MS) -- the opposite of skinny
Jay Nixon (MO) -- standard
Brian Schweitzer (MT) -- full-bodied
Dave Heineman (NE) -- spindly
John Lynch (NH) -- lanky
Jon Corzine (NJ) -- not like that Chris Christie fellow, thank goodness
Bill Richardson (NM) -- fat; possibly getting fatter
David Paterson (NY) -- weight, days in office are limited
Bev Perdue (NC) -- medium
John Hoeven (ND) -- needs to ditch the porn-stache, but not the pounds
Ted Strickland (OH) -- narrow
Brad Henry (OK) -- average-plus
Ted Kulongoski (OR) -- appropriate
Ed Rendell -- Flintstonian
Donald Carcieri (RI) -- customary
Mark Sanford (SC) -- a delicate, lovestruck flower
Mike Rounds (SD) -- not especially round, actually
Phil Bredesen (TN) -- average
Rick Perry (TX) -- dapper
Gary Herbert (UT) -- humdrum
Jim Douglas (VT) -- skinnyish
Tim Kaine (VA) -- not quite overweight
Christine Gregoire (WA) -- attenuated
Joe Manchin (WV) -- normal
Jim Doyle (WI) -- big
Dave Freudenthal (WY) -- blocky
Now, some of the cases are debatable -- my classifications are probably a bit conservative given that overweight is the new normal in America. Perhaps someone like Brad Henry or Oklahoma or Tim Kaine of Virgina would meet the clinical definition of overweight, along with a few others. Still, it's clear that overweight governors are considerably underrepresented as a percentage of the U.S. population. As an electoral handicap, it probably doesn't rival being atheist or (avowedly!) gay, but I'd probably bet on the skinny woman before the fat man, all else being equal.
It would take a lot of work to figure this out, but I'd guess that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. We've elected quite a few fat Presidents ... William Howard Taft, Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt -- and Bill Clinton really, though he wore it well. And those men (with the partial exception of Clinton) were elected at a time where being obese was far less typical than it is today.
Certainly, you can see where the Corzine campaign is hoping to go with this one. Let your mind run wild with the not-so-subtle implications: Christie is a fat slob who is underprepared for the pressures of office, a fat cat who will sell out to the special interests, etc. Undoubtedly, their crack research staff uncovered some evidence that Christie's weight is a vulnerability, or at least could be associated with other negatives about him.
But it's one thing for your opponent's weight to be a vulnerability, and another thing to point that out to the voters without looking like an a-hole.
There have been many, many campaigns waged over the years that deftly (or not-so-deftly) implied that the opponent was a closet homosexual, Muslim, communist, or atheist. But being fat isn't like those other things: it's something that everyone can see for themselves. There is no plus-sized closet for fat people, so to speak. And our nation's relationship with obesity and obese people is complicated. Although fat people are perhaps by default objects of disdain, it doesn't take very much to turn them into everyman-ish Bubbas -- objects of sympathy.
Corzine remains in a much better position than he was a month ago. But if this is his campaign's idea of an endgame, he's liable to send Christie's big, fat ass to Trenton.
10.12.2009
Just Words
@ 8:20 PM
I'm not going to comment in too much detail about the sentiments allegedly conveyed to John Harwood, who reported that the White House regards the lukewarm reaction to Obama among many in the LGBT community as part of the "Internet left fringe". But suffice it to say that...
1) John Harwood's characterization of the White House's attitude should not necessarily be mistaken for the genuine article. I've been in the "hot seat" before -- having done a few dozen 5-minute TV interviews over the past 18 months, as well as another dozen or so conferences and panels where I'm expected to make some extended-form remarks. It's very easy to let yourself get carried away and to want to say something punchy and quotable. It's also very easy to enmesh one's own opinions with those of "sources", particularly if those sources are anonymous. Finally, it's easy to overgeneralize, taking one or two conversations you've had and characterizing them as reflective of the attitude of an entire organization.
2) It's very hard to believe that the White House has a problem with the medium -- i.e. blogs and the Internet. Obama probably would not have won the Democratic primary without the presence of the Internet. The White House has generally been quite good about treating "new media" outlets like the Huffington Post on a level playing field with "old media" outlets, although I think the whole distinction is increasingly meaningless, and the more important distinction may be between reporting outlets and advocacy outlets. (Full disclosure: we've generally had pretty good luck at obtaining a White House credential on the couple of occasions that we've asked for one.)
3) What the White House does seem to be periodically annoyed with and perpetually dismissive of, however, is criticism of its activities from the left, whether it comes from new media or more traditional outlets. The electoral calculation that Harwood outlines -- that the White House figures that those on the left have no other place to go -- indeed seems consistent with the behavior of an administration that has failed to take tangible action on most of their more ostensibly left-of-center promises, particularly on issues like gay rights. Is the White House's calculation right, by the way? Perhaps, but they should keep in mind that votes are just one of three resources that the progressive community has as its disposal; the other two -- time and money -- are arguably more valuable.
4) I personally don't agree with certain of the activist community's critiques of Obama. To a lesser extent, I also disagree with certain of their policy positions, and certain of their points of emphasis. Keep in mind that FiveThirtyEight is a blog written by a liberal (me!), but I don't really consider it a "liberal blog", in the sense that our mission is to do analysis rather than organization or advocacy.
Where I can "endorse" the frustration of many on the left, however, is on issues where popular sentiment seems to be on their side, such as on the public option or gays-in-the-military. Now, popular sentiment isn't everything -- it may only go so far when competing against powerful institutions like the health care lobby. The status quo is usually the status quo for a reason, in other words. But what's been irking is the White House's lack of backbone when confronting these institutions. Take an issue like the military's ban on avowed gay and lesbian soldiers, for example, which polls suggest is unpopular by about a 3:2 margin. The received wisdom on this issue is that, although overturning the ban might be nominally popular, the "nays" are liable to be far more vocal than the "ayes".
And you know what? The received wisdom might well be right. But I don't think those who elected Obama expected him to give deference to the received wisdom; on the contary, it was his rhetoric of transformation that distinguished him from Hillary Clinton. Since roughly the time of the Jeremiah Wright incident, however, virtually every time the Obama campaign/administration has had a choice between a bold action and a cautious one, it has taken the more cautious path.
5) If one were to take Harwood's remarks at face value, they represent something of a strawman. I do think there are some on the left that have a rather naive conception of politics, and there probably a few others who have a tendency to engage in contrarianism for contrarianism's sake. But I haven't heard too many people on the left say -- let's set aside those "complicated and difficult" issues like health care until gay people can get married in Nebraska. A straw poll conducted at Netroots Nation found that only 6 percent of the attendees regarded gay rights as one of their top two priorities as compared with 60 percent for health care; contrast that with a similar question at the Values Voters' summit, where 41 percent identified abortion as the most important issue facing the country.
At the same time, those on the left are looking for more than just lip service. We may have reached the point where reaffirming promises that aren't backed up by action does the White House more harm than good. Sometimes -- and this is something I'm often guilty of -- it's better not to take someone's call than to tell them you'll call back in a week and fail to do so.
...
OK, so that was quite a bit of detail, it turns out. And I'm not sure what the takeaway is, exactly. Suffice it to say that I think everyone should be thinking more in terms of actions than words. On the one hand, the whole "Internet left fringe" remarks are a nonstory -- a bright, shiny, and possibly misreported object on a slow news day. On the other hand, Obama's promises are becoming a nonstory too, except to the extent he's failing to make an active effort to fulfill them.
1) John Harwood's characterization of the White House's attitude should not necessarily be mistaken for the genuine article. I've been in the "hot seat" before -- having done a few dozen 5-minute TV interviews over the past 18 months, as well as another dozen or so conferences and panels where I'm expected to make some extended-form remarks. It's very easy to let yourself get carried away and to want to say something punchy and quotable. It's also very easy to enmesh one's own opinions with those of "sources", particularly if those sources are anonymous. Finally, it's easy to overgeneralize, taking one or two conversations you've had and characterizing them as reflective of the attitude of an entire organization.
2) It's very hard to believe that the White House has a problem with the medium -- i.e. blogs and the Internet. Obama probably would not have won the Democratic primary without the presence of the Internet. The White House has generally been quite good about treating "new media" outlets like the Huffington Post on a level playing field with "old media" outlets, although I think the whole distinction is increasingly meaningless, and the more important distinction may be between reporting outlets and advocacy outlets. (Full disclosure: we've generally had pretty good luck at obtaining a White House credential on the couple of occasions that we've asked for one.)
3) What the White House does seem to be periodically annoyed with and perpetually dismissive of, however, is criticism of its activities from the left, whether it comes from new media or more traditional outlets. The electoral calculation that Harwood outlines -- that the White House figures that those on the left have no other place to go -- indeed seems consistent with the behavior of an administration that has failed to take tangible action on most of their more ostensibly left-of-center promises, particularly on issues like gay rights. Is the White House's calculation right, by the way? Perhaps, but they should keep in mind that votes are just one of three resources that the progressive community has as its disposal; the other two -- time and money -- are arguably more valuable.
4) I personally don't agree with certain of the activist community's critiques of Obama. To a lesser extent, I also disagree with certain of their policy positions, and certain of their points of emphasis. Keep in mind that FiveThirtyEight is a blog written by a liberal (me!), but I don't really consider it a "liberal blog", in the sense that our mission is to do analysis rather than organization or advocacy.
Where I can "endorse" the frustration of many on the left, however, is on issues where popular sentiment seems to be on their side, such as on the public option or gays-in-the-military. Now, popular sentiment isn't everything -- it may only go so far when competing against powerful institutions like the health care lobby. The status quo is usually the status quo for a reason, in other words. But what's been irking is the White House's lack of backbone when confronting these institutions. Take an issue like the military's ban on avowed gay and lesbian soldiers, for example, which polls suggest is unpopular by about a 3:2 margin. The received wisdom on this issue is that, although overturning the ban might be nominally popular, the "nays" are liable to be far more vocal than the "ayes".
And you know what? The received wisdom might well be right. But I don't think those who elected Obama expected him to give deference to the received wisdom; on the contary, it was his rhetoric of transformation that distinguished him from Hillary Clinton. Since roughly the time of the Jeremiah Wright incident, however, virtually every time the Obama campaign/administration has had a choice between a bold action and a cautious one, it has taken the more cautious path.
5) If one were to take Harwood's remarks at face value, they represent something of a strawman. I do think there are some on the left that have a rather naive conception of politics, and there probably a few others who have a tendency to engage in contrarianism for contrarianism's sake. But I haven't heard too many people on the left say -- let's set aside those "complicated and difficult" issues like health care until gay people can get married in Nebraska. A straw poll conducted at Netroots Nation found that only 6 percent of the attendees regarded gay rights as one of their top two priorities as compared with 60 percent for health care; contrast that with a similar question at the Values Voters' summit, where 41 percent identified abortion as the most important issue facing the country.
At the same time, those on the left are looking for more than just lip service. We may have reached the point where reaffirming promises that aren't backed up by action does the White House more harm than good. Sometimes -- and this is something I'm often guilty of -- it's better not to take someone's call than to tell them you'll call back in a week and fail to do so.
...
OK, so that was quite a bit of detail, it turns out. And I'm not sure what the takeaway is, exactly. Suffice it to say that I think everyone should be thinking more in terms of actions than words. On the one hand, the whole "Internet left fringe" remarks are a nonstory -- a bright, shiny, and possibly misreported object on a slow news day. On the other hand, Obama's promises are becoming a nonstory too, except to the extent he's failing to make an active effort to fulfill them.
Authoritarianism in American Politics
@ 12:35 PM
I'm reading a compelling new book, Authoritarianism & Polarization in American Politics, co-written by Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler. (Disclosure: Jon is a longtime friend; we were in grad school together at Univ. of North Carolina.) The book is an examination of how authoritarian tendencies among American citizens inform and explain attitudes toward government, public policies and their fellow citizens. It is impossible to summarize the book properly in a blog post, but I wanted to hit on some of the points that struck me, many of which were unsurprising and yet startling to see demonstrated empirically.
The first point Hetherington and Weiler make is that authoritarianism is really about order--achieving it, maintaining it, and affirming it--and especially when citizens are uncertain or fearful. This, they say, is why authoritarians seek out and elevate, well, authorities--because authorities impose order on an otherwise disordered world. They provide a useful review the existing literature on authoritarian traits, which have been connected to negative racist stereotyping, a belief in biblical inerrancy, a preference for simple rather than complex problem-solving, and low levels of political information.
Hetherington and Weiler expand and update the authoritarian literature by applying it to contemporary controversies. For example, what they measure and define as "maximum authoritarian" types show much lower support for gay marriage and gay adoption (19 percent, 28 percent) than do "minimum authoritarians" (71 percent, 89 percent). Maximums are three times more likely than minimums to support the government use of wiretaps without a warrant in the war on terror (60 percent to 19 percent), and four times more likely to say it is unacceptable to criticize the president about fighting terrorism (33 percent to 8 percent).
And what do authoritarians look like? The table above--which I have reproduced from Table 3.2 (p. 39) of their book--shows average levels of authoritarianism by descriptive characteristics that, taken together, produce a composite image: rural, southern, under-educated, evangelical Protestant churchgoers. Is it any wonder that when George W. Bush was down to his bottom 30 percent of public support during his second term so much of that support derived from people fitting this profile? And although there is a strong connection between authoritarianism and conservatism (and thus Republicanism), as Hetherington and Weiler caution, authoritarianism is not bounded by party: Among 2008 Democratic primary voters there were significant splits on issues of race and immigration, smacking of authoritarian impulses, that played a role in support for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. "There is strong suggestive evidence that authoritarianism was a core reason for the voting behavior of nonblacks" in the Democratic primary, they conclude.
As for the current debate over health care, some of the same cleavages exist. In a recent piece for the Huffington Post, Weiler talks about race and authoritarianism in the context of the health reform debate: "In sum, there is reason to think that beneath the arguments about government intrusion into the health care market, death panels, and such, a much more visceral dynamic is at work. To be perfectly clear, it is far from the case that every opponent or skeptic of significant health-care reform is a racist or racially motivated in her or his thinking. But there is, at the least, very strong circumstantial evidence that views of race and beliefs about health care reform are linked significantly among many Americans, which probably explains why the debate on health care reform has caused a much stronger uproar in 2009 than it did in 1994."
Reading the book, I kept hearing echoes of Glenn Greenwalds's book, A Tragic Legacy. Greenwald's book is a character study of Bush43 and the Bush White House, its Manichean worldview, and what that meant for public policy. But an us-v-them, good-v-evil governing mentality is only possible in a democracy where authoritarian currents run deep enough to sustain (and re-elect) such leadership. The governing atmosphere Greenwald describes makes even more sense after reading Hetherington and Weiler.
The first point Hetherington and Weiler make is that authoritarianism is really about order--achieving it, maintaining it, and affirming it--and especially when citizens are uncertain or fearful. This, they say, is why authoritarians seek out and elevate, well, authorities--because authorities impose order on an otherwise disordered world. They provide a useful review the existing literature on authoritarian traits, which have been connected to negative racist stereotyping, a belief in biblical inerrancy, a preference for simple rather than complex problem-solving, and low levels of political information.
Hetherington and Weiler expand and update the authoritarian literature by applying it to contemporary controversies. For example, what they measure and define as "maximum authoritarian" types show much lower support for gay marriage and gay adoption (19 percent, 28 percent) than do "minimum authoritarians" (71 percent, 89 percent). Maximums are three times more likely than minimums to support the government use of wiretaps without a warrant in the war on terror (60 percent to 19 percent), and four times more likely to say it is unacceptable to criticize the president about fighting terrorism (33 percent to 8 percent).And what do authoritarians look like? The table above--which I have reproduced from Table 3.2 (p. 39) of their book--shows average levels of authoritarianism by descriptive characteristics that, taken together, produce a composite image: rural, southern, under-educated, evangelical Protestant churchgoers. Is it any wonder that when George W. Bush was down to his bottom 30 percent of public support during his second term so much of that support derived from people fitting this profile? And although there is a strong connection between authoritarianism and conservatism (and thus Republicanism), as Hetherington and Weiler caution, authoritarianism is not bounded by party: Among 2008 Democratic primary voters there were significant splits on issues of race and immigration, smacking of authoritarian impulses, that played a role in support for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. "There is strong suggestive evidence that authoritarianism was a core reason for the voting behavior of nonblacks" in the Democratic primary, they conclude.
As for the current debate over health care, some of the same cleavages exist. In a recent piece for the Huffington Post, Weiler talks about race and authoritarianism in the context of the health reform debate: "In sum, there is reason to think that beneath the arguments about government intrusion into the health care market, death panels, and such, a much more visceral dynamic is at work. To be perfectly clear, it is far from the case that every opponent or skeptic of significant health-care reform is a racist or racially motivated in her or his thinking. But there is, at the least, very strong circumstantial evidence that views of race and beliefs about health care reform are linked significantly among many Americans, which probably explains why the debate on health care reform has caused a much stronger uproar in 2009 than it did in 1994."
Reading the book, I kept hearing echoes of Glenn Greenwalds's book, A Tragic Legacy. Greenwald's book is a character study of Bush43 and the Bush White House, its Manichean worldview, and what that meant for public policy. But an us-v-them, good-v-evil governing mentality is only possible in a democracy where authoritarian currents run deep enough to sustain (and re-elect) such leadership. The governing atmosphere Greenwald describes makes even more sense after reading Hetherington and Weiler.
Why The Insurance Industry is Fighting Mad
@ 9:14 AM
Take a look at what's happened to the share prices of the six largest publicly-traded health insurance companies since Labor Day, which was about the point at which the Democrats appeared to regain their footing -- at least up to a point -- on health care.
Weighted for market capitalization, these insurance stocks have lost 11 percent of their value since Labor Day, wiping out about $10 billion in value. And that's understating the case since the major indices have gained 5-8 percent over the same period -- the insurance industry stocks are underperforming the market by just shy of 20 percent.
So, they're not happy campers, and have begun to launch a belated but well-timed attack on the Democrats' plans.
Jonathan Cohn at TNR has more about the somewhat questionable claims that PriceWaterhouseCoopers has made on the industry's behalf. What's changed, by the way, is two things. Firstly, the individual mandate has been weakened to the point where it's arguably a tokenish provision. There are good, policy reasons to be worried about this, although the insurance lobby's reasons for being opposed -- they'll have less guarantee of an incoming phalanx of high-margin customers -- are not necessarily the same as the public's at large. The second factor is that the Baucus bill in certain ways treats the insurers fairly harshly, both taxing them directly as well as levying a surcharge on high-cost insurance plans.
Weighted for market capitalization, these insurance stocks have lost 11 percent of their value since Labor Day, wiping out about $10 billion in value. And that's understating the case since the major indices have gained 5-8 percent over the same period -- the insurance industry stocks are underperforming the market by just shy of 20 percent.
So, they're not happy campers, and have begun to launch a belated but well-timed attack on the Democrats' plans.
Jonathan Cohn at TNR has more about the somewhat questionable claims that PriceWaterhouseCoopers has made on the industry's behalf. What's changed, by the way, is two things. Firstly, the individual mandate has been weakened to the point where it's arguably a tokenish provision. There are good, policy reasons to be worried about this, although the insurance lobby's reasons for being opposed -- they'll have less guarantee of an incoming phalanx of high-margin customers -- are not necessarily the same as the public's at large. The second factor is that the Baucus bill in certain ways treats the insurers fairly harshly, both taxing them directly as well as levying a surcharge on high-cost insurance plans.
Clinton's Busy Summer
@ 6:00 AM
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives in Moscow today to begin three days of talks with high level Russian officials including President Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. On the second leg of a 5-day, tour through the EU and Russia, Clinton is coming off a whirlwind summer of diplomacy, largely in the background of the Obama administration's foreign policy.
Many issues crowd the Secretary's plate. Though day-to-day operations of the Afghanistan, Middle East (including Iraq) and Sudan issues have been farmed out to special envoys, Clinton maintains the more important policy-setting and oversight role. Major diplomatic developments have occurred with regard to US-Russian relations, as well as small but important progress by Clinton's State Department with Iran and North Korea. Outreach in Northern Ireland, along with a focus on stronger cooperation with US allies in the EU and NATO, has been an additional priority for the administration.
Comparing the travel itineraries of Clinton and her two predecessors at State in their first years, we see an interesting trend.
Though Clinton has only completed nine months in office, she has already set a blistering diplomatic pace. On track to spend 88 days on overseas diplomatic travels, she could pass Condoleeza Rice's first year as SoS if she has additional October travel (only Clinton's current trip is factored in).
Rice's tenure began the quickest, with her first three full months including 36 of her 89 travel days -- over 40 percent. The end of the year also was jam packed, including her big push in the Middle East, which took up most of the month of November. Powell's first year was much quieter in travel terms, culminating with the 9/11 attacks in September. The diplomatic flurry that might have been expected was rather subdued, in fact, as Powell slowly found his role undermined by the Defense Department, National Security Council and military.
What is notable about both is the lack of real action during late summer - where both Rice and Powell essentially took a break from travel or serious diplomatic action in August or September. Neither took a single trip in August, and just token trips occured in September or early October, coinciding with Washington's summer slowdown.
Clinton, however, has had a summer of action with no slowdown in sight. While her schedule in late spring had a lull, it has been furious since then. It seems likely to continue this way for the remainder of the year, with Afghanistan's diplomatic situation in great peril, and opportunities in Russia, Iran and possibilties in the Middle East and North Korea.
What does this mean in practical terms? By some measures, we should include the activities of Special Envoys Holbrooke, Mitchell and Gration in the calculation, as they have many of the powers that Clinton brings, having been empowered by the President and State Department. As alluded to by the Nobel prize committee, the Obama adminstration has embraced the diplomatic approach with full force. Not surprisingly, the strategy has yielded some early victories, such as the Iranian nuclear fuel deal, better prospects for cooperation on nuclear drawdown with Russia, and happier EU allies. But major, concrete changes in geopolitics it has not yet yielded. Hopefully Secretary Clinton will not wear herself out (or further injure herself) this year and her special deputies will find success on their assignments. Things are likely to remain quite busy.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
Many issues crowd the Secretary's plate. Though day-to-day operations of the Afghanistan, Middle East (including Iraq) and Sudan issues have been farmed out to special envoys, Clinton maintains the more important policy-setting and oversight role. Major diplomatic developments have occurred with regard to US-Russian relations, as well as small but important progress by Clinton's State Department with Iran and North Korea. Outreach in Northern Ireland, along with a focus on stronger cooperation with US allies in the EU and NATO, has been an additional priority for the administration.
Comparing the travel itineraries of Clinton and her two predecessors at State in their first years, we see an interesting trend.
Though Clinton has only completed nine months in office, she has already set a blistering diplomatic pace. On track to spend 88 days on overseas diplomatic travels, she could pass Condoleeza Rice's first year as SoS if she has additional October travel (only Clinton's current trip is factored in).
Rice's tenure began the quickest, with her first three full months including 36 of her 89 travel days -- over 40 percent. The end of the year also was jam packed, including her big push in the Middle East, which took up most of the month of November. Powell's first year was much quieter in travel terms, culminating with the 9/11 attacks in September. The diplomatic flurry that might have been expected was rather subdued, in fact, as Powell slowly found his role undermined by the Defense Department, National Security Council and military.What is notable about both is the lack of real action during late summer - where both Rice and Powell essentially took a break from travel or serious diplomatic action in August or September. Neither took a single trip in August, and just token trips occured in September or early October, coinciding with Washington's summer slowdown.
Clinton, however, has had a summer of action with no slowdown in sight. While her schedule in late spring had a lull, it has been furious since then. It seems likely to continue this way for the remainder of the year, with Afghanistan's diplomatic situation in great peril, and opportunities in Russia, Iran and possibilties in the Middle East and North Korea.
What does this mean in practical terms? By some measures, we should include the activities of Special Envoys Holbrooke, Mitchell and Gration in the calculation, as they have many of the powers that Clinton brings, having been empowered by the President and State Department. As alluded to by the Nobel prize committee, the Obama adminstration has embraced the diplomatic approach with full force. Not surprisingly, the strategy has yielded some early victories, such as the Iranian nuclear fuel deal, better prospects for cooperation on nuclear drawdown with Russia, and happier EU allies. But major, concrete changes in geopolitics it has not yet yielded. Hopefully Secretary Clinton will not wear herself out (or further injure herself) this year and her special deputies will find success on their assignments. Things are likely to remain quite busy.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
Would Rush Limbaugh Hurt the St. Louis Rams?
@ 12:50 AM
Granted, the teaser in the title is something of a trick question. The NFL's St. Louis Rams are now 0-5, and have allowed 112 more points than they've scored, a pace which, if sustained, would lead to a -358 point differential on the season, shattering the modern mark (-287) held by the 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers. So whether or not Rush Limbaugh takes an ownership stake in the franchise, as he is contemplating doing, the team is not likely to get a lot worse, at least in the near term.
In the long run, however, Limbaugh could conceivably create a few headaches for the team. The NFL Players' Union, for instance, has issued a statement urging the owners to reject Limbaugh's bid. On the other hand, the NFL's union is notoriously weak, and enjoys a less cozy relationship with its players than the MLB or NFL unions. What is the league's rank-and-file liable to think about Limbaugh?
A good starting point is to evaluate political contributions made by NFL players. Searching on Huffington Post's Fundrace site, I looked up political contributions made by NFL players to Presidential candidates, the RNC and the DNC over the 2004 and 2008 political cycles. The search covered the names of 32 NFL teams as well as the terms "NFL" and "National Football League", as listed under the employer category. Only active players -- not owners and executives, which in the NFL are overwhelmingly conservative -- were evaluated.
NFL players present a potentially interesting demographic study. On the one hand, all of them are men, and they are generally rather wealthy men, making an average salary of $770,000. Those factors would point toward their being Republicans. On the other hand, they are young men, and much of the league -- about 65 percent -- is black. Those factors would point toward their being Democrats.
It turns out that among the contributions I could identify, some $31,655 went to Republicans and $18,285 went to Democrats. So perhaps not all that many players would have a problem with Limbaugh, and some might rather like him.
On the other hand, only a relative handful of NFL players are making any kind of contributions at all, so this group may not necessarily be representative. One very basic thing we can do is to look at the race of the players making these contributions.
As you might expect, there is a rather stark racial divide in the political leanings of NFL players. Some 93 percent of the contributions made by white players went to Republicans; on the other hand, 71 percent of the contributions made by black players went to Democrats. If we re-weight the totals to reflect the league's actual racial makeup, it would imply that NFL players are almost evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
That would still make the league somewhat more politically conservative than the nation as a whole. But Rush Limbaugh isn't just any conservative -- he's an extremely conservative one whom Americans view negatively by better than a 2-to-1 margin. Also, people who dislike Rush Limbaugh really dislike him -- 37 percent of Americans view him very negatively, versus 8 percent very positively.
On balance, then, Limbaugh is still probably more likely to deter players from coming to St. Louis than encourage them, particularly among positions dominated by minorities. It's probably not a distraction an 0-5 team needs. With that said, if the NFL is truly a collection of 32 independent businesses -- as the league claims periodically when defending its limited anti-trust exemption -- it is not clear what right the owners of the other 31 franchises have to scrutinize the ownership decision made by the Rams.
In the long run, however, Limbaugh could conceivably create a few headaches for the team. The NFL Players' Union, for instance, has issued a statement urging the owners to reject Limbaugh's bid. On the other hand, the NFL's union is notoriously weak, and enjoys a less cozy relationship with its players than the MLB or NFL unions. What is the league's rank-and-file liable to think about Limbaugh?
A good starting point is to evaluate political contributions made by NFL players. Searching on Huffington Post's Fundrace site, I looked up political contributions made by NFL players to Presidential candidates, the RNC and the DNC over the 2004 and 2008 political cycles. The search covered the names of 32 NFL teams as well as the terms "NFL" and "National Football League", as listed under the employer category. Only active players -- not owners and executives, which in the NFL are overwhelmingly conservative -- were evaluated.
NFL players present a potentially interesting demographic study. On the one hand, all of them are men, and they are generally rather wealthy men, making an average salary of $770,000. Those factors would point toward their being Republicans. On the other hand, they are young men, and much of the league -- about 65 percent -- is black. Those factors would point toward their being Democrats.
It turns out that among the contributions I could identify, some $31,655 went to Republicans and $18,285 went to Democrats. So perhaps not all that many players would have a problem with Limbaugh, and some might rather like him.
On the other hand, only a relative handful of NFL players are making any kind of contributions at all, so this group may not necessarily be representative. One very basic thing we can do is to look at the race of the players making these contributions.
As you might expect, there is a rather stark racial divide in the political leanings of NFL players. Some 93 percent of the contributions made by white players went to Republicans; on the other hand, 71 percent of the contributions made by black players went to Democrats. If we re-weight the totals to reflect the league's actual racial makeup, it would imply that NFL players are almost evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
That would still make the league somewhat more politically conservative than the nation as a whole. But Rush Limbaugh isn't just any conservative -- he's an extremely conservative one whom Americans view negatively by better than a 2-to-1 margin. Also, people who dislike Rush Limbaugh really dislike him -- 37 percent of Americans view him very negatively, versus 8 percent very positively.
On balance, then, Limbaugh is still probably more likely to deter players from coming to St. Louis than encourage them, particularly among positions dominated by minorities. It's probably not a distraction an 0-5 team needs. With that said, if the NFL is truly a collection of 32 independent businesses -- as the league claims periodically when defending its limited anti-trust exemption -- it is not clear what right the owners of the other 31 franchises have to scrutinize the ownership decision made by the Rams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
