Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

View Detail

A Whiff of Scandal

A Whiff of Scandal

One of the surest signs of an administration in freefall is when the whiff of scandal begins to take hold, especially when it’s a Democratic administration because the MSM tries to shield them until the MSM decides they are sure to lose. So it’s interesting that so many scandals are suddenly appearing.

● GSAgate: The GSA scandal just keeps getting worse. First, you had a video of several GSA employees playing around rather than working. Then you had reports of $800k used to party in Vegas, and $900k used on expensive gifts for employees. Then more videos came out of GSA employees playing around. Over the weekend, we heard that criminal charges have been recommended by the Inspector General for many of these same party-goers, along with allegations of bribery and kickbacks. The head of the department has resigned, as have several other senior individuals. Some have pled the Fifth before Congress! Now we hear of a senior GSA employee who took his wife to Hawaii, Guam and the Mariana Islands on the taxpayer’s dime as a birthday gift. . . even after the Vegas scandal hit the news. And we’ve learned that GSA employees routinely invented fake awards so they could get the government to pay for food at meetings. Those are criminal acts.

This is the death of a thousand small scandals. Moreover, these are the types of scandals which catch people’s attention because it’s easy to understand -- unlike something like Fast and Furious. What’s worse, the Democrats are responding poorly by trying to allege this IG investigation is nothing more than a GOP smear or a "war on Vegas." That’s never worked. And Obama stepped in it by trying to claim this was Bush’s fault. That laid this firmly on Obama doorstep because his responding confirmed that this is something which sits at the presidential level of accountability.

● Air Farce One: Anyone remember Pelosi’s plane? Well, Leon Panetta is now answering questions about why the taxpayers had to pay to fly him home on weekends to California at a cost of $860,000 so far. He’s apologizing to anyone who will listen, which means he knows this too is the sort of thing taxpayers remember, especially in an administration known for taxpayer-funded vacations and golf.

● Boogie Down Secret Agent Man: The Secret Service is in the middle of a growing scandal as we learn that between 11-20 of their agents decided to party with a group of hookers in Cartagena, Columbia. I doubt the public wouldn’t attribute this to Obama, except for two things. First, when scandal is in the air, all scandals touching an administration get sucked in and become a pattern of misbehavior or mismanagement. Secondly, Obama put his foot in his mouth saying he would be “angry” if this proved to be true. This makes Obama sound like a chump because this goes back to his not knowing “whose ass to kick” in the Gulf of Mexico. It also makes it sound like these men were directly under his authority. He should have said he trusted the Secret Service to determine the facts and sort this out.

● Crony Industrial Policy: As we discussed yesterday and several times in the past, Obama’s fascist-inspired industrial policy has fallen apart in record time, and many of these are finally hitting the airwaves. This is why even the MSM is beginning to question why companies like Solyndra, Enerl, Beacon Power, Solar Trust for America, and others could possibly have gone bankrupt so quickly, sucking down so much government money. . . after making sizeable donations to Team Donkey.

● Bad Touch: Finally, there is a state-level sexual harassment scandal unfolding in North Carolina, where the NC Democratic Party executive director resigned Sunday after it was revealed he had paid a former staffer to keep quiet about sexual harassment allegations. Normally, this would be no big deal nationally, except for a couple facts: (1) this blew up in the middle of the whiff of scandal moment (and a slow news cycle), (2) it happened right after Hilary Rosen’s broadside against motherhood, which happened right as the Democrats charged the GOP with waging a war against women, and (3) the governor made it so much worse. Indeed, Governor Bev Perdue told reporters to “get over it” when she was asked about the scandal, despite the fact she had just declared April to be “Sexual Assault Awareness Month.” She finally joined calls for the resignation, but the damage was done. Between this and Rosen, the Democratic propaganda about a war on women has exploded in a huge ball of hypocritical fire.

This is all bad news for Obama and the Democrats. It’s not that any one of these scandals is truly bad by itself, it’s that they are getting noticed by the MSM. This suggests the MSM knows Obama is doomed and they’ve decided to gain some credibility on his back by taking down all kinds of peripheral players. This will allow them to pretend they are unbiased when they start hunting for (and manufacturing) scandals under the Romney administration. I’ve seen this every time a Democrat is in trouble.

The one thing that may save them, however, is this fact: according to data compiled by the IRS, only 85 million people actually paid Federal tax last year. That’s only 27% of the population. Yes, you read that correctly. Only 1 in 4 Americans paid federal tax. That means 3 in 4 Americans are getting a free ride on the Federal government. By comparison, 49% of Americans, 147 million people, live in a household where someone received benefits from the government. This means a tremendous class of people is being created who will keep voting for more government, and that means Democrats.

That makes this election extremely important. The Republicans must cut these people off. They must break this cycle of dependence before it takes hold and they need to make more people pay taxes. This is vital the future. They should also mercilessly mock these scandals.

One of the surest signs of an administration in freefall is when the whiff of scandal begins to take hold, especially when it’s a Democratic administration because the MSM tries to shield them until the MSM decides they are sure to lose. So it’s interesting that so many scandals are suddenly appearing.

● GSAgate: The GSA scandal just keeps getting worse. First, you had a video of several GSA employees playing around rather than working. Then you had reports of $800k used to party in Vegas, and $900k used on expensive gifts for employees. Then more videos came out of GSA employees playing around. Over the weekend, we heard that criminal charges have been recommended by the Inspector General for many of these same party-goers, along with allegations of bribery and kickbacks. The head of the department has resigned, as have several other senior individuals. Some have pled the Fifth before Congress! Now we hear of a senior GSA employee who took his wife to Hawaii, Guam and the Mariana Islands on the taxpayer’s dime as a birthday gift. . . even after the Vegas scandal hit the news. And we’ve learned that GSA employees routinely invented fake awards so they could get the government to pay for food at meetings. Those are criminal acts.

This is the death of a thousand small scandals. Moreover, these are the types of scandals which catch people’s attention because it’s easy to understand -- unlike something like Fast and Furious. What’s worse, the Democrats are responding poorly by trying to allege this IG investigation is nothing more than a GOP smear or a "war on Vegas." That’s never worked. And Obama stepped in it by trying to claim this was Bush’s fault. That laid this firmly on Obama doorstep because his responding confirmed that this is something which sits at the presidential level of accountability.

● Air Farce One: Anyone remember Pelosi’s plane? Well, Leon Panetta is now answering questions about why the taxpayers had to pay to fly him home on weekends to California at a cost of $860,000 so far. He’s apologizing to anyone who will listen, which means he knows this too is the sort of thing taxpayers remember, especially in an administration known for taxpayer-funded vacations and golf.

● Boogie Down Secret Agent Man: The Secret Service is in the middle of a growing scandal as we learn that between 11-20 of their agents decided to party with a group of hookers in Cartagena, Columbia. I doubt the public wouldn’t attribute this to Obama, except for two things. First, when scandal is in the air, all scandals touching an administration get sucked in and become a pattern of misbehavior or mismanagement. Secondly, Obama put his foot in his mouth saying he would be “angry” if this proved to be true. This makes Obama sound like a chump because this goes back to his not knowing “whose ass to kick” in the Gulf of Mexico. It also makes it sound like these men were directly under his authority. He should have said he trusted the Secret Service to determine the facts and sort this out.

● Crony Industrial Policy: As we discussed yesterday and several times in the past, Obama’s fascist-inspired industrial policy has fallen apart in record time, and many of these are finally hitting the airwaves. This is why even the MSM is beginning to question why companies like Solyndra, Enerl, Beacon Power, Solar Trust for America, and others could possibly have gone bankrupt so quickly, sucking down so much government money. . . after making sizeable donations to Team Donkey.

● Bad Touch: Finally, there is a state-level sexual harassment scandal unfolding in North Carolina, where the NC Democratic Party executive director resigned Sunday after it was revealed he had paid a former staffer to keep quiet about sexual harassment allegations. Normally, this would be no big deal nationally, except for a couple facts: (1) this blew up in the middle of the whiff of scandal moment (and a slow news cycle), (2) it happened right after Hilary Rosen’s broadside against motherhood, which happened right as the Democrats charged the GOP with waging a war against women, and (3) the governor made it so much worse. Indeed, Governor Bev Perdue told reporters to “get over it” when she was asked about the scandal, despite the fact she had just declared April to be “Sexual Assault Awareness Month.” She finally joined calls for the resignation, but the damage was done. Between this and Rosen, the Democratic propaganda about a war on women has exploded in a huge ball of hypocritical fire.

This is all bad news for Obama and the Democrats. It’s not that any one of these scandals is truly bad by itself, it’s that they are getting noticed by the MSM. This suggests the MSM knows Obama is doomed and they’ve decided to gain some credibility on his back by taking down all kinds of peripheral players. This will allow them to pretend they are unbiased when they start hunting for (and manufacturing) scandals under the Romney administration. I’ve seen this every time a Democrat is in trouble.

The one thing that may save them, however, is this fact: according to data compiled by the IRS, only 85 million people actually paid Federal tax last year. That’s only 27% of the population. Yes, you read that correctly. Only 1 in 4 Americans paid federal tax. That means 3 in 4 Americans are getting a free ride on the Federal government. By comparison, 49% of Americans, 147 million people, live in a household where someone received benefits from the government. This means a tremendous class of people is being created who will keep voting for more government, and that means Democrats.

That makes this election extremely important. The Republicans must cut these people off. They must break this cycle of dependence before it takes hold and they need to make more people pay taxes. This is vital the future. They should also mercilessly mock these scandals.

A Whiff of Scandal

View Detail

Are We Too Stupid For Democracy?

Are We Too Stupid For Democracy?

Professor David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, thinks humans are too stupid to make democracy work. Well, yeah. . . duh. But that doesn’t mean democracy is a bad idea. Observe.

Dunning claims democracy can't work because “incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people.” Translation: when a person does not know how to do something (i.e. they are incompetent), they are also incapable of determining whether other people are competent or not. In other words, if you don’t know how to fix a car then you are also incapable of distinguishing between good mechanics and mechanics who don’t know what they are doing. Since politics requires problem solving in many fields in which few people are competent, the public is incapable of picking quality leaders. Ergo, we end up with “mediocre leaders and policies.”

Let’s blow this puppy away. . .

For starters, Dunning is no expert on logic. Indeed, he makes two fatal mistakes right out of the gate. First, his entire theory is a tautology (circular reasoning): he assumes people are incompetent at picking leaders and thus concludes they pick incompetently. That’s circular and it’s logical nonsense.

Moreover, he provides no support for his assertion that we pick incompetent leaders except his further assertion that we get mediocre leaders -- another tautology. Nor does he quantify how we should conclude that our leaders are mediocre. . . nor does he show that the alternatives offered were better. . . nor does he explain some of the primo talent of the past 30 years like Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton, Paul Ryan, Helmut Kohl, Tony Blair, etc.

Secondly, he assumes that people must be incompetent at picking a leader because they can’t possibly know everything there is to know about tax policy and economics and social issues and environmental law, etc. In other words, since no person can be an expert in everything, we must be incompetent at picking leaders to handle everything. But here’s the flaw in that. We aren’t picking leaders who handle everything. Instead, we are picking leaders who will find the right people to handle the various issues. Hence, the only competence we need in picking leaders is competence in picking someone whose judgment we trust to find the right experts.

So Dunning’s premise and argument is simply wrong.

But I’m going to run with it anyway because there’s a bigger point here. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that his assumptions are right. Should we then get rid of democracy? Well no, because the alternatives are worse.

If people are by definition unable to pick someone to lead in an area about which they know nothing, then how would socialism work better than democracy? Guys like Dunning pretend that “panels of experts” would make decisions, but how do we determine who is an expert? The only difference between democracy and socialism in that regard is that a smaller pool of people (not a smarter pool of people) pick the leader. So even if his argument is true, it does not argue against democracy. . . it argues against trusting the government.

Moreover, my experience with expert panels is very much what Ayn Rand predicted. You end up with a committee of blowhards with little actual knowledge or ability, who are appointed because they speak the nomenclature and they have insider contacts. These people then spend their time trying to stop the genuine experts from plying their craft because the genuine experts represent a threat to the panel: in effect, the experts become a cabal that seeks to keep out anyone with the skill to expose the panel’s defects.

Thus, whereas democracy MAY result in the wrong leaders being picked, any system other than democracy will INVARIABLY result in the wrong leaders being picked. So it’s 50/50 under democracy or guaranteed 0% under the other systems. That’s where you get all-stars like Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Mubarak, the Ayatollah, Mugabe, Castro, Amin, Chavez, etc.

Further, politics suffers from an adverse selection problem. Adverse selection means the worst people will gravitate toward the positions where they can do the most harm. That’s why the unhealthy want insurance, but the healthy don’t. That’s why child molesters gravitate toward being priests or Scout Leaders. And that’s why the very people who should never be trusted with power go into politics -- because they crave power, and they end up satisfying their own desires to dominate rather than making decisions for the greater good.

Making this worse is the ego/arrogance aspect of this. In a democracy, politicians know their power is on loan. In other systems, where people are appointed because of connections or because they believe they are “experts,” the power is considered a divine right as a result of being superior to the public in some way, i.e. “I’m better than you because I’m an expert.” When you combine the adverse selection problem with a sense of divine right, you will end up with megalomania.

Finally, under democracy, politicians remain answerable to voters who can toss them out if they become abusive. No such check exists under the other systems.

So we may be too stupid for democracy, but we’re certainly too stupid for anything else.

Professor David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, thinks humans are too stupid to make democracy work. Well, yeah. . . duh. But that doesn’t mean democracy is a bad idea. Observe.

Dunning claims democracy can't work because “incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people.” Translation: when a person does not know how to do something (i.e. they are incompetent), they are also incapable of determining whether other people are competent or not. In other words, if you don’t know how to fix a car then you are also incapable of distinguishing between good mechanics and mechanics who don’t know what they are doing. Since politics requires problem solving in many fields in which few people are competent, the public is incapable of picking quality leaders. Ergo, we end up with “mediocre leaders and policies.”

Let’s blow this puppy away. . .

For starters, Dunning is no expert on logic. Indeed, he makes two fatal mistakes right out of the gate. First, his entire theory is a tautology (circular reasoning): he assumes people are incompetent at picking leaders and thus concludes they pick incompetently. That’s circular and it’s logical nonsense.

Moreover, he provides no support for his assertion that we pick incompetent leaders except his further assertion that we get mediocre leaders -- another tautology. Nor does he quantify how we should conclude that our leaders are mediocre. . . nor does he show that the alternatives offered were better. . . nor does he explain some of the primo talent of the past 30 years like Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton, Paul Ryan, Helmut Kohl, Tony Blair, etc.

Secondly, he assumes that people must be incompetent at picking a leader because they can’t possibly know everything there is to know about tax policy and economics and social issues and environmental law, etc. In other words, since no person can be an expert in everything, we must be incompetent at picking leaders to handle everything. But here’s the flaw in that. We aren’t picking leaders who handle everything. Instead, we are picking leaders who will find the right people to handle the various issues. Hence, the only competence we need in picking leaders is competence in picking someone whose judgment we trust to find the right experts.

So Dunning’s premise and argument is simply wrong.

But I’m going to run with it anyway because there’s a bigger point here. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that his assumptions are right. Should we then get rid of democracy? Well no, because the alternatives are worse.

If people are by definition unable to pick someone to lead in an area about which they know nothing, then how would socialism work better than democracy? Guys like Dunning pretend that “panels of experts” would make decisions, but how do we determine who is an expert? The only difference between democracy and socialism in that regard is that a smaller pool of people (not a smarter pool of people) pick the leader. So even if his argument is true, it does not argue against democracy. . . it argues against trusting the government.

Moreover, my experience with expert panels is very much what Ayn Rand predicted. You end up with a committee of blowhards with little actual knowledge or ability, who are appointed because they speak the nomenclature and they have insider contacts. These people then spend their time trying to stop the genuine experts from plying their craft because the genuine experts represent a threat to the panel: in effect, the experts become a cabal that seeks to keep out anyone with the skill to expose the panel’s defects.

Thus, whereas democracy MAY result in the wrong leaders being picked, any system other than democracy will INVARIABLY result in the wrong leaders being picked. So it’s 50/50 under democracy or guaranteed 0% under the other systems. That’s where you get all-stars like Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Mubarak, the Ayatollah, Mugabe, Castro, Amin, Chavez, etc.

Further, politics suffers from an adverse selection problem. Adverse selection means the worst people will gravitate toward the positions where they can do the most harm. That’s why the unhealthy want insurance, but the healthy don’t. That’s why child molesters gravitate toward being priests or Scout Leaders. And that’s why the very people who should never be trusted with power go into politics -- because they crave power, and they end up satisfying their own desires to dominate rather than making decisions for the greater good.

Making this worse is the ego/arrogance aspect of this. In a democracy, politicians know their power is on loan. In other systems, where people are appointed because of connections or because they believe they are “experts,” the power is considered a divine right as a result of being superior to the public in some way, i.e. “I’m better than you because I’m an expert.” When you combine the adverse selection problem with a sense of divine right, you will end up with megalomania.

Finally, under democracy, politicians remain answerable to voters who can toss them out if they become abusive. No such check exists under the other systems.

So we may be too stupid for democracy, but we’re certainly too stupid for anything else.

Are We Too Stupid For Democracy?

View Detail

Republicans Vote Again

Republicans Vote Again

Today Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota go to the primary polls. T-Rav's Sockpuppets are taking a well-deserved day off, so we're going to make this an open thread for comments on these elections and any input you feel appropriate from the prior elections. Missouri has a non-binding primary ("beauty contest"), while the other two states have caucuses. Much may be decided today, or nothing. You can tell us what you think.

I'm predicting a Romney win in Colorado, by a fairly large margin. In Missouri, I'm predicting a Santorum victory, and Gingrich isn't on the ballot. In Minnesota, I'm calling it "too close" with either Romney or Santorum winning, but Paul and Gingrich close behind. Please feel free to agree with me or tell me I'm nuts. It's all just in good fun, isn't it? On the other hand, the fun may stop very quickly if Gingrich loses two and gets no votes at all in the third.

Today Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota go to the primary polls. T-Rav's Sockpuppets are taking a well-deserved day off, so we're going to make this an open thread for comments on these elections and any input you feel appropriate from the prior elections. Missouri has a non-binding primary ("beauty contest"), while the other two states have caucuses. Much may be decided today, or nothing. You can tell us what you think.

I'm predicting a Romney win in Colorado, by a fairly large margin. In Missouri, I'm predicting a Santorum victory, and Gingrich isn't on the ballot. In Minnesota, I'm calling it "too close" with either Romney or Santorum winning, but Paul and Gingrich close behind. Please feel free to agree with me or tell me I'm nuts. It's all just in good fun, isn't it? On the other hand, the fun may stop very quickly if Gingrich loses two and gets no votes at all in the third.

Republicans Vote Again

View Detail

Newt Opens A Can Of Worms

Newt Opens A Can Of Worms

Mitt Romney won the Florida primary by a healthy margin, and walked away with all the Florida delegates under the winner-take-all system. Or did he? Contender Newt Gingrich says "not so fast." The Republican National Committee (RNC), in an attempt to keep primaries from being held too long before the general election, imposed Rule 15(b)(2) in 2008. That rule provided that with named exceptions, delegates chosen before March 1 must be allocated proportionately.

Rule 16 provides that any state that does not conform with the "early primary" rules must lose half its delegates at the nominating convention. But neither Rule 15 nor 16 provides for an immediate enforcement mechanism regarding proportional allocation of delegates. What Rule 16 does is leave the issue open, unless and until a "proper contest is brought." In that case, the Committee on Contests of the RNC may hear the contest, then decide on the proper course of action. Well, Newt Gingrich has launched a "proper contest."

The RNC enforcement provisions did not stop Florida from moving its primary to a date before March 1, and it seems unlikely that it will be any more successful in telling the states what to do by attempting to proportionalize the results of the recent primary. Case law favors a state's right to choose its own rules for picking delegates. As recently as California Democratic Party v. Jones (530 US 567, 2000) the US Supreme Court held that a state political party has the inherent right to choose its own method of electing and apportioning delegates. The Court specifically said that in matters of state political party organization, "any outside attempt to preempt the right of a [state] party to choose its own leaders is functionally both severe and unnecessary."

The Court followed a long line of precedent establishing that the First Amendment right of freedom of association protects the integrity of state political procedures. Gingrich will be fighting an uphill battle, even if the RNC should hear the contest and decide that Florida must affirm its convention delegation proportionately. Florida is highly unlikely to give up its winner-take-all system because of a nebulous and muddy RNC rule with wide-open enforcement provisions.

The issue seems to come down to that old philosophical question: Just because you can do a thing, does that mean you ought to do that thing? Gingrich has every right to launch his contest of the winner-take-all primary. But should he? My personal opinion is that he should not. Not only does it further divide a party which can only win in November with strong unity, but it slaps a major swing state in the face. It seems like just another chapter in Gingrich's peckishness and increasingly personal vendetta against Mitt Romney. Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Gingrich himself would benefit somewhat from a proportioned delegation, but the cost seems far too high.

Not only does the contest potentially cause problems in a swing state which has already lost half its delegates to the convention, but it would also likely cause dissension and disarray within the RNC as well. The likelihood that the contest will benefit Gingrich in the long run is also in doubt. Republicans don't like sore losers, and at a time when the Party is attempting to resolve its conservative/moderate dichotomy, this action just muddies the waters even more. This will just be another sideshow in an already-contentious candidate selection process.

Thoughts?

Mitt Romney won the Florida primary by a healthy margin, and walked away with all the Florida delegates under the winner-take-all system. Or did he? Contender Newt Gingrich says "not so fast." The Republican National Committee (RNC), in an attempt to keep primaries from being held too long before the general election, imposed Rule 15(b)(2) in 2008. That rule provided that with named exceptions, delegates chosen before March 1 must be allocated proportionately.

Rule 16 provides that any state that does not conform with the "early primary" rules must lose half its delegates at the nominating convention. But neither Rule 15 nor 16 provides for an immediate enforcement mechanism regarding proportional allocation of delegates. What Rule 16 does is leave the issue open, unless and until a "proper contest is brought." In that case, the Committee on Contests of the RNC may hear the contest, then decide on the proper course of action. Well, Newt Gingrich has launched a "proper contest."

The RNC enforcement provisions did not stop Florida from moving its primary to a date before March 1, and it seems unlikely that it will be any more successful in telling the states what to do by attempting to proportionalize the results of the recent primary. Case law favors a state's right to choose its own rules for picking delegates. As recently as California Democratic Party v. Jones (530 US 567, 2000) the US Supreme Court held that a state political party has the inherent right to choose its own method of electing and apportioning delegates. The Court specifically said that in matters of state political party organization, "any outside attempt to preempt the right of a [state] party to choose its own leaders is functionally both severe and unnecessary."

The Court followed a long line of precedent establishing that the First Amendment right of freedom of association protects the integrity of state political procedures. Gingrich will be fighting an uphill battle, even if the RNC should hear the contest and decide that Florida must affirm its convention delegation proportionately. Florida is highly unlikely to give up its winner-take-all system because of a nebulous and muddy RNC rule with wide-open enforcement provisions.

The issue seems to come down to that old philosophical question: Just because you can do a thing, does that mean you ought to do that thing? Gingrich has every right to launch his contest of the winner-take-all primary. But should he? My personal opinion is that he should not. Not only does it further divide a party which can only win in November with strong unity, but it slaps a major swing state in the face. It seems like just another chapter in Gingrich's peckishness and increasingly personal vendetta against Mitt Romney. Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Gingrich himself would benefit somewhat from a proportioned delegation, but the cost seems far too high.

Not only does the contest potentially cause problems in a swing state which has already lost half its delegates to the convention, but it would also likely cause dissension and disarray within the RNC as well. The likelihood that the contest will benefit Gingrich in the long run is also in doubt. Republicans don't like sore losers, and at a time when the Party is attempting to resolve its conservative/moderate dichotomy, this action just muddies the waters even more. This will just be another sideshow in an already-contentious candidate selection process.

Thoughts?

Newt Opens A Can Of Worms

View Detail

Should All Nominees Be Supported?

Should All Nominees Be Supported?

Should a political party’s nominee always be supported? Generally, the answer is yes. A political party is a collection of people whose views overlap enough to give them a common interest in getting each other elected. To that end, they form a party with the implicit agreement that they will compete with each other to represent the party and then will support the nominee regardless of the outcome of the competition. Thus, the nominee should be supported. But there is an exception.

This exception arises when (1) the nominee’s views are well outside the range of common interests which hold the party together, and (2) there is a legitimate belief that supporting this nominee will harm the long term goals of the party.

On the first point, Reagan famously said that he could support anyone with whom he agreed on 80% of the issues. Reagan was making the point that it is foolish and counterproductive to require 100% agreement with a nominee before you can support them. Indeed, 100% agreement is probably impossible. Hence, this is the reason moderates should support conservatives and conservatives should support moderates and libertarians should support social conservatives and vice versa.

But Reagan’s point also contains the implicit understanding that at some point (possibly below 80% using Reagan’s formula) there is no obligation to support the nominee. Why would this be? For that, we need to look at the question of harm.

Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to ensure their products remain consistent. They want to make sure you find the exact same amount in each cereal box, that every batch of Mac and Cheese tastes the same, that every sock has the same number of stitches, and that every Acura uses only Acura parts. Why? Because having a consistent level of quality affects how people perceive their brands. People want to know exactly what they are getting when they make a purchase and branding achieves that -- whereas failing to maintain that consistency damages the brand because people will no longer know what to expect from their purchase.

Whether we like the idea or not, a political party is nothing more than a company, and its product or brand is an ideological range. Choosing a nominee from outside that range blurs the identity of the party and damages its brand.

How? For one thing, this will alienate supporters. Supporters expect nominees to be within the ideological range. When they aren’t, the party has violated the contract under which it claims a right to the individual’s support. It is the equivalent of McDonalds selling you a Big Mac container but including a ham sandwich rather than a burger. This is a violation of trust.

Moreover, this confuses voters. When a person represents a party or ideology, their views become associated with that party or ideology and their successes/failures taint the ideology. In other words, the nominee redefines how the public views conservatism or liberalism, and their meanings change. Hence, conservatism and Republicanism came to be associated with Nixon’s views in 1968, Reagan’s views in 1980, and Bush Jr.’s views in 2000 -- I exclude Bush Sr. because he claimed to be a moderate. Liberalism, by comparison, came to be associated with FDR, LBJ, Carter, and now Obama. Clinton called himself a moderate.

Prior to LBJ, the majority political view of the nation was FDR-liberalism. This could have continued indefinitely, except LBJ disgraced liberalism. His errors in Vietnam and his monstrous Great Society wiped out the Democratic party in the South and set the stage for a conservative resurgence. Jimmy Carter finished liberalism off by proving that Democrats are reckless spenders, incompetent managers of the economy, and militarily inept and cowardly. This set the stage for Reagan.

Reagan’s success revived conservatism while also redefining it back to its roots -- away from the big-government conservatism of the Nixon years. By the time Reagan left office, conservatism had become the natural ideology of the country and 60% of the public believed it.

This could have lasted for generations, except along came George Bush Jr. He wrapped himself in the conservative label and set about running a big government, civil-liberties-crushing, crony-capitalism, foreign-adventuring administration which so thoroughly discredited conservatism that in 2008, the voters were more radically liberal and more willing to accept liberalism than they had been at any time since LBJ. The ONLY THING THAT SAVED CONSERVATISM was the election of Barack Obama. If Obama hadn’t proven to be such a disaster, conservatism would be dead today. But Obama was a disaster and he caused a massive backlash which took the form of the Tea Party.

The lesson here is simple.

Ideologies get defined by their leaders and they get punished for the sins of their leaders. If a nominee calls himself conservative but acts like a liberal, the public doesn’t blame liberalism for his crimes and failures, it blames conservatism even if that person never once acted like a true conservative. Thus, Bush and Nixon, neither of whom could be called conservatives, discredited conservatism. LBJ/Carter/Obama, each of who were progressives and not liberals, discredited liberalism. And in each case, the only thing to save conservatism/liberalism was pure luck that someone worse came along to discredit the other side. If Moderate Joe Democrat had come along after George Bush Jr., we could well be looking at an America that views liberalism as the natural order of things and sees conservatism as meaning reckless spending, bad economic management, and cronyism.

Moreover, the nominee need not even be as disastrous as a Bush/Obama to harm the ideology. The goal of politics is to effect long term change in the country. That is simply not possible when the person representing your ideology holds views that are inconsistent with the ideology. This muddies the ideological waters and confuses the differences between the parties. In other words, when the Republicans and the Democrats both push the same solutions to the same issues, voters will come to believe there is no difference, and they will either stop voting or they will pick the party that promises them the most loot -- advantage Democrats.

This is what happens when you pick someone who is far outside the acceptable ideological range for the party or who happens to be insane. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if Newt or Santorum or Romney or Paul are so far outside the bounds that you should not support them, but ask yourself: “how bad would it be for the party, for my beliefs, and for the country if conservatism came to be defined in the way ____ sees it?”

Winning elections is important, but you don’t want to sacrifice the future to win a single election.


By the way, there's an interesting poll out which shows that 33% of Republicans want a new candidate to jump into the race. This is down from 68% only two months ago. I think the field is set.

Should a political party’s nominee always be supported? Generally, the answer is yes. A political party is a collection of people whose views overlap enough to give them a common interest in getting each other elected. To that end, they form a party with the implicit agreement that they will compete with each other to represent the party and then will support the nominee regardless of the outcome of the competition. Thus, the nominee should be supported. But there is an exception.

This exception arises when (1) the nominee’s views are well outside the range of common interests which hold the party together, and (2) there is a legitimate belief that supporting this nominee will harm the long term goals of the party.

On the first point, Reagan famously said that he could support anyone with whom he agreed on 80% of the issues. Reagan was making the point that it is foolish and counterproductive to require 100% agreement with a nominee before you can support them. Indeed, 100% agreement is probably impossible. Hence, this is the reason moderates should support conservatives and conservatives should support moderates and libertarians should support social conservatives and vice versa.

But Reagan’s point also contains the implicit understanding that at some point (possibly below 80% using Reagan’s formula) there is no obligation to support the nominee. Why would this be? For that, we need to look at the question of harm.

Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to ensure their products remain consistent. They want to make sure you find the exact same amount in each cereal box, that every batch of Mac and Cheese tastes the same, that every sock has the same number of stitches, and that every Acura uses only Acura parts. Why? Because having a consistent level of quality affects how people perceive their brands. People want to know exactly what they are getting when they make a purchase and branding achieves that -- whereas failing to maintain that consistency damages the brand because people will no longer know what to expect from their purchase.

Whether we like the idea or not, a political party is nothing more than a company, and its product or brand is an ideological range. Choosing a nominee from outside that range blurs the identity of the party and damages its brand.

How? For one thing, this will alienate supporters. Supporters expect nominees to be within the ideological range. When they aren’t, the party has violated the contract under which it claims a right to the individual’s support. It is the equivalent of McDonalds selling you a Big Mac container but including a ham sandwich rather than a burger. This is a violation of trust.

Moreover, this confuses voters. When a person represents a party or ideology, their views become associated with that party or ideology and their successes/failures taint the ideology. In other words, the nominee redefines how the public views conservatism or liberalism, and their meanings change. Hence, conservatism and Republicanism came to be associated with Nixon’s views in 1968, Reagan’s views in 1980, and Bush Jr.’s views in 2000 -- I exclude Bush Sr. because he claimed to be a moderate. Liberalism, by comparison, came to be associated with FDR, LBJ, Carter, and now Obama. Clinton called himself a moderate.

Prior to LBJ, the majority political view of the nation was FDR-liberalism. This could have continued indefinitely, except LBJ disgraced liberalism. His errors in Vietnam and his monstrous Great Society wiped out the Democratic party in the South and set the stage for a conservative resurgence. Jimmy Carter finished liberalism off by proving that Democrats are reckless spenders, incompetent managers of the economy, and militarily inept and cowardly. This set the stage for Reagan.

Reagan’s success revived conservatism while also redefining it back to its roots -- away from the big-government conservatism of the Nixon years. By the time Reagan left office, conservatism had become the natural ideology of the country and 60% of the public believed it.

This could have lasted for generations, except along came George Bush Jr. He wrapped himself in the conservative label and set about running a big government, civil-liberties-crushing, crony-capitalism, foreign-adventuring administration which so thoroughly discredited conservatism that in 2008, the voters were more radically liberal and more willing to accept liberalism than they had been at any time since LBJ. The ONLY THING THAT SAVED CONSERVATISM was the election of Barack Obama. If Obama hadn’t proven to be such a disaster, conservatism would be dead today. But Obama was a disaster and he caused a massive backlash which took the form of the Tea Party.

The lesson here is simple.

Ideologies get defined by their leaders and they get punished for the sins of their leaders. If a nominee calls himself conservative but acts like a liberal, the public doesn’t blame liberalism for his crimes and failures, it blames conservatism even if that person never once acted like a true conservative. Thus, Bush and Nixon, neither of whom could be called conservatives, discredited conservatism. LBJ/Carter/Obama, each of who were progressives and not liberals, discredited liberalism. And in each case, the only thing to save conservatism/liberalism was pure luck that someone worse came along to discredit the other side. If Moderate Joe Democrat had come along after George Bush Jr., we could well be looking at an America that views liberalism as the natural order of things and sees conservatism as meaning reckless spending, bad economic management, and cronyism.

Moreover, the nominee need not even be as disastrous as a Bush/Obama to harm the ideology. The goal of politics is to effect long term change in the country. That is simply not possible when the person representing your ideology holds views that are inconsistent with the ideology. This muddies the ideological waters and confuses the differences between the parties. In other words, when the Republicans and the Democrats both push the same solutions to the same issues, voters will come to believe there is no difference, and they will either stop voting or they will pick the party that promises them the most loot -- advantage Democrats.

This is what happens when you pick someone who is far outside the acceptable ideological range for the party or who happens to be insane. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if Newt or Santorum or Romney or Paul are so far outside the bounds that you should not support them, but ask yourself: “how bad would it be for the party, for my beliefs, and for the country if conservatism came to be defined in the way ____ sees it?”

Winning elections is important, but you don’t want to sacrifice the future to win a single election.


By the way, there's an interesting poll out which shows that 33% of Republicans want a new candidate to jump into the race. This is down from 68% only two months ago. I think the field is set.

Should All Nominees Be Supported?

View Detail

Can Obama Turn The Tide?

Can Obama Turn The Tide?

Yesterday was exactly one year from the upcoming 2012 presidential election. With history and the polls running against him, Barack Obama will have to pull off a surprise of epic proportions to save his presidency. Republicans should not let their guard down, however, because even with the odds against him, the beleaguered president could still pull it off.

The majority of polls show Obama’s approval ratings in the low 40s. The Democrat-leaning Gallup poll puts him at 43%. Ironically, the only president since the Second World War to hold onto the presidency with favorable ratings that low was Richard Nixon. Nixon was at 49% until the Democrats nominated Jellyfish George McGovern and handed Nixon a landslide victory. At this point in their presidencies, Jimmy Carter had a favorable rating of 32% and Lyndon Johnson was at 42%. Carter went on to lose to Ronald Reagan, and Johnson withdrew from contention as his poll numbers continued to plummet.

On the other hand, at this point in his presidency, Republican George H. W. Bush (Bush the Elder) had a 59% approval rating, and still lost to Democrat Bill Clinton in a three-way race. However unlikely the entrance of a third party candidate may be at this point, anything is possible, and H. Ross Perot proved it could tilt an election. Clinton was a minority president, garnering only 43% of the total votes, but winning in the Electoral College. Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln were both minority presidents, but won their reelections thanks to third party candidacies.

Obama is in the low 40s, but the old rule of thumb of needing 50% or more was disproved with George W. Bush (Bush the Lesser) in his reelection bid. Bush was at 48% just prior to the election, but still squeaked out a victory.

Enthusiasm for the out-of-power party candidate also plays a role. As low as Obama’s approval ratings are, no Republican currently in the field has generated enough enthusiasm to clearly overcome the advantages of incumbency. Reagan generated considerable excitement among conservatives, moderate Republicans and the “Reagan Democrats.” No current Republican demonstrates that kind of energy. In the case of “generic” Republican candidates, the Republicans tend to match or slightly exceed Obama’s numbers.

But when it comes to actual Republican candidates already vying for the nomination, Obama generally comes out on top, albeit within the margin of error. In state matchups, battleground states are essentially even matches with no clear victor. Ohio and Florida may determine the final election results, and there is no strong leader in Ohio. In Florida polls, only Mitt Romney tied Obama with all the others behind (but some still within the margin of error).

The economy is likely to be the most important factor in the election. And it will come down largely to unemployment numbers and whom the public trusts to bring those numbers down. Economists can play their intellectual games of declaring the recession over by using figures showing a quarter of improvement, which would seemingly help the incumbent. But economists don’t win elections. Voters do, and right now the unemployment rate still hovers officially at 9% or above. On the subject of trust, Obama takes a big hit for having promised much lower figures at this point..

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Depression aside, no Twentieth Century president has won reelection with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. Both Roosevelt and Reagan were charismatic leaders who were able to overcome high unemployment numbers. Reagan entered his second presidential campaign with a 7.2% unemployment figure, but convinced the American people that if they stayed the course, those numbers would improve (as they did, dramatically in his second term). There’s serious doubt that Obama’s fading charisma will be enough to pull off the same thing.

Obama’s Treasury Secretary faces the reality of a long-term unemployment rate of 9% plus, but says “[Obama] could still be reelected with that because he has got a better strategy for helping heal the wounds of this country.” Better than whose? This is another Obama-style dance around the real issue. Obama promised that by the end of his first term, the unemployment rate would be at 6% or lower. Even if there is a downtick in unemployment, it would take more than Obama can deliver to reach those levels.

To go with the empty suit, Obama has made empty promises, and then stood aloof from the fray. Only now has he begun to enter the battle personally. But his newfound executive efforts are not playing well with the general public. He demands that the Congress pass his latest big government jobs bill “right away.” And Congress yawns. Meanwhile, Republicans have offered no less than 27 different plans for creating jobs in the private sector, and have been rebuffed by the Democrats and their president at every turn.

It does not look good for Obama, but counting him out would be a fatal error. One thing that will be absolutely essential to beat him is that once the primaries are over and a candidate has been chosen, Republicans rally enthusiastically around the candidate. Obama still has the ability to raise huge chunks of money (as much as an estimate of a billion dollars). He already has a fifty state election network in place, which has been in campaign mode since the day after his inauguration. No Republican yet has such a sophisticated network. He has an e-mail list of more than nine million supporters. No Republican candidate thus far has shown the ability to maneuver social networks and the internet the way Obama has.

So before you put your feet up on the coffee table and relax, remember that Obama is counting on Republican lethargy and cocksureness about his “inevitable defeat.” It ain’t over ‘til it’s over. With overconfidence, continued in-fighting, and jabs at “RINOs” and moderates, we could all wake up the day after the election and find that grinning community organizer still sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Yesterday was exactly one year from the upcoming 2012 presidential election. With history and the polls running against him, Barack Obama will have to pull off a surprise of epic proportions to save his presidency. Republicans should not let their guard down, however, because even with the odds against him, the beleaguered president could still pull it off.

The majority of polls show Obama’s approval ratings in the low 40s. The Democrat-leaning Gallup poll puts him at 43%. Ironically, the only president since the Second World War to hold onto the presidency with favorable ratings that low was Richard Nixon. Nixon was at 49% until the Democrats nominated Jellyfish George McGovern and handed Nixon a landslide victory. At this point in their presidencies, Jimmy Carter had a favorable rating of 32% and Lyndon Johnson was at 42%. Carter went on to lose to Ronald Reagan, and Johnson withdrew from contention as his poll numbers continued to plummet.

On the other hand, at this point in his presidency, Republican George H. W. Bush (Bush the Elder) had a 59% approval rating, and still lost to Democrat Bill Clinton in a three-way race. However unlikely the entrance of a third party candidate may be at this point, anything is possible, and H. Ross Perot proved it could tilt an election. Clinton was a minority president, garnering only 43% of the total votes, but winning in the Electoral College. Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln were both minority presidents, but won their reelections thanks to third party candidacies.

Obama is in the low 40s, but the old rule of thumb of needing 50% or more was disproved with George W. Bush (Bush the Lesser) in his reelection bid. Bush was at 48% just prior to the election, but still squeaked out a victory.

Enthusiasm for the out-of-power party candidate also plays a role. As low as Obama’s approval ratings are, no Republican currently in the field has generated enough enthusiasm to clearly overcome the advantages of incumbency. Reagan generated considerable excitement among conservatives, moderate Republicans and the “Reagan Democrats.” No current Republican demonstrates that kind of energy. In the case of “generic” Republican candidates, the Republicans tend to match or slightly exceed Obama’s numbers.

But when it comes to actual Republican candidates already vying for the nomination, Obama generally comes out on top, albeit within the margin of error. In state matchups, battleground states are essentially even matches with no clear victor. Ohio and Florida may determine the final election results, and there is no strong leader in Ohio. In Florida polls, only Mitt Romney tied Obama with all the others behind (but some still within the margin of error).

The economy is likely to be the most important factor in the election. And it will come down largely to unemployment numbers and whom the public trusts to bring those numbers down. Economists can play their intellectual games of declaring the recession over by using figures showing a quarter of improvement, which would seemingly help the incumbent. But economists don’t win elections. Voters do, and right now the unemployment rate still hovers officially at 9% or above. On the subject of trust, Obama takes a big hit for having promised much lower figures at this point..

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Depression aside, no Twentieth Century president has won reelection with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. Both Roosevelt and Reagan were charismatic leaders who were able to overcome high unemployment numbers. Reagan entered his second presidential campaign with a 7.2% unemployment figure, but convinced the American people that if they stayed the course, those numbers would improve (as they did, dramatically in his second term). There’s serious doubt that Obama’s fading charisma will be enough to pull off the same thing.

Obama’s Treasury Secretary faces the reality of a long-term unemployment rate of 9% plus, but says “[Obama] could still be reelected with that because he has got a better strategy for helping heal the wounds of this country.” Better than whose? This is another Obama-style dance around the real issue. Obama promised that by the end of his first term, the unemployment rate would be at 6% or lower. Even if there is a downtick in unemployment, it would take more than Obama can deliver to reach those levels.

To go with the empty suit, Obama has made empty promises, and then stood aloof from the fray. Only now has he begun to enter the battle personally. But his newfound executive efforts are not playing well with the general public. He demands that the Congress pass his latest big government jobs bill “right away.” And Congress yawns. Meanwhile, Republicans have offered no less than 27 different plans for creating jobs in the private sector, and have been rebuffed by the Democrats and their president at every turn.

It does not look good for Obama, but counting him out would be a fatal error. One thing that will be absolutely essential to beat him is that once the primaries are over and a candidate has been chosen, Republicans rally enthusiastically around the candidate. Obama still has the ability to raise huge chunks of money (as much as an estimate of a billion dollars). He already has a fifty state election network in place, which has been in campaign mode since the day after his inauguration. No Republican yet has such a sophisticated network. He has an e-mail list of more than nine million supporters. No Republican candidate thus far has shown the ability to maneuver social networks and the internet the way Obama has.

So before you put your feet up on the coffee table and relax, remember that Obama is counting on Republican lethargy and cocksureness about his “inevitable defeat.” It ain’t over ‘til it’s over. With overconfidence, continued in-fighting, and jabs at “RINOs” and moderates, we could all wake up the day after the election and find that grinning community organizer still sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Can Obama Turn The Tide?

View Detail

Big Trouble In Little Obamatown

Big Trouble In Little Obamatown

Barack Obama made another campaign fundraising trip to San Francisco on Tuesday. But it bore little resemblance to his past royal progresses. He usually has an excited crowd inside his favorite gathering spot--the W Hotel--with seats costing between $2500 and $35,000. He got a few of those people, but many of his regulars were in an angry crowd outside the hotel.

Bear with me. I have to comment on Obama's choice of hotels. San Francisco has some of the most beautiful and historic hotels in America. The Fairmont. The Mark Hopkins. The Clift. The Palace. The St. Francis. The Drake. But the nouveau riche Obama and his staff prefer the W. It's South of Market Street (nicknamed SOMA by the wannabe hip crowd), where we old-time San Franciscans still picture skid row and broken-down warehouses. It's in SOMA near MOMA (the Museum of Modern Art). It has a certain ring to it. Millions spent on redevelopment haven't changed our minds, but the yuppies love it.

The hotel advertises itself as "green, hip, stylish, upscale, and forward-looking." It's pure kitsch as far as I'm concerned. The yuppies, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, simply can't tell the difference between fad and fashion. Much like Obama himself. They can order a $200 steak, but they still put their elbows on the table, hold their utensils like weapons, and talk with their mouths full, sometimes in mangled French. The dining room sounds more like Madison Square Garden during a heavyweight boxing match than an elegant place to dine. And who names a hotel "W?" Is it located between the V and X hotels?

I won't even comment on the three-story tall "pneumatic" sculpture of a reclining lodger which looms over the Disneyland-like entrance. I feel better now, so I'll go on with the actual topic. The cause du jour that turned the usually Obama-friendly crowd hostile is the Keystone XL pipeline. Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of Esprit de Corps clothes, stood outside with the crowd and railed against the 1700 mile pipeline from Canada to Texas refineries. It will end the world as we know it. It will destroy the migration and mating habits of the caribou and kill off the remaining polar bear population. Oh, wait. Wrong pipeline. That was the Alaska pipeline.

Tompkins Buell attended the last Obama fundraiser inside the W, at $7500 per plate. But she's out with the folks on the street this time. In 2010, fellow protester David des Jardins, an IT consultant, gave Obama and the Democrats $60,000. This time, he joined hands with Tompkins Buell outside and said "The concern of the donor community is that he really doesn't get the picture of how important this is." They missed the point that importing oil from Canada is a green Obama initiative so we don't destroy the world by drilling for oil ourselves. Brazil was too far, and at least we have a border with Canada.

But they weren't alone in the roiling crowd. The antiwar protesters were there as well. Republicans are giving Obama grudging credit for knocking off a few of the leaders of terror organizations in the Middle East. But this crowd is having none of it. Many were highly-indignant about the lengthy detention of US soldier and alleged traitor Bradley Manning (accused of giving classified documents to WikiLeaks). The Occupy SF gang also took time out from demonstrating in the financial district to come down and take a few shots (metaphorical, of course) at Obama. There was also a CAIR contingent, furious about Obama's perfidious attacks on Muslims.

But the biggest and richest contingent was the anti-Keystone contingent. There was Michael Kieschnick, CEO of CREDO Mobile and Working Assets. That company and its executives have given Obama and progressive, green causes over $60 million. This time he refused to pay the freight for a seat inside at the luncheon, and stood on the street with the rest of the gang. Standing next to him was usual luncheon/dinner attendee Heidi Hess, who contributed $4,600 to Obama's 2008 campaign, but says she doubts she'll contribute this time: "It depends on what kind of president he is. I've been disappointed on a lot of issues." If she doesn't know what kind of president he is now, she never will.

Last, but not least, is the gay/medical marijuana crowd. Led by state Assemblything Tom Ammiano, former SF Supervisor and apostle of Harvey Milk (and former stand-up comic), their portion of the crowd held up protest signs, inhaled, got well, and ate carloads of Doritos. Said Ammiano: "I am part of the loyal opposition to Obama. I want him to rein in the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice and federal prosecutors are acting like thugs by threatening medical marijuana dispensaries." Sweet Jesus!

This is a strong indication that there's trouble in paradise. Obama has been trying to appeal to his base by issuing executive orders for left wing causes, thereby avoiding that pesky Congress and Constitution stuff. Apparently, his efforts have not been entirely successful. These people will never vote for a Republican, but if they sit on their hands on election day, the hardcore votes of the left may be lost to him. Besides, San Francisco has candidates galore from fringe groups like the Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party. Maybe they'll vote for Cindy Sheehan.

Barack Obama made another campaign fundraising trip to San Francisco on Tuesday. But it bore little resemblance to his past royal progresses. He usually has an excited crowd inside his favorite gathering spot--the W Hotel--with seats costing between $2500 and $35,000. He got a few of those people, but many of his regulars were in an angry crowd outside the hotel.

Bear with me. I have to comment on Obama's choice of hotels. San Francisco has some of the most beautiful and historic hotels in America. The Fairmont. The Mark Hopkins. The Clift. The Palace. The St. Francis. The Drake. But the nouveau riche Obama and his staff prefer the W. It's South of Market Street (nicknamed SOMA by the wannabe hip crowd), where we old-time San Franciscans still picture skid row and broken-down warehouses. It's in SOMA near MOMA (the Museum of Modern Art). It has a certain ring to it. Millions spent on redevelopment haven't changed our minds, but the yuppies love it.

The hotel advertises itself as "green, hip, stylish, upscale, and forward-looking." It's pure kitsch as far as I'm concerned. The yuppies, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, simply can't tell the difference between fad and fashion. Much like Obama himself. They can order a $200 steak, but they still put their elbows on the table, hold their utensils like weapons, and talk with their mouths full, sometimes in mangled French. The dining room sounds more like Madison Square Garden during a heavyweight boxing match than an elegant place to dine. And who names a hotel "W?" Is it located between the V and X hotels?

I won't even comment on the three-story tall "pneumatic" sculpture of a reclining lodger which looms over the Disneyland-like entrance. I feel better now, so I'll go on with the actual topic. The cause du jour that turned the usually Obama-friendly crowd hostile is the Keystone XL pipeline. Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of Esprit de Corps clothes, stood outside with the crowd and railed against the 1700 mile pipeline from Canada to Texas refineries. It will end the world as we know it. It will destroy the migration and mating habits of the caribou and kill off the remaining polar bear population. Oh, wait. Wrong pipeline. That was the Alaska pipeline.

Tompkins Buell attended the last Obama fundraiser inside the W, at $7500 per plate. But she's out with the folks on the street this time. In 2010, fellow protester David des Jardins, an IT consultant, gave Obama and the Democrats $60,000. This time, he joined hands with Tompkins Buell outside and said "The concern of the donor community is that he really doesn't get the picture of how important this is." They missed the point that importing oil from Canada is a green Obama initiative so we don't destroy the world by drilling for oil ourselves. Brazil was too far, and at least we have a border with Canada.

But they weren't alone in the roiling crowd. The antiwar protesters were there as well. Republicans are giving Obama grudging credit for knocking off a few of the leaders of terror organizations in the Middle East. But this crowd is having none of it. Many were highly-indignant about the lengthy detention of US soldier and alleged traitor Bradley Manning (accused of giving classified documents to WikiLeaks). The Occupy SF gang also took time out from demonstrating in the financial district to come down and take a few shots (metaphorical, of course) at Obama. There was also a CAIR contingent, furious about Obama's perfidious attacks on Muslims.

But the biggest and richest contingent was the anti-Keystone contingent. There was Michael Kieschnick, CEO of CREDO Mobile and Working Assets. That company and its executives have given Obama and progressive, green causes over $60 million. This time he refused to pay the freight for a seat inside at the luncheon, and stood on the street with the rest of the gang. Standing next to him was usual luncheon/dinner attendee Heidi Hess, who contributed $4,600 to Obama's 2008 campaign, but says she doubts she'll contribute this time: "It depends on what kind of president he is. I've been disappointed on a lot of issues." If she doesn't know what kind of president he is now, she never will.

Last, but not least, is the gay/medical marijuana crowd. Led by state Assemblything Tom Ammiano, former SF Supervisor and apostle of Harvey Milk (and former stand-up comic), their portion of the crowd held up protest signs, inhaled, got well, and ate carloads of Doritos. Said Ammiano: "I am part of the loyal opposition to Obama. I want him to rein in the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice and federal prosecutors are acting like thugs by threatening medical marijuana dispensaries." Sweet Jesus!

This is a strong indication that there's trouble in paradise. Obama has been trying to appeal to his base by issuing executive orders for left wing causes, thereby avoiding that pesky Congress and Constitution stuff. Apparently, his efforts have not been entirely successful. These people will never vote for a Republican, but if they sit on their hands on election day, the hardcore votes of the left may be lost to him. Besides, San Francisco has candidates galore from fringe groups like the Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party. Maybe they'll vote for Cindy Sheehan.

Big Trouble In Little Obamatown

View Detail