The White Sox are my hometown team. Yeah, I know that they're from Chicago. And that I'm from Portland. We just don't have a team though. So I had to look elsewhere. I didn't really look far. After all, my father had me watching the Chi-Sox be bounced from the first round of the playoffs for years... that is when they weren't finishing in the basement of the AL central.
"Come talk to me on July 4th" my grandfather said when he heard that the 'Sox were leading the division in April. More often than not they'd be well behind by September. Well this year they were leading on the Fourth this year and tonight they even managed not to choke a good thing away by beating the Twins 1-0. We're going to the playoffs. My Chi-Sox almost blew it. Almost went home with all the promise in the world and a wasted 162 games. They're still likely to lose in the playoffs, heck 7 of 8 teams do. But, for tonight I'm excited to see a team I root for steal victory from the jaws of defeat.
We're in for a recession. Not like the one in 2001-2 or even the one in 1991-2. We're in for a big one. It's Wall Street's fault, it's congress's fault, it's the President's fault and everyone else to boot. It's not something we had to have, but we failed, and we've got it. Still, I'm hopeful that, like the 'Sox, those who don't give up are rewarded. I root for White Sox like I do for America: it's my hometown team. For America, it's likely that the infamous "well there's always next year" applies more than anything else. Still, the sun will probably rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow and I'm reassured that there will be next year. Tonight, my White Sox rose to the challenge of a challenging time... I sure hope my other home team will do the same.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
An' then there was nothing
Today, politics reigned supreme. Today, the need to insult, denigrate and win elections triumphed over the need to govern well. Today, the Dow was down another 778 points causing the loss of roughly 1.2 trillion of dollars of American wealth. It was wealth that was in 401k retirement packages and our banks. It was wealth that allowed us to buy houses and cars. It was wealth that allowed for credit cards and Christmas presents. It was the wealth that funded business loans and created jobs. It was wealth. Now, It's gone.
We had to act quickly. We didn't. All of the protests that this bill wasn't perfect are surely correct... and completely irrelevant. We've now let this go on long enough that by the time we might have a perfect rescue there will be nothing left of the economy to revive. In this case even a bad plan was better than none at all. Everyone who voted against it for political and ideological reasons should be ashamed of themselves.
There's plenty of blame for both parties.
The Democrats did not take this crisis seriously and spent their time packing a simple 3 page (thank you Ariel) bailout plan with so much random and unneeded drivel that the final bill was over 300 pages long. Then Speaker Pelosi gave a speech this morning saying that the crisis was entirely the fault of the Republican party, George Bush and big corporations. This not only alienated the Republicans who were set to vote for the bill... but emboldened Democrats to vote against it for the reasons she laid out! It was a petty attempt to score political points at exactly the wrong moment. Can we safely say now that Pelosi is in the running for the singularly worst congressional leader this country has ever had? She's a wreck!
The Republicans suffered from a lack of backbone and a fit of pique. Yeah, Pelosi's speech was gallingly offensive. But, Republicans should have voted for the bill anyway. It was irresponsible to let that legislation fail. It was immature to stick it to Pelosi with a no vote just because she gave a petulant speech. That little protest's cost was remarkably too expensive. The other Republicans who failed to act cited a constituency uprising. People were shell shocked by the 700 billion number. It's a bunch of money! Never mind that most of it would likely be repaid. Never mind that doing nothing would cost more. Never mind that the financial sector of the economy underpins everything and its failure will hurt every person on the face of the earth. The Mob responded emotionally and called their congress(wo)man to make sure that they didn't have to pay. This response is short sighted and down right ignorant. We have a representative system to make these far-sighted policies precisely because the Mob cannot be trusted. As it happened many congresspeople failed to lead when leadership was needed most andthe Mob forced itself and everybody else to pay much more than a measly 700 billion to cover their lack of courage. Those Republicans and Democrats who calculated that they wouldn't be elected if they voted for this bill are profiles in cowardice. They knew better and selfishly shuffled possible economic ruin onto everyone else so they might come back in the winter and continue their failed political careers.
At this point the damage is done. The only package that would make a difference now would cost far more than 700 billion dollars. There's no reason to bail out a sunken ship. I'm now of the opinion that the market really is now the best corrector of this mess. It was a market failure, we had a chance to mitigate its effects and our leaders failed us. I'm convinced that the time has past and at this point government action will do more harm than good. Our leaders from both parties fiddled while wall street burned... I think I'd rather not suffer the insult of them watering the ashes. It's time for us to take our lumps and rebuild again.
1.2 trillion dollars out of everyone's pocket today. I wonder what will tomorrows toll be?
We had to act quickly. We didn't. All of the protests that this bill wasn't perfect are surely correct... and completely irrelevant. We've now let this go on long enough that by the time we might have a perfect rescue there will be nothing left of the economy to revive. In this case even a bad plan was better than none at all. Everyone who voted against it for political and ideological reasons should be ashamed of themselves.
There's plenty of blame for both parties.
The Democrats did not take this crisis seriously and spent their time packing a simple 3 page (thank you Ariel) bailout plan with so much random and unneeded drivel that the final bill was over 300 pages long. Then Speaker Pelosi gave a speech this morning saying that the crisis was entirely the fault of the Republican party, George Bush and big corporations. This not only alienated the Republicans who were set to vote for the bill... but emboldened Democrats to vote against it for the reasons she laid out! It was a petty attempt to score political points at exactly the wrong moment. Can we safely say now that Pelosi is in the running for the singularly worst congressional leader this country has ever had? She's a wreck!
The Republicans suffered from a lack of backbone and a fit of pique. Yeah, Pelosi's speech was gallingly offensive. But, Republicans should have voted for the bill anyway. It was irresponsible to let that legislation fail. It was immature to stick it to Pelosi with a no vote just because she gave a petulant speech. That little protest's cost was remarkably too expensive. The other Republicans who failed to act cited a constituency uprising. People were shell shocked by the 700 billion number. It's a bunch of money! Never mind that most of it would likely be repaid. Never mind that doing nothing would cost more. Never mind that the financial sector of the economy underpins everything and its failure will hurt every person on the face of the earth. The Mob responded emotionally and called their congress(wo)man to make sure that they didn't have to pay. This response is short sighted and down right ignorant. We have a representative system to make these far-sighted policies precisely because the Mob cannot be trusted. As it happened many congresspeople failed to lead when leadership was needed most andthe Mob forced itself and everybody else to pay much more than a measly 700 billion to cover their lack of courage. Those Republicans and Democrats who calculated that they wouldn't be elected if they voted for this bill are profiles in cowardice. They knew better and selfishly shuffled possible economic ruin onto everyone else so they might come back in the winter and continue their failed political careers.
At this point the damage is done. The only package that would make a difference now would cost far more than 700 billion dollars. There's no reason to bail out a sunken ship. I'm now of the opinion that the market really is now the best corrector of this mess. It was a market failure, we had a chance to mitigate its effects and our leaders failed us. I'm convinced that the time has past and at this point government action will do more harm than good. Our leaders from both parties fiddled while wall street burned... I think I'd rather not suffer the insult of them watering the ashes. It's time for us to take our lumps and rebuild again.
1.2 trillion dollars out of everyone's pocket today. I wonder what will tomorrows toll be?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Debate links
The AP reviews the debate - It's got a "by line" so I don't assume that this is straight news. Though having read it it's pretty close to fair.
OXFORD, Mississippi (CNN) -- A national poll of people who watched the first presidential debate suggests that Barack Obama came out on top, but there was overwhelming agreement that both Obama and John McCain would be able to handle the job of president if elected.
Suzanne Garment from Forbes says we all won
tis the morning after the first presidential debate. Tens of millions of people are delivering themselves of opinions about which senator won, and tens of thousands of them are actually getting paid for it. The instant opinions are almost wholly filtered through the lens of who the opiner wants to win the election. However, it is clear that a big winner has been us, the public discourse, the country. Yes, the foregoing sounds incredibly sappy; but it is probably the most important judgment that can be made about any political contest.
Slate says that the tie goes to Obama - This is becoming the "conventional wisdom" in the media.
We've learned recently that John McCain likes chaos. First there was his surprise pick of Sarah Palin, then there was his hold-onto-your-hats rush back to Washington this week. The first presidential debate could have used a little of that homegrown mayhem. It was a very sober and even exchange with nary a hint of serendipity.
Joe Kline for Time - You'll see this analysis repeated by partisans who favor Obama all week.
Toward the very end of tonight's debate—which was quite a good one, I believe—John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the "knowledge and experience to be President." The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that—but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy ... and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.
National Review - You'll see this repeated by Republicans....
Oxford, Mississippi — A few minutes after the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama ended here on the campus of the University of Mississippi, I asked close McCain adviser Charlie Black whether Obama had performed as McCain’s debate team had anticipated.
“No, no,” Black said emphatically. “I never expected Sen. Obama to spend the entire debate on the defensive, and he did. He did.”
Maybe there was a tad of exaggeration in Black’s verdict, but there was some truth in it, too. Obama was smooth, unflappable, and just a little off balance for much of the evening. Worse for him, he seemed inexplicably eager to concede that McCain was right on issue after issue. A candidate determined to appear congenial might do that once, or even twice, but Obama did it eight times.
There are many many more good editorials out there. I haven't seen too many that are polemic either. So go check it out.
OXFORD, Miss. (AP) - In a faceoff that returned again and again to judgment, John McCain portrayed himself as a battle-tested elder running against a naive rookie, while Barack Obama suggested the Republican is a hothead who made the wrong choices on the Iraq war, corporate taxes and more.
Now they take the themes from an intense first debate back to the campaign trail, looking for some edge in a tight presidential race. With 38 days left, McCain is headed for Washington and the dispute over a Wall Street bailout, while Obama plans to visit Republican-leaning states where the Democrat thinks he can make inroads.
CNN Story - Interesting poll information. Not sure it means anything for sure because of their methodology --still interesting.OXFORD, Mississippi (CNN) -- A national poll of people who watched the first presidential debate suggests that Barack Obama came out on top, but there was overwhelming agreement that both Obama and John McCain would be able to handle the job of president if elected.
Suzanne Garment from Forbes says we all won
tis the morning after the first presidential debate. Tens of millions of people are delivering themselves of opinions about which senator won, and tens of thousands of them are actually getting paid for it. The instant opinions are almost wholly filtered through the lens of who the opiner wants to win the election. However, it is clear that a big winner has been us, the public discourse, the country. Yes, the foregoing sounds incredibly sappy; but it is probably the most important judgment that can be made about any political contest.
Slate says that the tie goes to Obama - This is becoming the "conventional wisdom" in the media.
We've learned recently that John McCain likes chaos. First there was his surprise pick of Sarah Palin, then there was his hold-onto-your-hats rush back to Washington this week. The first presidential debate could have used a little of that homegrown mayhem. It was a very sober and even exchange with nary a hint of serendipity.
Joe Kline for Time - You'll see this analysis repeated by partisans who favor Obama all week.
Toward the very end of tonight's debate—which was quite a good one, I believe—John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the "knowledge and experience to be President." The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that—but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy ... and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.
National Review - You'll see this repeated by Republicans....
Oxford, Mississippi — A few minutes after the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama ended here on the campus of the University of Mississippi, I asked close McCain adviser Charlie Black whether Obama had performed as McCain’s debate team had anticipated.
“No, no,” Black said emphatically. “I never expected Sen. Obama to spend the entire debate on the defensive, and he did. He did.”
Maybe there was a tad of exaggeration in Black’s verdict, but there was some truth in it, too. Obama was smooth, unflappable, and just a little off balance for much of the evening. Worse for him, he seemed inexplicably eager to concede that McCain was right on issue after issue. A candidate determined to appear congenial might do that once, or even twice, but Obama did it eight times.
There are many many more good editorials out there. I haven't seen too many that are polemic either. So go check it out.
Debate Review
My first impression was that McCain won the debate narrowly. Although, upon seeing the replay I'm changing my opinion. I think the whole thing slightly favored Obama. Minute by minute I think McCain scored more points but there's a value that needs to be added. Because this debate was split between foreign policy and the financial crisis these need to be graded separately.
On the Foreign policy section McCain won narrowly. He repeatedly hit the point that Obama "doesn't get it" which is the common and effective critique of Barack. When the debate degenerated into a "he said he said" sort of thing McCain was at advantage because he simply is more experienced and has more credibility. Obama did okay and he was able to hit the Iraq war point repeatedly. McCain never did parry the "you supported the war and you were wrong" accusation made by Obama. I kept waiting for McCain to say "but this isn't 2003... it's 2008 and this debate is about what to do in Iraq now." Obama has some reasonable responses to that point too, but the successful rejoinder would have greatly helped McCain by muddying the issue. So Obama held his own but McCain won this part.
On the financial crisis Obama won narrowly. McCain was not able to take credit for bringing the house republicans into the fold because they refused to agree to a deal before the debate. As such Obama was able to imply that McCain was not demonstrating leadership by virtue of being unsuccessful. The fact that this argument doesn't strictly make sense doesn't matter... it's about results. As far as the plan itself Obama won because he never explicitly endorsed it as a good thing. The American people are against any sort of bail out by a significant margin! Yes, this is stupid, yes I thank whatever Deity(s) there might possibly be that we have a representative rather than direct democratic system, but no the bail out is not popular. By laying low the bail out in general becomes McCain's baby politically and not Obama's. Irresponsible as it might be to not support the bail out it will help get votes among the very people where Obama is weak. Populist minded blue collar, white males. McCain did fine on this section, he was able to score points and make his case but he didn't win.
So why did Obama win the debate in total narrowly when they discussed foreign policy for so much longer than the financial crisis? It's because people don't care about foreign policy! Now that Iraq is relatively stable and Afghanistan is still a very low intensity conflict the folks have lost interest in the world... they hate us anyway right? The economy is by far the most important issue this election cycle and Iraq isn't even #2. This is a bit of a testament to the success of McCain's surge idea but it still hurts his chances to win in the fall.
Because Obama narrowly won the part of the debate that focused on the economy he won the debate as a whole despite losing narrowly on foreign policy.
On the Foreign policy section McCain won narrowly. He repeatedly hit the point that Obama "doesn't get it" which is the common and effective critique of Barack. When the debate degenerated into a "he said he said" sort of thing McCain was at advantage because he simply is more experienced and has more credibility. Obama did okay and he was able to hit the Iraq war point repeatedly. McCain never did parry the "you supported the war and you were wrong" accusation made by Obama. I kept waiting for McCain to say "but this isn't 2003... it's 2008 and this debate is about what to do in Iraq now." Obama has some reasonable responses to that point too, but the successful rejoinder would have greatly helped McCain by muddying the issue. So Obama held his own but McCain won this part.
On the financial crisis Obama won narrowly. McCain was not able to take credit for bringing the house republicans into the fold because they refused to agree to a deal before the debate. As such Obama was able to imply that McCain was not demonstrating leadership by virtue of being unsuccessful. The fact that this argument doesn't strictly make sense doesn't matter... it's about results. As far as the plan itself Obama won because he never explicitly endorsed it as a good thing. The American people are against any sort of bail out by a significant margin! Yes, this is stupid, yes I thank whatever Deity(s) there might possibly be that we have a representative rather than direct democratic system, but no the bail out is not popular. By laying low the bail out in general becomes McCain's baby politically and not Obama's. Irresponsible as it might be to not support the bail out it will help get votes among the very people where Obama is weak. Populist minded blue collar, white males. McCain did fine on this section, he was able to score points and make his case but he didn't win.
So why did Obama win the debate in total narrowly when they discussed foreign policy for so much longer than the financial crisis? It's because people don't care about foreign policy! Now that Iraq is relatively stable and Afghanistan is still a very low intensity conflict the folks have lost interest in the world... they hate us anyway right? The economy is by far the most important issue this election cycle and Iraq isn't even #2. This is a bit of a testament to the success of McCain's surge idea but it still hurts his chances to win in the fall.
Because Obama narrowly won the part of the debate that focused on the economy he won the debate as a whole despite losing narrowly on foreign policy.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Debate
My first gut reaction was that this debate was very close. I'll write up my opinion tomorrow once I have had a chance to think about it a bit. But I wanted to know: what do you think?
Who won and why?
Did either guy have a moment that will end up being replayed over and over on the news?
Who won and why?
Did either guy have a moment that will end up being replayed over and over on the news?
Deal or no deal
No deal. Not yet at least.
Why?
The debate about the debate
Well nobody's sure what exactly happened at the White House meeting yesterday. There are so many reports that are directly contradicting each other that it's safe to say that somebody is telling bald-faced lies... it's just impossible to tell who. So, analyzing the debate about the negotiations and who was right or wrong on the politics is pretty damned near impossible due to a lack of reliable information. So, like the USC Trojans last night, I'm going to punt this one and just assume that everybody's lying.
Policy Disagreements
We can say that there is a real disagreement born out of party ideology on the bail-out package.
The Republicans are fundamentally opposed to regulation and spending. So there is real unease among Republican house members. They have balked at the idea of spending 700billion dollars just because it's too big. They want to have a market-based solution along with the bail out. That's probably a good idea... ideally. However, in a crisis it's important to do something rather than nothing. It is often better to get even a bad plan going than to do nothing at all. This is where the Republicans are wrong, their concerns are real and probably good, but we've got to address the fundamental problem in some way before it spirals out of control and we lose the chance to fix it at all.
The Democrats are also guilty. They have taken the bail-out package as an opportunity to insert all sorts of ideologically driven policies that are unrelated to the topic at hand. The Democrats want to provide help for folks who cannot pay their mortgages. That might be a good thing to do, but it's irrelevant to the bail out of the financial sector. The Democrats have added an idea about limiting CEO pay. Again, this is not particularly relevant to the bailing out the financial sector. Both of these things are contentious and the idea of bailing out individuals who can't pay their mortgages will make the already extremely expensive package even more expensive... thus causing even stiffer Republican opposition. By injecting these other issues into the bail out the Democrats have held the financial safety of the country hostage to social spending that they'd like to have but isn't directly relevant to the purpose of the package. Like the Republicans the Democrats need to moderate or drop these demands because they're standing in the way of any package being passed. And doing nothing is the worst possible outcome.
So... Obama and McCain were both right when they called for bipartisanship to dominate so that we can come to an agreement quickly. So far neither has been able to provide the leadership needed to heal the congress and get something done.
Why?
The debate about the debate
Well nobody's sure what exactly happened at the White House meeting yesterday. There are so many reports that are directly contradicting each other that it's safe to say that somebody is telling bald-faced lies... it's just impossible to tell who. So, analyzing the debate about the negotiations and who was right or wrong on the politics is pretty damned near impossible due to a lack of reliable information. So, like the USC Trojans last night, I'm going to punt this one and just assume that everybody's lying.
Policy Disagreements
We can say that there is a real disagreement born out of party ideology on the bail-out package.
The Republicans are fundamentally opposed to regulation and spending. So there is real unease among Republican house members. They have balked at the idea of spending 700billion dollars just because it's too big. They want to have a market-based solution along with the bail out. That's probably a good idea... ideally. However, in a crisis it's important to do something rather than nothing. It is often better to get even a bad plan going than to do nothing at all. This is where the Republicans are wrong, their concerns are real and probably good, but we've got to address the fundamental problem in some way before it spirals out of control and we lose the chance to fix it at all.
The Democrats are also guilty. They have taken the bail-out package as an opportunity to insert all sorts of ideologically driven policies that are unrelated to the topic at hand. The Democrats want to provide help for folks who cannot pay their mortgages. That might be a good thing to do, but it's irrelevant to the bail out of the financial sector. The Democrats have added an idea about limiting CEO pay. Again, this is not particularly relevant to the bailing out the financial sector. Both of these things are contentious and the idea of bailing out individuals who can't pay their mortgages will make the already extremely expensive package even more expensive... thus causing even stiffer Republican opposition. By injecting these other issues into the bail out the Democrats have held the financial safety of the country hostage to social spending that they'd like to have but isn't directly relevant to the purpose of the package. Like the Republicans the Democrats need to moderate or drop these demands because they're standing in the way of any package being passed. And doing nothing is the worst possible outcome.
So... Obama and McCain were both right when they called for bipartisanship to dominate so that we can come to an agreement quickly. So far neither has been able to provide the leadership needed to heal the congress and get something done.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Financial Crisis #3: Presidential politics
Sorry this has come out so late. Today was so busy on this topic that I didn't feel prepared to write this post until now.
Obama
Mostly, the financial crisis will help Obama. He's a member of the Democratic (:-P) party and the president is a Republican. On the face of it anything that goes bad on the other guy's watch helps. So this is bad, it'll likely help Obama. Add to this the polling data that suggests on these sorts of issues the American people tend to trust Democrats more than Republicans and tend to believe that they'd be better stewards of the economy as it benefits every day folks.
All of this has led to Obama erasing McCain's narrow lead and even pulling out to a little one himself. It's still probably within the margins, but when every poll agrees those margins of error are more narrow. Sorry, I'll do a post about polling someday... I swear.
This is still sensitive. This is not a down swing that is unfortunate but doesn't really require any policy to correct. That happened in 1990-2 and again in 2000-3. In both of those cases the fundamental system was not particularly at risk, rather it was just a hiccup on a generally upward trend. Also, both of these slowdowns were just that... slow downs. The economy kept growing, just at a reduced pace. The current financial crisis is more like the 1987 or 1929 episodes, thus there is a requirement for leadership to actually implement policies that reassure the markets and fix the problem before it gets worse. Obama has done this... some, but here McCain has an opportunity.
McCain
After spending a week flailing from one bold and brash policy pronouncement to an opposite bold and brash policy pronouncement John McCain, today, attempted to take the bull by the horns. By going on TV, using the bully pulpit and involving things beyond politics into actually governance he's taken quite a risk. Suddenly, if things really do go bad he has to take the blame. However, he's also demonstrated some things that Obama has not. He's managed to work himself into a position of providing decisive leadership. Often times in crises any answer, right or wrong, is better than no answer at all. McCain has at least gotten off the fence, and I believe he might benefit from it.
McCain is now tied to the successful passage of a bailout plan by Monday. If it works, he'll be lauded, if it doesn't he mine as well pack up and go home on Tuesday.
Leadership
I was disturbed today by Obama's press conference. He deferred to Harry Reid and Pelosi and Paulson and anybody that he could when asked what he thought was the best policy. I'm not sure he realizes that Barack Obama is now the leader of the Democratic party. He's the one who is responsible for advancing an agenda and he would be irresponsible to pass that buck onto someone else's shoulders. It struck me as a particular lack of executive flair that is needed to be successful as a president. If present in too great a quantity it can be a bad quality. Many would point to GW Bush as an example. However, most effective presidents (Washington, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan are examples) lead from the front and bent the body politic to his way of thinking... I just didn't see that spirit in Obama today and found it disconcerting. It's true that there are examples such as Nixon and Clinton of presidents who were effective without being a particularly good leader, however, Obama's campaign has defined him as an advocate for change if he doesn't have a backbone he'll be another Carter not a Kennedy.
Conclusion
So on balance I think that this entire episode helps Obama. It's mostly structural, he's done nothing particularly to deserve the bounce in the polls but he hasn't done anything to sabotage himself either. He's doing a good job of just keeping the news on an issue that he's naturally at an advantage. If McCain could push the election back onto foreign policy you'd see the same behavior from him. McCain has thrown a bit of a hail marry to try to steal some of Obama's thunder... it might work. We'll just have to see.
Obama
Mostly, the financial crisis will help Obama. He's a member of the Democratic (:-P) party and the president is a Republican. On the face of it anything that goes bad on the other guy's watch helps. So this is bad, it'll likely help Obama. Add to this the polling data that suggests on these sorts of issues the American people tend to trust Democrats more than Republicans and tend to believe that they'd be better stewards of the economy as it benefits every day folks.
All of this has led to Obama erasing McCain's narrow lead and even pulling out to a little one himself. It's still probably within the margins, but when every poll agrees those margins of error are more narrow. Sorry, I'll do a post about polling someday... I swear.
This is still sensitive. This is not a down swing that is unfortunate but doesn't really require any policy to correct. That happened in 1990-2 and again in 2000-3. In both of those cases the fundamental system was not particularly at risk, rather it was just a hiccup on a generally upward trend. Also, both of these slowdowns were just that... slow downs. The economy kept growing, just at a reduced pace. The current financial crisis is more like the 1987 or 1929 episodes, thus there is a requirement for leadership to actually implement policies that reassure the markets and fix the problem before it gets worse. Obama has done this... some, but here McCain has an opportunity.
McCain
After spending a week flailing from one bold and brash policy pronouncement to an opposite bold and brash policy pronouncement John McCain, today, attempted to take the bull by the horns. By going on TV, using the bully pulpit and involving things beyond politics into actually governance he's taken quite a risk. Suddenly, if things really do go bad he has to take the blame. However, he's also demonstrated some things that Obama has not. He's managed to work himself into a position of providing decisive leadership. Often times in crises any answer, right or wrong, is better than no answer at all. McCain has at least gotten off the fence, and I believe he might benefit from it.
McCain is now tied to the successful passage of a bailout plan by Monday. If it works, he'll be lauded, if it doesn't he mine as well pack up and go home on Tuesday.
Leadership
I was disturbed today by Obama's press conference. He deferred to Harry Reid and Pelosi and Paulson and anybody that he could when asked what he thought was the best policy. I'm not sure he realizes that Barack Obama is now the leader of the Democratic party. He's the one who is responsible for advancing an agenda and he would be irresponsible to pass that buck onto someone else's shoulders. It struck me as a particular lack of executive flair that is needed to be successful as a president. If present in too great a quantity it can be a bad quality. Many would point to GW Bush as an example. However, most effective presidents (Washington, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan are examples) lead from the front and bent the body politic to his way of thinking... I just didn't see that spirit in Obama today and found it disconcerting. It's true that there are examples such as Nixon and Clinton of presidents who were effective without being a particularly good leader, however, Obama's campaign has defined him as an advocate for change if he doesn't have a backbone he'll be another Carter not a Kennedy.
Conclusion
So on balance I think that this entire episode helps Obama. It's mostly structural, he's done nothing particularly to deserve the bounce in the polls but he hasn't done anything to sabotage himself either. He's doing a good job of just keeping the news on an issue that he's naturally at an advantage. If McCain could push the election back onto foreign policy you'd see the same behavior from him. McCain has thrown a bit of a hail marry to try to steal some of Obama's thunder... it might work. We'll just have to see.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Financial Crisis #2: What the government can do about it.
Government
We left off noting that there is a mass of illiquid assets on the books of various banks and mortgage institutions. These assets are not worthless, but they are not tradable. This leaves these banks and mortgage companies without enough capital to invest and make a profit. If the banks could sell these securities even for a significant loss, they would be able to write it off and remain solvent. As it is, those banks that were most exposed find themselves dragged down by this mass of immovable assets on their books.
The Bailout
This is where the government can step in. The problem is a lack of buyers for these securities. The government provides that buyer. The bailout package proposes to spend 700b to 1t dollars to purchase these securities from the banks. The banks would take a loss on this transaction but it would free up a portion of that illiquid capital to be reinvested. This should allow the financial organs that were most exposed to persist.
Effectively the treasury would then become the owner of about $1t worth of home mortgages. It should be noted that the government isn't exactly "spending" money to bail out the banks. Hypothetically some of these mortgages will be paid so the securities that were created on top of the "bad loans" should retain some value. It's not impossible to think that a decent chunk of the money that the government might make available might make its way back to the treasury eventually. As such we have no idea how much a bail out would actually cost in the long term. Suffice to say a lot, but it should be significantly less than $1 trillion.
Why would the government assume the risk on these illiquid securities? Because the consolidation of mortgage companies and banks have made them too big to allow to fail. This is the government's own doing. The subsidies and preference given to lenders giving cheap loans to buy houses by both parties made it easier for someone to buy a home, but also made the home mortgage business so big that if it were to fail the loss of capital would cause a panic that would have drastic consequences on the entire economy.
So this week we're likely to see some sort of bailout come out of the congress that authorizes the treasury to buy the illiquid securities and administer them until they hopefully can be liquidated later. The details of this plan are being worked out in congress now. Until there is an announcement of exactly what congress will do the markets will be racked with uncertainty and will likely continue their retreat. Until stocks are secure, investors who do have capital are going to hold it in commodities as a guard against both dropping stock prices and inflation.
Problems
The problem with this bailout is government debt and inflation. The only way for the government to raise the $1t of capital required for this is to borrow it or print it. No doubt they'll do both. This is particularly bad timing for the US economy because the inflationary pressures of having 2% or lower interest rates for almost a decade is starting to be seen. While the treasury is reporting inflation at a rate of around 5% most independent organs place it somewhere nearer 10%. This bailout is gong to make that even worse.
Inflation is a real killer of wealth. We're dealing with a circumstance where people's savings are in jeopardy and businesses will be unable to make new investments because the previous revenues no longer cover the new costs at the new prices. I'm not rightly sure there's anything that can be done about this in the short term. The investment sector really is too big to fail. However, the economic policy going forward is going to be very touchy. I've not yet thought, read or learned about it enough to prescribe anything yet... but I'm confident in saying that we're going to have to raise interest rates, and soon. Or risk a real inflation trap.
More tomorrow on how this effects the presidential race.
We left off noting that there is a mass of illiquid assets on the books of various banks and mortgage institutions. These assets are not worthless, but they are not tradable. This leaves these banks and mortgage companies without enough capital to invest and make a profit. If the banks could sell these securities even for a significant loss, they would be able to write it off and remain solvent. As it is, those banks that were most exposed find themselves dragged down by this mass of immovable assets on their books.
The Bailout
This is where the government can step in. The problem is a lack of buyers for these securities. The government provides that buyer. The bailout package proposes to spend 700b to 1t dollars to purchase these securities from the banks. The banks would take a loss on this transaction but it would free up a portion of that illiquid capital to be reinvested. This should allow the financial organs that were most exposed to persist.
Effectively the treasury would then become the owner of about $1t worth of home mortgages. It should be noted that the government isn't exactly "spending" money to bail out the banks. Hypothetically some of these mortgages will be paid so the securities that were created on top of the "bad loans" should retain some value. It's not impossible to think that a decent chunk of the money that the government might make available might make its way back to the treasury eventually. As such we have no idea how much a bail out would actually cost in the long term. Suffice to say a lot, but it should be significantly less than $1 trillion.
Why would the government assume the risk on these illiquid securities? Because the consolidation of mortgage companies and banks have made them too big to allow to fail. This is the government's own doing. The subsidies and preference given to lenders giving cheap loans to buy houses by both parties made it easier for someone to buy a home, but also made the home mortgage business so big that if it were to fail the loss of capital would cause a panic that would have drastic consequences on the entire economy.
So this week we're likely to see some sort of bailout come out of the congress that authorizes the treasury to buy the illiquid securities and administer them until they hopefully can be liquidated later. The details of this plan are being worked out in congress now. Until there is an announcement of exactly what congress will do the markets will be racked with uncertainty and will likely continue their retreat. Until stocks are secure, investors who do have capital are going to hold it in commodities as a guard against both dropping stock prices and inflation.
Problems
The problem with this bailout is government debt and inflation. The only way for the government to raise the $1t of capital required for this is to borrow it or print it. No doubt they'll do both. This is particularly bad timing for the US economy because the inflationary pressures of having 2% or lower interest rates for almost a decade is starting to be seen. While the treasury is reporting inflation at a rate of around 5% most independent organs place it somewhere nearer 10%. This bailout is gong to make that even worse.
Inflation is a real killer of wealth. We're dealing with a circumstance where people's savings are in jeopardy and businesses will be unable to make new investments because the previous revenues no longer cover the new costs at the new prices. I'm not rightly sure there's anything that can be done about this in the short term. The investment sector really is too big to fail. However, the economic policy going forward is going to be very touchy. I've not yet thought, read or learned about it enough to prescribe anything yet... but I'm confident in saying that we're going to have to raise interest rates, and soon. Or risk a real inflation trap.
More tomorrow on how this effects the presidential race.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Financial Crisis #1: What happened.
What happened.
Disclaimer:
If any of you econ, finance or otherwise smarter than me folks want to point out where I'm going wrong here... please do. I'm mostly repeating what I saw on a financial show on CNN over the weekend.
So what did happen?
Step 1: Loan
Retail bank or mortgage company makes a (often government subsidized) loan to buy a home. This loan has a below-the-market interest rate and, more importantly, can be made to a very risky borrower because the bank has no intention of administering the loan itself.
Step 2: Convert
The retail bank or mortgage company transfers these loans to the investment portion of their business which packages thousands of these mortgages into securities. These securities are sold like stock to other investors and the general public.
Step 3: Profit
a) The sale of these securities create a market that allows for the price of the security to go up by being traded despite it's actual value being based on "bad" loans. This is the same trading phenomena that allows google stock to be worth 600% more than simple earnings would seem to justify.
b) Most of these securities were sold as "bonds" that matured and were redeemed by the investment bank. These bonds allowed the banks to take capital out of the general public to which it wouldn't otherwise have access. This new capital is invested in stocks, money markets, commodities etc. All of which make profits totally separate from the housing market. This worked particularly well because these mortgage securities paid dividends, were seen as low risk and usually grew about 10% over a two year period. This is all a function of the securities market that functions well above the actual loans that the retail bank originally gave to homeowners.
c) Because mortgages were so much easier to get it drove demand for homes. This demand for homes drove home prices up, and not just for new homes. Everybody's home increased in equity because there was suddenly a way for previously risky borrowers to get a loan. This has the effect of buoying the entire market. Real wealth was created by the increase in home prices that came along with an increase in demand. So when a borrower could not repay their original mortgage she could refinance by taking advantage of the equity built up in their home and get into a second bad mortgage... which they then could not repay... thus requiring another refinance. The investment banks that administered the "bad" loans managed to mitigate their losses based on this increase in home prices as well. Even when they had to foreclose on bad mortgages, the bank could make up some of their losses because the house had increased in value and could be resold for more than the original loan. And, because the bank was willing to write another bad loan there were no shortage of buyers.
Step 4: Saturation
So this magical method of making money worked! As long as home prices increased fast enough the "bad" loans could be packaged and sold as securities without much worry about foreclosure. The problem happened when the market became saturated. Home-ownership was at an all-time high in 2006-7 and frankly the building industry built too many houses for people who weren't moving into them. This over-supply slowed the growth of housing prices thus making foreclosures much more expensive for banks thus making these risky loans far more likely to actually destroy wealth if they were defaulted upon.
Step 5: The Unknown
So the securities upon which these loans were based started to lose their value. Then, worse, they ceased to have a sure value. These securities became so stigmatized in the market that it was impossible to sell these mortgages at all despite the fact that they did have value as represented by the houses they bought. The inability to sell these securities at all made all of the investment previously made in them illiquid. It's not that it was "lost" it was just impossible to free-up and use somewhere else. So, for example, when Citi Group announced a $5,000,000,000 loss it wasn't quite what it appeared. What they were reporting is that they have $5b that they can't liquidate. When securities can't be sold they're counted as being worth zero on the books.
So:
All of this money isn't gone, it's just stuck. Ironically, it was the ability to trade "bad" mortgages that allowed these banks to make them in the first place, now its their inability to trade these mortgages that is keeping them from even liquidating them for a loss! Morgan Stanly recently was able to sell its portfolio to Bank of America... except they had to take 22 cents on the dollar, almost certainly far less than the simple houses those securities represent are worth. Now we've got a huge amount of capital that is tied up in these untouchable securities. It's actually enough money to affect the supply of capital. It's as if all of that money has simply stopped circulating. Thus it cannot be gathered and reinvested. So credit rates go through the roof, there's not as much money to invest in new business or stocks and the economy suffers.
Come back tomorrow for "What the government can do about it."
Disclaimer:
If any of you econ, finance or otherwise smarter than me folks want to point out where I'm going wrong here... please do. I'm mostly repeating what I saw on a financial show on CNN over the weekend.
So what did happen?
Step 1: Loan
Retail bank or mortgage company makes a (often government subsidized) loan to buy a home. This loan has a below-the-market interest rate and, more importantly, can be made to a very risky borrower because the bank has no intention of administering the loan itself.
Step 2: Convert
The retail bank or mortgage company transfers these loans to the investment portion of their business which packages thousands of these mortgages into securities. These securities are sold like stock to other investors and the general public.
Step 3: Profit
a) The sale of these securities create a market that allows for the price of the security to go up by being traded despite it's actual value being based on "bad" loans. This is the same trading phenomena that allows google stock to be worth 600% more than simple earnings would seem to justify.
b) Most of these securities were sold as "bonds" that matured and were redeemed by the investment bank. These bonds allowed the banks to take capital out of the general public to which it wouldn't otherwise have access. This new capital is invested in stocks, money markets, commodities etc. All of which make profits totally separate from the housing market. This worked particularly well because these mortgage securities paid dividends, were seen as low risk and usually grew about 10% over a two year period. This is all a function of the securities market that functions well above the actual loans that the retail bank originally gave to homeowners.
c) Because mortgages were so much easier to get it drove demand for homes. This demand for homes drove home prices up, and not just for new homes. Everybody's home increased in equity because there was suddenly a way for previously risky borrowers to get a loan. This has the effect of buoying the entire market. Real wealth was created by the increase in home prices that came along with an increase in demand. So when a borrower could not repay their original mortgage she could refinance by taking advantage of the equity built up in their home and get into a second bad mortgage... which they then could not repay... thus requiring another refinance. The investment banks that administered the "bad" loans managed to mitigate their losses based on this increase in home prices as well. Even when they had to foreclose on bad mortgages, the bank could make up some of their losses because the house had increased in value and could be resold for more than the original loan. And, because the bank was willing to write another bad loan there were no shortage of buyers.
Step 4: Saturation
So this magical method of making money worked! As long as home prices increased fast enough the "bad" loans could be packaged and sold as securities without much worry about foreclosure. The problem happened when the market became saturated. Home-ownership was at an all-time high in 2006-7 and frankly the building industry built too many houses for people who weren't moving into them. This over-supply slowed the growth of housing prices thus making foreclosures much more expensive for banks thus making these risky loans far more likely to actually destroy wealth if they were defaulted upon.
Step 5: The Unknown
So the securities upon which these loans were based started to lose their value. Then, worse, they ceased to have a sure value. These securities became so stigmatized in the market that it was impossible to sell these mortgages at all despite the fact that they did have value as represented by the houses they bought. The inability to sell these securities at all made all of the investment previously made in them illiquid. It's not that it was "lost" it was just impossible to free-up and use somewhere else. So, for example, when Citi Group announced a $5,000,000,000 loss it wasn't quite what it appeared. What they were reporting is that they have $5b that they can't liquidate. When securities can't be sold they're counted as being worth zero on the books.
So:
All of this money isn't gone, it's just stuck. Ironically, it was the ability to trade "bad" mortgages that allowed these banks to make them in the first place, now its their inability to trade these mortgages that is keeping them from even liquidating them for a loss! Morgan Stanly recently was able to sell its portfolio to Bank of America... except they had to take 22 cents on the dollar, almost certainly far less than the simple houses those securities represent are worth. Now we've got a huge amount of capital that is tied up in these untouchable securities. It's actually enough money to affect the supply of capital. It's as if all of that money has simply stopped circulating. Thus it cannot be gathered and reinvested. So credit rates go through the roof, there's not as much money to invest in new business or stocks and the economy suffers.
Come back tomorrow for "What the government can do about it."
The Financial Crisis
Sorry for being AWOL last week, life intervened in my normal blogging duties.
Last week also was a very strange one for the financial sector of the US economy. The going down 400 points the market went up 400 points, then back down and back up. Net, the market lost 40 points over 5 days.
As per request from a reader I'm going to start a 3 part series on this financial crisis as I understand it.
1: What happened in the market
2: What the government can do about it
3: How this affects the race for president
Last week also was a very strange one for the financial sector of the US economy. The going down 400 points the market went up 400 points, then back down and back up. Net, the market lost 40 points over 5 days.
As per request from a reader I'm going to start a 3 part series on this financial crisis as I understand it.
1: What happened in the market
2: What the government can do about it
3: How this affects the race for president
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
It's the economy stupid
Can I start the Steny Hoyer for speaker for the house campaign now? I admit that I've always thought that Pelosi is a politician interested in winning elections and not terribly fond of actually governing. Today's "Energy Bill" is just enough to throw me over the edge.
The American people have repeatedly said that they want an "all of the above" approach to energy policy. In poll after poll people are demanding that their government do something. Okay, don't drill spend money only on technology like Obama wants... it's stupid not to do both but I don't care anymore! Just do ANYTHING.
Nancy Pelosi today pushed though an energy bill that had not one second of committee hearing, not one amendment, and not a sniff of bipartisanship. It authorizes drilling between 50 and 100 miles off of the coasts of states that pass legislation allowing it. It fails to mention that the vast majority of the oil off the coast is within 50 miles. She mine as well have said that states were allowed to drill 2000 miles off the coast. Idiocy. Not just this, but it's so packed with random spending measures that not even the liberals in the senate are likely to support it.
In short, Pelosi shoved a bill though the house that is designed to fail in the senate. That's what she wants, failure. Why? So she can blame Republicans, lie about her bill being effective, and get Democrats reelected to continue to do nothing in a majority. It's not at all an overstatement to say that this has been the least productive congress in the last 20 years. It doesn't help that the president has dug his heals in, but it helps even less that the congress keeps passing bills for political gain rather than the public good. Throw the bums out right? I can't argue with that. Don't forget that some of those bums have a "D" next to their name too.
Steny Hoyer, to his credit, hasn't engaged in this silliness any more than he's compelled to to keep his majority leader position. He's declined interviews that would support the Speaker's position, and when he is asked questions he has answered with reasoned policy rather than partisan rhetoric. So I understand that the Democrat party is almost a lock to be the majority in the house again for at least 2 more years... but can we at least throw Pelosi out of the leadership? Often ANY plan is better than none at all.
Right now the Democrat leadership has calculated that if they drive the country as far into the ditch as possible by doing nothing it will promote their careers. They're right, bad news gets opposition parties elected but purposefully exasperating bad news by intentionally failing to lead so that it will get worse is beyond reprehensible.
This is an example of Democrats gone power hungry but I promise this behavior is not confined to a party. Careerist politicians leading parties of more careerist politicians is a recipe for disaster. This year, we have a nice election in which we can hopefully remember to throw *ALL* of the bums out, not just the ones with a particular letter by their name.
The American people have repeatedly said that they want an "all of the above" approach to energy policy. In poll after poll people are demanding that their government do something. Okay, don't drill spend money only on technology like Obama wants... it's stupid not to do both but I don't care anymore! Just do ANYTHING.
Nancy Pelosi today pushed though an energy bill that had not one second of committee hearing, not one amendment, and not a sniff of bipartisanship. It authorizes drilling between 50 and 100 miles off of the coasts of states that pass legislation allowing it. It fails to mention that the vast majority of the oil off the coast is within 50 miles. She mine as well have said that states were allowed to drill 2000 miles off the coast. Idiocy. Not just this, but it's so packed with random spending measures that not even the liberals in the senate are likely to support it.
In short, Pelosi shoved a bill though the house that is designed to fail in the senate. That's what she wants, failure. Why? So she can blame Republicans, lie about her bill being effective, and get Democrats reelected to continue to do nothing in a majority. It's not at all an overstatement to say that this has been the least productive congress in the last 20 years. It doesn't help that the president has dug his heals in, but it helps even less that the congress keeps passing bills for political gain rather than the public good. Throw the bums out right? I can't argue with that. Don't forget that some of those bums have a "D" next to their name too.
Steny Hoyer, to his credit, hasn't engaged in this silliness any more than he's compelled to to keep his majority leader position. He's declined interviews that would support the Speaker's position, and when he is asked questions he has answered with reasoned policy rather than partisan rhetoric. So I understand that the Democrat party is almost a lock to be the majority in the house again for at least 2 more years... but can we at least throw Pelosi out of the leadership? Often ANY plan is better than none at all.
Right now the Democrat leadership has calculated that if they drive the country as far into the ditch as possible by doing nothing it will promote their careers. They're right, bad news gets opposition parties elected but purposefully exasperating bad news by intentionally failing to lead so that it will get worse is beyond reprehensible.
This is an example of Democrats gone power hungry but I promise this behavior is not confined to a party. Careerist politicians leading parties of more careerist politicians is a recipe for disaster. This year, we have a nice election in which we can hopefully remember to throw *ALL* of the bums out, not just the ones with a particular letter by their name.
Monday, September 15, 2008
The McCain Bounce #5: Conclusions
Conclusions
Chance
For the first time this cycle it looks like the Republicans might actually win. They managed to, quite accidentally, nominate the only candidate who has any credibility on the most important issue this year: "throw the bums out."
The Democrats managed to nominate a candidate that makes people nervous... again. He's suave, but inexperienced. It's the same problem Kerry faced in 2004 when the folks decided that Kerry (mostly as an extension of his party... he ended up being an empty suit) was just not up to it. So the choices each party made for president set up a race where one should not have existed. By the numbers the opposition party (Democrats) should have run away with it this year but for whatever reason they won't. McCain has a chance.
Policy vs Politics
Most of the policy debates are so complex, and shrouded in honest disagreements, that they can be debated forever. "The issues" have become irrelevant. To put it a different way, Americans have become cynical enough to assume that anybody might be right, so nobody can win on substance.
However, strangely, despite the basic cynicism and partisanism the broad political consensuses of the 1980's and 1990's (a strong but limited welfare state, less government intervention on social issues, low taxes and fiscal responsibility) have pulled the parties CLOSER together ideologically. There is very little substantive difference between Barack Obama and John McCain in the grand sweep of the political spectrum. One prefers a bit more socialism, one prefers a bit less. But just a bit. It's like arguing over two cents while ignoring the agreement about $2,000.
Finding the differences
So the electorate seeks ways to differentiate between two candidates who stand a hair apart on "the issues." Demagoguery, exploitation of demographics and shameless political stunts are employed by BOTH SIDES (Re: "How many houses do you have," "Sarah baby is really Bristol's baby," "My Muslim faith," and "Lipstick on a Pig") in an effort to tarnish their opponent. Both sides are seeking to undermine the other's trustworthiness because the complexity of intractable issues and the narrow ideological band in America make the character of the president one of the few features that distinguishes one candidate from another. "Do you like him?" becomes a legitimate political question because all of the other reasons to vote one way or the other tend to balance each other out for the folks in the middle who decide elections. The election comes down to sound bites, quotes out of context and rallying the faithful not because the American people are stupid but because there's very little difference between Obama and McCain otherwise.
Your soccer team
The non-devotees who often do not follow politics closely populate the 'squishy middle' that is so decisive. Those who read blogs, consume news and read newspapers have often picked their team aren't really in play. It is beyond the imagination of most partisans that someone might not see the self-evident reasons to vote for one side or the other. The "duh factor" that one candidate is clearly better than the other, further evidence be damned, short-circuits thought on the matter and leads to a confrontational attitude. Even when bumping up against a less zealous person on the same side the partisan will decry their apostasy as harshly as he would his opponent. This behavior is absolutely NUTS. But, it's why some of the widest read, smartest and most insightful people are complete and utter morons who are not reliable sources of analysis despite all their clever virtue. A well composed and researched polemic opinion is still polemic. So even the best read and most knowledgeable voter usually does not consider "the issues," when they vote because they often don't have the ability to even think about them them despite exhaustive study. They're blinded by their loyalties. The only reason they consume information is to confirm their pre-conceived notion and nothing is going to pierce the intellectual armor of their convictions.
I don't care who the partisan is they're almost certainly voting a party (D or R), identity (Black, White, Woman, Man, Poor, Rich, etc.), or a character(Obama, Palin, McCain, Biden(?)). I don't care how deeply one reads the news, or researches the minutia of policy making, nobody and I mean nobody gives a damn about "the issues" when they vote. They vote their conscious.
The vexing nature of partisan politics carried on mass media has created identities out of ideologies and die-hards out of reasonable people. Those who assume that their particular trusted source is the only source of truth are out of bounds. This phenomena is very much like being a fan of a soccer team... while there may be compelling data that the team is flawed it does not stop the fan from supporting it. Don't forget that "fan" is short for "fanatic."
Conclusions
So with an electorate that is deciding for whom they want to vote based on their core values, and is frankly not interested in "the issues," a media flap involving Sarah Palin moves the dial. People are voting for the characters that they LIKE and identify with when they see them on TV.
So McCain's bounce had everything to do with capturing squishy nothingness in American politics best described as "ya know, I like..." Folks liked Palin and when they saw the media attack her they cried foul and swung to her side. And when the Palin vs the Media story spurred interest in McCain they liked him too. That's about all there is to it.
It's not to say that the race is over. Goodness knows that the folks like Obama! But he's got to get back in the game and realize that nobody is interested in a civil debate on "the issues." Least of all those brilliant partisans who might have a slight grasp of what "the issues" actually might be! The polls have picked up on a McCain Bounce that is real, tangible and important. If the Obama campaign dismisses it as a "convention bounce" or as a "blip" he will do so at his peril.
Chance
For the first time this cycle it looks like the Republicans might actually win. They managed to, quite accidentally, nominate the only candidate who has any credibility on the most important issue this year: "throw the bums out."
The Democrats managed to nominate a candidate that makes people nervous... again. He's suave, but inexperienced. It's the same problem Kerry faced in 2004 when the folks decided that Kerry (mostly as an extension of his party... he ended up being an empty suit) was just not up to it. So the choices each party made for president set up a race where one should not have existed. By the numbers the opposition party (Democrats) should have run away with it this year but for whatever reason they won't. McCain has a chance.
Policy vs Politics
Most of the policy debates are so complex, and shrouded in honest disagreements, that they can be debated forever. "The issues" have become irrelevant. To put it a different way, Americans have become cynical enough to assume that anybody might be right, so nobody can win on substance.
However, strangely, despite the basic cynicism and partisanism the broad political consensuses of the 1980's and 1990's (a strong but limited welfare state, less government intervention on social issues, low taxes and fiscal responsibility) have pulled the parties CLOSER together ideologically. There is very little substantive difference between Barack Obama and John McCain in the grand sweep of the political spectrum. One prefers a bit more socialism, one prefers a bit less. But just a bit. It's like arguing over two cents while ignoring the agreement about $2,000.
Finding the differences
So the electorate seeks ways to differentiate between two candidates who stand a hair apart on "the issues." Demagoguery, exploitation of demographics and shameless political stunts are employed by BOTH SIDES (Re: "How many houses do you have," "Sarah baby is really Bristol's baby," "My Muslim faith," and "Lipstick on a Pig") in an effort to tarnish their opponent. Both sides are seeking to undermine the other's trustworthiness because the complexity of intractable issues and the narrow ideological band in America make the character of the president one of the few features that distinguishes one candidate from another. "Do you like him?" becomes a legitimate political question because all of the other reasons to vote one way or the other tend to balance each other out for the folks in the middle who decide elections. The election comes down to sound bites, quotes out of context and rallying the faithful not because the American people are stupid but because there's very little difference between Obama and McCain otherwise.
Your soccer team
The non-devotees who often do not follow politics closely populate the 'squishy middle' that is so decisive. Those who read blogs, consume news and read newspapers have often picked their team aren't really in play. It is beyond the imagination of most partisans that someone might not see the self-evident reasons to vote for one side or the other. The "duh factor" that one candidate is clearly better than the other, further evidence be damned, short-circuits thought on the matter and leads to a confrontational attitude. Even when bumping up against a less zealous person on the same side the partisan will decry their apostasy as harshly as he would his opponent. This behavior is absolutely NUTS. But, it's why some of the widest read, smartest and most insightful people are complete and utter morons who are not reliable sources of analysis despite all their clever virtue. A well composed and researched polemic opinion is still polemic. So even the best read and most knowledgeable voter usually does not consider "the issues," when they vote because they often don't have the ability to even think about them them despite exhaustive study. They're blinded by their loyalties. The only reason they consume information is to confirm their pre-conceived notion and nothing is going to pierce the intellectual armor of their convictions.
I don't care who the partisan is they're almost certainly voting a party (D or R), identity (Black, White, Woman, Man, Poor, Rich, etc.), or a character(Obama, Palin, McCain, Biden(?)). I don't care how deeply one reads the news, or researches the minutia of policy making, nobody and I mean nobody gives a damn about "the issues" when they vote. They vote their conscious.
The vexing nature of partisan politics carried on mass media has created identities out of ideologies and die-hards out of reasonable people. Those who assume that their particular trusted source is the only source of truth are out of bounds. This phenomena is very much like being a fan of a soccer team... while there may be compelling data that the team is flawed it does not stop the fan from supporting it. Don't forget that "fan" is short for "fanatic."
Conclusions
So with an electorate that is deciding for whom they want to vote based on their core values, and is frankly not interested in "the issues," a media flap involving Sarah Palin moves the dial. People are voting for the characters that they LIKE and identify with when they see them on TV.
So McCain's bounce had everything to do with capturing squishy nothingness in American politics best described as "ya know, I like..." Folks liked Palin and when they saw the media attack her they cried foul and swung to her side. And when the Palin vs the Media story spurred interest in McCain they liked him too. That's about all there is to it.
It's not to say that the race is over. Goodness knows that the folks like Obama! But he's got to get back in the game and realize that nobody is interested in a civil debate on "the issues." Least of all those brilliant partisans who might have a slight grasp of what "the issues" actually might be! The polls have picked up on a McCain Bounce that is real, tangible and important. If the Obama campaign dismisses it as a "convention bounce" or as a "blip" he will do so at his peril.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The McCain Bounce #4: Barack Obama
Barack Obama
His campaign
Obama has done his best. Really, he's told the press to leave Palin alone. He's refrained from attacking her. He's also been courteous to McCain in regards to his military service. It's also not been nearly enough. The problem Obama has confronted is insoluble. He's committed by his left wing to endorse attacks that hurt his campaign. He might be able to rise above the "Palin dialogue" but so far he's been unable to stop it.
Obama's mistake
Just say that she's welcome to the campaign and that most everything she's got to say is irrelevant. Really, she's the VP. He's not running against Her. A theme of the Obama campaign has been to run against everybody but John McCain. From the McCain = Bush mantra, to the deranged attacks on Sarah Palin Obama has been off target. All of his effort misses the point of the campaign! John McCain is running for president against Barack Obama! DUH! The Bush attacks are stale and people can't vote against Bush this year. Obama has to give people a reason to vote for him, or against McCain. Bush is not on the ballot, so stop running against him! And Sarah Palin is not the presidential nominee either. So just ignore her the same way one would any other VP pick. If anything Obama should condemn the press to short circuit this Palin mania.
Sarah Palin is a political phenom. People hate or love her, it's emotional. That's why none of these attacks on her help Obama. Truth is irrelevant, experience is irrelevant, ideology is irrelevant. Those who like her will like her and those who don't like her won't like her based on a snap judgement formed during her convention speech. Shoot, Obama should know something about this! His entire presidential bid is based on a speech he gave in 2004 and people's emotional response. This same sort of mania is why Rev. Wright didn't hurt him. And nothing that is being thrown at Palin will hurt her... so he needs to do his best to get off the subject.
The polls say talking about Palin favors McCain. The CNN poll conducted last week showed that 40% of people were less likely to vote for the McCain ticket because of Palin, and 49% were more likely. The more that the campaign revolves around Palin the more that these sides will be polarized and frankly burning hatred in a minority does not win elections in a democracy. Really Really Really hating the opposition doesn't make votes count double.
A Lost Message
Sarah Palin's political character also freed McCain up to be something he hasn't been for 8 years: the maverick who trashes his own party as eagerly as he does the opposition. Do you remember watching bowling for Columbine and thinking to yourself that John McCain was a strange Republican? He's putting that hat on again. And people are responding. He's getting away with betraying his base because he's covered by Sarah Palin. Republicans have an emotional desire to vote for her. So it doesn't matter what McCain says. His association with her has made him untouchable from the right.
John McCain's new campaign mantra is CHANGE. How ridiculous is it on it's face that McCain, the Republican nominee, after a republican has spent 8 years in the white house, is promoting change. It's enough to curl your toe nails isn't it? But, it's working to some degree. It's not that Obama has lost the change message, it's just that McCain has bucked Bush and blunted Obama's appeal to the "throw the bums out" crowd.
Basically the Obama campaign is fighting on ground that it thought it had secured. The experience debate is over, McCain wins. Because Palin is covering McCain he can now talk about change without a revolt from the right. Obama has said that he's happy to have a debate about who's the better change agent, and... no doubt... he'd win it. But instead of getting %100 of the "change" (RE: throw the bums out) voters, now he's splitting them 80/20%.
Conclusions
Barack Obama has to regain his mojo. Maybe after 19 months the luster has worn thin and maybe he's at the mercy of a media that is determined to "help" him. Either way, his hopes for retrieving the mushy center that will decide this election rest on halting the McCain bounce.
Some free advice
-Stop talking about Sarah Palin and try to get everybody else to stop talking about her too... if you can.
-Remind people why they're emotionally committed to you as a person, not as a representative of the left.
-Attack John McCain! Forget about Bush, he's old news.
-Recapture "change." It can't be done wholly, but you needs to protect as much of it as you can.
-Use the bully pulpit. Find some reason, any reason, to call a speech during prime time and play to your strength. The folks like you, get as many of them as you can to see you!
His campaign
Obama has done his best. Really, he's told the press to leave Palin alone. He's refrained from attacking her. He's also been courteous to McCain in regards to his military service. It's also not been nearly enough. The problem Obama has confronted is insoluble. He's committed by his left wing to endorse attacks that hurt his campaign. He might be able to rise above the "Palin dialogue" but so far he's been unable to stop it.
Obama's mistake
Just say that she's welcome to the campaign and that most everything she's got to say is irrelevant. Really, she's the VP. He's not running against Her. A theme of the Obama campaign has been to run against everybody but John McCain. From the McCain = Bush mantra, to the deranged attacks on Sarah Palin Obama has been off target. All of his effort misses the point of the campaign! John McCain is running for president against Barack Obama! DUH! The Bush attacks are stale and people can't vote against Bush this year. Obama has to give people a reason to vote for him, or against McCain. Bush is not on the ballot, so stop running against him! And Sarah Palin is not the presidential nominee either. So just ignore her the same way one would any other VP pick. If anything Obama should condemn the press to short circuit this Palin mania.
Sarah Palin is a political phenom. People hate or love her, it's emotional. That's why none of these attacks on her help Obama. Truth is irrelevant, experience is irrelevant, ideology is irrelevant. Those who like her will like her and those who don't like her won't like her based on a snap judgement formed during her convention speech. Shoot, Obama should know something about this! His entire presidential bid is based on a speech he gave in 2004 and people's emotional response. This same sort of mania is why Rev. Wright didn't hurt him. And nothing that is being thrown at Palin will hurt her... so he needs to do his best to get off the subject.
The polls say talking about Palin favors McCain. The CNN poll conducted last week showed that 40% of people were less likely to vote for the McCain ticket because of Palin, and 49% were more likely. The more that the campaign revolves around Palin the more that these sides will be polarized and frankly burning hatred in a minority does not win elections in a democracy. Really Really Really hating the opposition doesn't make votes count double.
A Lost Message
Sarah Palin's political character also freed McCain up to be something he hasn't been for 8 years: the maverick who trashes his own party as eagerly as he does the opposition. Do you remember watching bowling for Columbine and thinking to yourself that John McCain was a strange Republican? He's putting that hat on again. And people are responding. He's getting away with betraying his base because he's covered by Sarah Palin. Republicans have an emotional desire to vote for her. So it doesn't matter what McCain says. His association with her has made him untouchable from the right.
John McCain's new campaign mantra is CHANGE. How ridiculous is it on it's face that McCain, the Republican nominee, after a republican has spent 8 years in the white house, is promoting change. It's enough to curl your toe nails isn't it? But, it's working to some degree. It's not that Obama has lost the change message, it's just that McCain has bucked Bush and blunted Obama's appeal to the "throw the bums out" crowd.
Basically the Obama campaign is fighting on ground that it thought it had secured. The experience debate is over, McCain wins. Because Palin is covering McCain he can now talk about change without a revolt from the right. Obama has said that he's happy to have a debate about who's the better change agent, and... no doubt... he'd win it. But instead of getting %100 of the "change" (RE: throw the bums out) voters, now he's splitting them 80/20%.
Conclusions
Barack Obama has to regain his mojo. Maybe after 19 months the luster has worn thin and maybe he's at the mercy of a media that is determined to "help" him. Either way, his hopes for retrieving the mushy center that will decide this election rest on halting the McCain bounce.
Some free advice
-Stop talking about Sarah Palin and try to get everybody else to stop talking about her too... if you can.
-Remind people why they're emotionally committed to you as a person, not as a representative of the left.
-Attack John McCain! Forget about Bush, he's old news.
-Recapture "change." It can't be done wholly, but you needs to protect as much of it as you can.
-Use the bully pulpit. Find some reason, any reason, to call a speech during prime time and play to your strength. The folks like you, get as many of them as you can to see you!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The McCain Bounce #3: John McCain
John McCain
We left off talking about how the nomination of Sarah Palin changed the nature of the campaign by her identity and the way that the Media greeted her to the race. The net effect was to make the McCain ticket a point of interest to the electorate at large. However, I do not believe that Palin was enough to actually bounce McCain's numbers, people had to like what they saw.
The Conventions
During the conventions, Sarah Palin gave a great red-meat speech that was seen by roughly 37 million people in the US. Barack Obama gave a great red-meat speech that was seen by roughly 38 million people in the US. John McCain gave a so-so not very red-meat speech that was seen by roughly 39 million people in the US. And, McCain's numbers went up.
First, there's no way that without the Media's mania towards Palin that McCain would have beat Obama's numbers. However, the way that the Media reacted to the nomination and her speech made people tune in for the boss. Also, it's time that I recognize that I am not the average person. Polling data about McCain's speech shows that his was the most effective at swaying the independent non-ideological voter that will decide this election. Maybe that's because his speech was the least partisan, maybe it's because those people don't actually expect good speeches from presidents (god knows we haven't had many of them since Reagan) and they weren't disappointed. I'm not really sure why, but when the Palin-Media phenomena happened it spurred people to give McCain another look and they liked what they saw.
Change
McCain has had some success in taking the 'change' mantra from Obama. He's made himself the safe change, and the change that isn't so much pie in the sky. He's eroded the "throw the bums out" momentum that was helping Obama by NOT being GW. The Bush = McCain equation just isn't sticking because it's not true.
Palin has freed McCain from his base. With the right energized McCain can embrace the Maverick persona that made him so popular with independents in 2000. He's able to go back to those roots with credibility because people know McCain and don't believe he's disingenuous despite his pandering and flip flops.
Television
Finally, McCain wins the war of the ads. His ads are better! They're negative without being cruel and they hit at Obama effectively because his campaign is based on emotion. Because Obama has been so ambitious McCain need only to tarnish Obama's image to discredit his whole platform. It's, frankly, not fair, but it works.
Conclusions
All of this means that McCain has run a good campaign so far. But, none of it would matter if Obama kept himself on topic and stopped shooting himself in the foot. It's a huge democrat year, remember that McCain has run his campaign about as well as can be imagined and he's still only tied. More on how Obama is allowing McCain to stay close tomorrow....
We left off talking about how the nomination of Sarah Palin changed the nature of the campaign by her identity and the way that the Media greeted her to the race. The net effect was to make the McCain ticket a point of interest to the electorate at large. However, I do not believe that Palin was enough to actually bounce McCain's numbers, people had to like what they saw.
The Conventions
During the conventions, Sarah Palin gave a great red-meat speech that was seen by roughly 37 million people in the US. Barack Obama gave a great red-meat speech that was seen by roughly 38 million people in the US. John McCain gave a so-so not very red-meat speech that was seen by roughly 39 million people in the US. And, McCain's numbers went up.
First, there's no way that without the Media's mania towards Palin that McCain would have beat Obama's numbers. However, the way that the Media reacted to the nomination and her speech made people tune in for the boss. Also, it's time that I recognize that I am not the average person. Polling data about McCain's speech shows that his was the most effective at swaying the independent non-ideological voter that will decide this election. Maybe that's because his speech was the least partisan, maybe it's because those people don't actually expect good speeches from presidents (god knows we haven't had many of them since Reagan) and they weren't disappointed. I'm not really sure why, but when the Palin-Media phenomena happened it spurred people to give McCain another look and they liked what they saw.
Change
McCain has had some success in taking the 'change' mantra from Obama. He's made himself the safe change, and the change that isn't so much pie in the sky. He's eroded the "throw the bums out" momentum that was helping Obama by NOT being GW. The Bush = McCain equation just isn't sticking because it's not true.
Palin has freed McCain from his base. With the right energized McCain can embrace the Maverick persona that made him so popular with independents in 2000. He's able to go back to those roots with credibility because people know McCain and don't believe he's disingenuous despite his pandering and flip flops.
Television
Finally, McCain wins the war of the ads. His ads are better! They're negative without being cruel and they hit at Obama effectively because his campaign is based on emotion. Because Obama has been so ambitious McCain need only to tarnish Obama's image to discredit his whole platform. It's, frankly, not fair, but it works.
Conclusions
All of this means that McCain has run a good campaign so far. But, none of it would matter if Obama kept himself on topic and stopped shooting himself in the foot. It's a huge democrat year, remember that McCain has run his campaign about as well as can be imagined and he's still only tied. More on how Obama is allowing McCain to stay close tomorrow....
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The McCain bounce #2: Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin
Media Matters
We've just finished discussing the media and how Barack has been sidelined in the last few weeks. Sarah Palin was the most important factor in setting McCain up for a bump in the polls. Palin was brutally, unfairly and ridiculously attacked by the left-leaning Media.
These media folks were not attacking her because they hate her. They know that sensationalism gets good ratings! Hate or Love Palin, but it moves product to talk about her... the more personal the better. The Media surely was spurred by their preference for Obama but their first motivation was selling copy. This motivation was misunderstood by the folks. When people saw Palin being attacked they assumed it was primarily because the media was 'in the tank' for Obama. Starting with that miss-perception the dichotomy of the Media vs. McCain was reinforced, further sidelining Obama and costing him in the polls.
Victim Politics
Unfortunately for Obama these attacks turned Palin into a victim around which the vast political middle rallied. Hate is really ugly and that's what the response to Palin looked like. Coupled with the fact that nothing that has come to light is really significant enough to make people who weren't going to vote against her anyway question Palin herself. Some of the things that have come up have even helped her. The attacks on her family and the fact that those attacks came before attacks on her record offended the very demographics where Obama was weakest: white women and working class white men. The charges that Obama was out of touch with real American folks were reinforced by the assumption that the Media=Obama in combination with it's shameless smearing of a character with which people identified.
To Obama's credit he's tried to fight this off. He knows that the Media is hurting him, and as I reported on this blog, he's condemned the mean-spirited attacks. He has stuck to the more reasonable (if slightly ironic) attack that she's not ready to be president should McCain die. That's a valid point, she's not ready. Thankfully, she's also not running for President.
The feminist factor
I'm also convinced that the tension between identity and ideology within the feminist movement has helped Palin. Too many of those middle American white women who otherwise support Democrats for economic reasons are turned off by the extreme leftist social agenda championed by 'feminists.' E.G. to be feminists do women really have to philosophically support abortion? The backlash against 'type 1' feminism was already a well documented phenomena. Those women who are happy to see women advance and have the opportunity to earn equal wages for equal work etc. do not necessarily embrace the entire leftist agenda that was adopted by feminists in the 60's. Don't forget that Dr. Laura's audience is mostly women and that it is remarkably shallow to dismiss this big group of women who are proud to embrace some of the traditional female roles as stupid. So Palin's a woman, and she's advancing. That alone will get her some votes from women who will vote their identity. Because they're disenchanted with the ideology of feminism and are being offered an alternative the leftist attacks on Palin feed into a pre-existing gripe that especially lower-middle class traditional white women have with a Democrat party with which they would otherwise support.
Conclusions
So Palin moved the dial on her own and she reinforced some of the factors that were already hurting Barack Obama. That still wasn't enough though, when people went to check out John McCain's speech, watch his commercials and read his website they still had to like what they saw... or at least consider him a safe alternative to Obama. More on McCain tomorrow.
Media Matters
We've just finished discussing the media and how Barack has been sidelined in the last few weeks. Sarah Palin was the most important factor in setting McCain up for a bump in the polls. Palin was brutally, unfairly and ridiculously attacked by the left-leaning Media.
These media folks were not attacking her because they hate her. They know that sensationalism gets good ratings! Hate or Love Palin, but it moves product to talk about her... the more personal the better. The Media surely was spurred by their preference for Obama but their first motivation was selling copy. This motivation was misunderstood by the folks. When people saw Palin being attacked they assumed it was primarily because the media was 'in the tank' for Obama. Starting with that miss-perception the dichotomy of the Media vs. McCain was reinforced, further sidelining Obama and costing him in the polls.
Victim Politics
Unfortunately for Obama these attacks turned Palin into a victim around which the vast political middle rallied. Hate is really ugly and that's what the response to Palin looked like. Coupled with the fact that nothing that has come to light is really significant enough to make people who weren't going to vote against her anyway question Palin herself. Some of the things that have come up have even helped her. The attacks on her family and the fact that those attacks came before attacks on her record offended the very demographics where Obama was weakest: white women and working class white men. The charges that Obama was out of touch with real American folks were reinforced by the assumption that the Media=Obama in combination with it's shameless smearing of a character with which people identified.
To Obama's credit he's tried to fight this off. He knows that the Media is hurting him, and as I reported on this blog, he's condemned the mean-spirited attacks. He has stuck to the more reasonable (if slightly ironic) attack that she's not ready to be president should McCain die. That's a valid point, she's not ready. Thankfully, she's also not running for President.
The feminist factor
I'm also convinced that the tension between identity and ideology within the feminist movement has helped Palin. Too many of those middle American white women who otherwise support Democrats for economic reasons are turned off by the extreme leftist social agenda championed by 'feminists.' E.G. to be feminists do women really have to philosophically support abortion? The backlash against 'type 1' feminism was already a well documented phenomena. Those women who are happy to see women advance and have the opportunity to earn equal wages for equal work etc. do not necessarily embrace the entire leftist agenda that was adopted by feminists in the 60's. Don't forget that Dr. Laura's audience is mostly women and that it is remarkably shallow to dismiss this big group of women who are proud to embrace some of the traditional female roles as stupid. So Palin's a woman, and she's advancing. That alone will get her some votes from women who will vote their identity. Because they're disenchanted with the ideology of feminism and are being offered an alternative the leftist attacks on Palin feed into a pre-existing gripe that especially lower-middle class traditional white women have with a Democrat party with which they would otherwise support.
Conclusions
So Palin moved the dial on her own and she reinforced some of the factors that were already hurting Barack Obama. That still wasn't enough though, when people went to check out John McCain's speech, watch his commercials and read his website they still had to like what they saw... or at least consider him a safe alternative to Obama. More on McCain tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The McCain Bounce #1: The Media
The Media
The media is bias. This shouldn't surprise anybody, everyone is bias and susceptible to group-think. Media members likely don't realize that they're set off to the left or the right because they're always surrounded by like-minded people. Stay with me people, this is not going where you think it is.
What is:
According to a Pew research center poll taken this year some 60% of the national media members identify themselves as Democrats, 30% are independent and 10% are Republicans. They donate money to candidates in favor of Democrats at a rate of $4 to $1. Every honest (RE: Pew, or University of Chicago etc. NOT media matters or moveon.org) statistacal attempt to quantify the effect of the Democrat parties dominance of media jobs, be it word based analysis, commentator analysis and editorial analysis has concluded that the product they put on TV benefits specific candidates usually on the left.
Even Hillary Clinton's campaign fell victim to this phenomena and loudly complained of bias. The chair of her campaign went so far as to say that Fox News was the least biased outlet (a conclusion endorsed by the pew media research center).
So, let's recognize that most media prefers Barack Obama to John McCain. This doesn't make them bad, or dishonest or unprofessional. I suspect that most media members don't even realize that they're slanting their coverage because nobody around them has the perspective to even notice the bias.
Argue with this if you'd like but the mountain of numerical evidence along with my own, admittedly anecdotal, observation has convinced me that reporters cannot stop themselves from expressing their preferences in their reports. Given that and the fact that reporters are mostly members of the philosophical leftist wing of the Democrat party we have the result of a left-leaning news.
What happened:
So how does this effect the election?
Conventional wisdom would be that it would help Barack Obama. After all, if those who are in control of the media prefer a candidate they will knowingly, or I suspect unknowingly, use their position to promote his campaign - they can't help themselves. However, this is not what the polling data seems to indicate. While ratings for every media outlet went up as the campaign intensified McCain gained in the polls. This would seem to indicate that the more the American public is exposed to the left-leaning media the more they prefer John McCain.
Why it happened:
This gets complicated so bear with me.
Because there is a strong sense of fair play in the electorate and the media is largely known to be biased. So the public hears what the media says and assumes that there's more to the story. The news media has become the wikipedia of political information. A fine starting point, but so vulnerable to manipulation and bias that it's not trustworthy.
So if people are assuming the media leans left and then fact check with the campaigns themselves why is McCain benefiting more than Obama, especially in a Democrat year? This is the tough question because one would assume that people check with both campaigns to see for themselves after learning the basic outline from the news. But, I suspect that this doesn't happen. Because the media favors Obama I believe people are using it as a surrogate for the Obama campaign. They don't need to check with Barack... because the news is going to tell them what he thinks anyway. To support this idea I would direct you to the fact that McCain's website receives more hits than Obama's and McCain's campaign has more youtube.com video hits. It tends to imply that more people are checking him out though secondary media, and directly from his campaign, than Obama.
Conclusions:
This hurts Obama because the media is running a crappy campaign on his behalf. The media doesn't do a good job because it's frankly not nearly as biased as Obama's campaign or McCain's campaign. So comparing apples to apples what the McCain campaign tells you to promote himself and what the media tells you to promote Obama leads to the conclusion that McCain is preferable. It is this false comparison that is hurting Obama. He's lost control of his own message. Obama doesn't control the media, but because people assume that the news channels are 'in the tank' for him they're taking what they hear on the news as his campaign's position and looking to McCain for contrast. The fight between a media that can't help itself from being biased and a campaign that is openly biased isn't fair, so it's no surprise that McCain wins it.
The easiest example of this phenomena is how Sarah Palin has effected the race. Stay tuned for more tomorrow (or if I'm feeling up to it, tonight).
The media is bias. This shouldn't surprise anybody, everyone is bias and susceptible to group-think. Media members likely don't realize that they're set off to the left or the right because they're always surrounded by like-minded people. Stay with me people, this is not going where you think it is.
What is:
According to a Pew research center poll taken this year some 60% of the national media members identify themselves as Democrats, 30% are independent and 10% are Republicans. They donate money to candidates in favor of Democrats at a rate of $4 to $1. Every honest (RE: Pew, or University of Chicago etc. NOT media matters or moveon.org) statistacal attempt to quantify the effect of the Democrat parties dominance of media jobs, be it word based analysis, commentator analysis and editorial analysis has concluded that the product they put on TV benefits specific candidates usually on the left.
Even Hillary Clinton's campaign fell victim to this phenomena and loudly complained of bias. The chair of her campaign went so far as to say that Fox News was the least biased outlet (a conclusion endorsed by the pew media research center).
So, let's recognize that most media prefers Barack Obama to John McCain. This doesn't make them bad, or dishonest or unprofessional. I suspect that most media members don't even realize that they're slanting their coverage because nobody around them has the perspective to even notice the bias.
Argue with this if you'd like but the mountain of numerical evidence along with my own, admittedly anecdotal, observation has convinced me that reporters cannot stop themselves from expressing their preferences in their reports. Given that and the fact that reporters are mostly members of the philosophical leftist wing of the Democrat party we have the result of a left-leaning news.
What happened:
So how does this effect the election?
Conventional wisdom would be that it would help Barack Obama. After all, if those who are in control of the media prefer a candidate they will knowingly, or I suspect unknowingly, use their position to promote his campaign - they can't help themselves. However, this is not what the polling data seems to indicate. While ratings for every media outlet went up as the campaign intensified McCain gained in the polls. This would seem to indicate that the more the American public is exposed to the left-leaning media the more they prefer John McCain.
Why it happened:
This gets complicated so bear with me.
Because there is a strong sense of fair play in the electorate and the media is largely known to be biased. So the public hears what the media says and assumes that there's more to the story. The news media has become the wikipedia of political information. A fine starting point, but so vulnerable to manipulation and bias that it's not trustworthy.
So if people are assuming the media leans left and then fact check with the campaigns themselves why is McCain benefiting more than Obama, especially in a Democrat year? This is the tough question because one would assume that people check with both campaigns to see for themselves after learning the basic outline from the news. But, I suspect that this doesn't happen. Because the media favors Obama I believe people are using it as a surrogate for the Obama campaign. They don't need to check with Barack... because the news is going to tell them what he thinks anyway. To support this idea I would direct you to the fact that McCain's website receives more hits than Obama's and McCain's campaign has more youtube.com video hits. It tends to imply that more people are checking him out though secondary media, and directly from his campaign, than Obama.
Conclusions:
This hurts Obama because the media is running a crappy campaign on his behalf. The media doesn't do a good job because it's frankly not nearly as biased as Obama's campaign or McCain's campaign. So comparing apples to apples what the McCain campaign tells you to promote himself and what the media tells you to promote Obama leads to the conclusion that McCain is preferable. It is this false comparison that is hurting Obama. He's lost control of his own message. Obama doesn't control the media, but because people assume that the news channels are 'in the tank' for him they're taking what they hear on the news as his campaign's position and looking to McCain for contrast. The fight between a media that can't help itself from being biased and a campaign that is openly biased isn't fair, so it's no surprise that McCain wins it.
The easiest example of this phenomena is how Sarah Palin has effected the race. Stay tuned for more tomorrow (or if I'm feeling up to it, tonight).
The McCain Bounce
I'm sorry for being slow to offer analysis on this but it's simply taken me awhile to get a grip on the causes and effects. It's complicated, so I'm going to lay out a few expository posts first to set the scene, then I will draw some conclusions on their effects. Hopefully these posts will still be relevant to the debate by the time I finally get done writing them! Either way, I have no doubt that you're going to argue with me.
You'll see up coming:
1, The Media
2, Sarah Palin
3, John McCain
4, Barack Obama
5, Causes and Effects
You'll see up coming:
1, The Media
2, Sarah Palin
3, John McCain
4, Barack Obama
5, Causes and Effects
Monday, September 8, 2008
Polls report
Sorry there hasn't been anything here for two days, but don't worry. I haven't forgotten you. I was waiting for the over the weekend polling to come out to give me some numbers to confirm or deny some suspicions I expressed earlier about the effect of the convention. It's still too early to tell but I'm ready to make some guesses at the trends being reported in the polls today and why they look like they do.
After a solid 3 months of leads, usually within the margin of error, Obama is tied or behind in every weekend poll, still usually within the margin of error. That is to say, McCain is ahead or tied in every national poll that takes into account the effects of his speech and Palin. One poll even has McCain up by 10 points. This is significant not because it tells us that McCain is ahead or will win but more that the trend line is favorable to him. I'm going to start working on a beginner's guide to reading polling data that I'll permanently link to the front page. But, for now take my word on it, it's significant.
So, why has McCain moved ahead? What do you think? More to come on that from me later tomorrow.
After a solid 3 months of leads, usually within the margin of error, Obama is tied or behind in every weekend poll, still usually within the margin of error. That is to say, McCain is ahead or tied in every national poll that takes into account the effects of his speech and Palin. One poll even has McCain up by 10 points. This is significant not because it tells us that McCain is ahead or will win but more that the trend line is favorable to him. I'm going to start working on a beginner's guide to reading polling data that I'll permanently link to the front page. But, for now take my word on it, it's significant.
So, why has McCain moved ahead? What do you think? More to come on that from me later tomorrow.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Sadly, nothing happened today
I'm a cursed with riches. I could go over the general impression of McCain's speech among the pundits... but I already did. The consensus is that he did fine in laying out what he wants to do, but was not particularly compelling. Though most give him credit for the last minute of his speech. Damnit if that wasn't powerful.
This blog will not be endorsing a candidate this year. I won't do that not because I don't have my favorite but, rather, because both McCain and Obama have proven to me that they would be responsible presidents. I'm happy about the prospects of America for the first time in a long time.
This blog will not be endorsing a candidate this year. I won't do that not because I don't have my favorite but, rather, because both McCain and Obama have proven to me that they would be responsible presidents. I'm happy about the prospects of America for the first time in a long time.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
I was right again.
Obama did just fine with the first part of The Factor interview. He's still wrong about this and that, but the political consequences of his appearance on the Factor will be positive. He put his point of view forward reasonably and reached the "reasonable people can dissagree" point repeatedly despite some badgering. I'm going to be watching for the next parts next week, but I'll guess that Obama holds up. This is getting a bit tired, but I'll say it again:
Good for you Barack.
See part one of the interview here
Good for you Barack.
See part one of the interview here
Don't worry, John McCain is still "B"oring
Grade: B
Look, John did what he had to. He sat at the kitchen table and laid out what he wants to do if he's elected. He promised to educate your children, help you buy health insurance and cut wasteful spending. Sure, Great, Fine, Whatever.
He had to say it, heck, I was disappointed by how little meat and potatoes the RNC has had so far. Maybe I'm just spoiled. I hear Obama, and I hear Palin, and then we've gotta suffer though something that McCain just isn't good at: a speech.
I thought he'd break the mold and be a bit innovative. I really thought that he'd take the mic into his hands, like his wife did, and walk around a bit like he does at town halls. The town hall format is where McCain wins, he's unstoppable when he's just chattin'. Though, I guess he wasn't so bold. Oh, well.
He still gets a B. He got everything out that he had to. He wasn't too negative and he didn't make any mistakes. Also, those last 30 seconds where he really did indulge in some rhetorical flourish needs to make its way into a commercial. That was about as good a moment as any candidate has had this year. Still, it was just a moment.
I stand by my prediction. The race will be a statistical tie from here on into the debates.
How do you grade McCain's speech? How do you think the polls will look on Monday?
Look, John did what he had to. He sat at the kitchen table and laid out what he wants to do if he's elected. He promised to educate your children, help you buy health insurance and cut wasteful spending. Sure, Great, Fine, Whatever.
He had to say it, heck, I was disappointed by how little meat and potatoes the RNC has had so far. Maybe I'm just spoiled. I hear Obama, and I hear Palin, and then we've gotta suffer though something that McCain just isn't good at: a speech.
I thought he'd break the mold and be a bit innovative. I really thought that he'd take the mic into his hands, like his wife did, and walk around a bit like he does at town halls. The town hall format is where McCain wins, he's unstoppable when he's just chattin'. Though, I guess he wasn't so bold. Oh, well.
He still gets a B. He got everything out that he had to. He wasn't too negative and he didn't make any mistakes. Also, those last 30 seconds where he really did indulge in some rhetorical flourish needs to make its way into a commercial. That was about as good a moment as any candidate has had this year. Still, it was just a moment.
I stand by my prediction. The race will be a statistical tie from here on into the debates.
How do you grade McCain's speech? How do you think the polls will look on Monday?
McCain's speech
There're some advanced texts available of John's speech tonight. He's going to highlight his patriotism, his maverick credentials and give some specifics about his plans for a McCain presidency. What he will not do is knock on Obama very much. The line out of the McCain camp is that Obama's speech last week was over the top and more befitting of a VP's sort of attack dog style. In a word, McCain is going to try to be Presidential.
Also, look for McCain to go off script at some point, he might even walk around a bit. Regardless of what McCain does this speech is not going to be a barn burner. John will be sure to do himself no harm and to be specific about what he does intend to do. The Republicans are going to try to fight Barack on a progressive agenda and steal, at least some, of the 'change' mantra.
Where Palin's speech was directed at women and Republicans. John will focus on Independents and men.
Here We Go.
Also, look for McCain to go off script at some point, he might even walk around a bit. Regardless of what McCain does this speech is not going to be a barn burner. John will be sure to do himself no harm and to be specific about what he does intend to do. The Republicans are going to try to fight Barack on a progressive agenda and steal, at least some, of the 'change' mantra.
Where Palin's speech was directed at women and Republicans. John will focus on Independents and men.
Here We Go.
Obama on O'Reilly
In a bald-faced attempt to steal the spotlight from McCain tonight Barack Obama is going to be interviewed today by Bill O'Reilly's show. Good for him! I'm not at all offended that he's trying to steel McCain's thunder.
O'Reilly, love him or hate him, does a good interview. Obama will be tested, and Bill will be respectful. I'm, frankly, far more eager to see how Barack handles himself on "the Factor" than McCain's talk.
John Kerry has said that one of his biggest mistakes was to not go on O'Reilly in 2004. I have to say that I agree. Right or wrong, it seemed to dove tail too nicely with the picture the Bush campaign was painting of a liberal elitist to not want to have a tough interview.
Obama went on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this summer and he did Great. I'm sure he will do well on O'Reilly. The only thing he could have done wrong vis-a-vis the Factor was to not show up. Frankly, O'Reilly isn't a Hack like Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher and dismissing him as such is unwise. I just hope that McCain goes on John Stewart's show again...
Anyway, the interview should play at 5:00pm pacific and 8:00pm eastern, and replay again after John McCain's speech. I'd encourage you to watch it.
O'Reilly, love him or hate him, does a good interview. Obama will be tested, and Bill will be respectful. I'm, frankly, far more eager to see how Barack handles himself on "the Factor" than McCain's talk.
John Kerry has said that one of his biggest mistakes was to not go on O'Reilly in 2004. I have to say that I agree. Right or wrong, it seemed to dove tail too nicely with the picture the Bush campaign was painting of a liberal elitist to not want to have a tough interview.
Obama went on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this summer and he did Great. I'm sure he will do well on O'Reilly. The only thing he could have done wrong vis-a-vis the Factor was to not show up. Frankly, O'Reilly isn't a Hack like Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher and dismissing him as such is unwise. I just hope that McCain goes on John Stewart's show again...
Anyway, the interview should play at 5:00pm pacific and 8:00pm eastern, and replay again after John McCain's speech. I'd encourage you to watch it.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
She did well
Most everybody is saying that Sarah exceeded expectations. I thought her speech was very good. She's got a presence and she rose to the occasion. I wish she had mentioned more specifics about exactly why Obama's economic plans were silly. That was the advantage of Romney (whom I admit I favored as McCain's mate). He made the simple economic truths indisputable.
She very clearly made the case on energy and national security. And, she's restarted the culture wars in a truly mind bending fashion. Crusty old men screaming "sexist!" and young women charging: "what a bad mother."
Palin is either a home run or a strike out. There's no room in between. She's just too fresh, too unsafe and too dynamic to be anything but a boom or bust. Maybe that's what McCain was counting on. Maybe Obama really was walkin' to Pennsylvania avenue without a care in the world and Palin was a way to shake it all up thus giving him a chance. Any way you slice it, it's really fascinating.
I'm usually more than ready and willing to make wild speculative estimates on the effects of this or that in politics. This time, I'm stumped. I still think that this country is center-right in general. But, folks are asking for help paying for health care, and folks really do want to throw the bums out of Washington. Democrats haven't been able to really capitalize on these two trends that seem to favor them. Who knows why. With congress' approval rate in the low 10's don't assume that the bums all have R's next to their names.
So here's my guess, end of the weekend, the race is back to a statistical tie and stays there until the debates. Not terribly exciting. Palin's speech has convinced me that she will help, on balance, but she's still just the VP.
What do you think?
She very clearly made the case on energy and national security. And, she's restarted the culture wars in a truly mind bending fashion. Crusty old men screaming "sexist!" and young women charging: "what a bad mother."
Palin is either a home run or a strike out. There's no room in between. She's just too fresh, too unsafe and too dynamic to be anything but a boom or bust. Maybe that's what McCain was counting on. Maybe Obama really was walkin' to Pennsylvania avenue without a care in the world and Palin was a way to shake it all up thus giving him a chance. Any way you slice it, it's really fascinating.
I'm usually more than ready and willing to make wild speculative estimates on the effects of this or that in politics. This time, I'm stumped. I still think that this country is center-right in general. But, folks are asking for help paying for health care, and folks really do want to throw the bums out of Washington. Democrats haven't been able to really capitalize on these two trends that seem to favor them. Who knows why. With congress' approval rate in the low 10's don't assume that the bums all have R's next to their names.
So here's my guess, end of the weekend, the race is back to a statistical tie and stays there until the debates. Not terribly exciting. Palin's speech has convinced me that she will help, on balance, but she's still just the VP.
What do you think?
Prognosticating Palin
Oh Sarah, what are you going to say tonight? I mean, you'll say that McCain is good and Obama is not the right choice.... got it. You'll tell the story of a crusading mom fightin' corruption in Alaska, okay. You'll surely mention oil and energy concerns because that's about the only issue on which you have more experience than the other 3 on the ticket. And, you're likely to champion yourself as a "looks like we made it" candidate representing women's rights. Okay.
But, Sarah, are you going to make a big deal about your choice not to have an abortion when you found out your child was disabled? Are you going to mention that your daughter is 17, pregnant and engaged? How about taking the stick to the American media? Are you going to tell MSNBC to lay off you kids? Best not sound whiny or defensive, you are a woman and we are a sexist country... then again, hell hath no fury as a woman scored. Oh boy, I can't wait for tonight.
But, Sarah, are you going to make a big deal about your choice not to have an abortion when you found out your child was disabled? Are you going to mention that your daughter is 17, pregnant and engaged? How about taking the stick to the American media? Are you going to tell MSNBC to lay off you kids? Best not sound whiny or defensive, you are a woman and we are a sexist country... then again, hell hath no fury as a woman scored. Oh boy, I can't wait for tonight.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Obama's bounce
I discussed the concept of a bounce earlier this week here. Some numbers have started to come in. Obama is up roughly 6 points and I'm ready to call it a bounce. But, politico's David Kuhn rightly suggests that Obama's bounce is very much smaller than one might expect.
I already forwarded one theory suggesting that the polarization of American politics has left less room for bouncing. But what do you think?
I already forwarded one theory suggesting that the polarization of American politics has left less room for bouncing. But what do you think?
The rehabilitation of GW Bush
Jonathan Kay is admittedly a conservative hack. But, this time he's ahead of the curve. Read here what I predict will become a theme in the next 20 years. Because being contrarian is popular, and because Bush is unpopular, the histories will be favorable.
I suspect that GW probably doesn't care about his legacy one way or the other. Despite that, I care. What do you think? Is he going to be pannned (like Carter) a redemed hero (like Truman) or something in the middle (like GHW Bush)? It's time for wild speculation, let's hear it.
I suspect that GW probably doesn't care about his legacy one way or the other. Despite that, I care. What do you think? Is he going to be pannned (like Carter) a redemed hero (like Truman) or something in the middle (like GHW Bush)? It's time for wild speculation, let's hear it.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Did you see?
The Iraqi Government just took official control of Anbar Provence.
This won't get reported anywhere in the US press. Actually it looks like the IHT is the only place that even mentions it. Admittedly, I would have been happier to see this report sometime in early 2005, but I guess late is better than never.
This won't get reported anywhere in the US press. Actually it looks like the IHT is the only place that even mentions it. Admittedly, I would have been happier to see this report sometime in early 2005, but I guess late is better than never.
Gustav update
So the convention was postponed. Laura Bush and Cindy McCain gave a little talk about giving to the victims of Gustav and they shut out the lights.
I guess that's probably wise. So far the reporters at CNN, FOX and MSNBC have been glowing in their praise of the government response to the hurricane. It helped that the governments and residents in the affected areas had such fresh memories, and that Gustav really doesn't appear to have been in the same league as Katrina. I'm not ready to show the all clear and say that the Repubs should get to partyin'. My home town paper had a headline of "A near miss" the day after Katrina... these things clearly need a day or a week to develop.
Still, I'm glad that it at least appears that things have gone better. As for the political fall out... I'm not really sure. I think it'll be neutral. Doing a good job at disaster relief is what the governemnt is supposed to do! Taking credit for being ordinary seems to me to be a likely flop if the Republicans try it. McCain gets credit for dodging the bullet that it might have been, and some Democrats will get scorned for praising Gustav and wishing the worst on their fellow citizens.
However, McCain still lost today, and is likely to lose parts of tomorrow and though the convention. No big media event means no chance for a bounce. I've already said that bounces are likely to be small anyway, but leaving the arrow in the quiver is bad for the R's.
Obama has done very well this week by doing nothing significant. After an inital flub of the Palin announcement (cracking on her for her inexperience before welcoming her to the race) he's cleaned up his act. Maybe he should just go into a cave and wait for November. Seems like his best days are when he's nowhere to be found.
We've got Hanah right behind and a great deal of distractions as the clean up gets going from Gustav, so what do you think? Does the RNC get totally over shaddowed by this? Does McCain lose some of the steam he had built up before this week? Does he get credit for appearing to stick to his "country first" motto? I don't have answers for you yet, stay tuned....
I guess that's probably wise. So far the reporters at CNN, FOX and MSNBC have been glowing in their praise of the government response to the hurricane. It helped that the governments and residents in the affected areas had such fresh memories, and that Gustav really doesn't appear to have been in the same league as Katrina. I'm not ready to show the all clear and say that the Repubs should get to partyin'. My home town paper had a headline of "A near miss" the day after Katrina... these things clearly need a day or a week to develop.
Still, I'm glad that it at least appears that things have gone better. As for the political fall out... I'm not really sure. I think it'll be neutral. Doing a good job at disaster relief is what the governemnt is supposed to do! Taking credit for being ordinary seems to me to be a likely flop if the Republicans try it. McCain gets credit for dodging the bullet that it might have been, and some Democrats will get scorned for praising Gustav and wishing the worst on their fellow citizens.
However, McCain still lost today, and is likely to lose parts of tomorrow and though the convention. No big media event means no chance for a bounce. I've already said that bounces are likely to be small anyway, but leaving the arrow in the quiver is bad for the R's.
Obama has done very well this week by doing nothing significant. After an inital flub of the Palin announcement (cracking on her for her inexperience before welcoming her to the race) he's cleaned up his act. Maybe he should just go into a cave and wait for November. Seems like his best days are when he's nowhere to be found.
We've got Hanah right behind and a great deal of distractions as the clean up gets going from Gustav, so what do you think? Does the RNC get totally over shaddowed by this? Does McCain lose some of the steam he had built up before this week? Does he get credit for appearing to stick to his "country first" motto? I don't have answers for you yet, stay tuned....
Kids
Well, feminism has a bit of work to do. Today we learned that Bristol Palin is pregnant. She's 17 and her mom is running for VP. It didn't take too long for folks on the Daily Kos and the Liberal underground to start measuring her up for a nice red "A." These are mostly (but not all I should note) men who claim to be progressive, liberal and caring about the plight of women calling a young girl in a tough spot a whore. Why?
Because they're filled with hate. Not hate for Bristol, she really is a victum both ways, they hate a conservitive ideology that Bristol's mother represents. So, they attack Sarah Palin though her daughter, implying bad leadership. If she can't keep her house in order... then how can she keep the nation in order. Right?
It's a strange argument and a sad one. Unfortunate things happen to families. Sarah Palin has not been a hypocrite vis-a-vis her daughter. Bristol is having a (shotgun) wedding and will raise her child. Listen, these things aren't ideal, but there's no souliton to being pregnant at 17. I'm not in the mood to praise Palin as some conservative suck-ups have, but I am going to side with my favorite politician of the day: Obama. Families are off limits and those who hurt Sarah Palin's family for political reasons ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Check out Obama reading the riot act Here. Good for you Barack.
Because they're filled with hate. Not hate for Bristol, she really is a victum both ways, they hate a conservitive ideology that Bristol's mother represents. So, they attack Sarah Palin though her daughter, implying bad leadership. If she can't keep her house in order... then how can she keep the nation in order. Right?
It's a strange argument and a sad one. Unfortunate things happen to families. Sarah Palin has not been a hypocrite vis-a-vis her daughter. Bristol is having a (shotgun) wedding and will raise her child. Listen, these things aren't ideal, but there's no souliton to being pregnant at 17. I'm not in the mood to praise Palin as some conservative suck-ups have, but I am going to side with my favorite politician of the day: Obama. Families are off limits and those who hurt Sarah Palin's family for political reasons ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Check out Obama reading the riot act Here. Good for you Barack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
