The Hopeful Cynic

Maintaining Optimism in the Face of Reality. Occasional observations on the state of the world, society, business and politics. Usually anchored by facts, always augmented by opinion.

Two Days Out, The Money's Still On Bush | e-mail post

I traded some e-mail with someone who seems very concerned about how the election will play out. I thought I would try to put some information out to ease his mind, and hopefully some other people's minds.

First, let's look at what's locked up: Bush has 191 electoral votes locked up and Kerry has 149. This leaves 198 up in the air. Let's look at a few different metrics.

I'll start with the money. I have already written about the wisdom of looking at election markets and gambling sites in "Election Outcome: Like Deep Throat Said, 'Follow The Money'." Tradesports takes action on the state-by-state results, the electoral vote count, and the basic "who wins?" bets. On an electoral vote basis, the action breaks down like this:

State	E Votes	Bush Odds	Bush	Kerry
Arkansas	6	83.0%	6	0
Colorado	9	75.0%	9	0
Florida	27	59.0%	27	0
Hawaii	4	20.5%	0	4
Iowa	7	53.2%	7	0
Maine	4	7.6%	0	4
Michigan	17	24.1%	0	17
Minnesota	10	35.5%	0	10
Missouri	11	83.4%	11	0
Nevada	5	74.0%	5	0
New Hampshire	4	31.0%	0	4
New Jersey	15	10.1%	0	15
New Mexico	5	63.0%	5	0
Ohio	20	50.0%	0	0
Oregon	7	11.6%	0	7
Pennsylvania	21	25.1%	0	21
Washington	11	7.0%	0	11
Wisconsin	10	43.1%	0	10
West Virginia	5	85.0%	5	0
		Pickups	75	103
		Solid	191	149
		Total	266	252

So, not quite enough to put Bush over the top, and Ohio is a true wildcard. The one state with even money between the candidates. Note that the wild percentages indicate what you would expect, if Bush has a 10-point lead in the polls, he should have very high odds, as it is winner-take all on the gambling front.

Tradesports has Bush winning 270 or more electoral votes at 52% and had Bush favoring Kerry for reelection at 55-45.

The Iowa Election Market also shows Bush favored for the winner-takes-all contest, at a similar level.

Let's look at other polls. Anyone who reads me regularly knows I am not a fan of Zogby and that I sound like Dustin Hoffman's Rainman talking about Qantas regarding Mason-Dixon polling. So, what does Mason-Dixon say about these races? Well, they don't cover all the races, but most of the races they don't cover are expected to go to Kerry, so, being charitable for now, I will concede all of those races to Kerry. Here are the results from the most recent Mason-Dixon polls:

	E Votes	Bush	Kerry	Undecided	Spread	Bush	Kerry
Arkansas	6	51%	43%	6%	8	6	0
Colorado	9	50%	43%	5%	7	9	0
Florida	27	49%	45%	5%	4	27	0
Hawaii	4					0	4
Iowa	7	49%	44%	7%	5	7	0
Maine	4					0	4
Michigan	17	45%	47%	6%	2	0	17
Minnesota	10	48%	47%	5%	1	10	0
Missouri	11	49%	44%	6%	5	11	0
Nevada	5	50%	44%	4%	6	5	0
New Hampshire	4					0	4
New Jersey	15					0	15
New Mexico	5	49%	45%	5%	4	5	0
Ohio	20	48%	46%	5%	2	20	0
Oregon	7	44%	50%	5%	6	0	7
Pennsylvania	21	46%	48%	6%	2	0	21
Washington	11					0	11
Wisconsin	10	46%	48%	5%	2	0	10
West Virginia	5	51%	43%	6%	8	5	0
					Pickups	95	103
					Solid	191	149
					Total	296	242

According to Mason-Dixon, things are looking very good for Bush. An important thing to note is that Bush has appreciably larger spreads in states he is winning, other than Ohio and Minnesota, while Kerry only has a healthy spread in Oregon. Kerry's other states are very close.

Minnesota is probably the most in contest, with polls showing a very close race, but a recent Humphrey Institute poll shows Bush up 47 to 44. Of course, the Star-Tribune has Kerry up 49-41, which is simply ridiculous. No poll has shown an 8-point gap in Minnesota, since, well, since the Star-Tribune had Kerry up 9 in early September. Twenty total polls between then and now, and only the Saint Cloud State poll is close to that (and sorry SCSU, but you're no Quinnipiac or Rutgers in the polling business). I've written about the systematic bias of the Strib, back in September. It will be a squeaker, here, that's for certain, but it is still competitive, and the fact that both candidates probably know their way around here like natives after the past month is evidence of that.

Ohio is the wildcard in most of these equations. It's hilarious, actually, the papers there are going nuts on polling. The Cleveland Plain Dealer did a 1,500 likely voter poll (showing Bush up 48 to 45) and the Columbus Dispatch did a 2,880 likely voter poll (showing a tied 50-50 race). Even John Zogby shows Bush up 49-44 in Ohio, but I think he might be bulking the numbers up in the hopes of driving Democratic turnout in Ohio, it's the largest Bush-favored spread in a while. I don't have enough data on the Columbus Dispatch poll, but it is very odd that it's a dead heat for Bush, while presumably correlated elections are blowouts. Republican Senator Voinovich is leading his race 62-38 and State Issue 1 (which is both a ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions) is leading 63-37. (One thing I question about the Dispatch poll is the lack of an undecided component.)

I feel pretty good, because I think Bush will likely shock everyone by bringing New Jersey home. If that happens, as I've said, we can all go to bed early. If Bush wins New Jersey, and the other races play out as predicted, Ohio and Minnesota can still go to Kerry and Bush still sails into another 4 years at 281 to 257.

Tomorrow's the last day to explain the facts to people though. Look at some of my posts over the last week to help people know the facts ["Last Chance to Get Some Facts Out"]["There is No Ban on Stem Cell Research"]["The Artisan v The Idealist"]["Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself"].

The level of misunderstanding in this election season, combined with high voter turnout among a lot of, honestly, politically ignorant individuals, is the biggest risk Bush has.

Updates: Federal Review ran some Monte Carlo simulations it would appear, and with 20,000 trials, they assign a 70.4% probability to a Bush victory. Data Seers seems to have done a similar thing, but came up with Bush at 87.8% probability of victory.

New Jersey Could Let Us Get To Bed Early On Tuesday | e-mail post

I don't think John Kerry has a reasonably probable electoral vote win path if he loses New Jersey to George Bush, and I don't think that's out of the question right now, especially on the heels of Osama Bin Laden's tape release on Friday.

Quinnipiac University first brought attention to this a few weeks back, which I wrote about on October 12th in "What New Jersey is Saying (We're Safer With Bush/Cheney)." I also wrote about the broader challenges Kerry might be facing in NJ that day as well, in "And What New Jersey Might Be Saying to Kerry (don't call the movers yet)."

It looks like the Quinnipiac numbers out last week continue to paint a bleak picture for Kerry in NJ, and these were from interviews conducted before the Bin Laden tape on Friday. Here's how the Quinnipiac polls have been trending (sorry they don't look great, I just whipped this together in Excel):

The really interesting thing to note, is how the leaners are breaking hard toward Bush. In the most recent polls, pushing undecideds had them breaking five to one for Bush. Democrats have been clinging to the fantasy of the 50% rule and the idea that undecideds break 2:1 for challengers, but I have written about the numerous reasons why I don't think that analysis applies in this election, in "On the Cell Phone Only Polling Bias and the '50% rule'." It looks like New Jersey is backing up that analysis.

I will also get some thoughts together on the Star-Ledger/Rutgers-Eagleton poll, which has Kerry leading Bush 45 - 41 with 12 percent undecided. Just to note, though, a 5:1 break for Bush, as the recent Quinnipiac poll shows, would result in a Bush 51; Kerry 47 result. Even a 3:1 break would play out at Bush 50; Kerry 48.

You can get all the details from the PDF release on the poll at the Rutgers site. The Rutgers guys say the race should have a final polling result of 50-49, favoring Kerry, when they interpret the results. They also acknowledge that over 2/3rds of the responses came before the Bin Laden tape was released. In addition, Kerry's favorability has dropped 8 points since their last poll and Bush has gone from an 18 point to a 4 point deficit among independent voters.

Clinton's Chief Strategist on Why Bush Will Win | e-mail post

I've commented previously about how poorly run Kerry's campaign is, and that the real reason is that they fundamentally lack a positive message to offer voters, particularly independent voters.

Even Dick Morris, Clinton's lead strategist for his 1996 reelection campaign, is calling the election for Bush. Why? Because of Kerry's hamfisted and idiotic approach to dealing with the "missing" explosives story. From his NY Post Op-Ed piece on the 29th:

Then came the "disappearing explosives" story. Kerry's handlers, tacticians to the last, disregarded the needs of basic strategy and hopped on the issue with all four feet, running a TV ad lambasting Bush for losing the weapons after the invasion.

Strategically, this flawed decision assured that the final week of the campaign would focus on the areas of Bush's strength and Kerry's weakness: Iraq and terrorism. Tactically, it tied the electorate's confidence in John Kerry to the mystery of what actually happened in an ammo dump in the desert 18 months ago.

Then it began to explode in Kerry's face. Soon we heard that there were only three tons of explosives . . . and they weren't there when we occupied the dump . . . and they were removed by the Russians before we got there . . . and, perhaps, there are satellite photos to prove it.

All of a sudden, Kerry seems just not ready for prime time.

The backfire is amplified by the involvement of CBS and The New York Times. The plans of "60 Minutes" and Dan Rather to break the story on the Sunday before the election reflect overt partisan bias — an overt conspiracy of these leading outlets to stack the deck in favor of Kerry.

This controversy unraveling in front of us all, replete with conspiracy theories and denouement of media bias, is enough to occupy our attention and rivet our focus as Election Day approaches. It will drive all other stories off the front pages and will make the war in Iraq the key element in the election.

At this writing, the possibility that the alleged al Qaeda tape virtually endorsing Kerry will hit the airwaves makes one even more confident of a Bush victory. A threat to let blood run in the streets of America if Bush wins won't intimidate voters, but rather remind them of the importance of sending a warrior to fight the terrorists — and seal Bush's victory.

His basic analysis is that since Bush dominates in polling questions about who would better fight the war on terror, and who do you trust to handle Iraq, the final days of the campaign are all on his side.

The NY Times today has a piece that the Osama Bin Laden tape isn't influencing voters, but they based their conclusion on a relatively small number of interviews in five states: Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, and Ohio. I would have loved it if they had interviewed people in New Jersey, who have been leaning to Bush in recent weeks because of the war on terror. (see my earlier: "What New Jersey is Saying (We're Safer With Bush/Cheney)" and the latest Quinnipiac University polling in NJ that has Bush and Kerry in a dead heat.)

Dick Morris actually thought Kerry probably didn't have a shot back in March, as his piece in The Hill details. Even then he observed, "Kerry has also made a big mistake in backing the criminal-justice approach to terrorism, seeking to transform the war on terror into a series of DEA-style busts. Voters recognize that Bush is right when he says that this is a war against nation-states that sponsor terror, not a hunt for criminal bands in the mountains."

Morris is right, people trust John Kerry to handle the war on terror probably only a little more than most people would trust Bill Clinton with their 20-something daughters. The big difference is that with the wrong approach to the war on terror, we all get screwed.

Designer Deconstructs Campaign Logos | e-mail post

I read a lot of magazines. All kinds, newsweeklies, politics of every stripe, new age, design, technology, industry trade rags. I love absorbing information. One of my favorite magazines is Metropolis. It's subhead, "Architecture Culture Design" sums it up pretty well. From a design standpoint, it is one of the best, what Wired may have aspired to be, in my opinion, but they missed the mark.

Another example of why I love the magazine comes with the November issue of Metropolis, which has a fantastic little piece by Michael Bierut comparing the graphic design of the Bush and Kerry campaigns. Bierut is very much an expert in his field, and is currently a Senior Critic at Yale's School of Art and is a partner at Pentagram, a NYC-based design firm. He also was a co-editor of "Looking Closer: Critical Writings on Graphic Design."

Although the piece does state up front that for all the talk of candidates being packaged and marketed, you wouldn't know it from the logos, in Beirut's words, "they're primitive, careless and amateurish, better suited to promoting a local dogcatcher than the leader of the free world."

Be that as it may, it seems that the Bush Cheney logo is comparatively better designed. Unfortunately, the piece is not available online. So, I've included pics here and highlight some of his comments. But, please understand, I really believe you have a moral obligation to at least consider buying the Novemeber issue of Metropolis (not to mention, I have left out some of Bierut's bon mots). You could also probably discharge your moral obligation to Bierut by retaining Pentagram, if you have the need and the money.

Color: Bierut jokingly wonders if the red border is an attempt to pander to Time magazine editors. More seriously, he remarks that "just as Pepsi goes with a bifurcated color scheme to counter Coke's monochromatism, the number two candidate can't afford not to hedge its bets."

Flag: Bierut suggests the flags in both campaign logos are needed because the top-of-the-ticket name is shorter than the running mates, and "like almost all adult American men, he has an irrational fear of what metrosexual graphic designers extol as 'white space.'" Bierut says Kerry's flag, however, "looks like a piece of clip art that the local hardware store would use to tart up a Fourth of July special on wading pools." Ouch!

Type: Bierut points out that the use of the Georgia typeface is probably not an olive branch to bring Zell Miller back to his side, but more likely just that it is commonly available on any Microsoft PC. He also points out the typographic no-no of the horizontal scaling of Edwards' name. "What Kerry would defend as subtlety, his foes could interpret as subtrefuge, equivocation and insecurity."

Now, we move onto the Bush logo.

Color: Bush-Cheney doesn't go against convention in choosing a very corporate Brooks Brothers dark blue.

Flag: Rather than using some literal flag clip-art, the Bush logo uses "a flaglike object." As Bierut says, "Republicans hate when you burn the flag to make a political point, but...completely revise its composition - go for it!" He continues to note that conspiracy theorists may appreciate that the waving flaglike object has a "sinister" resemblance to the letter W. (No comment by Bierut that Bush actually makes use of a fair amount of white space in his signs and stickers.)

Type: Paraphrasing would simply not do it justice:

The late eminence grise of American graphic design Paul Rand once said, "It is dangerous to attribute magical qualities to typefaces." But why let that stop us? A bold typeface is stronger than a light typeface. Capitals are more authoritative than upper- and lowercase. Italic is more powerful than roman. Sans serif is more no-nonsense than serif. So by choosing Folio Extra Bold Italic for the ten letters in their names, Bush and Cheney immediately let us know that they are strong, authoritative, powerful, no-nonsense leaders. Any questions?

A side note for the connoisseur, pointed out by my friend Jonathan Hoefler: Typographers call the asymmetrical quotation mark (...) a "smart quote." The default version used by Bush, on the other hand, is called a "dumb quote." You may insert your own highly partisan conclusion here.

The net-net, from my standpoint, is that politics aside, and despite the banality of most political graphic design, the Bush-Cheney logo is in fact more of a genuine "design" than the tossed-together Kerry-Edwards logo. Just a few days until we know if branding makes a difference.

More Facts: There Is No "Ban" On Stem Cell Research | e-mail post

When I was out last night and the conversation turned to politics, the debate turned for a moment to the "critical issue" of stem cell research. I was reasonably well-informed on the issue as I recently had an extemely lengthy, and at times heated, e-mail exchange about this subject. And after that conversation I realized it's worth getting some facts on the table, as I think this is poorly understood matter.

First, the Bush policy is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that limits federal grants for such research to studies that make use of a limited number of pre-existing stem cell lines. It is not a ban on embryonic stem-cell research; it in no way impacts adult stem-cell research.

Kerry supporters have said to me that Christopher Reeve's death is "the only reason" he won't walk again now, because embyronic stem cell research is not receiving federal support. (At least they don't claim as John Edwards did the day after Reeve's death that electing Kerry will mean that Reeve would walk again). But the weaker claim is nearly as specious. Embryonic stem cell research didn't even exist before 1998, and we are only at the early stages of knowing what its potential is.

Charles Krauthammer, the columnist for the Washington Post wrote about the Kerry-Edwards demagoguery in this area a couple of weeks back. I don't normally point to opinion columnists on science topics, but, you see, Krauthammer has been paralyzed for 30 years, from an injury suffered when he was in medical school, so I give him a little credit for his perspective.

The truth is that while I may support embryonic stem cell research, the necessarily-related issue of abortion is deeply offensive and contentious to a great many people. That group is larger than many seem to recognize, and is certainly even more politically-engaged and effective than their size alone would suggest. Some may regard it as an unfortunate political reality that their wishes must be given some consideration, but America is composed of many constituencies, and politics is often the art of compromise.

Some Democracts then suggest that the compromise is no compromise at all (because of issues with embryonic stem cell lines) doesn't accurately reflect the current state of affairs, from what I can tell:

About 25 million in federal funding was spent on embryonic stem cell research last year, confined to the limited number of pre-existing lines, with which I will accept there are issues.
No clinical trials are underway releated to any embryonic stem-cell program.
Last year, $190 million in federal money was spent on adult stem cell research, and hundreds of clinical trials are underway using that science.
Back in early 2002 it was reported that the University of Minnesota's Stem Cell Institute started seeing that bone marrow stem cells as having potentially the same versatility as embryonic stem cells (Boston Globe article on UMN servers):
Now Catherine Verfaillie and colleagues at the Stem Cell Institute at the University of Minnesota may have found a way to coax adult stem cells to be just as versatile - and far less controversial. The findings have yet to be published, and researchers say it's too soon to draw firm conclusions, but the work is already creating a stir in the field.

"The work is very exciting," said stem cell biologist Ihor Lemischka of Princeton University. "[Verfaillie] can show that they can differentiate into pretty much everything that an embryonic stem cell can differentiate into. It's very neat."
There is no restriction on the use of any embryonic stem cells in privately-funded research investment. If embryonic stem cells are as uniquely promising as is suggested, then it would follow that market forces would flow more money into such research, particularly considering that even the aggregate stem cell money spent by the feds is paltry compared to the research budgets of even an individual biotech company like Amgen.
I believe the biggest "breakthrough" to date in embryonic stem cell research occurred last month in the UK, where they can produce cells that contain cystic fibrosis genes. This may allow better research into CF, since they haven't been able to use animal models.
Most scientists seem to indicate the best opportunities for embryonic stem cell research involve stem cell taken from embryos created by very early-stage human cloning, which is, as they say a whole different "kettle of fish." My point being: this is a much more contentious issue than is commonly recognized.

The fact is, stem cell research does offer great opportunities. There are many ways it can be pursued: it doesn't have to be federally-funded. Don't let Kerry supporters hold this as a black-or-white issue. It is contentious, and Bush crafted an effective compromise. Kerry's juvenille remarks along the lines of "It's not enough to do more, the test is are we doing everything that we can," indicates that he clearly doesn't live in the real world, a world on constraints, of scarcity, of differeing opinions. He is, after all, an idealist as I wrote in my last post, the Artisan vs the Idealist. And idealists don't ever get elected President.

For more coverage of things that seem to be poorly understood by many people, see my "Last Chance to Get Some Facts Out" post from Friday. For more discussion of how an ignorant electorate imperils democracy (and have some laughs related to it) see last night's "A Strange Arc From Juvenille Humor to a Serious Topic."

Comparing The Candidates: The Artisan vs the Idealist | e-mail post

I get an ungodly amoung of spam, even after my spam filter catches some. It's one downside of having the same e-mail address for over a decade (and I was doing web development back in 1994, so God only knows how many places I've submitted my e-mail over time.) But sometimes an interesting piece slips through, like a piece of mail I got from one of the countless personality/psychology sites; no not Tickle, but good guess. This one was from AdvisorTeam. I actually did take one of their mini personality tests when I was working on a project related to online testing and prescreening, so strictly speaking this wasn't complete spam, I guess.

But to get back to the story. AdvisorTeam sent a newsletter "Election 2004 - Candidates' Personalities," in which they assess both candidates personalities. It includes a view of the personalities of the various candidates, based on the names they assign to the different Keirsey Tempermant sorter outcomes. (Keirsey sorting, like the Myers-Briggs, is what gives you the typical ENTP or ISNJ sort of results.)

In any event, if you're thinking about voting on "character," or voting for "the man," not just the policies or platforms, you may find this worth a read.

The site provides a discussion of Bush and Kerry's personality. Their Bush profile was done in advance of the 2000 election, and they say "the prediction we made about his Temperament has been born out. Bold and decisive could be two words that could describe his Presidency, no matter what political side one is on. Obviously, other words (praiseworthy or derogatory) might be added depending on one’s politics, however, George Bush’s temperament has proven to be that of an Artisan."

They characterize artisans such as Bush, who they specifically say is a "Promoter Artisan" as "masters of the crisis" and point to similar personalities as John Kennedy, LBJ, Bill Clinton and FDR:

Like Franklin D. Roosevelt, he used this opportunity to galvanize the nation to war. Unlike previous wars, this war on terrorism has broken the mold of conventional perceptions of war and uses of pre-emption. Although pre-emption is not a unique concept, it appears to break conventional wisdom, upsetting those who want to be more cautious and conventional.With tactical intelligence, George Bush has boldly brought the war to the terrorists, even attacking them on some of their territory, which is an offense strategy.

Obviously, for some armchair or hindsight generals and politicians, this course of action is considered to be rash and foolish. But only time will tell whether the Artisan tactics of Bush -- like fellow Artisans that were before him -- like Clinton, Reagan, Johnson, Kennedy, or Roosevelt -- were rash or insightful.

Interestingly, I found myself in a discussion last night with someone explaining the fundamental difficulty of judging the historical importance and ultimate merit of our current action in Iraq, in the same way that people judged Reagan aggressive defense spending in the 1980's as wreckless and irrational, not understanding, as Reagan clearly did, that forcing the Soviets into stepping up the arms race would ulimately break the back of their economy, and thus of Soviet Communism. Today, rather than rattling our sabres at one another, Russia and the U.S. share a common enemy in Muslin extremists.

The Promoter Artisan label applies specifically to the ESTP personality. Winston Churchill and Patton were both ESTPs, as were Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt.

They identify John Kerry as a "Counselor Idealist" which is an INFJ personality. It's quite interesting to note that he is the exact opposite of Bush's personality. Where Bush perceives, Kerry judges; where Bush thinks, Kerry feels; where Bush senses, Kerry intuits; and where Bush is extroverted, Kerry is introverted. The write-up they provide on Kerry closes with:

He has spent the last twenty years in the Senate. He tends to vote Liberal, but he doesn’t have a significant legislative actions to his name. Instead he worked on causes that he felt he could contribute to, some of which were controversial. Though he has had eclectic results, Kerry has been able to use his Idealist diplomatic skills to form working relationships with Senators on both sides of the aisle. For example, in an association with John McCain, he strove to heal the wounds of Vietnam – this was one of Kerry’s more visible and notable efforts.

Now John Kerry is running for President, something he probably had in the back of his mind, ever since he first met John Kennedy. Kerry probably views the running for the Presidency as a great cause, to inspire others towards his Idealistic vision of the future.

Doesn't sound really compelling. I wrote about Kerry's lack of executive experience, and the fact that the U.S. virtually never elects Presidents who haven't been in positions of true leadership prior to the Presidency, in "The Buck Stops Where?" In that piece I point out Kennedy as the counterexample, the one non-executive we've elected to the White House since the 1930s.

As an aside, when I pointed this out to two individuals last night, one suggested she thought Americans foolish for placing a premium on executive experience. I can't understand how one could place too high a premium on the issue of executive leadership experience, of being the one person whose decision is the final answer, when choosing a President. It's an entirely different experience than being one of a large group passing legislation.

But getting back to personalities, the news letter includes a table of how America has voted in the recent past:

1960	Kennedy (Artisan)	Nixon (Guardian)
1964	Johnson (Artisan)	Goldwater (Rational)
1968	Humphrey (Guardian)	Nixon (Guardian)
1972	McGovern (Guardian)	Nixon (Guardian)
1976	Carter (Guardian)	Ford (Guardian)
1980	Carter (Guardian)	Reagan (Artisan)
1984	Mondale (Guardian)	Reagan (Artisan)
1988	Dukakis (Guardian)	Bush (Guardian)
1992	Clinton (Artisan)	Bush (Guardian)
1996	Clinton (Artisan)	Dole (Guardian)
2000	Al Gore (Rational)	George W. Bush (Artisan)
2004	John Kerry (Idealist)	George W. Bush (Artisan)

It's interesting to note that the US has never elected an Idealist to be President. In fact, Idealists and not known to be leaders. Gandhi was an Idealist, but he wasn't running a country. Eleanor Roosevelt, while very powerful as FDR's wife, was also an Idealist, but again, FDR was the one running the country, even if Eleanor was an influential advisor.

The full write-ups on Bush and Kerry are on the AdvisorTeam site.

For the definitive text on this question, pick up a copy of David Keirsey's "Presidential Temperment" which has been updated to include Clinton, but doesn't yet include Bush.

Full disclosure: I'm a Rational, like Barry Goldwater and Al Gore (well, not really like Barry Goldwater or Al Gore, maybe a bit of a cross, poltically). The last time I tested, I was an *NTJ (I was neutral between extroverted and introverted). I've also flipped, when I was younger I was *NTP, and am only weakly judging. The "NT" characteristic is the constant that defines me as a Rational, though. ENTJs are known as Field Marshalls and INTJs are Masterminds. For more on the types, see the listings on the Keirsey.com site. I actually decided to take a quick free test and came out as INTP, the "Architect," so apparently I have flipped into more perceiving than judging again. Test yourself if you'd like, with a free 53 question Myers-Briggs test at SimilarMinds.com, which also has other personality tests, if that sort of thing interests you.

A Strange Arc From Juvenille Humor to a Serious Topic | e-mail post

I try to write a generally light post, and look what happens...

I don't endorse the anti-gay politics behind this particular movie, but the fact is that the bulk of the movie, a montage of John Kerry and John Edwards and their fairly "touchy" nature, is pretty hilarious. I'd recommend just skipping the bits at the beginning of the flick, as they're needlessly inflammatory. The rest of the film could best be described as "John (hearts) John"

In the interests of equal time, here's a video that represents George Bush as being on a holy war, suspending the consitution, trampling liberty, etc, etc so-on-and-so-forth, you know the drill. What I do like about this clip however is that it is has a great soundtrack including excellent versions of "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "The Star Spangled Banner," and a good enough version of "Amazing Grace," although strange though it may be, my favorite version is the Bryan Ferry (of Roxy Music) version, available on his album "Taxi." My friend in the film industry to whom I sent it, because it "fit his preconceived notions" replied to me that his "preconceived notions do NOT include bad editing ;->" [Quicktime: George Bush - A Tribute]

And for a clip that everyone should find amusing, South Park's new episode this week featured a music video for "Vote or Die" the voting campaign led by P. Diddy (and mocked by me already in "Paris Hilton Wants You To Stuff Her (Ballot) Box") You can also get the MP3 for the song via this post thanks to JoeChinni.com. Hat tip to Joshua Claybourn for the link to the movie (actually more than just the music segment). The blog AvoidingLife also has links to an AVI of the episode and a torrent, if you want to see the whole episode (AL also has the MP3).

BTW, the "moral" of the South Park episode is that Stan should get used to voting between a turd and a douche (for their new school mascot), because that's what the choice usually is between.

Parker and Stone have also criticized P. Diddy's Vote or Die campaign in a Rolling Stone interview discussing Team America (about which I've said, "Every American Should See It"). From Rolling Stone:

Parker and Stone now seem officially tired of hearing how Team America might impact the election. In fact, they take perhaps their strongest stand yet -- firmly against P. Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign. "I think just saying 'Vote or Die' is a serious danger to democracy," Stone says, as Parker breaks into a Cartman-esque voice for a mocking public-service message: "Hey, nineteen-year-old who doesn't know anything -- you choose."

"If you don't know what you're talking about, there's no shame in not voting," Stone says finally. "They say if you don't vote, you can't bitch. But you can bitch all you want. This is America."

Of course, Sean Penn get himself worked into a later about that (see my 'Everyone should see it' post for the link to Penn's letter). But the fact is, they're right, American democracy is harmed by the participation of the political ignorant. I'm a political elitist, and I'll admit it. But when this year:

69% of the electorate doesn't know the Congress passed a prescription drug benefit for medicare,
78% of them don't know unemployment is below the average rate for the last 30 years,
68% of them don't know that Social Security is one of the top two federal expenditures,

and in 2000:

Only 11% of the electorate new Rehnquist was the Chief Justice,
Only 15% could name either candidate for their district's seat in the U.S. House, and
Only 44% new Al Gore was more supportive of environmental regulation than Bush,

they don't have any business stepping inside a polling booth. Sorry if anyone thinks that sounds pretentious, but I'll stand by it. I most likely know some people like this (statistically, it looks like we probably all do), and while I wouldn't insult them by announcing this unprompted, if asked, I would absolutely tell them they have a duty to become better informed before they exercise such power. (That was kind of my point by my first post this morning: "Last Chance to Get Some Facts Out.")

If you want to read where I'm getting those numbers, and just what the problem of an ignorant electorate means, see Ilya Somin's September 2004 report, "When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy." [direct PDF link] Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, also has a forthcoming book on the subject from University of Michigan Press, "Democracy and the Problem of Political Ignorance." I'll be certain to alert you of it when it comes out. [Somin's page at GMU]

Like FDR Said: Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself | e-mail post

Well, the Bin Laden tape ran.

I am still waiting to read a full transcript, but just from the quotations I am seeing in the wire accounts, he has got some serious audacity. He apparently suggests that the best way to avoid "another Manhattan" is to change U.S. policy toward the Mideast. He suggests that the reasons are still there.

""God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said" [CBS]

Update: More Text on Yahoo; love the headine too: "Bin Laden Condemns Bush, Says New Attacks Possible" even though Bin Laden explicitly says it has nothing to do with Bush or Kerry, but just U.S. policy.

So 3,000 Americans lost their lives because of U.S. support for Israeli self-determination, in the face of numerous adversaries? Also, he clearly ignores the fact that Israel has largely been defending herself against terrorist attacks and invasions by Muslim and Arabic nations for years.

I will be curious to see if John Kerry will come out tomorrow and explicitly say we've got to cut and run with regard to Israel. That will be the ultimate act of political expediency he could exhibit. America has a duty to stand by our allies. And the obvious message from Bin Laden is that we either stand by our allies or face future attacks.

I think Winston Churchill's words on June 4th of 1940 in front of the House of Commons may be of interest. (Known as the "never surrender" or "fight on the beaches" speech.) Churchill closes his speech with these words:

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.

The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Don't believe that this is just about Israel. It is a mortal battle, and capitualtion will only enflame their desires.

The people who crashed Flight 93 into the Pennsylvania countryside 3 years ago rather than ride like lambs to an even larger slaughter are testament to the strength of the American people.

I genuinely hope that it is he who underestimates the strength of the American will, not I that overestimate it.

I'm on my way home, but you should be able to follow the updates at Powerline.

CONTINUED

OK, I'm home now and have just been checking out who else is picking up news:

The New York Times covers the story, and mentions Bin Laden's claim to have decided to attack America in 2001 based on Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The NYT of course neglects to mention that the Israeli invasion wasn't exactly unprovoked, but was in response to the PLO ignoring a cease-fire with the last straw being the attempted assassination by Abu Nidal of Israel's UK ambassador. (Israel has actually usually only gone into other countries in response to being attacked.)

The best part of the NYT story, however, is that the National Jewish Democratic Council is running an ad in the middle of it saying "John Kerry Will Respect Our Religious Liberty." Huh? Bush won't? Actually, that's about all they can say to try to shore up support for Kerry among Jewish voters, as right now, Kerry's Israeli stance even has the editor-in-chief of The New Republic beating on him, as I wrote about in "It's a Strange World Indeed...."

Here's the CNN News story [video link].

Update: Full text via Drudge (it's amazing he's the quickest source for it).

This Should Be Good | e-mail post

From Reuters via Yahoo minutes ago...

Jazeera TV Says to Air Bin Laden Video Tape

DUBAI (Reuters) - Arab satellite television Al Jazeera said on Friday it would broadcast a video tape from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) addressing the American people.

It said the tape, to be aired at 4 p.m. EDT, would discuss the reasons behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and their repercussions. It gave no further details.

He's going to discuss the "reasons." The REASONS!? You have got to be kidding me. I mean, the Japanese actually had a "reason" for attacking Pearl Harbor, they had a strategic need for oil which required unfettered control of the Pacific, which was best aided by preemptive action against the largest U.S. Naval installation in the Pacific. But I can't see any "reason," as the very word shares the common root of rationality, that they could possibly have.

In a way, this could be a dream come true. I dare the SOB to tell Americans that voting for Bush will incur Al Qaeda's wrath. The very thought of it reminds me of the pic I just uploaded, originall sent sent to me a couple years back, with the Caption "Bush Speech Before the White House Writers Polished it up".

Or, maybe he does plan to join with the Palestinian authority in endorsing John Kerry.

Stay tuned, it should be on in 20 minutes, now.

Kerry Might Be In Deep Caca Over Al-Qaqaa | e-mail post

This could be interesting. As you know, unless you just left your cave, the whole issue of missing explosives at Al-Qaqaa was the last bit of help the major media could try to give to John Kerry. (For more on the Editor and Publisher report on the media's bias towards Kerry, see my "Not Exactly 'Man Bites Dog'" post).

Well Powerline directs us to see this breaking news in which an Army officer in the 3rd Infantry division explains that his group removed roughly 250 tons of the explosives themselves. [Also AP via Yahoo]

Hindrocket over at Powerline correctly surmises this could be the coup de grace for the Kerry campaign. Given that Kerry has had nothing but a string of attacks to fall back on (cf "Democrats on the Defensive, per Usual"), the Rocket's probably right on the money.

That's the risk of running a campaign without a positive coherent message, unlike the Bush campaign's very positive and quite coherent themes and agenda (see "Last Chance to Get Some Facts Out" for ideas when talking to undecideds this weekend.)

Update: Holy Qaqaa, again, Batman, it looks like Powerline is the epicenter for bad news for Kerry today. News is still developing, but Hindrocket posts news that Kerry may have received an "other than honorable discharge" from the Navy. Ouch. If true, this could be gruesome.

How to Search Firefox History Using Google Desktop | e-mail post

OK, now for a somewhat atypical post, but it came up as I was really wishing Google Desktop worked on my Firefox history when I was looking for something I had browsed across recently.

If you use, or want to use, Google Desktop, but use Firefox and are frustrated that Google only supports IE for browsing your viewed web pages, Ken Schuette's Slogger Firefox extension might be the ticket. It can automatically (or on demand) save all of your browsing to disk, which is then searchable via Google Desktop (or any other desktop search tool, I suppose). Also, you could use various sorts of desktop proxy server tools to accomplish the same thing. Since Google Desktop itself contains a webserver, I'm surprised they didn't just build a small proxy into it, it's kind of a Duh! move.

Jacques Surveyer has a list of alternatives to Google Desktop as well.

Last Chance to Get Some Facts Out | e-mail post

Well, here we are, the weekend before the election. I'm looking forward to it being over. I'll be happy to go back to covering policy and society more than politics.

But this weekend is also probably the last chance many of us will have to speak with any undecided voters, or possibly talk about the facts with people who just don't have a sense of perspective about Bush's administration

The truth is that the core elements of the Bush agenda are based on a fairly coherent worldview, a view that says:

America's global interests are well-served by the expansion of democracy (something I think would be proven by the aftermath of Reagan breaking the back of the Soviet Union).
People in the United States are better off when a broader mass of society has an ownership stake in our nation, in the forms of home ownership and public equity investment. (And home ownership is at an all-time high under George Bush.)
Lower taxes drive economic growth. This is clearly demonstrated by the comparative performance of European economies both among themselves and versus the U.S. in aggregate (it's no coincidence that Ireland has the lowest tax rate and highest growth rate in Europe). I can't find the ideal PDF that demonstrates this graphically, so I'll post it soon, however MIT economist Olivier Blanchard discusses many of the points in "The Economic Future of Europe" [PDF]).
Combined with an efficient tax and regulatory structure, education is the key to our global economic competitiveness.

In contrast, John Kerry offers a coherent worldview that, well, that he is not George Bush, so there.

Seriously, tell people to look at the facts. Then tell them to decide. What are some of those facts? Well, I've covered some of them in previous posts, but here are some highlights.

Iraq: Obviously, this has been one of the main things Kerry has used as an attack issue. I provided some perspective on my "Debate: Rhetoric versus Substance" post (called "stronger and more coherent than most" by one flattering reader. Thanks!). Some things I would call out for a sense of perspective:

Kerry harped on the fact that the U.S. is 90% of the costs and 90% of the casualties in Iraq. This number of course excludes Iraqi civilians and security forices, he is just including the U.S. and our allies. Since John Kerry cites Korea as one our global historical alliances in his "plan," it might be worth looking at the peak Korean troop strength by nation as well as the casualties. I loaded them into Excel to do the math: the U.S. provided 88.89% of the UN troops, and accounted for 88.72% of UN troops killed and 91.51% of UN troops wounded.

Kerry also said he would strengthen the military. According to this Jim Lehrer NewsHour transcript from January of this year, the Army has one-third fewer troops now than it did when it fought the first Gulf War in 1991. Wasn't another Democrat running the country for most of that time? Keep in mind, Bush inherited Clinton's military.

Kerry has suggested that he would have a broader set of alliances, but the truth is we do have a large group of our traditional allies like Australia, the UK, the Netherlands and many others. I've already asked the question about "How Can You Build Alliances if Your Enemy Is Buying Them?" with respect to France and Russia.

Have you noticed that Kerry has kind of shut up about the whole alliances issue? Not surprising, as my satirical piece "Kerry's New Position: World Opinion Irrelevant" predicted. Although it is clear that those with an anti-semitic bias are definitely on Kerry's side.

Then there is the question as to whether or not we should have even gone to Iraq. I have outlined "A Pragmatic Reason for Invading Iraq" whether or not they had WMDs, and the truth is, it's not like they didn't have the technology still very much on hand, as I wrote in "Headlines on Iraq's CIA Report Don't Tell the Whole Story."

I get the print version of The National Interest, and Charles Krauthammer's got a great piece in the current issue "In Defense of Democractic Realism" that articulates why we need to fight for democracy in the crescent.

On the sub-issue of Halliburton, this has just been a huge smear, as I have mentioned in "Who Wants to Debate About Issues When you Can Smear?" "Maybe Heinz Could Buy It" and "Kerry's Halliburton Attacks: He Doesn't Get It."

Taxes: George Bush really did reduce income taxes for every American, and rather than actually giving a huge "break" to the wealthy, under Bush the wealthy pay a greater proportion of the federal income tax burden than they did before, as the Congressional Budget Office has shown, and I have written about in: "Real Numbers on Taxes." (Post includes links to CBO data.)

The Economy: George Bush was elected right after the dot-com bubble of the 1990's was starting to burst Clinton's last year in office saw a 0.3% (zero) rise in GDP. The employment bubble was popping during Clinton's last year as well, rising nearly 20% from 4.0 to 4.7%. [You can view this information graphically at the Washington Posts' "Economy in Perspective" tool.] But even though unemployment is still somewhat higher than people remember from the late-90's, at 5.4% it is well below the average rate for the past 30 years (and that's what it was in 1996 also). Not bad.

On a related subject, the Bush administration has taken a tough stand on corporate malfeasance, signing Sarbanes-Oxley and dedicating substantial federal prosecutorial resources for nailing firms for bad accounting. Enron didn't turn into an unfettered giant during Bush's term, it became that way under Clinton's watch.

Tort Reform: Many people like to say it's a controversial claim that tort reform would reduce aggregate health care spending. Certainly FactCheck.org has suggested this. But when I was "Fact-Checking FactCheck.org on Tort Reform" I found some interesting numbers. For example, California does have tort reform (passed by a Democratic governor and legislature back in 1975), and among other things, I found:

California has a high cost of living, so you might expect that per capita medical costs would be higher in California than the nation as a whole, but you would be wrong. According to the Kaiser Familiy Foundation, California's 1998 per capita healthcare spending was $3,429 versus $3,759 for the nation as a whole, or roughly 9% less than the national number. (Interestingly, this is the high range of the cost impact estimated by the Stanford study that FactCheck likes to discredit as being too narrow).

I'll try to post later about some issues like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Poll Results You Can Use (for laughs, at a minimum) | e-mail post

Since I was beating up on Zogby's polling earlier today, here's a poll that at least is completely honest: Nerve's Completely Unscientific, Transparently Partisan Sexual-Politcal Opinion Poll. Best result: 45% of respondents say Republicans have the best sex, "because the most outwardly uptight and seemingly repressed people have the craziest, kinkiest, taboo-busting, hypocritical sex behind closed doors." I'm honestly not sure what they might think is hypocritical. Since 72% of the respondents plan to vote for Kerry, I'm pretty sure they're being snarky because they're envious. And they should be.

In all fairness, this is more or less in line with the mid-October poll from ABC News Primetime Live which found Republicans are more satisfied with their sex lives (although they attribute this to the fact that more couples and men are Republicans and those groups also tend to be more satisfied with their sex lives). [complete poll results]

Another interesting result from the ABC survey:

"Blondes have more fun" also goes the way of myth, at least sexually speaking: Blondes are no more apt than others to express satisfaction or excitement with their sex lives. Indeed blondes are a little less likely than other women to always have an orgasm, and a little more likely to have faked it.

In July, I wrote about a Shocking Discovery by two economists who found (are you ready for this?), "Sex is strongly and positively associated with happiness." Whoa! I know that sounds like crazy talk, but they do have the numbers to back it up. Seriously, though, they do have some interesting findings, particularly the disproportionate impact of sex on happiness among the highly educated.

As long as I was looking in the archives to find that one, some of you newer readers might also enjoy a couple of posts from the past:

"How Ike Would Handle Iraq" (Ike Turner, that is)
"As I Expected" (In which we learn that while Jesus is beating Satan, rational discourse is losing to ranting and raving)

That's all for now. Get over and give Jay Cost a read, if you haven't already.

Politcal Ads: Everything Old Is New Again | e-mail post

Wolf Packs for Truth is a satirical 527 about the wolves taking issue with being used in the Bush-Cheney "Wolves" campaign ad. The Wolves ad has taken some inexplicable abuse, while I think it hearkens back nicely to Reagan's 1984 "Bear" ad, available at The Living Room Candidate, a source for political commercials going back to the 1952 campaign.

While you're at the LRC site, take a look at the first really harsh negative ad, possibly one of the most powerful ads ever, LBJ's "Peace" ad. LBJ's campaign revolutionized political advertising and anybody who thinks campaign ads are "more negative than ever" should really watch. Basically the ad paints a clear choice between, LBJ and death by nuclear holocaust.

And while I'm on LBJ ads, it's interesting how much Bush's "The Choice" ad that starts with a VO of "When it's finally quiet..." and ends with "Alone in the booth, why take the chance?" parallels the message of LBJ's "Voting Booth."

LBJ also brought out a great ad that runs over 4 minutes, "Confessions of a Republican," in which a lifelong born-and-bred Republican explains why Goldwater is entirely different, and a little scary.

As long as I'm on the ad subject, I've already written about the Club for Growth's fantastic and very humorous ad, "Indecision," that highlights Kerry's wishy-washy nature. It's funny, as I can't think of any campaign advertising throughout history that actually criticized someone for flip-flopping.

Maybe it's because this is the first election where someone is running for President who actually seems to lack any real conviction other than his own naked desire to be President. Sadly, I can't expect it will be the last.

If you're interested in political advertising, these are some books that might interest you:

Joe McGinniss' "The Selling of the President" is a seminal work in the field, probably the catalyst and bible for many of todays politicos. It follows the story of the technicians who made Nixon's 1968 victory a reality.
Kathleen Jamieson's "Packaging the Presidency" is on it's 3rd edition and covers races in depth from 1952 through 1996. The fact that it's published by Oxford University Press is testament to the quality of the work, and it is essential reading for those who want to dig into campaign management issues.
For a detailed analysis of selected advertising, Diamond & Bates' "The Spot: The Rise of Political Advertising on Television" is a good resource that drills into the 1988 and 1990 campaign seasons. In 1997 Diamond collaborated with Silverman to write "White House to Your House: Media and Politics in Virtual America."
Darrell West has a rather spendy ($50) tome from CQ books "Air Wars: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns, 1952-1996" that looks interesting as well, but I can't speak to it's quality or thoroughness.

Finally, Bush's "Whatever It Takes" ad is great. It's 100% positive, nothing but Bush speaking at the Republican convention with a few cutscenes, and it is very, very powerful. For another powerful ad, you should see "Ashley's Story," if you haven't already, given that I think it has a $14 million ad buy supporting it.

Democracts Expressing Themselves | e-mail post

Ironic timing. I just got an e-mail from one of my Democrat friends. His message:

Support Your Candidate!

---------------
Hi Everyone! Just wanted to get this important reminder out - to show support for our presidential candidates, whomever they may be . . .

If you support the policies and character of John Kerry, please drive with your headlights on during the day on Friday. If you support George W. Bush, please drive with your headlights off that night. Thank you.

I honestly forgot to laugh. Maybe because it just wasn't all that hilarious, as I have frequently claimed that most humor needs to be anchored in some level of truth while this joke relies on the liberal conceit that they are somehow more intelligent than conservatives. (As another friend said to me over the weekend "you're too smart to vote for Bush." Nice backhanded compliment.) I might suggest some liberals are misinformed, or don't carry lines of reasoning through to their logical conclusions, or play fast and loose with the facts (all of which may be fair criticisms of many conservatives as well), but I don't uniformly consider them stupid (and I have little regard for those who do).

Or maybe I didn't laugh because I had just finished reading about how Democrats in Florida are driving;or, more accurately, how at least one feels that it is appropriate to use a car to terrorize an elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives, as just happened yesterday when Barry Seltzer seemed to get a little case of road rage toward Rep. Katherine Harris (who was the Florida secretary of state during the 2000 election). Seltzer popped up on the sidewalk and drove toward Harris and a crowd of her supporters. [Guardian UK] [Police Report at Smoking Gun] "I intimidated them with my car," Seltzer told police. "I was exercising my political expression." No comment.

John Zogby and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle | e-mail post

An apology, as I am abusing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in my title. Strictly speaking, the principle applies to the field of physics, quantum mechanics more specifically, and in casual interpretation suggests that the accuracy of measurement is necessarily influenced or compromised by the very act of measuring. This is not precisely accurate however, and the curious can read more about the subject.

Despite its inaccuracy, my reference to it in the title is based on the common interpretation, and my real point is that John Zogby is not so much an outstanding pollster as he is an outstanding showman, and his role as pollster celebre may actually be of more value to those for whom is a partisan than those seeking news.

In their Election Issue, The New Yorker ran a pretty in-depth piece about Zogby written by Larissa MacFarquhar. (If you're curious about Ms MacFarquhar's leanings, you can read her glowing piece on Michael Moore, "The Populist: Michael Moore Can Make You Cry" as well.) The article on Zogby was what prompted me to buy that particular issue, although I might subscribe again. Not surprisingly, the Election Issue bordered on Kerry campaign literature.

Zogby is certainly a smart guy and fairly creative. You can get a sense of his unconventional approach to getting a feel for voter sentiment:

"How do I get a handle on this election or any other?" he asked the road builders. "I asked one question the Saturday before the election in 2000. I called my call center in Utica and said, 'Put this in the poll: "You live in the land of Oz, and the candidates are the Tin Man, who’s all brains and no heart, and the Scarecrow, who’s all heart and no brains. Who would you vote for?"' The next day, I called Utica and said, 'Whaddaya got?' They said, 'Well we’ve got Gore—,' I said, 'I don’t care about Gore. What’s Oz?' It was 46.2 for the Tin Man and 46.2 for the Scarecrow. It was right there that I knew I wasn’t going to know what was going to happen. But I asked this question again two weeks ago and the Tin Man led by ten points."

Clearly, John Kerry is the Tin Man.

Setting aside his pop-psychology. In any event, the article presents a very sympathetic portrayal of John Zogby and his sense of exclusion from the "clubby" world of pollsters. The truth is a little more complex, though:

Zogby thinks of himself as a natural maverick who stands outside the clubby world of the other pollsters because he finds it pompous and stuffy and because he isn’t a joiner anyway. But it is also true that he uses techniques that are frowned upon by AAPOR, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, as unscientific or unethical.

Of course, after listing the litany of complaints the "polling establishment" has with John Zogby's methods, MacFarquhar brushes them aside simply, "But Zogby doesn’t want to be scientific: he wants to be right." How nice. The fact is, his track record isn't half as good as his spin is, though. But before looking at that, what are the complaints those clubby pollsters have:

Because Zogby's cheap, he doesn't use random-digit dialing, he uses listed phone numbers. This is a no-no, although Zogby defends that there is no demographic difference between the groups. The article notes most pollsters say those with unlisted numbers are disproportionately rich or poor. Maybe Zogby thinks it balances out. However, think about it John: the rich don't want to be bothered by people for different reasons than the poor, who mostly are looking to avoid skip-tracers and bill collectors; which group do you think is more likely to vote?
Zogby doesn't feel the need to disclose his clients in published polls, which the AAPOR considers unethical. He claims that if his polls are objective (big if), it shouldn't matter who is paying, and he does require the release of all the poll data if the client wants to release it to the public. But that's not exactly right either:
But if a client wishes to publish only part of a survey—the results that he likes—Zogby offers another, rather underhanded option: he will conduct a second survey, using only the questions from the first one whose answers served the client’s purposes, and the client can publish that and keep the first poll private.
He frequently includes very leading questions in his polls. An example cited in the article
"If you had to choose one of the following ways to wage the war against terrorism, which would you choose?" and offers these options: "Changing America’s Middle East policy," "Use of strategic nuclear weapons," "Attacking Iran," "Contracting with mercenaries," "Using U.S. Military Covert/Special Forces," "U.S. Air Force bombing," and "Biological warfare." If there exist choices beyond Arafat or war, they are not offered.
Even the sympathetic MacFarquhar notes that some of his polls can sound like "push polls," polls that are more designed to influence opinion than simply measure it. (Although in fairness, they aren't exactly push polls, as they are defined by a lack of actual data collection, they're simply for influencing opinion. (BTW, about those Muslim-American polls, don't forget that John's brother James Zogby is the founder and President of the Arab-American Institute.)

The real whopper, though, the reason that some in the AAPOR consider Zogby a hack, is that he weights for party identification. Everyone weights polls for demographics (race, sex, income, etc), because you know what those are from census numbers and it lets calibrate your sample with the actual population, but the whole point of polling is to gather political opinion. "Traditional research people trained in statistics just roll their eyes," Andrew Kohut, the former head of Gallup and now the president of Pew, says. "Party is a loose attitude, not a demographic."

It's of interest to note that Zogby probably doesn't particularly care for the non-partisan, non-profit Pew Research Center, as the article notes that when Pew asked for information about his statistical adjustments in the 1998 race, he wouldn't give them up. Most pollsters work with Pew, as they serve a very important function in analyzing aggregate polling results and as a non-profit, aren't really competitors to the main business of pollsters, which is usually corporate research.

Now, what about Zogby's accuracy? As MacFarquhar said, "Zogby doesn’t want to be scientific: he wants to be right." He rose to some prominence when he predicted a much closer election in 1996 between Dole and Clinton, and then got some kudos again for calling Al Gore with the popular vote in 2000. None of this is nearly as impressive as George Gallup's first poll where he not only called FDR's reelection, but also predicted well in advance the incorrect results of the nation's previously-revered presidential poll from Literary Digest within one point. The main thing is that this is a state-by-state electoral vote race, and I don't think that's where Zogby shines.

Obviously, the proof has got to be in the pudding, so we're still a week away from knowing, but in the 2002 research conducted by the non-profit National Council on Public Polls tells a story . (The NCPP is another one of those "clubs" that Zogby is apparently too much of a "maverick" to join, or maybe it's just their disclosure standards that preclude him.) In any event, the 2002 NCPP results (which I have augmented with an accuracy percentage in the last column:

Pollster	Races	AvgError*	Wrong	Accuracy
Mason-Dixon	23	1.80%	1	96%
Zogby International	17	2.50%	5	71%
Research 2000	13	2.10%	2	85%
Gallup	7	1.40%	1	86%
Quinnipiac College	4	2.00%	0	100%
All Others	95	2.70%	12	87%
Total	159	2.40%	21	87%

* The AvgError column is the "Average Error on Candidate" is best described byt he NCPP in footnote 4 of their results: "The candidate error reported here is half the error on the margin between the top two candidates. The error was calculated by subtracting the margin between the top two candidates in a poll from the margin between the same candidates in the election. For example, if a race was won by 55% to 45% the margin is 10 percentage points. If a poll reported a lead of only 47% to 43% with 10% undecided, the 4-point margin in the poll would be off by 6 percentage points. The candidate error in this case was counted as 3 points, half the error on the margin. No method of judging the error works perfectly."

71%. Hmm. Lower than any other major pollster, lower than the average. Even if we don't grade him on the curve, he got a C- in 2002. Ironically, you can buy Zogby's hindsight-based analysis of the 2002 election, "Decision 2002: Why The Republicans Gained."

I'll put my bias out there, I've been a fan of Mason-Dixon polls for years. They have a very good reputation and a good track record to point to, as the 2002 numbers attest. I'll certainly be curious to see how this race plays out. I'll also be honest that I don't respect Zogby, other than possibly as a businessman. I think he is a far better self-promoter than he is a pollster; his results and his approach both attest to that. I pimped on him last year as an aside about his comments on polling in Iraq (when he erroneously claimed to have conducted the first public opinion polls over there). I've also pointed out comparative analysis that indicates his systematic liberal bias in national polling.

I think for a good chunk of the election cycle, Zogby has been favoring Kerry. The tracking polls he's doing now for Reuters are starting to show Bush with a lead, which I think may be Zogby trying to preserve his reputation by shifting to more objective polling. Who knows? Maybe he's even using some of those crazy AAPOR guidelines he often thinks are too restrictive.

More on this later, I'm sure. In the meantime, Jay Cost points me to DJ Drummond's post in which he also takes Zogby to task: "All in all, Zogby’s habit of confusing his personal opinion with data-driven conclusions, his admitted practice of manipulating the respondent pool and his demographic weights, by standards not accepted anywhere else, along with mixing Internet polls with telephone interview results, forces me to reject his polls as unacceptable; they simply cannot be verified, and I strongly warn the reader that there is no established benchmark for the Zogby reports, even using previous Zogby polls, because he has changed his practices from his own history."

Not Exactly 'Man Bites Dog' | e-mail post

It's hardly any surprise that Editor and Publisher ran this story on Tuesday: "New Study Suggests Some Media Favored Kerry in First Two Weeks of October".

Just a quick post on this, and I plan to write more later on it, but I personally cannot recall either in my own experience, or in historical reading, any election where the broader media seems so actively engaged in attempting to influence the outcome of the election. A Bush victory will be all the more impressive in light of recent events.

The NY Times recent story on the missing 380 tons of explosives from Iraq is the most recent smear. They then report on the impact their firebomb has on the campaign, and they won't let it go, suggesting still that they may have been there, without even mentioning the extent to which their claims are under fire from other journalists. Powerline even reports that the Times ignored some of their own previous writing on the subject of searches at Al-Qaqaa.

NBC of course should be credited for bringing to the light the reports of its embedded journalists who were on the scene the day after U.S. troops moved in to Iraq. [Drudge] [CNN] Even CNN runs with a headline that doesn't really tell the story on this one.

The fact that CBS' "60 Minutes" was planning to run the story two nights before the election, and without a moment to even allow the truth to be aired, is simply beyond the pale. However, after seeing Dan Rather stoop to journalistic standards that might have made even Michael Moore blush by basing their "Fortunate Son" story on such obviously faked documents, we shouldn't really be surprised. I do still find it slightly humorous that you can "See BS News on CBS News."

I'm not even going to get into ABC News and Mark Halperin's plan for more aggressive fact-checking of the Bush campaign claims and a more lax attitude toward Kerry.

At a very fundamental level, I think the media has had to stoop to this level because their editorial influence has been lost. No one really makes their decision based at all on what editors write in their endorsement. It's just another stat to be tallied in a political climate that has put the horserace far ahead of substantive policy discussion. Having been emasculated in this way, the media is forced to try to exert its waning influence in the only way it can, the actual creation and spinning of what at one time could have been called "the news."

Just Accept That The FMA Doesn't Ban Civil Unions and George Bush Is Not Anti-Gay | e-mail post

One of the ridiculous claims used to attack the Federal Marriage Amendment (though there are legitimate arguments against it) and Bush's support of the FMA was that it would somehow ban civil unions. This is an absurd claim in so many ways, as I discussed at great length in an update post ("Response on GWB and the FMA") to my original post on the Federal Marriage Amendment. In fact, Eugene Volokh was one of the sources cited by those claiming this restriction. As I said in response to some of the claims then:

Arguments in this vein seem to collapse or at least confuse the meanings of two phrases: "not construed to require that X" (the wording of the amendment) and "construed to require that not X," (a straw man interpretation of the amendment) making the former mean the latter, which it plainly does not.

I actually contacted Volokh to ask him to defend the position attributed to him and he took a pass. My conclusion at the end of the lengthy post snarkily sums up my frustration on the continual confusion about language:

There is just no one on either side of the the issue who is making a credible claim that the amendment can be interpreted in any way other than its plain language. I am amazed it has even been necessary to research the meaning of such incredibly pedestrian English.

Yet today, Michael Totten guest blogging over at Instapundit still seems to be confused about the language as he states:

BUSH ON CIVIL UNIONS: President Bush said today that he favors civil unions for gays, or at least that he doesn’t agree with the Republican Party platform that opposes them. This is news to me. How can he be in favor of civil unions and also back the Federal Marriage Amendment? He can’t, at least not consistently. The FMA would ban civil unions as well as gay marriage. This is a flip I’ll take, as long as he doesn’t flop back on it.

"He can't, at least not consistently" Please...I don't think Michael's insane, but I think this is just one of those examples of a lie told often enough is believed. By the way, Michael's own blog is also quite good.

This actually prompted Eugene Volokh to clearly state his position [alt link](in contrast to the thought experiment-interpreted-as-claim which others have pointed to) that:

So if the FMA is enacted (and note that, as I've blogged before, I do not support its enactment), the result will be almost exactly what Bush suggests: A state could still "choose to" recognize "a civil union" as "a legal arrangement." It would have to do so via a statute -- just as most family law is defined by statute -- not via a court decision or (probably) a constitutional amendment. But it would indeed be free to make such a choice.

If you look at my update post mentioned above, you will find a clear breakdown of this issue, as well as clear indications from the framers and original sponsors of the amendment that basically state the same thing.

I cannot believe that there is still any &^$#*#^# confusion about this issue. If you want to criticize the FMA, that's great, but please don't make claims that are almost as absurd as "Every time you propose the FMA, God kills a kitten."

And of course, one of the key points of my entire discussion on the issue was that Bush didn't suggest the FMA because he is anti-gay. The whole thing that kicked this of is the NY Times piece citing Bush as clearly saying he is not opposed to civil unions. It is about a Bush interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson. I'd like to get a transcript to cite, but here's some comments from the ABC story:

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman," Bush said. "Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass … laws that enable people to you know, be able to have rights, like others."

Bush, who supports a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, says he's concerned about what activist judges will do without clear guidelines.

"Look. If you're interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so, without the courts making the decision. That's through the constitutional process and obviously I think that's the way to go, because I am concerned that courts are making this decision. This is too important a decision to have a handful of judges making, on behalf of the American people," Bush said.

And this from the Times:

According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.

"Well, I don't," Mr. Bush replied....

Mr. Gibson then asked, "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?"

"Right," Mr. Bush replied.

I hope this at least settles the claims on that issue as well.

Update: Tom Kertes at SummerLoveStory praises GWB for reframing the issue of civil unions as well as discusses the implications of the reframing. As an aside, I'm not sure if Tom's an old-school NLP'er or if his "frame" language come from the nouveau discussion among communication scholars. I found Tom's blog by way of...

Jan Haugland, while still beating up GWB, does acknowledge: "However, I have to note that Norway doesn't have gay marriage, "only" a civil union, and I can't really remember gays being particularly concerned about what it is formally called." In fact, as you can read through my post and comment history, it has only been straights that I have found saying that a civil union in lieu of marriage is an unacceptable arrangement. Most gays who have commented seem happy to have the civil union.

I Wonder If He Played Catch with His Kids This Much? | e-mail post

Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., holds a football on the tarmac before departing the Austin Straubel International Airport in Green Bay, Wisc. Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2004. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) (originally from Yahoo)

You've probably experienced that phenomenon in which you purchase a new car (or maybe your spouse or a good friend does) and then you start seeing that model of car all the time (OK, if you just bought a Ferrari or a Bentley you probably don't experience this). Of course, you know that it's not because another 2% of the population bought their cars the same day you did, it's just that your conscious awareness of them was raised.

The same thing has happened to me with regard to John Kerry and pictures of him engaged in some kind of sporting activity. The guys at Powerline have mentioned this a few times, recently calling attention to it in this post, but the one that had caught my eye was this one, referencing a post from August (the photo on that one really is classic, the Secret Service agent looks something like Travolta from Pulp Fiction, sans tie but with shades).

Sure enough, since reading it, I have noticed that nearly every day, he feels the need to pitch the ball around (when he's not taking time off to hunt, anyway).

The Powerline guys have attributed this to some sort of Kennedy-complex, in which Kerry needs to emulate the athleticism of the Kennedys. I think that's probably as good an explanation as any, but it is really just bizarre. Seriously, Senator, you're running for President, not for chair of the Presential Phsyical Fitness committee.

Hopefully after the election Kerry will have plenty of time for therapy, although I don't know if Bush's health proposals cover psychological treatment of that nature.

Unrelated Item: A truly fantastic satirical news story, that I think we would all love to see on the front page.

Michael Moore Exposes Middle-Earth Conspiracy | e-mail post

Fellowship 9/11 is a great parody of Michael Moore's style of documentary "journalism" as it examines the events surrounding the battle of Helms Deep. It is a pitch-perfect parody of Moore's hatchet-job, starting with the "combing" sequence at the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Of course, there is a question as to whether you can really parody Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, as it was almost a parody of itself.

You can also see Fellowship 9/11 at iFilm.

Hat tip to Tom Veal at Stromata blog with the brilliant post title, "Gandalf lied, people died."

Democrats on the Defensive, Per Usual | e-mail post

To the tune of "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?"

Where has the agenda gone, long time passing?
Where has the agenda gone, long, long time ago?
Where has the agenda gone? Gone to Republicans, completely.
When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

I don't mean to tweak the noses of liberals by using one of the most well-known and beautiful antiwar folk songs of all times to point out the glaring problems with their agenda, but they need a wake-up call. The impending train wreck of the Kerry campaign should be a loud call to action, but I'm not sure.

It's clear that even John Kerry knows the race is over. His increasingly vitriolic campagain style is evidence of that. He knows he has been unable to articulate a clear positive reason to vote for him, other than the obvious observation that he is not George Bush. However, "Je ne suis pas George Bush," is not going to fundamentally motivate people who want to vote for something, to know what they're getting. Honestly, it's working better than negative-alternative campaigns usually do only because things are a little tough right now, and Americans are by and large more impatient and selfish than previous tough times for our country.

But the lack of a positive message by Kerry is why Bush's numbers continue to increase as the election looms nearer and more and more undecideds arrive at a decision. The undecideds may have gone to the Kerry/Edwards website to look for his so-called "plans." What they would have found, as I did when I went there, is little more than bullet points parroting the current administration's approach to most things, or simple declarations, as if by magic, that things will be better than the status quo.

The Kerry campaign knows the jig is up, they know Kerry doesn't have an agenda to speak of. So Kerry is left with nothing other than the hope of going hard on the attack, and I'm not talking attacking as in painting comparisons, I'm talking attacking as in insulting and denigrating. Like his speech today where he drills Bush on a tactical issue, the theft of explosives from an Iraqi facility shortly after the fall of the old regime: "This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the greatest blunders of this administration and the incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at greater risk....The unbelievable blindness, stubbornness, arrogance of this administration to do the basics has now allowed this president to once again fail the test of being commander in chief."

This is not the talk of a front-runner, not the talk of someone confident in his position in the race, and most assuredly not the talk of someone who has a constructive alternative to offer voters. This is the talk of a man who has nothing left to lose, other than the election. Calling the current president of the United States incompetent shows a lack of dignity borne of desperation.

It is more and more clear to me that the Democrats' best hope was probably the nomination of Howard Dean at the top of the ticket. He could at least excite people, could get them engaged. I even watched Dean's "scream speech" again today. Democrats felt that made him a less palatable candidate? Any political party would benefit from someone who can fire people up like that. It's called a pep rally: people scream, people get excited. If John Kerry excites any passion in anyone at all, I can only presume it is limited to his wife.

But instead of moving forward with Howard Dean, someone who offered a clear positive alternative to George Bush, someone who had been a governor and had a record of executive leadership to stand on, the Dems thought they would try to predict the electoral preferences of the broad mass of American people and put Kerry on top. The move clearly demonstrated two things:

Democrats are so desperate to win that they are willing to abandon any sincere political conviction. Making "electability" a critieria was simply a "grander pander" than the constant but more low-key pandering in which Democrats always engage.
The Democrats are so completely confused about, or out of touch with, what the majority of independent voters think that they can't even pander to the mainstream effectively.

The simple truth is that Democrats are unable to set an agenda. I believe (in large measure, if not entirely) this is due to the patchwork quilt of different consitutencies that make up the party. There are no positive unifying themes that unite all the different constituencies. In many respect, the Democrats are a sort of "Island of Misfit Causes." Of course, the party organ itself may consider opposition to the Republican agenda (or certain portions of it) a unifying theme. However, calling that an "agenda" is as illusory as it is masturbatory. That is, it's no fun for anyone outside the party; it does not excite the broad mass of independent voters. That's why independent voters tend to turn out and vote for Republicans come election day.

Voters need something to believe in, they want something to vote for, not something to vote against. That's why Republicans have done so well for the past 24 years. Democrats haven't offered a clear agenda for a long, long time. If GHW Bush hadn't raised taxes after explicitly promising not to (and it was the broken promise that hurt, not the tax increase itself), it is unclear that Clinton would have won in 1992. Before that, there was Kennedy, he did have a theme of hope about the future and an agenda the U.S. making the world a better place. Even FDR had an agenda: legalize liquor and give people jobs; this is not hard to argue with.

Today, the Democrats have no agenda. Democrats frequently try to resurrect the the Kennedy theme of hope about the future (and certainly, Bill Clinton being from Hope, Arkansas made him the perfect Democratic candidate), but, as the saying goes, "Hope is not a strategy." And hope isn't an agenda, either.

It amazes me how consciously unaware many Democrats are to this issue, although every one I've ever spoken to has acknowledged that there is no coherent platform, and yes, it is a problem. However, it is not lost on everyone. The New York Times ran two pieces this Sunday on the potential internal impact on either party of losing the Presidential election this year, the piece on the Democrats had a more immediate tone to it. I think Jay Cost even referred to it as an "obit" for the Democrats. [The companion NYT Republican piece] Obit or not, even some within the party recognize the fundamental problem. This snippet says it pretty well (all emphasis mine):

The real problem, several Democrats worried, is not that Mr. Kerry took the Democratic Party to the left, but that he failed to offer defining, distinguishing themes that would have provided a clearer alternative to Mr. Bush.

"We will need to develop a better argument about where to take the world when we take power,'' said Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democratic Network, a fundraising and advocacy group. "You can call it ideas, you can call it an agenda. We all know that Democrats do not have as coherent a world view as we want."

Mr. Rosenberg added: "For a long time, we've been in denial about what's happened with the modern conservative movement. And we've woken up to the fact that Republicans have more power today than any other time since the 1920's. Things are not moving in the right direction for the Democratic Party."

Mr. From said: "The way a political party succeeds in America is by offering solutions. If we lose, we can't be sitting there shooting at each other, blaming people for what happened. "

Unfortunately, Mr. From will probably be disappointed; as I learned very early in life, "Democratic Unity" is an oxymoron. I am certain Democrats will spend quite a bit of time shooting at each other, all the while giving the upper hand to Republicans working toward the 2008 White House bid.

If by some truly bizarre turn of events, John Kerry were to win the election, it would probably even be worse for Democrats, as they would not be forced to confront the fundamental lack of a coherent, forward-looking, proactive agenda. If Democrats want to be anything more than an opposition party that will become progressively more prone to splintering, they need to confront that issue head-on, no matter how painful it might be in the short term.

I'll probably write more about this subject in coming weeks, especially as I crack open a pair of definitive histories of the two political parties, released last November by Random House: Party of the People: A History of the Democrats by Jules Witcover and Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans by Lewis Gould. Reviews I've read indicate they should both be very compelling, and also seem to confirm the idea that throughout most of our political history, Republicans have been setting the agenda, and Democrats have been reacting. Amazon has them at over 30 percent off, and they should make for great post-election reading.

P.S. A total aside: Am I the only one who is getting an ungodly number of imitation Rolex spam e-mails? I have spam filtering on my office e-mail, but incredibly large numbers of these Rolex spams seem to be getting through.

Election Outcome? Like Deep Throat Said, 'Follow The Money' | e-mail post

A week from tomorrow, the nation will go to the polls en masse, as opposed to the limited early voting that's going on now (and who wouldn't love to know what those numbers are looking like?). As of today, it continues to look more and more like Bush is going to roll into another term. It's not just the polling that's saying this, although the polling is saying that strongly; it's also the money that's making it clear. What do I mean by "the money"? Let me explain.

When I was at the University of Iowa back in 1988, it was the first year they ran the Iowa Presidential Stock Market, a market system that attempted to predict the election outcome by letting people put their money where their mouth is. The theory, borne out by accurate predictions of the past four Presidential elections, and many other events, is that if people are making a financial bet on the outcome of the election, they will aggregate and interpret a variety of information and place their money on the candidate they believe most likely to win, who may or may not be the guy they want to see win. It's basically the efficient market hypothesis applied to predicting elections. (You may remember the flap John Poindexter caused with proposing a similar approach to predict terrorist attacks. I won't even get into the reasons why this was a foolish application of the theory.) I've always followed the Iowa Electronic Markets, as they are known today, both because of their accuracy and also because my girlfriend at the time (who I still see every day) was involved in the original establishment and research on the market for the 1988 election.

Today the IEM shows Bush with an increasing lead over Kerry, as can be seen from the daily closing price chart on the winner-take-all Presidential contracts.

But if you want to follow the money even further, you might want to look at how gamblers are betting. TradeSports has contracts on all of the state-by-state outcomes as well. If you check out the contracts, you can see how people think the swing states are going to play out. The contracts are written for Bush wins, so a number above 50 indicates that money favors Bush while numbers below 50 indicate it favors Kerry:

Bush Leading: Colorado (75) , Florida (62.2), Iowa (67), Missouri (85), Ohio (54.6), Wisconsin (60)
Kerry Leading: Michigan (25), Minnesota (37.1), New Hampshire(46), New Mexico (44), Oregon (18), Pennsylvania (30.1)

It is interesting to note that, with the exception of New Hampshire, these results are consistent with the numbers Jay Cost developed by aggregating polling data from multiple polls within each of the states. Jay has NH 56% likely to go for Bush, so I think both numbers point to the fact the NH is going to be close. You can read his results in yesterday's state poll update.

All told, if you sum up the states where people are betting that Bush will win, he totals out at 291 EV, 17 over the 274 needed to win. This is fairly consistent with the TradeSports Electoral Vote contracts. They have the "Bush 280+ EV" contract at 52.4 (the 290 contract is only at 41, but that's not as safe a bet, of course).

Interesting Reading | e-mail post

I was doing some reading on my flight to and from Chicago this weekend. A couple of passages from the text I found interesting as a high level public official in the White House ruminates on the challenges he and the President faced supporting an unpopular, but necessary, action on the world stage.

To me, the attacks were an illustration of how harsh and ugly the political process had become. Critics weren't content to disagree with our policies; they impugned my motives and asserted hidden conflicts. At that point, I was still somewhat surprised that opponents would make ad hominem attacks as a way of dealing with policy disagreements. As time went on, I came to recognize that, to some extent at least, Washington unfortunately functions this way....

The administration was committed to a plan of action and had to stick with it even if the chance of failure had increased. The cost to the administration of reversing course - in terms of lost credibility - would be enormous. ... There is a strong impetus to stick with presidential decisions, even when circumstances change, because the world is watching to see if you keep your commitments. Credibility and reliability are powerful values. Thus, changing direction may sometimes be worse than proceeding with something that could be wrong....

[It] also demonstrated the difficulties our political processes have in dealing effectively with issues that involve technical complexities, shorter-term cost to acheive longer-term gain, incomplete information and uncertain outcomes, opportunities for political advantage, and inadequate public understanding. Unfortunately, many of the most important economic, geopolitical, and environmental challenges of today's complicated world fit this profile, raising the question of how effectively our political system will be able to deal with them....

Our program could only have been undertaken by a President - and an administration - willing to take a major calculated risk, substantive and political. We could have failed because of a mistake in our analysis, but also because of unforseeable circumstances, or simply the forseeable risk actually occurring. If the odds are calculated accurately at three to one, you'll lose one time in four. Unfortunately, Washington - the political process and the media - judges decisions based solely on outcomes, not on the quality of the decision-making, and makes little allowance of the inevitability of some human error. This can easily lead to undue risk aversion on the part of public officials....

But even our closest allies are ambivalent about the role of the United States. We are criticized if we don't lead and resented if we do.

Now, some of you may have read this and wondered if I was reviewing an early manuscript of memoirs Dick Cheney has been preparing in what little free time he may have. While that would be engrossing reading indeed, no such luck for either you or me; these are not tales of the Bush administration's moves in Iraq or attacks suffered by Cheney related to his former connection to Halliburton.

In fact, these all come from the first chapter of Robert Rubin's book "In an Uncertain World" [hardbound] [softcover]. In the first chapter, from which the above quotations are drawn, Rubin, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury for the better part of Clinton's tenure, was discussing his move within his first days as Treasury Secretary to stabilize the Mexican economy, ultimately acting in complete defiance of Congress to provide loan guarantees to the Mexican government through the Exchange Stabilization Fund. That decision was a smart decision at the time it was made, and was also vindicated by the passage of time, even though it took many months for the intended benefits to be realized. And that was just for something as straightforward as supporting a relatively (by U.S. standards) small economy.

It is an excellent book thus far, and I imagine I will finish it in fairly short order. Rubin is an incredibly intelligent man; his success at Goldman Sachs and an illustrious tenure at Treasury are both testament to that. In the book, Rubin provides a good education and thoughtful commentary both about the mechanics of national and global macroeconomic policy from a person who has dealt with it in both the public and private sectors. He also provides good food for thought about the fact that all meaningful choices are made in the context of risk, and that risk aversion is not a rational approach to decision-making.

The book offers an education to people on both sides of the political spectrum, for citizens and for businesspeople. I cannot recommend it strongly enough. Also, if you are interested in this idea in the corporate context, I also heartily recommend The Timid Corporation: Why Business Is Terrified of Taking Risk.

Random Friday: Shifting Polls; Bad Seeds and Jon Stewart | e-mail post

Well, I'm off for a "boys weekend" in Chicago to see a couple of friends from college. One lives down there, the other is flying in from LA. They're both planning on voting for Kerry, so I'll be outnumbered if discussions turn to politics. Wish me luck.

Speaking of the election, in case there was every any question, we're in for a nail-biter Nov 2. RealClearPolitcs' EV count has had states shifting into "toss-up" all week. Right now, it's Bush 227, Kerry 189 and 122 votes in toss-up. Most interesting is that most of the states moved into the toss-up column this week have been from Kerry leaners. Michigan a toss-up? (The new Mason-Dixon poll for MN has Bush in a narrow 47-45-2 lead, and I've written before about how much I trust Mason-Dixon's results.) Of course, the Reuters-Zogby national daily tracking poll has been shifting to Bush for the past three days (at one point per day) and has Bush up 2.

I may not be posting over the weekend, but, in the meantime, here's a random collection of thoughts or things to check out.

Want to try to balance the budget? The Budget Explorer has a pretty slick Java applet that lets you drill down into the budget and make your own adjustments to bring things into line. Fortunately, you don't need to worry about the political fallout of your changes.

If you haven't seen the movie "The Bad Seed," it's a classic 1956 film about a little girl with a heart of darkness. Think Damien from "The Omen" but without the excuse of being the spawn of Satan. A couple of recent news items of life imitating art, in this respect:

12 year-old girl, upset at being grounded, shoots sleeping mother dead
An 11 year-old girl in California attacked her babysitter with a machete. She was upset about being disciplined for beating and choking the pet dog. My question: why was a machete just laying the yard? Who are these people?

For another cinematic experience with a bad seed, I just watched the movie "Godsend" last night. It stars Robert DeNiro, Greg Kinnear and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos. It's not half as bad as some reviewers have suggested, and the DVD actually has 4 alternate endings. For my money, alt ending #3 is the closest to the mark, but doesn't quite go far enough.

It's certainly a better movie than "The Day After Tomorrow," which provides a total of maybe 7-10 minutes of some pretty slick effects, but forces one to endure one of the most poorly-written "human drama" storylines ever put to screens. I actually would have enjoyed more proselytizing about global warming if it were at the expense of the "story."

Speaking of proselytizing, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show went on CNN's Crossfire to tell them that they were not contributing to meaningful debate. I didn't think that was in question, but other than Stewart maybe coming off a bit too sanctimonious, he has some very good points, and it's fun seeing him light up Carlson Tucker. Paul Begala is smart enough (or scared enough) to not even try to take on Stewart on the issue. You can read the transcript at CNN, or see the video at iFilm.

The Crossfire guys really have no defense, apparently because they are either to stupid to realize, or to afraid to offend their their audience by saying: "we do this because TV ratings tell us that Americans would prefer to watch this compared to meaningful debate." Honestly, Jon, as sad as it may be, shows like that exist because Americans, by revealed preference, want them more than meaningful talk about issues. If they didn't, every market in the country would have three channels of PBS. Or look to the change in BBC programming since British television became a competitive market.

I think it would have been a fairer match if Stewart had tried to take on Carville and Novak instead, but I also think Novak would have been honest enough to throw the viewing public under the bus. While Carlson only has work because of the devolution of political "reporting," Novak has actually been in the business long enough to watch it change.

And if you haven't seen "Team America: World Police" yet, go see it. As I've said, everyone should.

Oh, and as always, check out Jay Cost's Horserace Blog for more updates on handicapping the election. He's got a particularly interesting post on what the sampling errors in polls really mean in terms of predicting the election. For example, in a 2-point race (candidates' spread is 2 points), the odds of two polls both incorrectly calling the winner: 9.7%.

Democratic Infiltration of Log Cabin Republicans | e-mail post

As a gay Republican-oriented site, the GayPatriot blog has generated a fair amount of link traffic to my site related to the debate about the demonization of Bush by every gay-related organization, including the Log Cabin Republicans, for his call for a Federal Marriage Amendment. (see my original post, and followups #1, #2 - most detailed)

It seems that the guys at Gay Patriot may have revealed facts about the Log Cabin Republicans that would seem to explain their actual motivations.

GayPatriot Exclusive: Log Cabin GOP Political Director Unmasked As Former Edwards Campaign Operative

In a major blow to the credibility of the national Log Cabin Republicans organization as a moderate voice in the Republican Party, newly discovered documents reveal that the person who manages the national Log Cabin political operation is, in fact, a long-time operative for the John Edwards Democratic Presidential campaign.

According to documents faxed to me yesterday (detailed in the section below), and corroborated by multiple sources, Log Cabin Political Director Christopher Barron headed up volunteer efforts for the John Edwards for President campaign for the Washington, DC area. Barron was hired by new Executive Director Patrick Guerriero as part of his management team. According to three different sources, Barron has separately confirmed his connection to the Edwards campaign in the past.

Go to the site to read more. It is quite damning.

Is Teresa Opposed to John's Plan to Tax the Rich? | e-mail post

It would sure seem to be the case, since nearly every time the Kerry campaign lets Terea Heinz Kerry out in the public eye, she says something that makes the Kerry campaign look bad. I wrote about her "shove it" comment back in late July.

Today, she again decided to see how Manolo Blahnik (0r maybe it's Prada or Gucci for her) tastes by shoving her foot way down her throat. As reported by Reuters via Yahoo today, citing an interview in USA Today:

Asked how she would be different from Mrs. Bush if Kerry won the Nov. 2 election, Heinz Kerry said: "Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real job -- I mean, since she's been grown up."

Ouch! Teresa, Teresa, Teresa, you need to think before you talk every once in a while. I mean, speaking five languages (Portuguese, English, French, Spanish and Italian) doesn't do you any good if you just make an ass out of yourself in English.

Teresa Heinz Kerry (or more completely Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões-Ferreira Heinz Kerry) is a total triple-threat here with this move. How? Well, by:

Being dead wrong (just like she was in that July incident) as Laura Bush has been both a public school teacher and librarian for nine years
Alienating the female vote that Kerry is desperately trying to hold on to given Bush's lead among men by:

Denigrating the work of stay-at-home mothers, and women who respect the work that raising a family without a cadre of nannies entails (although I imagine Heinz-Kerry's experience raising children was much, much easier), and
Appearing to be a complete hypocrite, since her occupation as "heiress" is probably not going to really enhance the idea of "sisterhood" with working women.

Just coming off as, I'm sorry, a total bitch.

Of course, it's easy to forget what hard work digging for gold is, and since Heinz-Kerry did go to college in that world capital of gold-mining, South Africa, home of the Krugerrand, nobody knows better than her.

On top of it all, Kerry really picked a dumb target: Laura Bush's favorable-to-unfavorable rating is a positively glowing 74%-16% versus Heinz Kerry's 40%-34% which could most charitably be described as lukewarm. As reported in the accompanying USA Today article on what the U.S. wants in a first lady.

Covering the brouhaha: [USA Today] [Jacksonville TV] [CNN]

Yesterday, Heinz Kerry was quoted as saying she didn't regret any of her past remarks. At least she left open the possibility of regretting future ones. [AP via Yahoo]

O'Reilly v. Mackris aka Morelli v. justice | e-mail post

Don't get me wrong, I didn't have a very high opinion of Bill O'Reilly before the lawsuit against him alleging that he is lecherous S.O.B.. However, it seems that now Andrea Mackris or her attorneys may be getting ahead of themselves. The AP is reporting that her attorneys have filed suit, alleging that she has lost her job due to coming forward with the allegations. [via Yahoo]

This would be fine, but apparently Fox is still paying her salary, having just suggested she not come into work (and I don't think her presence in the Fox offices would really help things). Mackris would seem to have taken the initiative of leaving herself, perplexing Fox's attorney:

Ronald Green, a lawyer for O'Reilly and Fox, on Tuesday dismissed Mackris' complaints about her job status. "Fox is still paying her her full salary," he said.

However, Green added, last week Mackris inexplicably sent an e-mail to friends saying, "I'm no longer at Fox." He also said Mackris went to her office and removed her belongings without being asked to by anyone at Fox.

I would like to go on the record that, while I can't really be fired in my current position, I would like to inform any future potential employer that I am absolutely open to being provided with my full compensation package while being asked to not come into work. Normally, this is called "paid vacation" and people complain about not getting enough of it.

The behavior of Mackris and her attorney unfortunately gives credence to the original claim filed by Bill O'Reilly against Mackris that she was attempting to extort Fox and O'Reilly out of $60 million for her silence. Possibly they are concerned that unless Fox fires her, they will be unable to successfully litigate a sufficiently large verdict.

Now that O'Reilly is also suing for access to the tapes Mackris made, it is looking like this may have been a complete set-up of O'Reilly, particularly given that the Mackris left Fox for CNN only to return later. Mackris' attorneys deny the existence of those tapes, but unless Mackris has the auditory equivalent of a photographic memory, that's tough to buy. (The complaint by Mackris includes quotations of up to 200 words, including "um"s and "ah"s said by O'Reilly.)

This seems to be the type of case that Mackris' attorney, Benedict Morelli, seems to like. This piece in New York Metro talks about Morelli's and another of his clients, the incongrously-named Christian Curry, in which it describes Curry, who was suing Morgan Stanley for $1.8 billion (yes, that's a "b"):

Curry, of course, was the 23-year-old Wall Street whiz kid famously canned by Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Company just before Easter in 1998 -- ostensibly for some expense-account indiscretions but, curiously, just after some pictures of him done up as a shirtless, unzipped bike messenger appeared in Playguy. He is also the African-American Ivy League preppie from tony Chappaqua, New York, who claims that his bosses and co-workers at Morgan Stanley called him a monkey. But Christian Curry is also a young man with a credibility problem -- convicted for hurling a nightclub owner through a window near Fishs Eddy on Broadway at 19th Street in 1997; investigated by the Manhattan D.A. for conspiring to plant fake racist e-mails on his firm's computer system to build a case against the company; chastised by everyone, including himself, for sitting for risqué photo sessions on two separate occasions and signing release forms -- both times.

Did you notice that Curry also seemed to attempt to engage in a little extralegal bolstering of his case? I hate to judge, but, this sort of thing tends to look a little suspect.

You'll also pick up on the interesting fact that Morelli never actually graduated from law school. Fascinating. I'll be curious to see how the case goes.

Response on the GWB and the FMA Post - Update | e-mail post

I did get a response on my lengthy FMA post from Paul of RightRainbow.com, which was e-mailed as he didn't want to mess around with doing a BlogSpot registration. Here it is:

I read your post. And while your thesis is interesting, it collapses altogether with this sentence:

"Nobody's talking about restricting civil unions or other abridgements of gay rights."

Oh, yes they are; the amendment Mr. Bush supports would ban civil unions.
The text of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage OR THE LEGAL INCIDENTS THEREOF be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
[emphasis added]

Many scholars of constitutional law -- see, for example, Eugene Volokh -- believe the language of amendment prohibits civil unions, which provide the legal incidents of marriage. Civil unions in Vermont, for example, are marriage in all but name.

I myself would support an amendment to strip the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction. Gay marriage ought not to be imposed on the Nation by judicial fiat. But the amendment the president supports imposes uniform, national public policy even on those states where the legislature or the voters might be persuaded to allow civil unions or same-sex marriage. I don't want Massachusetts setting public policy for Texas. But I also fail to see why Texas should dictate public policy for California, where domestic partnerships become the law in 2005. One of the blessings of federalism is that we can simultaneously run 50 experiments in law and policy.

Many of the people who support the Federal Marriage Amendment know it bans not only same-sex marriage, but also civil unions. In fact, that's precisely why they support the amendment; they wish to deny any legal recognition whatsoever to gay relationships. That's a legitimate point of view, of course; but folk ought to own up to it.

Again, your thesis -- namely, that the president had in mind the best interest of gay Americans -- is intriguing; unfortunately, it's also inconvenienced by the facts.

First, I think "collapses altogether" is an assertion not merited by the argument presented. I will try to show the courtesy to not to talk down to Paul through the course of this response.

While Paul doesn't provide a link, here is some commentary from Eugene Volokh, in which he writes (I have left unedited):

Now consider another scenario, where my disagreement with Ramesh lies: The New York legislature or the California voters decide to create a "civil union" statute, under whic ks for the state, goes to his human relations director and says "Please add my partner to the insurance policy." "Nope," says the director; "I only add married people to the policy, not you newfangled gay civil unioned types." "But wait," says the employee; "you're required by state law to treat us just like a married personcouple."[sic] "Not so," says the director; "the Federal Marriage Amendment specifically says that no 'state . . . law[] shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.' You're telling me that I'm required to confer the legal incidents of marriage -- here, addition to the insurance plan that my department reserves only for married people -- on you, even though you're an unmarried couple. But the U.S. Constitution says that I cannot be so required."

First, I think this is a weakly-formulated counterexample. I think Robert Bork's description of it was "unrealistic." Like Bork or not, he actually has sat on a Federal bench and is known to be an extremely strict constructionist. As read, it would seem to imply that the state legislature first passed a law specifying civil unions as being provided with any and all legal privileges which are granted to married persons in the state in contrast to specifying an enumeration of privileges, and the inclusion of civil unions and marriages jointly in legislation. However, even assuming this for sake of argument, I don't think Volokh's example holds water.

I think Volokh may be treating the word "construe" as being synonymous with "read" or even "mean." Although this would seem to suggest the option of Volokh being intentionally obtuse, which seems rather unfair. In any event, the definition of "construe," sharing its root with "construction," is rather different than "read" or "mean" or even "apply," citied here from Merriam-Webster as I can copy and paste it:

1 a : to analyze the arrangement and connection of words in (a sentence or part of a sentence) : translate piecemeal in such an order as to show the syntactical relation of the parts b : to combine idiomatically [the verb trust is sometimes construed with in]
2 a : to put a construction on : discover and apply the meaning and intention of with reference to a particular state of affairs [freedom of the press, literally construed, is the freedom to publish anything at all -- F.L.Mott] [is it within judicial power, in construing the amendment, to abolish segregation -- New York Times] b : to understand usually in a particular way : explain the sense or intention of often to one's own satisfaction or according to or in conformity with a given set of circumstances [construe an action as one pleases]

That is, state law written to clearly and unambiguously require the legal incidents of marriage be extended to unmarried persons would not need to be construed, per se, simply read. The very use of the word "construe" implies the reading of what is not there, rather than the reading of what is plainly stated.

Paul went on to say, in a second message to me:

"If neither state nor federal law can be construed to require "the legal incidents" of marriage, how could a court enforce a civil union statute?"

Arguments in this vein seem to collapse or at least confuse the meanings of two phrases: "not construed to require that X" (the wording of the amendment) and "construed to require that not X," (a straw man interpretation of the amendment) making the former mean the latter, which it plainly does not. American jurisprudence is predicated on the idea that "that which is not expressly prohibited is permitted," and based on that assumption, it is even less clear to me how this interpretation can be reached.

Volokh even acknowledges that "courts could interpret the FMA differently; courts have certainly interpreted lots of constitutional provisions in ways that don't track their literal text. But it seems to me that the reading I outline is at least plausible -- and I think it's actually the most plausible." Plausible means superficially reasonable. I have no idea what it means to be "most superficially reasonable" in this context. If he had actually said "probable" or "likely" then there is actually a debate.

I will concede that to the extent that the English language is tortured, it is, at most, a contested question as to the meaning of the amendment with respect to civil unions. However, to the extent that Federal courts have tremendous access to legislative materials to allow them to determine the legislative intent of laws they must interpret, to the extent it is necessary, the claims of the sponsors become relevant. So when, the sponsor of the House amendment, Marilyn Musgrave says, "The intent from Day One has been respectful of state legislatures. ... I don't support civil unions, but I'm ready to have those battles state by state," [WashPost] it becomes very clear guidance as to the meaning of the amendment, to the extent that it is even necessary, given the fairly plain-language meaning. And while the President has no role in the process, even in his speech calling for an amendment he clearly suggests that, "[t]he amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."

The simple fact that many of the groups, such as Concerned Women for America, feel that the amendment does not provide restrictions on civil unions, that it does not go far enough in their opinion, calls into question such constructions as Volokh suggests.

I will be happy to read citations to other constitutional scholars who feel that Volokh's "plausible" interpretaion is in fact a likely one.

I am candidly surprised that I have recieved, thus far, no argument for the claim that the FMA is objectionable on the fundamental moral grounds that the the denial of the label of "marriage" is itself unfair. That is actually the objection I was expecting, and one that seems more reasonable than claims of hypothetical court interpretations that would defy the common use of the English language.

UPDATE: I have decided for forward this message to Volokh himself to solicit his response, as it seems the most fair. In addition, I have e-mailed Hugh Hewitt, another conservative Con Law professor to solicit his opinion or pointers to other sources that may be relevant.

My message to Volokh read (and included this post quoted inline at the bottom of this message)

Hello Prof Volokh-

I would like to make certain that I am not making a straw man of your argument regarding the interpretation of the FMA.

I would genuinely appreciate your opinion on this issue. You can find a link to the item here as well: http://thehopefulcynic.blogspot.com/2004/10/response-on-gwb-and-fma-post.html

Thank you for you contribution to this debate.

Best regards,

UPDATE: I received a rather unfortunate reply from Volokh just 3 and 1/2 hours after sending the message:

Sorry, swamped, have to pass.

I would have hoped that he had already defended this claim, and could have just pointed me in the direction of a prior rebuttal. I will try to find one in his site, as he seems to be the only person that has been identifed making this claim that is not doing it for some rhetorical purpose aimed at generating hysteria.

I am still looking for anyone to defend Volokh's suggested intepretation of the claim. Anyone.

UPDATE: One person who commented upon my original post pointed me in the direction of an interview with Sandy Rios of the Concerned Women for America regarding her belief that Princeton professor Robert George's belief is that the amendment would bar recognition of civil unions. George's opinion would be relevant as he is one of the people who worked, with Robert Bork and others, on drafting the proposed amendment in 2001. Note that Rios doesn't like the form of the amendment as it was presented because it would permit civil unions, in her opinion. She is quoted as saying:

The disagreement was: Professor George's understanding in penning it was that it would prevent civil unions, and Matt Daniels, who had formed this public entity that had begun to snowball, was selling the amendment based on the fact that he claimed it would not stop states from establishing civil unions.

I'm not a big fan of the game of "telephone" so I thought it would make more sense to look up if Robert George himself has said or written anything to this affect, as I would have thought a Harvard Law-educated Princeton professor would have a better grasp of English. It turns out, he does. In July of 2001 (and reprinted in July of 2004) he wrote for an article printed in the National Review:

Pro-marriage activists are inclined to back an amendment that would read: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."...

The Federal Marriage Amendment has a very narrow purpose. It seeks to prevent one very specific abuse of power by the courts, to make sure that on an issue of this importance, they don't confer a victory on the Left that it has not won in a fair contest in the forum of democratic deliberation. The amendment is intended to return the debate over the legal status of marriage to the American people-where it belongs. This amendment would have prevented the Vermont supreme court from ordering the legislature to grant the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, but would not prevent a fair democratic struggle to decide the question of civil unions one way or the other in Vermont or any other state.

George actually goes on to respond to those who might want to use the constitution to ban civil unions:

Why, some will ask, should we not go further, and use constitutional amendment to settle the issue of civil unions once and for all at the national level? While the legal recognition of non-marital sexual acts and relationships undermines the institution of marriage and should be opposed, the actual threat of the imposition of same-sex marriage and civil unions comes from the courts, not the legislatures. The amendment is thus tailored to the threat at hand. Moreover, it does not depart from principles of federalism, under which family law is, for the most part, a state matter. State autonomy on family-law matters is preserved.

Now, it doesn't seem like George is a good guy to invite to a commitment ceremony, or a swingers' party for that matter, but I hope this would put to rest any possible claim that the amendment, as presented, would prevent the formation and recognition of civil union laws by any state legislature.

There is just no one on either side of the the issue who is making a credible claim that the amendment can be interpreted in any way other than its plain language. I am amazed it has even been necessary to research the meaning of such incredibly pedestrian English.

It's Not Just That Bush Doubled Support Among Blacks | e-mail post

You may have seen the national opinion poll results from the Joint Center For Political and Economic Studies that is saying that Bush has increased his support among black voters from 9% to 18% since 2000, while John Kerry is trailing Gore's number by 5 points (69% versus 74%), but if you go look at the poll results (which are broken down very well), you will see some very interesting facts, especially if you start looking at some other numbers.

But where it gets interesting is looking at some of the key breakdowns:

Republican-party identification among blacks aged 51-64 is up five-fold (3% to 15%), while it is up 12-fold for those 65 and over (1% to 12%).
That 65+ group's support of Bush is up three-fold, from 6% to 19%
For blacks with household incomes over $90,000, Bush has seen a nearly 5x increase, from 5% to 24%.

Assuming voter turnout among blacks is in line with general voter turnout, these are huge numbers, as this group would be voting at much higher levels than the 18-25 and 26-35 groups, which have "only" doubled their support for Bush. Interestingly, and worth exploring, is that the 36-50 age group has shown the least increase in support, (14% to 16%) but that was also the most Bush-friendly group in 2000.

When you combine this with the Joint Center's own studies showing that blacks actually voted for Bush in higher numbers than their polling predicted in 2000, it's very good news on the Republican front. [PDF]

Just to get people thinking: the black vote in Florida was 610,616 in 2000. Bush is estimated to have picked up 7% of that vote. A doubling of Bush support in that group would have switched 42,743 people from Gore to Bush, giving him a victory of something closer to 86,000 votes in that state rather than 500-odd.

Now, black support for Bush in the South is the weakest (about 14% versus 21%-24% in other regions), although it can at times be debated whether to really assess Florida as strictly Southern. However, even there, polled support raised from 9% to 14%. Doing the very rough math still would have Bush gaining 21,371 votes at the Democratic candidate's expense, for a comparative gain of 42,742. Ouch, say the Democrats.

It just goes to show that the Democrats' strategy of taking certain constituencies for granted doesn't always work out.

UPDATE: After shooting Jay Cost an e-mail asking if he had looked into the numbers at all, he shot me back a note saying he was working on a "significant post" on the subject, and as always, he doesn't disappoint. I need to ask him where his turnout numbers are coming from, as he has Gore getting a larger net vote advantage in Florida than I had total votes cast by blacks in Florida.

Kerry's Fatal Mistake: Insulting Voters' Intelligence | e-mail post

David Brooks has a good column in today's NY Times, "Kerry Off the Leash," about why Kerry's late-in-the-game charges against Bush (that he will take away Social Security, reinstate the draft and do nothing to resurrect Christopher Reeve) could backfire against him. His final paragraphs spell it out clearly.

Bush's key vulnerability is that people fear he is in over his head. By lashing out wildly, Kerry muddles all that. Instead his blunderbuss approach suggests a candidate devoid of perspective, driven by unattractive and naked ambition.

Why is he doing this? First, because in the insular Democratic world, George Bush is presumed to be guilty of everything, so the more vicious you can be about him, the better everybody feels.

But there is a deeper assumption, which has marred Democratic politics for years. Some Democrats have been unable to face the reality that people have been voting for Republicans because they agree with them. So these Democrats have invented the comforting theory that they've been losing because they are too virtuous for the country.

According to this theory, Republicans - or usually some omniscient, omnipotent and malevolent strategists, like Lee Atwater or Karl Rove - have been tricking the American people into voting against their true interests. This year, many Democrats decided, we'll be vicious in return.

The truth, however, is that voters are not idiots. They are capable of independent thought. If you attack your opponent wildly, ruthlessly, they will come to their own conclusions.

Brooks makes a good point. Even if we suppose the Democrat's boogeyman charges against the likes of Rove and Atwater hold any water, they surely can't account for (or at least entirely explain) the steady growth of Republican control of both house of the federal legislature, of statehouses, and of Governorships. Of course, the irony is the number of Dems I hear mention that the Republican party secures its victories by relying on the ignorance of the American public. It flows perfectly with the explicit or implied derision Kerry expressed of any country that joined the U.S. in going to Iraq.

Maybe I have aligned myself with the wrong party. It would seem a certified misanthropic elitist such as myself would be much more at home with the Democrats.

P.S. Don't forget to check Jay Cost's Horserace Blog every day. He does a great job of scanning the news, particularly as it relates to polling and indications of support, as well as putting together more detailed analysis of certain swing states every few days. It's a must read if numbers don't scare you.

Nobel Economist on Kerry Tax Plan: "Pretty Damn Stupid" | e-mail post

In an interview with the Arizona Republic, Nobel Economics Laureate Ed Prescott had several comments that should help people put the two candidates in perspective:

[O]n the economic front, especially when it comes to taxes and economic growth, the president's policies are more likely to bear fruit, according to Arizona's new Nobel Prize laureate.

"That's an easy one," said Edward Prescott, the Arizona State University professor who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize for economics.

"When you cut tax rates, employment always goes up," he said in a phone interview Monday with The Arizona Republic.

Prescott, speaking from Minnesota, where he advises the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, described Kerry's plan to roll back tax cuts for top wage-earners as counterproductive.

"The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid," he said. [...]

Prescott also gave Bush the nod on another controversial campaign issue, dismissing Kerry's claims that outsourcing of jobs is damaging the economy.[...]

Prescott also backed the idea, espoused by Bush, to reform Social Security by allowing some workers to place a portion of their payroll taxes into private savings accounts.

Such an arrangement would give people greater incentive to work, thus leading eventually to higher tax revenue, Prescott said.

I think it's sometimes easy for people to forget who actually creates jobs, who decides if they should invest in their business, who decides whether or not to expand a company: it's nearly entirely people whose household incomes are over $200K. After all, there are only so many government jobs to go around. Hat tip to Instapundit.

Crack-for-Votes in Ohio | e-mail post

I think the other cynical Barry Johnson (we're everywhere, don't you know) at Cynical Nation had the best headline "This gives 'Rock the Vote' a whole new meaning". From the Toledo Blade:

Voter fraud case traced to Defiance County registrations volunteer

124 registrations falsified, allegedly for crack cocaine

Mary Poppins. Jeffrey Dahmer. Janet Jackson. Chad Staton.

Defiance County elections officials were confident the first three hadn't moved to their small community. But the fourth one lived there, and - in exchange for crack cocaine - tried to falsely submit the first three names and more than 100 others onto the county's voter registration rolls, police said.

Now Mr. Staton, 22, of Defiance, faces a felony charge of false registration in a case that has quickly gained national attention as part of a hotly contested presidential battle that's attracted a flurry of new voter registrations across the country - and a flurry of complaints of voter registration fraud.

Defiance County Sheriff David Westrick said that Mr. Staton was working on behalf of a Toledo woman, Georgianne Pitts, to register new voters. She, in turn, was working on behalf of the NAACP National Voter Fund, which was formed by the NAACP in 2000 to register new voters.

Sheriff Westrick said that Pitts, 41, of Toledo, admitted she gave Mr. Staton crack cocaine in lieu of cash for supplying her with completed voter registration forms. The sheriff declined to say how much crack cocaine Pitts supplied Mr. Staton, or to say whether Pitts knew that the forms Mr. Staton gave her were falsified.

(continue to whole story at Blade website)

OK, one comment: unsurprisingly, no one has suggested a link between the crack-for-votes scandal and Ohio Republicans.

In related news, we have no idea if the Colorado woman who registed herself to vote 25 times, and some of her friends up to 40 times each is in fact, Eric Cartman's mother.

Help Get the Best Ad of the Season on the Air | e-mail post

The Club For Growth has produced a fantastic new election ad, directed by Naked Gun and Airplane director David Zucker. More than highlighting Kerry's vacillation on various issues, it sums up the real point of discussing some of his key position changes: "There's nothing wrong with a little indecision, as long as your job doesn't involve any responsibility."

If you think it's important to drive this message home, and you think humor might be a good way to get people's attention about it, you can contribute to help them raise another $2 million to run it in key swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Iowa. I just gave them $200.

Do it. Do it now.

Hat tip to Chrenkoff and Powerline.

Kerry's New Position: World Opinion Irrelevant - Updated | e-mail post

I will be curious to see if Democrats lambast Putin in the same way they took Cheney to task when he said basically the same thing. Or maybe, the Kerry campaign will have a different spin. I can see it now...

Kerry: "Why Does Anyone Care What the World Thinks?"

Boston (HC) - October 18th - The Kerry campaign today released a statement in response to Valdimir Putin's claims yesterday that international terrorists would be emboldened by a Bush defeat this November.

"Maybe George Bush wants you to think that what world leaders think is important, but he simply wants to divide America," Kerry said in the statement. "As I have repeatedly said throughout this campaign, in every debate and speech, the world's opinion is completely irrelevant to this election." He went on to say, "I simply cannot understand why anyone cares what the world thinks of the United States or our President. It's irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant."

In response to Japanese leaders' criticisms of Kerry last week for his lack of support for multilateral talks with North Korea and well-wishes for President Bush in the polls, the statement said, "America does what we want, and those Japanese had better keep quiet if they don't want me to revive Truman's foreign policy approach to Japan once I'm in the White House."

In addition, responding to rumours of his excommunication from the Catholic Church, Kerry's statement went on to say, "Again, world opinion, who cares? If you go to my web site, you can read my plan for a better church, a church that I will lead." While no such plan could be found on the Kerry campaign website, when contacted by telephone and asked about possible church/state separation issues with his plan, Kerry responded that, "I think we should really leave that up to the states."

Kerry continued, "You see, in this new church, this better church, there won't just be eternal life in the hereafter, but through stem cell research, we can achieve immortality." The calls was interrupted by the apparent sound of a tussle in Kerry campaign office followed by a dead line.

John Edwards was not available for comment, although he is rumored to be fixing his hair as he prepares for a series of fundraisers for a 2008 primary campaign.

In case you hadn't caught the main story that sparked that piece...

Russia's Vladimir Putin, while certainly opposed to military action against Iraq, at least has the honesty to say what should be fairly obvious about the continuing violence in Iraq which seems to have increased as we have moved progressively closer to our election: terrorists are trying to damage Bush politically. [via Yahoo]

"I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush (news - web sites)," Putin said at a news conference after a regional summit in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.

"International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term," he said. "If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power."

While Putin certainly did not endorse, per se, it is hard for me to believe that he thinks the consequent of Bush's defeat giving "international terrorism a new impulse and extra power," is a desirable outcome.

In other news of Kerry's incredible ability to form alliances with other countries, the Italians are rankled about the broadcast this week of another of Kerry's comments prior to the Iraq war that, "The Iraqi army is in such bad shape even the Italian army could kick their butts." While this again speaks to Kerry's apparent lack of respect for a broad swath of nations, I found it particularly strange, as most Americans usually reference the French army as synonymous with emasculated weakness on the battlefield. [Town Hall] [Snippet and link from Italian paper here.]

In all fairness to Kerry, he has picked up the endorsement of the Palestinian Authority, as well as that of fomer Malaysian former Prime Minister Mahathir "The Jews Rule the World" Mohamad. No wonder even The New Repbulic's editor is down on Kerry. [Powerline also picks up on the interesting endorsement pattern.]

George Bush and the Federal Marriage Amendment Feedback | e-mail post

I have had several friends e-mail or telephone me with their thoughts on "Why George Bush's Call for a Federal Marriage Amendment is in the Best Interest of Gay Americans", all three of whom are more or less (OK, completely) opposed to Republicans and Republicanism. The crux of their responses have been something along the lines of this portion of a response, quoted from a friend of mine out in Los Angeles:

[W]hile I think you make an elegantly-reasoned elaboration of the way that such an amendment might (regardless of its success) cause a state-by-state debate of the issue when sent to them for ratification, I think it's a stretch to assume that this was Bush's rationale for backing it. We're both aware of his religious convictions, and to assume that they don't drive his actions on this subject seems short-sighted, despite his claim to the contrary. The majority of your piece is written from an imaginary first-person perspective of Bush considering his options, and while the thinking is clearly rationalized, there is little evidence to suggest that it was in fact Bush's reasoning.

Another friend said that he felt it was difficult to even presume that as much thought went into the process; I won't take issue with that position, because it seems you either want to believe George Bush is simple or you don't.

However, I will certainly agree that it is difficult to make guesses as to any individual's motivations without speaking directly with them. It might be worth mentioning that I didn't actually start out with the thesis that I ended up writing. Rather, I came to that conclusion when I started seeing the timing and content of Bush's public statements in relation the goings-on in various states.

In addition, I agree that Bush believes (again, as do 60%+ of Americans) that the term "marriage" should be reserved for opposite-sex dyadic unions. However, I also believe that he supports the extension of equivalent legal structures to those unions.

As just one example of Bush's gay-neutral attitude, it is worth pointing out that while Bush/Cheney has employed Cheney's lesbian daughter in spite of objections from their base, Kerry only hired gay campaign staffers to help quell the concerns of the gay lobby, as this piece from the Boston Globe mentions:

Gay-rights leaders say the Kerry campaign has contained outcry over his stand on gay marriage with a series of moves. They include hiring a top deputy who is gay as well as gay staff members and advisers, pledging to continue to support gay-rights issues as president, and making the case that Bush is strongly opposed to their political causes.

Or consider that George Bush asked gay Congressman Jim Kolbe to speak at the 2000 Republican convention, in a prime-time slot. Kolbe also was the individual responsible for getting language into the 2002 D.C. Appropriations (passed in late '01) bill that ended a decade-long ban on extending health benefits to D.C. domestic partners, and while there was some opposition by lawmakers in both the House and Senate, the Republican House pushed it through, even voting down an amendment to re-insert the ban.

Another example worth pointing out is that in June of 2002, Bush signed a bill extending federal death benefits to the domestic partners of firefighters and police officers killed in the line of duty - the first ever extension of a federal death benefit to same-sex couples. This was over the objection of his own Justice department. [Wash Post] As the a reporter noted, "Gay activists said that although the Bush administration has been surprisingly non-hostile to their issues, it also has avoided provoking conservatives by appearing too accommodating."

Or Bush's rebuke of his own appointee earlier this year for removing language from the Office of Special Counsel website about federal employee protection of gays and lesbians. And on the appointee front in general, Bush's record is nothing to criticize. In fact, while both he and Clinton each appointed a gay ambassador, Clinton's pick, James Hormel, was a long-time Democratic party loyalist (and big contributor, as an hier to Hormel - you know, the Spam guys) that Clinton had to get in through a recess appointment due to Jesse Helms' opposition, Bush put up an openly gay career foreign service officer and got him a formal Senate confirmation.

George Bush has always had to walk a tightrope on the issue, simply because a significant part of his base holds strong beliefs in this regard, and unlike the approach that gays seem to take with John Kerry, he cannot be assured that he will be strongly supported by his base if he so publicly shows disregard for their interests.

Latest Nobel Peace Laureate Inciting Race War? | e-mail post

I was truly shocked (no sarcasm) to come upon this news item from Australia, reporting on comments made by Wangari Maathai, Kenyan Nobel Laureate, this year's winner of the peace prize. Maathai claimed in August (before she was awarded the prize, no less) that HIV/AIDS was a biologic engineered by "evil scientists, but we may not know who particularly did." She seems to move between thinking it was designed to kill Africans or control them.

What is most disappointing about this, beyond the fact that the argument she employs could only nominally be described as "reasoning," is that she is now in a position where she could positively influence Africans in their fight againt AIDS infections, of which they are home to 25 of the 38 million global cases. Instead, though, she would seem more comfortable promoting a conspiracy of oppression.

The Camera Doesn't Lie | e-mail post

pic

You just can't make this stuff up This is a photo from Kerry's visit to Milwaukee, after delivering a speech at the Milwaukee Area Technical College.

As they say, a picture's worth 1,000 words, I think this one's an editorial on the Kerry campaign.

Picture and caption available from Yahoo!

From AFP Photographer Hector Mata

A Different Look at Iraq | e-mail post

Steven Moore, a consultant to Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, spent most of the past year in Iraq, and set up their capacity for public opinion polling. Now, that probably does give him some bias, but he has spent more time in Iraq than more than 99.9% of other Americans in the last year, so that ought to be worth something.

In any event, he has set up a site, The Truth About Iraq, at which he also has his weblog.

It's a Strange World Indeed... | e-mail post

...when Martin Peretz, the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic, has an op-ed piece in the LA Times two weeks before the election, titled "Kerry The Clueless," praising George Bush's Israel policies and just beating on Kerry's position (or lack of one, maybe) on Israel. Peretz is concerned that Kerry's deference to the U.N.'s "wisdom" would mean that Israel would lose its sole ally in an otherwise hostile world.

Possibly to drive home the point, Malaysia's answer to Hitler, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (who last year proclaimed quite publicly that "Jews rule the world by proxy") is telling all American Muslims of their moral duty to vote for John Kerry. I'm not really certain if this is the kind of endorsement from world leaders that Kerry was hoping for, but maybe it's the only one he should really expect.

Given that French and German leaders have taken a giant step backward when Kerry suggested he would build a broader alliance, maybe Mohamad can help Kerry lead his global alliance.

Speaking of The New Republic, however, I would recommend a TNR piece forwarded to me over the weekend, "Hero Worship," in which George Bush is characterized, to be generous to Bush, as a man whose lack of firm ideology, coupled with a penchant for narratives, allows him to be manipulated by those around him. I am not a huge fan of those who put forth arguments based in some measure on Bush being less than quite intelligent, but it is an interesting read. And I think all of us, right and left, should take some time reading what the other guys are saying.

Team America: Sing Along with Kim Jong-Il | e-mail post

UPDATE: Judging from search referrals, a lot of people are visting my post, "Team America: Every American Should See It" post while looking for the lyrics to Kim Jong-Il's rendition of "I'm so Lonely," or "I'm So Ronery"...I aim to please, so to save you the time I've included them in that post.

You can also get a video clip of Kim Jong-Il singing it on the main Team America site.

You can also get some official Team America gear. The soundtrack will be available online on October 19th, and in stores Election Day November 2nd.

Why George Bush's Call for a Federal Marriage Amendment is in the Best Interest of Gay Americans | e-mail post

Update, Monday Morning: I just want to be clear, I am very open to (seeking, even) those who wish to contest the argument presented here, but I would ask that if you wish to contest it, you add it to the comments or post in your own weblog with a trackback, rather than sending me e-mail. My point is to encourage debate. I would also ask that responses be more than a sentence. I'm not asking for parity with the 5,000 words I've written, but I would at least like something that would further debate.

Preface

First, if you consider yourself "anti-Bush," I would ask you to indulge me by accepting three assumptions, in the interest of maintaining an open mind until you have read to the end. I can provide ample evidence for all of them, but they would only elongate this already long document, and are not fundamentally germane to my main thesis. After you're done reading, you can believe whatever you want.

Neither George Bush nor Republicans on the whole are evil.
Neither George Bush nor the majority of Republicans harbors any sort of negative feelings toward homosexuals themselves, and in fact, there is substantial indication that George Bush likes gay people as much as he likes anyone else, and is arguably even more comfortable about it than John Kerry.
Setting aside a linguistic issue about the meaning of "marriage" Bush and Republicans as a whole want not just "equal protection" for gays, but a world in which sexual orientation is just not an issue. (I am aware that the "marriage" issue has far broader practical implications than simply language, and I hope to address that at some point in the next few days. This was a long enough piece.).

I welcome comments. I am genuinely interested in furthering rational and informed dialogue.

A Simple Question

Have you considered that George Bush was acting in the interests of gay citizens, at least as much as anyone, when he called in February for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as applying only to a man and a woman, and by logical implication, eliminating the possibility of "same-sex marriage" in the U.S.?

Of course, the "conventional wisdom," by which I really mean the Democratic party's spin on it was that he did it because he wanted to create a "wedge" issue. And, honestly, it sounds reasonable on its face, especially if one was already predisposed to think of Bush as a "divider, not a uniter." I don't think that such a claim holds up to any kind of practical test, though.

For all the jokes about his party days in college, Bush was a history major at Yale, and George Santayana gave us the sage advice that "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Maybe looking at a little history would help, as I think the context will be valuable. I think after looking at the history and the situation in the country when Bush finally called for an amendment, you might see that Bush acted in the best interest of the gay community, by applying one of his other "simple-minded" axioms: the best defense is a good offense.

A Brief History of the Same-Sex Marriage Issue in the United States

The same-sex marriage issue got really hot the first time back in 1996 (although it has a longer history, with the first legal case happening here in Minnesota in 1971).

Some might recall that in 1996 Hawaii's Supreme Court compelled the state to recognize gay marriage. Of course, while thought initially to be a victory in the fight for equality for gays; it didn’t quite play out that way, not even close. The idea of gay marriage was sufficiently worrisome to enough people to get the issue into legislative play. And while it may have only a small minority of people who were really fired-up about it, once the question was called, the majority of Americans were opposed the idea of same-sex marriage. (And according to any poll I have found, they still are about 60% opposed.)

The net result was the creation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by Bill Clinton because he didn't want it to become a political liability for the 1996 election. Over half the states passed similar legislation over the 1996-1998 time period.

While this was going on, Hawaii's Governor Ben Cayetano started pushing for domestic partnerships, and suggesting that "the institution of marriage should be left to the church. The government needs to explore its role in marriages...The government should not be in the role of sanctifying marriages."

But even as the federal DOMA and the state versions were enacted at breakneck speed throughout the country, the issue wasn't finished in Hawaii. In 1998, opponents of gay marriage used a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to explicitly grant the authority to the state legislature to "reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples." Hawaii voters turned out 69% to 29% in favor of the amendment. (The curious might want to read a collection of Honolulu Star-Bulletin articles that cover the saga from 1996-1998.)

Ultimately, the court case in Hawaii triggered 38 states to enact DOMA as the law, 4 by popular vote amendments to the constitution and the balance through the legislature.

Fun Trivia: Do you know what traditionally conservative state didn't pass any DOMA legislation or constitutional amendment during that 1996-1999 period when 30 other states did? Texas. And who was governor then? That's right. It wasn't until Bush's Lt Governor, Rick Perry, had stood for re-election himself that Texas passed DOMA legislation, in 2003.

Then, in December of 1999, Vermont's Supreme Court, wisely not wanting to set off the same sort of firestorm Hawaii's Court did, ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." This gave the state an out (no pun intended), by basically telling the legislature that they could adopt civil union legislation with equivalent rights or allow same-sex marriage. Then-Governor Howard Dean immediately announced his support for civil unions, saying he was uncomfortable with explicit gay marriage. Within four months, the legislature passed, and Dean signed, civil union legislation, without really generating any national controversy.

And things on this front were quiet for a while.

Massachusetts Shakes Things Up

Then, almost a year ago, on November 18th, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided to open Pandora's Box by requiring the recognition of same-sex marriage, and giving the legislature 180 days to act on it. Hoping to avoid setting off a national political firestorm by pulling a page from Vermont's playbook, the state Senate quickly asked for an advisory opinion from the Court on civil unions in lieu of same-sex marriage. The Court said nothing less than marriage would be acceptable. In response, the legislature passed a constitutional amendment (which still needs to be ratified) banning same-sex marriages and creating civil unions. (Republican Governor Mitt Romney was the one who twisted some of his party's legislators to sign off on civil unions.) It is still an open question as to whether the same-sex ban amendment in Massachusetts will fail, attempts to defeat it (and thus maintain same-sex marriage) have been getting pretty close votes.

Of course, Massachusetts is only one state. Based on the 1996-98 history, it should come as no surprise, that right after the court's decision in late 2003 the same groups that got the momentum behind the DOMA legislation in 1996 were calling for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. While Bush did direct the Attorney General to investigate the implications and options given the change in Massachussetts law, Bush wasn't out raising hell about it, and his initial public comments were that he thought the states should decide, but he left open the possibility of a federal amendment.

And while many of those who promote themselves as advocates for gay rights were incensed that he even left it on the table, many in the Christian right were at least as concerned that Bush wouldn't call for such an amendment. He had not distinguished himself as an opponent of gays or as interested in treating gay people as any less than equal to everyone else. He had appointed an openly gay career foreign service officer, Michael Guest, to an ambassadorship (and the guy wasn't even a Bush supporter) and has made numerous appointments of other openly gay individuals as well. He did not veto the congressional approval (orchestrated by a Republican from Arizona) of extending domestic partner benefits to city employees in Washington, D.C.. Some people have a litany of complaints about how "gay-friendly" George Bush is, which most people would interpret to mean that he is fine with gay people, and is happy to treat them equally.

So the grassroots social conservative groups also started working at the state level over the winter. And they worked very quickly. I don’t want to sound mocking, but while the gay rights lobby thinks a great deal of its strength and clout, it is both miniscule and disorganized compared to the Christian conservative network. This is meant as no criticism, the movement is very young. The first national gay rights organization, the Mattachine Society, didn't even start until 1951 and it took another 22 years to even have homosexuality taken off the American Psychiatric Association's list of psychiatric disorders.

On January 7th, 2004, Missouri introduced legislation calling for a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. (Since then, Missouri voters have already passed it). The following week, on January 13th, Indiana legislators proposed a state constitutional ammendment banning not just same-sex marriages but also any type of civil union, domestic partnership, etc. The very next day, reps in Maryland called for a same-sex marriage ban ammendment and legislators in Arizona followed Indiana's lead, proposing state consitutional bans both on same-sex marriage and any type of civil union.

And then the floodgates opened. By February 10th, 15 state legislatures had introduced legislation to create state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. (Missouri, Indiana, Arizona and Maryland were followed by Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama, Washington, Iowa and Utah). Of those 15, ten of the states' proposed amendments included bans on any kind of equivalent legal arrangements for same-sex couples. (Only Missouri, Maryland, Oklahoma, Alabama and Washington were proposing the narrower ban.) Many other states were in the process of gearing up with their own amendment plans as soon as their legislative sessions began. Ohio, having just passed a super-DOMA bill in January, was already working on drafting a constitutional amendment.

On February 16th, not even 90 days since the Massachusetts ruling, Georgia's state Senators passed their half of the joint resolution to put their amendment before voters and it was about to go to the house for a vote, where it was assured to pass (which it did) and be put to a vote of Georgia residents. (Which it almost undoubtedly will, with nearly 70% of voters in Georgia planning to vote in favor.)

I was surprised to find that according to 2000 census figures, Georgia was home to 19,288 same-sex couples, about 13% more than Massachusetts’ 17,099. (Note, I am not suggesting these figures imply that Georgia is home to a larger number of gays and lesbians, generally. I was just surprised by the same-sex couple figures.)

Decisions, Decisions

Now, take yourself back to late February of this year and put yourself in George Bush's shoes for a moment. You saw what happened with DOMA just seven years ago, and you're seeing the same thing happening again, but this time, it's not just legislation about the definition of the word "marriage." Because the existing DOMA legislation is open to court review and invalidation, states are now acting to amend their constitutions, not just pass laws. And most of these states, while they're at it, are not just reserving the word "marriage" for opposite-sex unions, but many are acting to deny the possibility, now and into the future, of even extending the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

Why are they going even farther? Some of it is human nature, unfortunately. I’m sure we all experience situations where we react to a rapid and significant encroachment on our interests by pushing back even harder. And I’m not even talking about politics. The clearest example that springs to mind is the well-known wisdom of not telling your daughter or son that they are forbidden from dating a person, because it will only strengthen (if often only temporarily) their commitment to that forbidden person. Now, before someone jumps in and says "see, these people are just being adolescents," I would submit that in issues that strike close to our beliefs or make us feel threatened, most people are prone to over-reaction. Moreover, nothing George Bush can do will change that human nature, but it is a fact of the world in which he must take action.

And it isn’t hard to find a legislator to actually introduce these amendments, even if they themselves aren’t as personally fired up about it as those calling for the action are. Some would attribute it to pandering, but if we employ the principle of charity in judging their views, one could say that they may hold the reasonable (albeit debatable) view that such courts are overstepping their authority by invalidating laws that have historically been the domain of the legislature, that it may be grounded in a theory of government, not just election-year politics.

Even if you just get the polls from the papers or the television, you know that around 60% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage; even California adopted a same-sex marriage ban by referendum. You also know that it is at most a squeaker of a national majority that is in favor of civil unions, with most national surveys suggesting somewhere around 48%-50% support.

If the two issues were paired together as an amendment, it would probably pass at nearly the same level of support as the marriage-restriction alone would, since civil union support is usually a compromise, e.g. "I’m opposed to same-sex marriage, but I can live with civil unions."

So, you’re Bush, what do you do? Well, you could do nothing. After all, 4 million fewer members of the Christian Right voted in 2000 than did in 1996, and you know with an issue like that on the ballot, they would all show up on Election Day. Since it was looking like you would be running against either a guy from Massachusetts, the state that just set off the controversy, or the first Governor to sign civil union legislation, you'd probably get the votes of any extra turnout. The last election was a squeaker; maybe you could use the votes. And while the Christian Right might be disappointed you didn't take action, you could defend yourself on the traditional Republican position of favoring states' rights and continuing to make public mention of your belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Another piece of history worth thinking about: it was 124 years, from 1843 until 1967, from when Massachusetts became the first state to allow interracial marriage until it was held to be the law of the land by the Supreme Court.

The briefing you got from Justice might have told you that of the four states that already passed amendments against SSM, only Nebraska’s explicitly bars civil unions. And while Hawaii, Alaska and Nevada’s amendments have withstood challenges from their state courts, they obviously haven’t been tested against the full faith and credit clause in federal courts, as there hasn’t yet been a state-sanctioned same-sex marriage to that could result in a challenge.

The briefing probably told you that the Nebraska amendment is being contested in the 8th Circuit, in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning but it is early, with the state losing its motion to dismiss the case, which would be expected, as dismissals of equal protection claims are rare. [Ruling as PDF] The parties aren’t even submitting briefs on the case until late in 2004. The briefing would probably say that the amendment will almost certainly be struck down by the District Court, but that it wouldn’t be a guarantee that other civil-union prohibition amendments would be invalidated quickly. After all, Nebraska’s Attorney General advised the legislature of his own opinion of its unconstitutionality before they passed the amendment on to the voters, the Judge Joseph Bataillon is a Clinton appointee, and the Nebraska language is about a prohibition on the "uniting of two persons of the same sex in a...same-sex relationship," while other amendments are using different languages and contrivances, so they could do better in court, especially if the state’s AG was engaged in an aggressive defense of the amendment.

In either case, there is the whole issue of the appeals process. And even if such amendments are struck down, the same people working today to get the amendments on the ballots will do it again with whatever language is proving most successful in the courts, and they will get it passed again. It’s a process that would go on for years, if not decades. And the worst part is that every time one side loses in court, it will re-inflame the animosity of not just the core of the group, but likely of the broader group as well, as each would feel infringed upon.

Doing nothing could divide the nation for decades, with each side jockeying for tiny piecemeal victories here or there, as we already have on the abortion question. The whole time the battle rages, it would inflame passions on both sides, making it more difficult for gays to seek support for civil union legislation in the broader country.

So you would probably come to the conclusion that you cannot just wash your hands of the issue; that doing nothing is not a genuine option. What other options are on the table? Be creative.

He can’t just stand up and tell the Christian right to stop worrying about it; he already lacks some credibility with those groups for his gay-neutral policy positions and he’s certainly not their spiritual leader. All he would be doing is guaranteeing that those groups would work much harder to make sure there are more candidates who are genuinely opposed to gay equality.

He could try to work the Republican Party back channel to get legislators to not include civil union restrictions on their amendments or pull some strings to get them hung up in committee or on procedural grounds. Really, though, that would be difficult-to-impossible, and he still wouldn't be able to stop the citizen groups that were already working on petitions for over-restrictive amendments in states like Ohio.

Maybe he could propose an amendment to the constitution that would restrict the full faith and credit clause from applying to the recognition of marriage. Actually, if that could just be stuck in the Constitution when no one was looking, it might be a good fix. It would be a lot less controversial than an amendment defining marriage at the federal level. After all, it would just be taking one piece of Clinton's DOMA legislation and protecting it from judicial invalidation.

Of course, a constitutional amendment is a big deal. Everyone knows you don't just tinker with the constitution. It wouldn't even get off the ground: people would object to it as tinkering and it wouldn't be a strong enough statement about protecting marriage to motivate people to pass it or to take the sense of urgency away from the groups trying to pass state-level amendments.

So in the end, the best option, though maybe not ideal, starts looking like a federal amendment. It offers the best prospect of dividing the country the least and settling the issue the most quickly, even if it would still take a minimum of two or three years to go through the state ratification process. Compared to the other possibilities, it has a lot of benefits.

First, the entire country is making a decision about the same thing, only the limited issue of reserving the word "marriage" to opposite-sex unions. Nobody’s talking about restricting civil unions or other abridgements of gay rights. The wind is out of the sails for those pushing for state-level amendments. Most legislatures probably wouldn’t even vote to put the issue on the ballot, and the nation wouldn’t be split with all sorts of divisiveness.

Second, the ratification process takes place in the legislatures, not the polling booths. If gay rights organizations want to try to take on the Christian right, doing so in the legislatures is a much fairer playing field to them than the voting booth. There can actually be reasoned debate, not just TV commercials and billboards inflaming the passions of the broad electorate. Because there are surveys that indicate that only 50% of even evangelical Christians would vote against a candidate who didn’t share their views on gay marriage, it might not even be political suicide for the state legislators choose not to adopt the amendment.

Third, because the issue would be going before the legislatures for a unified debate, it would be an incredibly ripe opportunity for the gay rights lobby to approach the legislatures simultaneously with model legislation on civil unions or domestic partnerships, allowing them the opportunity to run the table.

Finally, because everyone in this country seems to respect the idea of democracy, no matter how the amendment finally plays out, people will accept it. This might be being optimistic on my part, but I do believe that George Bush probably has the same sense of the general goodness of people. And, let’s face it, thinking the worst of your fellow citizens is no way to have to wake up every morning, so why not give everyone the benefit of the doubt?

It would probably best to move fast, ideally before the Georgia house votes to pass it on to the voters. So, if you were George Bush, you might have decided to get up on February 24th and make a speech that you might finish something like this:

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

In fact, that’s exactly what George Bush did that day.

Now, John Kerry of course wanted to make this a political issue and decided to claim that it is a state’s rights issue. This is pretty funny, because not too many Democrats invoke the call of the Federalists, and I would be very interested to see any other examples of cases where he has argued against federal preemption. In any event, it worked well for Kerry, it allowed him to be politically safe, much as Pilate took the politically safe route in dealing with Jesus a couple millennia back.

Gay rights advocates, possibly over-reacting in the way that opponents of same-sex marriage over-react when they push anti-civil union amendments, of course decried this as divisive and anti-gay, saying it should be left up to the states. They allowed their own passions, or possibly egos, blind them to the fact that they obviously couldn’t win everywhere. Or maybe they just didn’t care; since they had carved a couple of key victories in some states, maybe making Massachusetts the Provincetown of the United States was fine with them.

Maybe, they figured, gays would simply flock even more to states like California, Massachusetts, and Vermont, or to other relatively gay-friendly cities in Minnesota or Florida, leaving other states to their own devices. But that’s a very sad prospect. Why should a gay guy born in Nebraska or Mississippi have to leave his home state just to have the same rights? I sometimes think that the major gay rights groups located in highly-concentrated gay meccas around the country may sometimes forget about their brethren in the rest of the country.

And by further concentrating gay people into particular geographies, they are delaying the inherently long road to not just legal equality, not just tolerance, but genuine acceptance, of gays by everyone, everywhere in the nation. Which I think was one thing George Bush was trying to avoid. (I elaborate on this in my postscript.)

The Price of Politics: Where Are We Today?

Instead of getting the congress to pass the amendment and move it on to the states for an orderly debate and ratification process, without adding more polarization to the national election this year, we find our nation in a much different place, and I’m not sure it’s a better place for anyone.

Two more states (for a total of six) have passed amendments banning same-sex marriage. John Kerry and John Edwards both showed up in Missouri after it passed, Kerry telling voters that he would have voted the same way.

Louisiana overwhelmingly voted through their amendment banning civil unions as well. It looks like Louisiana’s may get shot down, but only for the technicality that the state constitution prohibits an amendment from addressing two issues. You can bet the same-sex marriage ban amendment will be back on the ballot again very soon, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they vote through a separate civil union ban just for spite.

More states have it on the ballot in a couple of weeks, and the gay rights advocates seem to think that the only two states that they even have a shot at defeating it are in Oregon and Michigan. They’re basically giving up on Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.

And while gay advocates like Steven Fisher of the Human Rights Campaign, have the audacity (or maybe the ignorance) to spout off that, "It's no accident that many are (in) battleground states and are being put on the November ballot at a time when President Bush is desperately trying to energize his extremist base," the fact is that only Ohio and to a lesser extent Oregon are battleground states. And, the "extremists" would already be out to vote against Kerry.

But, sometimes you just can’t persuade people of their fundamental beliefs; no matter how clear the facts are to the contrary, they want to believe that George Bush is anti-gay. Of course, when this problem drags on and on, they’ll probably never admit that George Bush really may have had the best interests of all Americans in mind, gay and straight alike, when he proposed that amendment.

More fun trivia: Can you guess the only state, other than New Mexico, that doesn’t already have a same-sex marriage ban amendment in place and that did not take any action whatsoever on same-sex marriage this year? Florida. Whose brother is the Governor of Florida?

Postscript

Or, why I was surprised when I first learned there were
people who had a problem with gays.

I grew up in Des Moines. My father is from a small town in Iowa. He was self-employed with his office in the house, and he hired his first employee back in the mid-seventies, I was about seven or eight at the time. In any event, the first guy my dad ever hired was a gay guy. According to my mom, my dad didn’t even know he was gay. My dad had probably never really been aware of gay people except possibly in the abstract. I’ll tell you that looking back on it my dad sure didn’t have gaydar.

Because this was back in the seventies, when it was not uncommon to invite your boss to your home for dinner, Jeff invited my family over for dinner after he had been working there in the house for a year or so. When we went over to his apartment, he and his "friend" Gary hosted us to a meal which I don’t remember at all, but I remember thinking that at least Gary dressed less comically than Jeff, whose sense of fashion had very much been inspired by "Urban Cowboy," and, honestly, I don’t think I had ever seen another person in Des Moines wear a cowboy hat unless it was Halloween.

My dad expanded the office area in the house after an addition, and I saw Jeff every day after school before my dad had to lay him off during the building industry recession around 1983 or so, and just go back to being solo. As it happens, when business improved a few years later, he bumped into Jeff at a store, and he had a job, but not a great one. My dad hired him again, and they still work together.

In any event, having known Jeff since before I had any concept of sexuality, let alone homosexuality, when I finally was old enough to really know what "gay" meant, I didn’t have a second thought about it. I was actually pretty surprised to learn that anyone had a problem with gay people, although I was happy to learn that most gay guys didn’t share Jeff’s fashion sense. (Jeff, if you're reading this, I'm sorry.)

When you see a Gay Pride event, you’ll often hear the chant "We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it." To these people I say: I always have been "used to it," so have a lot of people, and eventually everyone will.

But creating insular pockets of gays in certain states is not the way for people to get used to it. Using the courts to defy the general opinion of the majority of Americans and to offend the deeply-held beliefs of a large minority is not the way for people to get used to it.

Other Updates

The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby advanced some different arguments about "Why Marriage Can't Be Left to States" in the Sunday editition of the paper.

Continuing Discussion on The Hopeful Cynic

"George Bush and the Federal Marriage Amendment Feedback" in which the question of whether or not GWB has the abridgement of gay rights in mind is discussed.

"Response on the GWB and the FMA Post" in which the possible interpretation of the FMA as written to prohibit the recognition of civil unions as written is discussed and, barring further argument to the contrary, debunked.

Sophomoric Joke? Amateurish Dirty Trick? No, Documentary Film! | e-mail post

When I checked my feedback e-mail account on gmail, I had a message from "YesBushCan" suggesting that they had collected several fake documents that they need help invalidating. I was immediately a little skeptical. I actually figured the link would go to a porn site, but I figured I'd have a look just to see, as I'm always curious to see what the spammers are up to.

In any event, YesBushCan.com is a site that is presumably someone's idea of hi-lar-ious. The docs they include are of pretty much well-known, personal correspondence with Ken Lay of Enron, Bush's DUIs, the Bush daughters' alcohol posession charges. Whatever.

At this point, I was just curious to see the rest of the site. The site is not quite so funny to constitute satire, nor does it seem to be quite authentic-feeling enough to be taken seriously. It is a little odd that they state on their site that they are dedicated to re-electing Bush/Cheney. It's also linked to CheneyBush.com, which is another not-quite-real yet not-real-funny look-alike of the real Bush campaign site.

They also have a "Yes Bush Can" bus that they are taking around the country. It looks like they're pretty tongue in cheek when they have the Bus in Kerry states, including spending some time in the Castro soliciting signatures for their gay divorce petition, which I can imagine would be funny enough ("whereas a great many man-man and woman-woman couples come to understand eventually that their partnering is as unnatural as, say, an orange orangutan;") [PDF].

But I really had to wonder how they're behaving in swing states. They've got pictures on their tour from a few days in Ohio, including at the veep debate, where they were handing out some "pro" Cheney brochures [PDF]. They didn't have any other discussion of their activities in Ohio, although they have been there other times. They were just in Washington on Thursday, the only picture they show is with some police. No pics from their trip to Pittsburgh.

What I thought was strange, however, is that they had two pictures from Oregon where they are actually shaking hands with former Republican Governor Victor Atiyeh as well as posing with Jim Feldkamp, Republican challenger to Peter DeFazio. [Feldkamp campaign site] The photo is captioned "In Eugene, at the Ducks game, many appreciate Smokey and his message, including Congressional candidate Jim Feldkamp."[pic] They're planning to be in Florida on November 2, according to their site. I have no idea what to think at this point.

So I decide to sort out who these guys are. In the process of which I found someone else who got a different e-mail and did some checking of his own, he didn't actually get to the bottom of it, but the post is worth a read. The poster had been forwarded an e-mail purporting to be official Bush communication about environmental policy, which he tracked back to the same people. The e-mail was completely ridiculous if you know anything at all about Bush, but may have been credible to an ill-informed individual quickly skimming it and who might have preconceived notions of Bush being environmentally hostile, especially to the extent that the message claims endorsements of the so-called environmental policy from Feldkamp and Atiyeh, making use of the bus tour pictures mentioned above, to legitimize it. From the comment of the guy who forwarded it, "Spam from eager followers of the incumbents," clearly it seemed legit enough to at least one person. Just goes to show you that it's hard to underestimate the electorate.

Now, I'll save you the time of recounting my investigation, but it is all the work of the same guys who are out with the docu-comedy The Yes Men, in which they infilitrate a WTO meeting in Europe, actually end up presenting and getting coverage on CNBC Europe. I actually had read a capsule review of the film earlier this evening, and thought it sounded pretty good. It is truly an odd coincidence I should get an e-mail from them tonight. (Where's Rod Serling?) When I went to check the IMDB listing for it, I found I'm not the only one who wasn't too impressed by the quality of the humor if they were attempting satire, as the featured user review said:

'The Yes Men' is 'Punk'd' with a master's degree. A mediocre idea made into a decent film, 'Men' doesn't quite have the Teutonic-plate shifting power it suggests, nor the comedic value it assumes. Coming out in a hailstorm of political satires this year, 'Men' is far more entertaining than enlightening....the actual pranks Mike and Andy play have little resonance beyond their own giggly fascination with corporate buffoonery.

I don't think I'll cry if I miss it, but since I've been drawn into the comedy(?), maybe I should.

If you want to see more of the Yes Men and their current endeavors, go to theyesmen.org. They also have a weblog that gives a more behind-the-scenes look at what's really going on with the bus tour. If they come to Minneapolis, I'd love to see them, just to ask them what their real point is. I mean, they're not incredibly funny nor do puerile pranks further discourse in any meaningful way. On the other hand, there is a lot of comedy produced that is humorousless and a lot of current events programming that is intellectually vacuous, so I guess I can't be too harsh on them.

In all fairness to The Yes Men, however, they did at least get me to waste my time, and isn't that what the internet's all about?

On the Cell Phone Only Polling Bias and the '50% rule' | e-mail post

I've done a lot of eye-rolling seeing people mention how the under-representation of voters who only have a mobile phone (no landline) is somehow invalidating all the polls, and will result in a radical shift. I just kind of chuckle when I see claims like that, because it reflects a lack of understanding about good polling methodology. I kind of chalked it up to people just dreaming up reasons why their guy might not really be behind.

But Friday evening a friend forwarded me a post from some message board, I believe to contest my claim that Bush has the race largely locked up. The posted message was:

The Washington Post has an interview with Charlie Cook, a political guru in the same league as the late Izzy Stone. Insiders pay a lot of attention to Charlie Cook. He warns that the polls are missing the cell phone-only voters, a topic that has been discussed on this site repeatedly. He also says the election may be determined by events in Iraq. If it gets much worse, Bush is in deep trouble. Cook also confirms what I have heard from many, many sources: the undecideds ultimately break at least 2:1 for the challenger. An incumbent president has to be polling 49% to 50% going into the election. A 47% to 47% tie in the polls means the challenger wins. The interview is worth reading.

This was really the last straw for me on the cell phone polling bias thing. I went to the post website to read the interview. It actually wasn't an "interview" it was a transcript of an online Q&A with Charlie Cook.

Berwyn, Ill.: With unprecedented numbers of newly registered voters all across the country, aren't ALL polls essentially irrelevant?
Charles Cook: Virtually all the polls you are seeing are using random digit dialing, not voter registeration rolls, so theoretically even newly registered voters are being polled. A far bigger problem is that as many as 18 percent of telephone subscribers today have no land lines, and since pollsters are not calling cell phones, almost one in five voters are not being included in poll samples.

OK, now that is absurd. It took about 12 seconds on Google to get a little more accurate number. IT research firm Yankee Group was citing something between 3% and 6% in result #2 in my search. In result #4, there is a number in the double digits:

In-Stat.MDR, a wireless market-research firm based in Scottsdale, Ariz., conducted a survey of wireless users in February of this year. Of the 970 people questioned, 14.4 percent were cell-phone-only users, the majority of whom were single Americans between the ages of 18 and 24, living in mostly urban areas.

OK, so among (some unknown sample of) people who own cell-phones, about one in six say that they were cell-phone only users. I still think this number is probably a little high, but even assuming one-half of two-thirds of Americans of voting age own a cell phone would suggest the wireless-only general population is in the 7%-10% range.

Charlie Cook seems a little more hack than guru, in my opinion. So I started to reply to my friend:

The point that people are missing is that all good polling organizations develop fairly detailed demographic profiles from all kinds of sources, and they make sure they talk to enough people to match. Note that when I say "good polling organizations" I would exclude any news-media run polls, as they only want content; they don't make any additional money for being accurate, and thus have limited incentives to be accurate.

What nobody ever brings up, because most people are bad with numbers and don't understand the half-science/half-black-art of polling is that the cell-phone-only issue can only cause problems if you assume that the political behavior of cell-phone-only users differs from their broader demographic peer group.

Now, you might say that, "well yes, it does because CPO people are probably generally more hip/wired than others their age, and are thus more likely to vote Democrat, because all cool hip people vote Democrat, only idiots and the terminally lame vote for Republicans"

To which I would refer you back up to the In-Stat survey that indicated the majority of CPOs were single, 18-24 and lived in urban areas. That demographic already tilts so strongly Democratic as to make it at most a rounding error, particularly when you consider that the very same demographic also produces the lowest voter turnout. In addition, because of the electoral vote system, even if they were undercounting Kerry voters, they are concentrated in areas that are already more or less locked up. NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit are all going to go Kerry, they can go 100% and it won't matter. On the other hand, Dallas and Atlanta are in pure Bush country, again there's not a possibility of enough sampling error to make a difference.

I thought I'd actually look to see how large metro areas from CityPopulation break down on the Bush/Kerry divide when lined up versus the RealClearPolitics electoral vote projection, derived from averaging state-level polls (admittedly some media polls RCP includes are not the best, but it should be good enough to look at it).

When I looked at the data, it was about as I guessed, with Kerry-owned states having over 50% of the population of those larger metro areas. In fact, the only complete toss-up state with large cities is Ohio. I was then going to get some statistics about cell phone penetration by market, compare the percentage of total state population represented by the major cities, and do some further calculations.

When I was doing a quick search, though, I stumbled upon a great post from Friday on an experienced pollster's weblog with an analysis of the mobile phone bias that largely follows the outline of my e-mail, but has some appreciated factual detail, thanks to his access to research papers based on CDC and BLS data which are not yet available to the public (the cellphone-related questions are new in the CES, CPS and NHIS surveys in 2003 and 2004, and they tend to lag a couple of years for broad availability of the raw data). I strongly recommend you check out his weblog if you are at all interested in polling. He concludes his post writing:

We could calculate the "coverage error" that results from excluding wireless-only adults from political polls if we knew two things: (1) How the vote preferences of wireless only adults differ from those with working landlines and (2) the percentage of all likely voters with only wireless service. Unfortunately, both numbers are unknown.

Still, assume for the sake of argument that wireless adults are 5% of the electorate, that a survey of wired households shows a 48%-48% tie and that the missing wireless-only voters prefer John Kerry by a 20-point margin (58% to 38% - a pure but plausible guess based on the numbers for renters, low income, etc). If we were able to include the wireless only adults, it would change the overall preference by only one point - Kerry would lead 48.5% to 47.5%.

Keep in mind that two factors will work to reduce this small potential error: Wireless-only voters are likely to turn out at a lesser rate than those with wired phones, and pollsters typically weight to make up for overall differences in gender, age, race and education.

So, I decided it really wasn't worth spending too much more time on it, because it should be clear that for all the math I could apply, it would be impossible to determine a meaningful influence on electoral vote outcomes, especially without access to state-level data from the BLS or CDC data that might indicate particular differences among states for cell-phone only populations.

I did decide to format the spreadsheet I had made, in case you were curious about the breakdown. Note that in Ohio, I colored the cities to reflect Cleveland being a traditional Democratic stronghold and Cincinatti and Columbus being part of the state's broader Republican land mass.

The "50% Rule" For Incumbents

The other point mentioned in my friend's message, the "50% rule" for incumbents. You may have seen some mention of it, as a lot of Dems and Kerry leaners have been citing it for a few weeks. The gist is that undecided voters break heavily (around 80%) for the challenger in the race, thus if an incumbent isn't sitting at or above 50% going into the election, it's not looking too good for him.

Recent mentions are probably the first most people have heard of it; I certainly don't recall hearing it previously. However, it's actually not an entirely new idea. Nick Panagakis, President of Market Shares Research wrote an article suggesting the basic idea in "Incumbent Races: Closer Than They Appear" which appeared in 1989.

The underlying psychology behind the 50% rule is that because voters know the incumbent, their indecision is most likely based on a negative impression of the incumbent ("Another guy has got to be better") rather than true neutrality or ambivalence ("I can't decide, I need to learn more about both candidates").

Not surprisingly, just like the cell-phone-only bias claim, this "rule" has been generating a lot of chatter among Dems who are looking for another way to "prove" their guy is going to win (not that we on the other side can't be accused of the same, certainly). [MyDD-Chris Bowers (upd)] [Am Prospect-Guy Molyneux] [Mystery Poller Mark Blumenthal] Just to be clear, Guy and Mark are not shills, they are both very experienced pollsters, but they are Democrats, and could be forgiven for a lapse in complete objectivity about the issue. As Mark acknowledges at the end of his assessment: "Note: Interpretation of political survey data is even more subjective than methodology. Others may disagree, and opposing viewpoints are always welcome in the comment section."

Blumenthal does spell it out clearly in his wrap-up:

[T]he incumbent rule tells us that, at any given moment, the President's percentage of the vote relative to 50% is a better indicator of where the race stands than the margin separating Bush and Kerry. It also suggests the appropriate way to read the final polls just before the election (and these are my ranges – others may differ): If the average result of all the final polls (including undecided) puts Bush's percentage at 50% or higher, the President will likely win. If Bush's percentage is 48%-49%, the race is headed for a photo finish. At 47% or lower, the President will likely lose (add 1% to these ranges in any state where Ralph Nader is not on the ballot)

The main point: The incumbent's level of support is more important than the margin.

Of course, while most people are just grabbing this heuristic and pointing to the national horserace number, both Molyneux and Blumenthal acknowledge that you need to be looking at the state-by-state polls for the swing states and still doing the EV math.

While the psychology behind the rule more than passes a gut-check, I do wonder if the extent to which undecideds are predicted to break against Bush may be lower than the historical pattern the number show. The 80% figure for undecideds breaking to the challenger has been derived from looking at a very large sample of elections and polls, not just Presidential polls.

I would argue the number should be adjusted downard in Presidential contests because people treat their selection with more gravity than in any other race. Much higher than legislative races, because the official is ultmately only one of many in a decision-making body. Running the numbers for just gubernatorial races would probably get closer, because they are executives, but there still isn't that nationl security concern. Today, with the importance voters claim to be placing on issues of homeland security, Iraq and terrorism, undecideds may not break so hard against "the devil they know," so to speak.

Of course, anytime you focus on just presidential election behavior, its tough because we only have one every four years. If someone develops complete data sets of state polls, that would help to strengthen the predictive validity of the sample.

Finally, Nader confuses things at least a little bit, even though he is being widely ignored. If we look only at races with an incumbent and a third party candidate, it's just Perot in 1992 (v Bush & Clinton), again in 1996 (v Clinton & Dole) and Anderson (v Carter & Reagan) in 1980. Votes for either challenger were counted as part of the 80% number for undecideds breaking against he incumbent. In two of the three cases, the third party candidate was siphoning votes primarily from the incumbent (Perot from Bush and Anderson from Carter). When Chris Bowers broke down the numbers, he didn't have any 1996 polling data to assess.

In a nutshell, Perot and Anderson allowed the incumbent's base to reject the incumbent without terribly compromising their political values. In 2004, the only significant third party candidate is Ralph Nader offering an opportunity to liberals to reject big-money establishment politics. Of course, Nader has even less appeal to the Bush base than Kerry. The question Kerry supporters need to reflect on is what portion of the undecideds are torn between voting their conscience for Nader or voting pragmatically for Kerry. I was surprised, but I have heard people here in Minnesota contemplating voting for Nader, since they really haven't developed a fondness for Kerry, who they see as playing "me-too" to Bush on some issues. And the polls they watch (the Strib) show Kerry leading the state. The idealistic naïveté of some progressives may help Bush again.

As I think about it, the fact that Minnesota polls underproject Republicans could work out very well. The stronger Kerry looks in a state, the more comfortable liberal idealists will be voting for Nader. Hint: if you run into any serious liberals, encourage them to "send a message" by voting for Nader, "since Kerry's probably going to win here anyway." wink-wink

Of course, it's too early to really even tell. All the "50% rule" models are based on the undecided count from final polls within 7 days of the election, which had a 2-3% undecided level in presidential elections. Without crunching the numbers, Bush seems to be accumulating undecided voters in recent weeks.

However, this information should definitely affect our interpretations of state-level polls in about 10 days.

Quick Thoughts on Mary Cheney and Kerry/Edwards Hypocrisy | e-mail post

I cannot even believe the spinning the Dems are doing. [Reuters via Yahoo]

I'll just get this out of the way now: no matter how you want to call it, both Edwards' and especially Kerry's, remarks in the debates clearly calling out that Dick Cheney has a gay daughter served no purpose other than as bait to lure that small group of Americans that believe homosexuality is such an abomination to God or nature that no man who raised a daughter to be gay could possibly be fit to help lead our country?

And I don't care how many people want to rationalize it, but it wasn't just an aside. If you read the debate transcripts or watched the debate, you know those guys were both on-script the whole time, even to the point of occasionally being non-responsive to particular questions because they needed to deliver certain key messages. (In contrast to Bush who may occasionally have been non-responsive to a particular question to avoid having to answer it directly - a different issue.)

The actual delivery of Kerry's words was important, and of course quoting him in print or having other people paraphrase him don't let you hear how he said it. However, if you watched the last debate, Kerry actually seemed to have second thoughts even saying it, choking on his words mid-sentence. I don't know if this was because he was second-guessing whether it would backfire, or whether it was because he knew what he was doing was wrong.

I guess I just wonder how gays and lesbians feel about Kerry and Edwards taking GLBT political support for granted while they consciously deliver a message intended to attract the support of those with bigotry and hatred in their hearts?

If you think I'm being a little harsh in my characterization of them using it as an attack, then explain why Mary Beth Cahill refered to Mary Cheney as "fair game." This is not usually a choice of words that aligns with Kerry's day-two spin that he was "praising strong families".

I am working on a longer-format piece right now that should open a lot of eyes on the issue of which candidate really has acted in the best interests of gay rights, and it will surprise people to know that it's not the one who has spent the most time talking about gay rights.

In the interim, you might be interested in reading Kerry's only formal intervew with the gay press during the entire primary and general campaign season. He gave a total of 30 minutes of time to speak to this group he claims to support. What a prince. The message in the interview is clear: John Kerry might conceptually support the gay community as a constituency, but he isn't willing to expend a single ounce of political capital on their behalf.

Update 10/18: Powerline links Safire and Novak discussing the issue as well.

Did We Hear the Fat Lady Singing In Arizona? | e-mail post

I wasn't going to write much about last night's debate, but after seeing the NYT piece on it this morning, which really didn't reflect the tone or tenor of the evening, I felt I should write something more substantial. What I saw was not simply a debate in which Bush performed better than Kerry, but one in which Kerry exuded an aura of defeat, of going through the motions. I think Mondale seemed more the fighter in his quixoitic 1984 race. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The debate, the questions, and the participants, were both surprising and yet unsurprsing in various turns and to varying extents.

Kerry seemed, in the most negative way, more himself than ever last night. When brevity would have served him well, he was unable to help himself as he talked on and on. Kerry continued to make claims about the insufficiency of simply doing more, claiming that Bush's failure is that not everything happened.

While Kerry was himself in the most negative way, Bush seemed to be himself in the most positive way. Clearly well-rested, which he clearly wasn't going in the first debate, and sporting a smile and relaxed countenance the whole time, Bush delivered a congruent message of hope and optimism in his words and posture. The Times described Bush as "staring stonily" at Kerry. I really wonder where it i now.

Bush was dead on with the answers. He stayed on topic, something Kerry had a very, very difficult time doing. Relatively early in the debate, the flu vaccine question came as a bit of a surprise, but Bush's answers were forthright, and because the problem was caused by a British manufacturing facility, it preempted Kerry's ability to criticize him on blocking drug reimportation.

I scanned my recording of the debate again, and my sense was confirmed. Kerry didn't so much as crack a smile from that point forward until the very end of the evening. He couldn't even criticize Bush on the flu vaccine. He tried to warp a British company's GMP compliance problems into an indicator of a health care system failing because of Bush's willful neglect.

A couple of question's later, Kerry's response to the question of gay marriage left me slack-jawed. While John Edwards was Eddie Haskel in the way he felt the need to make clear that Cheney has a gay daughter, Kerry came off as disgustedly choking out the even more tangential statement about Dick Cheney's daughter...who...is...a..lesbian. I was not sure if his delivery style was a rhetorical device to express disgust in her existence, or if it was from a disgust with himself for being reduced to

The rest of the debate was more of the same on both sides. Kerry appealed to the existence of "better plans" that he never elaborates upon, few of which are even on his campaign website, and those few that are do not describe tactics or mechanisms, but mostly outcomes, as if the output of the document from a printer in the Oval Office has the magical result, by fiat, of securing Russian nuclear material in 4 years. Bush on the other hand described strategies based around a coherent worldview that progress is achievable, but is not instantaneous.

It is ironic how many people thought the domestic issues debate would be Kerry's advantage, but it was Bush who dominated it in both substance and style. I'm not going to drill into much coverage of the issues, because other than some comments on immigration and Bush finally pointing out that the 80% of total federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of Americans, there wasn't too much new. I'd encourage readers to try to view the debate if possible, or at least read the transcript, before reading much in the way of opinions.

In addition to the flu question, the two other questions that painted the most marked contrast between the two were the questions near the end, about Bush's faith and about what he's learned from being surrounded by strong women.

I was actually so impressed, and surprisingly moved (as I am not myself a man of deep faith), by Bush's answer on the question of religion and it's role in his policy decisions, that it is worth seeing in print:

First, my faith plays a big part in my life. And when I was answering that question what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do. And my faith is a very, it's very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls.

But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an Almighty and if you choose not to. If you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim you're equally an American. That's the great thing about America is the right to worship the way you see fit. Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency. I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, how do you know? I said I just feel it.

Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else. But when I make decisions I stand on principle. And the principles are derived from who I am. I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself. That's manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we've unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's one part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can't tell you how encouraged how I am to see freedom on the march. And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me. And religion is a part of me.

And the impressive thing is that for as eloquent as that response was, particularly in the context of a debate, there was really no hint from his delivery that it was anything other than a relatively impromptu response, but one that flowed so naturally because of its sincerity. I actually believe that this passage could become part of the historical record defining Bush, and I think he would be quite happy if it were.

Kerry's rebuttal, had he been wise, would have been very brief. But, as I said, he seems to have an almost narcissistic need to hear himself speak. Given that he claims adherence to a religion, Catholicism, that is taking a nearly doctrinal position that a vote for him is a sin, the less he talks about religion the better. I'll include his response because it is classic Kerry:

Well, I respect everything that the president has said and certainly respect his faith. I think it's important and I share it. [I believe a wise move would be to leave it at that.] I think that he just said that freedom is a gift from the Almighty. Everything is a gift from the Almighty. And as I measure the words of the Bible, and we all do, different people measure different things: the Koran, the Torah or, you know, Native Americans who gave me a blessing the other day had their own special sense of connectedness to a higher being. And people all find their ways to express it. I was taught - I went to a church school, and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: love the Lord your God with all your mind, your body and your soul; and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet. [If only we could have heard Bill Clinton utter that exact line in a speech or debate.] We have a separate and unequal school system in the United States of America. There's one for the people who have and there's one for the people who don't have. And we're struggling with that today. The president and I have a difference of opinion about how we live out our sense of our faith. I talked about it earlier when I talked about the works and faith without works being dead. I think we've got a lot more work to do. And as president I will always respect everybody's right to practice religion as they choose or not to practice, because that's part of America.

I know John Kerry will probably never understand this, but sometimes even if less isn't more, less can still be better.

It seems fitting poetry that the final residential debate of 2004 took place in a building Frank Lloyd Wright originally designed to be the Bagdhad Opera House. And not simply because of the current focus Iraq holds in this election, but also because I think we may have seen the proverbial fat lady sing tonight.

While we still have almost three weeks before Americans go to the polls, as I wrote at the start of this post, Kerry seemed liked he had lost his will to win, and maybe even his desire to win. He was going through the motions, but he lacked passion even by his standards. He dropped some of his recent gains in avoiding sound patronizing and patrician.

Maybe Kerry realizes that regardless of how close the national polls are showing the popular vote, they believe the math from reliable state-by-state polls showing Bush to have basically locked up the election. This of course offers the Bush/Cheney campaign a chance to go and take states out that Kerry has been counting on for his powerbase, such as what may be happening in New Jersey.

As a political junkie I'll still be keeping track of things through the election, but I really think last night was a major turning point.

Team America Update: Super-Sensitive Liberals in a Lather | e-mail post

Preface: I would like to apologize for the tone of this post, as it is, by my standards, something of a rant. Also, please be aware that any abuse or insults are not directed at the broad class of liberals or progressives, only a very specific class of whining ones. I have spoken to emotionally-balanced liberals and progressives who can appreciate the humor in the film even as they would argue that the underlying worldview expressed in the film is antithetical to their values and political philosophy. OK...on with the show.

WSJ Opinion Journal alerted me to the whining of thin-skinned liberals about "Team America" at Democratic Underground. The lead-off post on the subject is just a hoot, although I have inserted some bracketed comments and inserted some line breaks, I did not feel like translating it into actual English:

Okay, I laughed in some of it but overall this is a Freepers wet dream. They poke fun at liberals BIG TIME!!!Nothing against ANY rightwingers, ONLY LIBERALS!!! Liberals are the butt of the joke & are even the villians in this.Oh, & all the liberals Die a horrific death in this. TOTALLY bias! I mean, c'mon. [Is this supposed to be an argument? I hope it was tongue-in-cheek, as I wonder if he knows that there is a great South Park episode that has great fun with the tendency of some people to use this phrase as if it somehow had argumentative power.]

How can they NOT have Bush puppet? I mean, he so much a charachter that needs to be mocked. This film was very mean spirited IMO. My firned said I didn't get it. That it was an extreme right wing edge to it & that was the joke. [His friend is either a complete idiot or deluding himself.]

Well, I didn't get that when I saw it. TRUST ME, Freepers will call this film their own & Trey Parker & Matt Stone have sold out BIG TIME!

They didn't sell out, this guy just somehow assumed that because South Park has foul-mouthed kids, Parker & Stone were somehow liberal. As I said in my review "Team America: Every American Should See It," South Park is possibly one of the most pro-"family values" shows on television.

But the most irritating thing to me is that the writer complains (apparently without recognizing the obvious irony) about the film being mean-spirited?! Please, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was a complete Bush hatchet-job.(*) Of course, I can only assume the post's author thinks that is perfectly fair, as he does say that Bush "needs to be mocked."

I would suggest that those who will work themselves into a tizzy about Team America either:

a) Lighten up, or
b) Grow a pair, or
c) Just don't watch it.

There are some conservatives for whom the most likely outcome of watching F 9/11 would be raising their blood pressure and working themselves into a complete lather. I would give them the exact same advice.

INDC also has some choice complaints from the thin-skinned ones.

OK, time to return to my normally civil demeanor. I'm almost embarassed to have allowed myself to be baited into a rant, but hypocrisy really does bother me.

(*) Yes, I have watched F 9/11 it in its entirety, just this past Sunday night, in fact. I think Moore played fast and loose with many facts, and the lack of any pretense of objectivity diminished the film's power to persuade. Even my viewing companion, who professes a basically negative attitude toward Bush, but is openly ambivalent about the Iraq and terror, was completely unmoved by the film. It was certainly no "Roger & Me."

Also, do not write me with the specious argument that F 9/11's attacks on Bush were by definition "fair," to the extent that the film was a documentary. "Triumph of the Will" could be said to be an excellent documentary as well; I thinnk most connoisseurs of film would say it was far superior film-making. However, that doesn't mean that it was presenting a fair picture of Hitler's Nazi party. There is a line between "Documentary with a point" and propaganda.

I think Moore didn't simply cross that line, I would suggest he very consciously and unabashedly leapt across it. [Poles comment on F 9/11 on CNN UK] (Typing "UK" reminded me that, for example, Moore didn't bother listing England as part of the alliance of the willing...in much the same way Leni Riefenstahl didn't really include Hitler's plans for the "Final Solution" or his designs on the whole of Europe in "Triumph of the Will")

The Buck Stops Where? | e-mail post

Getting away from polls, Jay's Horserace post also picks up on a Washington Post front-page story on Kerry's (lack of) management experience.

Jay is absolutely correct that Kerry's lack of an executive mindset (epitomized by Truman's "The Buck Stops Here") seems to be reflected in the aimless wandering of his campaign for many months. I have often asked people how one can have confidence that a guy running such a disorganized campaign could possibly run the world's largest organization.

Moreover, executive experience teaches you that you can't do everything and you can't optimize on every dimension at once; an imperfect world demands a willingness to accept imperfect solutions. I alluded to the problem in my reflections on the first debate:

John Kerry came off as a person who has no actual executive experience, which makes sense, because he doesn't. It's easy to pass a law, it is difficult to implement it. Things don't happen instantly, but John Kerry talked as if he has a magic wand for accomplishing these things.

Let's be honest: the Presidency is the ultimate executive position. The entire government is an enormous enterprise to manage and direct. Americans seem to intuitively grasp this. Since FDR, America has only once elected someone President who had not been a Governor, General (Ike) or Vice-President, and Bush I was the only Veep elected who didn't ascend to the Presidency before standing for his first election (think Truman and LBJ). Of course, Bush I had also run the RNC and the CIA, in addition to co-founding Zapata Oil, to which modern-day Pennzoil traces its roots. There's a big difference between that and "running" a 90-person prosecutor's office, which is far less demanding of executive or managerial skills, than running, for example, a 30-person manufacturing shop.

Bottom line: abstaining or skipping a vote is not an option for an executive. Even inaction in such a position is effectively an action.

John Forbes Kerry might be counting on his initials though; JFK was the only one to make it to the Presidency without having prior executive experience. However, although Teresa Heinz may have a whole lot of cash, she is no Joe Kennedy. (With apologies to Lloyd Bentsen.)

Also, Kennedy-Nixon in '60 was an open election. I don't think someone without the Governor, General or VP gig on their resume has won against an incumbent President in the past century, maybe more. (I'm not going to bother looking up the pre-WW I races, since I don't even think it would be relevant when assessing the modern role of a President.)

Since You're Not There, Can We Ask You Some Questions? | e-mail post

My new must-read blogger, and fellow obsessive-compulsive (which I mean as a sincere compliment), Jay Cost offers news and insight on a few items, starting with the media's new approach to handling exit polls this year, in light of the Voter News Service debacles with the '00 and '02 elections. For one thing, it might be a consortium, but the networks deferred to the AP's experience and put them in charge. [AP via Yahoo!] [AP Q&A from Mercury News] From the AP:

This time, the news organizations contracted with two veteran polling companies — Mitofsky International and Edison Media Research — to conduct exit polls. They agreed that the AP — which has been tallying votes in elections since 1848 — would be their sole source for vote counts, and the news cooperative has significantly beefed up its system in response.
...
One flaw exposed in 2000 — the failure of VNS to account for the increased use of absentee ballots — has been corrected, said Linda Mason of CBS News, an NEP [the news org consortium] spokeswoman. Telephone surveys of people voting by absentee ballots will be conducted in 13 states this year, instead of just three.

(As an aside, although this fits more with my eyetoIT writings, you can read about why VNS failed. Quick take: a tech vendor over its head and too many cooks spoil the broth.)

Jay is openly skeptical of polls so it's no surprise that Jay expresses some healthy skepticism about who these polling firms are that are to be the great white hope for exit polls, Mitofsky and Edison are both quite legit. We're not talking Zogby.

Mitofsky's the guy who invented the exit poll and founded the CBS/NYT poll back in the late 60's. He also invented random digit dialing. He's on the board of Edison as well, which was founded by a couple of guys who went to Princeton and the Penn. My recollection from my formal and mathematical logic classes is that they must put something in the water in Princeton that enhances math skills. In all seriousness, though, I don't think you could possibly get two firms that have the combined credibility and pedigree in the space. I would say that it's like appointing Paul Volker to head an independent commission, but that has a more open interpretation for some people today than it has in the past.

While Jay doesn't bring it up, I am extremely skeptical about their solution to addressing absentee ballot issues. Just as a reference point, 6.7% of Minnesota voted absentee in 2000 [Pioneer-Press], Gore won by 2.41%.

It would seem that the very idea of conducting telephone surveys, for any subset of states, for absentee voters sounds like a joke. Who are the absentee voters? OK, some older people who, likely due to health reasons, find it problematic to visit the polls do vote absentee, even though they will be in their election precint on Nov 2. I don't think you need a crystal ball to guess these people will break hard for Kerry.

Now when you consider snowbirds, deployed military personnel and people who have extended work travel assignments (e.g. employees of large consulting and accounting firms), these people aren't around to answer the phone. At first blush, it would appear that there would be so many obstacles to obtaining a reasonable and defensible sample that I think it would be preferable to not even include such samples and simply report the omission of absentee results in the numbers (and an estimate or actual count of absentee ballots) until polling sites can count and report actuals.

Election Prediction via Media Spend | e-mail post

Jay Cost posts some analysis on data from the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which breaks down the top 50 markets for television advertising activity for each candidate, their allies and party indpendent expenditures. [Data in PDF]

In addition to the comments I make in his post (signed as Barry), I suspect Florida is running artificially high in these results to focus on snowbirds who vote absentee. I would imagine a drop-off in advertising there, especially if Bush gains.

The net-net is that the media spend lines up pretty well with what states you would imagine to be genuine contests, and gives a sense of what states one candidate or the other is dropping from concern. And, not surprisingly if you've been looking at electoral vote projections based on the results from historically more accurate pollsters, it is shaping for a Bush win in the electoral vote space.

Also, don't believe the Star-Tribune Minnesota Poll out today until you can compare it to the next Mason-Dixon poll. (See my previous post on bias in Strib polls and the uncanny accuracy of Mason-Dixon)

And What New Jersey Might Be Saying to Kerry (don't call the movers yet) | e-mail post

In my last post I hypothesized that New Jersey's tilt away from Kerry could signal to others that the country really might be safer under Bush, and with as tight as some states are, this could possible move some toss-ups into the Bush camp. But that's really only the start of the problem for Kerry.

The even bigger issue for Kerry is that these are 15 electoral votes he thought he had sewn up. When you start doing the math on what happens if NJ goes for Bush, it means Kerry needs to pretty much run the table with the current swing states, and some estimates would say even if Kerry can pull that rabbit out of the hat, he's still going to have plenty of time to work on his windsurfing without the distraction of the Secret Service while George Bush works through his second term.

But surely New Jersey's not going to reverse themselves and elect the guy they voted against by a 16% margin in 2000, are they? Well, when I started looking at the numbers, I started seeing just how vulnerable they are.

Now, unfortunately, with no statewide elections and everybody assuming early on that NJ was lock-in for Kerry, the top-tier polling firms like Mason-Dixon haven't really been covering NJ. However, take a look at the trend lines for the polls that have been run in NJ. Looks like they nearly converge on election day. But that's pretty superficial.

If you dig into what is probably the best most recent poll, from the Quinnipiac University (in CT) Polling Institute, things start looking really grim for Kerry, especially in light of the potential weakness in the GOTV. Bush beats Kerry among voters 35-64 years of age (and only trails 40-43 among 65+) and Bush is also leading for every annual income category over $30,000. These are great numbers for a Republican. Combine that with 12% of Kerry supporters saying they could change their mind compared to only 7% of Bush supporters, and things are looking good for Bush/Cheney in NJ.

And then if you layer in the fact that New Jersey is slightly more than 40% Catholic and, as the NYT is reporting today, Catholic Bishops are categorically opposing Kerry due to his abortion stance, including Archbishop Myers of Newark, it's another indicator that Kerry might sleep with the fish in New Jersey. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Of course, how many people will follow Myers' guidance is tough to say, but given that it will likely work to erode pro-Kerry constituencies (the Catholic/Democrat connection is still strong, and older Catholics are typically more likely to be swayed by church guidance), it doesn't need to move too many people to flip New Jersey completely. [Some other thoughts on the Catholic vote.]

Of course Dems are downplaying the risk. NJ state Senator (and McGreevey's new employer) Ray Lesniak told the Post, "Anybody who believes these polls [showing a close race] is a political neophyte or an idiot."

Hmm. Let's see...Lesniak's never run in an election for anything bigger than the NJ state senate, which is perfectly respectable, but Dick Cheney was Ford's Chief of Staff around the time Lesniak graduated from law school; not quite a neophyte. And no matter how much somebody doesn't like Cheney, I've never heard him called an idiot.

Also, one historical note that is food for thought: if the 1980 Carter-Reagan race is any indication, New Jesey really doesn't like getting pushed around by the Mideast. While NY went for Reagan in 1980 by a weak 47-44 , NJ came in 52-39 for Reagan.

What New Jersey Is Saying (We're Safer With Bush/Cheney) | e-mail post

Dick Cheney made big news yesterday showing up to campaign in New Jersey. Since everyone pretty much knows that candidates don't invest significant time in any state that's not in contest at this point in the election, Cheney's visit to New Jersey seems to have surprised a lot of people given that Bush lost big in the Garden State in 2000 and it also went for Clinton in both of his elections.

But, first, New Jersey is a liberal state like Minnesota is, that is to say, it's got a liberal image more than a liberal reality. While both the senators are Democrats, seven of their 13 representatives are Repbublicans. And, let's face it, it's not like Governor Jim McGreevey has been doing a lot of campaigning for Kerry/Edwards, maybe he was interviewing for his new job.

On top of it, McGreevey has also chosen not to help Kerry/Edwards much, only releasing a truly token amount of state party money $25,000) to help with get out the vote for the presidential campaign. And since McGreevey didn't resign effective with his announcement outing himself, there aren't any statewide races to drive Democractic GOTV in NJ. [Philly.com] [AP via Miami Herald] [NY Post with the kinda racy headline of "McGreevey Stiffing John in Jersey"] According to the Post, Senators Corzine and Lautenberg are kicking in a combined $270,000 to help with GOTV.

My personal theory is that McGreevey, as a gay, probably doesn't appreciate that the Kerry/Edwards ticket is relying on (dare I say exploiting) the fact (assumption?) that the gay community is a natural Democractic constituency, and they're playing it politcally safe by maintaining their opposition to any kind of gay marriage. Let's face it, assuming McGreevey is at all interested in gay rights, Cheney's the only guy on either ticket who is on his side. He probably didn't care for Edwards' backhanded compliment of "And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter," as if it's some sort of dark secret they would be expected to hide.

But that's just my theory, and it's kind of irrelevant to Cheney's visit, because the New Jersey race tightening up doesn't have anything to do with gay issues unless (if you'll pardon me) you want to say that New Jersey doesn't want to get metaphorically sodomized by terrorists.

They key point is that New Jersey lost 674 residents in the 9/11 attacks. It's also home to the busiest seaport on the east coast and a top-ten airport in terms of both air cargo and people. My point is they have directly felt the impact of terrorism and they are obviously exposed.

It shouldn't be surprising then, that according to recenting polling, 31% rate terrorism their #1 concern (followed closely by the economy, then Iraq, with health care a distant fourth).

And it certainly doesn't surprise me that they rate Bush above Kerry for handling terrorism 52% to 38% (among independents, it's 52%-35%). They also think Bush "acts more like a leader" by 49% to 41%. Further, they think Bush has done a better job than Kerry making it clear what he would do as President (52%-35%). So they are pretty certain they know what they're getting.

So, this Democratic-leaning state that has terrorism on their mind, and more direct experience with it than 48 other states, thinks Bush would be better for fighting terrorism. So much better that they the more they listen to Kerry, the more they lean toward Bush, overcoming the natural tendency of Americans to vote their pocketbooks. I'm thinking that all things considered, that's sending a pretty strong message that we're safer with Bush.

Bear in mind that until yesterday, neither Bush nor Cheney had set foot in the state this campaign season. (OK, they may have flown through Newark at some point, but no campaigning.) Of course some Dems probably feel like Ann Barzda, a Kerry volunteer field director:"It's a little disturbing that a strong Democratic enclave like New Jersey was so easily influenced by the Republican convention." [via Mercury News] But the truth is, Kerry's numbers have been in a steady decline since the Democratic convention. The Republican convention didn't really accelerate it.

I am curious how this sort of message may be digested, consciously or unconsciously, by the general electorate that may be wavering on the question of which candidate would be more likely to insure domestic security. As close as many states are, it really only takes a few people to lean more strongly toward Bush in this area. Some Dems might call that playing on fear, but fear has been an enormous motivator in elections, certainly LBJ knew it worked when he ran against Goldwater and introduced the world to the first negative television ad, "Daisy."

Fear may not be the most noble of human emotions, but we've been wired up through the course of evolution to respond to it. Why? Probably because early humans with a pronounced lack of fear tended to have shorter life expectancies. And no matter what some people want to say, terrorism is not a nuisance when it strikes on your home turf. The British and Israelis have known that for years. We're just learning it now.

Kerry's 12.8% Tax Rate | e-mail post

Drudge gets the word out today on John Kerry & Teresa Heinz's effective 12.8% tax rate. Nice going. Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth discussed it in the WSJ today, where he sums things up nicely:

The Kerrys have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. Dick Armey and Steve Forbes have persuasively argued over the years that America should have a flat tax with a rate of 17% to 19%. John Kerry has consistently opposed a flat tax, because he says it would be a tax break for the rich. But the truth is with a 19% flat tax, some rich people with lavish tax shelters, like John Kerry, would pay more taxes. I calculate that the Kerrys would pay another $500,000 of taxes if we had a flat tax.

Loading Up for Talks About Friday's Debate | e-mail post

Since today is the first day many will have to chat about the debate, I thought I would post some links that might be of interest.

First, since there was little new in the foreign policy discussion, my comments about the first debate are relevant, including the fact that in the Korean conflict, one of Kerry's examples of our great alliance-building, we were also 90% of the allied casualties. Also, in defense of our actions against Iraq, you might want to read "A Pragmatic Reason for Invading Iraq" as well as a great essay in two parts by Bill Whittle, titled "Deterrence" at EjectEjectEject. [Part 1] [Part 2]

On the medical liability question, you might want to read "Fact-Checking FactCheck.org on Tort Reform" in which I reveal that (a) FactCheck.org might be a little biased in its assessment of that issue, and (b) Bush really is onto something there, just like California was when it past tort reform laws back in 1975.

On the issue of those horrible tax cuts for the rich, you might be surprised to learn that those demonic rich folk are actually paying a larger percentage of the individual income tax burden than they would have than before Bush's tax cuts for everyone. "Real Numbers on Taxes"

Elsewhere:

Instapundit reports that ABC again had to call Kerry on his Shenenski shennanigans. Glenn also includes links to numerous other commentators.
Hugh Hewitt scores the debate, question-by-question, for Bush. Hugh's a true believer and called the first debate for Bush as well, but it's a good breakdown.
N.Z. Bear liveblogged the debate with some good comments, basically wrapping up with the assessment that Bush owned the room.
John at Powerline also liveblogged the debate with Bush doing better than last time, and maybe winning.

For those of you who want to look up some details, Fox has the transcript and video.

Random Bits and Political Quizzes | e-mail post

The FDA last week reported that 2,500 Americans were treated in ERs for toothbrush-related injuries. The best line is from Scripps-Howard's Joan Lowy: "Another [toothbrush injury] scenario: Brushers who became 'involved in altercations' while tending to their teeth, [the FDA's] Hefflin said. In other words, if you’re going to get into a fistfight, take the toothbrush out of your mouth first."

San Francisco's Department of Public Health has rolled out eCards for those who may have infected their partners with an STD. It is my sincere hope that one won't be showing up in any readers' mailboxes. [SF Chronicle news item] For those too cowardly even to let the person know from whom they might have contracted an STD, there is an anonymous send option.

I stumbled across "The Political Compass" by way of Cafe HedonistiX' post on the assessment. I took their little quiz (pretty quick) and discovered that I am about as centrist as one can get (although not quite the dead-centrist that HedonistX is). I'm not sure that I agree with their question choices, but it is an interesting diversion. [My results -1.38 left-right; -1.33 libertarian-authoritarian] For additional amusement, you can look at the political compass readings for classical composers, no surprise that Wagner's hardest right/authoritarian of the bunch .

The Political Compass sent me on a quick Google search, from which I'd also like to direct you to the hilarious "Satirical Political Beliefs Assessment Test" from Donald Hagen (by way of SlantPoint). A couple of example questions:

32: What is the meanest most low-down thing a person can do during a kid's soccer game?

Conservative: Cheat.

Liberal: Keep score.

Libertarian: Play the game in a municipal park.

Communist: Hog all the glory by not being a team player.

66: The speed limit should be...

Conservative: 75 MPH on Interstate highways.

Liberal: reduced to 15 MPH to save lives, and resources.

Libertarian: abolished. This will result in an immediate 50 percent reduction in highway fatalities, because a motorist barreling along at 150 MPH only spends half the time exposed to the hazards of the road, as someone plodding along at 75 MPH.

Communist: irrelevant, because after the revolution everyone will commute in public transportation.

The libertarian group Advocates for Self-Government also has the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" although I might suggest it is the world most simple-minded political quiz.

Slate also has a little quiz to see if you are a "red-stater" (more Republican) or "blue-stater" (more Democrat). It's obviously tongue-in-cheek, but apparently their assumption is that those who live in red states listen to too much conservative talk radio when they aren't listening to country music or watching Nascar. I am so amused by the coastal liberal elite. I missed all of the country-music and Nascar questions, but squeaked but ended up "in the middle" because I at least have a basic grasp of U.S. geography.

If you want to be really scared about how informed the electorate is, you should see the results of this "issues" quiz at CNN. It's six questions, and judging from the survey results, we can safely conclude: most people are morons. You can take the test, but I found it scary that only Daily Show viewers batted over .500 on questions that are about as tough as "which candidate is currently President?" or "which candidate's name is a synonym for 'shrub'?" Results for different late-night comedy viewing preferences:

"The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart viewers - 3.59 correct
"The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno viewers - 2.95 correct
"Late Show" with David Letterman viewers - 2.91 correct
No late-night comedy viewing - 2.62 correct

What I'd really like to know is how the people who hurt themselves with their toothbrushes did on the quiz.

Insurgent Capitulation In Sadr City | e-mail post

In some very good news out of Iraq today (although I'm sure everyone will want to cover the car bombing that just happened), the Iraqi insurgents in Sadr City have pretty much rolled over, or at least agreed to roll over, hopefully this won't turn into some kind of Trojan horse. [Reuters via Yahoo] The New York Times has an appraisal of the risks as well, including that Moktada al-Sadr has broken several promises to disarm, and that there is some question whether his militia men, obviously enjoying the sense power they get from their big guns, will follow Sadr's call to lay down their weapons.

In any event, Sadr's militia have agreed to a ceasefire, will turn in their arms within 5 days and let U.S.-led forces help the Iraqi security forces maintain security in Sadr City.

In exchange, the Iraqi interim government will spend $500 million rebuilding Sadr city.

For those who want some background, Sadr City used to be known as Saddam City, and between times was called Al Thawra. It was a Shi'a slum that Saddam supposedly visited only a single time and was in a horrible state of disrepair due to Hussein's "intentional neglect," with failing electricity and sewer services, before the U.S. even showed up on the scene. [Development Alternatives] [GlobalSecurity.org]

In fact, it was in Saddam City that many of the early images of Iraqis cheering the U.S. led invasion, or what they were calling a liberation at the time. Patience is never a strong trait among the oppressed masses, however, and the area declared itself virtually autonomous immediately after the U.S. toppled the old regime. Of course, the clerics were in no position to actually run the area, and thus people rapidly became unhappy, and that unhappiness directed itself at the area's liberators rather than the self-serving demagogues, making it a breeding ground of anti-American sentiment.

It is in some ways ironic that had the district not declared itself effectively autonomous after the war, it probably would have already been enjoying some of those reconstruction dollars, rather than having to be bombed into capitulation the past week so that it can now be rebuilt.

In other good news, it appears that election monitors in Afghanistan are saying the elections were fair enough, if not perfect. I think the same thing could be said about the voting in Illinois in the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy election, no? (For what it's worth, I don't actually think the 1960 election was stolen from Nixon, but it's worth point out that even established democracies such as ours have had debateable outcomes, and everything still seems to work out OK.)

Team America: Every American Should See It | e-mail post

I have been waiting for months for Trey Parker and Matt Stone's lastest film, "Team America: World Police," to get to theaters. [Official Site] [IMDB] [Trailer from Apple]

Tonight I was able to catch a sneak preview here in town. It exceeded my expectations. Now, for those readers who might find Parker and Stone's work on the South Park series offensive, I can't really argue with you, but it is great fun nonetheless.

As with "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut," "Team America" is something of a musical. I don't know if it will get an Oscar nomination for the music, as "Blame Canada" did in 2000, but with a Kim Jong-Il rendition of "I'm so Lonely" and a great title theme, "America: Fuck Yeah!" the music really adds a lot to the movie (as if a film made entirely with marionnettes weren't enough).

And, of course, you might already know that Parker and Stone take the liberal elements of Hollywood to task, including Alec Baldwin ("the greatest living actor"), Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, and Jeanine Garofalo (whose charicture says something about her duty to watch TV and read the newspapers and repeat what she's seen and read as her own opinions). In TA, they are all members of the Film Actors Guild, which is typically simply referred to as FAG. Of course, Parker and Stone light up Michael Moore as well, both literally and figuratively.

Drudge reports that Parker and Stone have really raised the ire of Sean Penn, who loves peace in all its forms, now that he has his anger management problems from the '90s under control.

In fact, for those who haven't watched enough South Park to realize it may be one of the most pro-"family values" shows on television, you might be surprised to know that "Team America" actually provides a strong argument in favor of premptive military action by the U.S., although it is not exactly the language I would recommend Bush use in the next debate (although he would definitely connect with a younger audience).

There has been no shortage of controversy about the sex scene in the film, which has apparently gone back for repeated edits to satisfy the MPAA. News flash, MPAA: we are talking about sex with marionnettes. Kids have been making their Barbies have sex for I don't know how long, and you're worried about this? Actually, if you want to see puppet sex taken to the limit, turn to Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson's early work, (long before the Lord of the Rings triology) "Meet The Feebles" which features fully-penetrative sex between animal puppets and human puppets.

Also, I know my claim of South Park being pro-"family values" may raise some eyebrows, of not heckles, but I will gladly defend that position against any who care to debate it. For those of you who might remember the Fat Albert show, and their claim that "if you're not careful, you just might learn something," I would say that South Park falls into the same category.

UPDATE: Judging from the referrals, people are looking for lyrics to Kim Jong-Il's rendition of "I'm so Lonely," or "I'm So Ronery"...I aim to please, so to save you the time, here they are:

I'm So Ronery
I'm so ronery
So ronery
So ronery and sadry arone

There's no one
Just me onry
Sitting on my rittle throne

I work very hard and make up great prans
But nobody ristens, no one understands
Seems that no one takes me serirousry

And so I'm ronery
A little ronery
Poor rittre me

There's nobody
I can rerate to
Feer rike a bird in a cage

It's kinda sihry
But not rearry
Because it's fihring my body with rage

I work rearry hard to stay nice and fit
But nobody here seems to rearize that
When I rure the world maybe they'rr notice me

But untir then I'rr just be ronery
Rittre ronery, poor rittre me
I'm so ronery

I'm so ronery

In addition, they have posted Kim Jong's music video, so to speak, on the main Team America site, (go to main site, choose "clips" in lower right corner, and then "Film Clips." Enjoy.

You can also get some official Team America gear. The soundtrack will be available online on October 19th, and in stores Election Day November 2nd.

If you want to mainline more of Parker & Stone's humor, feed your DVD players with these until Team America's out on DVD:

South Park - The Complete First Season

South Park - The Complete Second Season

South Park - The Complete Third Season

South Park - The Complete Fourth Season

South Park - Four Season Pack (The Complete Seasons 1-4)

South Park - Bigger, Longer & Uncut

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut - Music From And Inspired By The Motion Picture

Fact-Checking FactCheck.org on Tort Reform | e-mail post

This post reflects why I am a hopeful cynic. First, I think we all owe some thanks to the fine people at the University of Pennsylvania for maintaining FactCheck.org. It tries to bring light to the many distortions, exagerations and falsehoods that we are seeing in this Presidential campaign. However, I have to take issue with their discussion of the medical liability reform question. To quote from FactCheck.org's recap of Friday's debate (emphasis is theirs):

As we said then, both the General Accounting Office (recently re-named the Government Accountability Office) and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support for that claim. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings from passage of limits on malpractice damages --- if there are any savings at all -- would be relatively small.

Bush's claim rests mainly on a single 1996 study by two Stanford economists who said caps on damage awards could hold down overall medical costs by 5% to 9%. They studied heart patients who were hospitalized, compared costs in states with and without limits on malpractice lawsuits, and then projected their findings to the entire health-care system.

But both the GAO and the CBO questioned such a sweeping conclusion. When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found "no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending."

One quick note about FactCheck's bold type. FactCheck only used bold type in two passages in their breakdown of the debate. The other place was calling out George Bush's interest in a tree farm, which is arguably distinct from a timber company. I'm going to look at previous debate breakdowns later to see if there is any consistency to that practice.

Now, I decided to actually go and peruse the CBO and GAO reports they cite, as well as the HHS report FactCheck discredits in their prior "de-bunking" of the Bush claim. (FactCheck actually has a dead CBO study link on their site, but I've included a working link.) [CBO HTML] [GAO PDF] [HHS PDF]

Now, one thing FactCheck doesn't explicitly call out is that the GAO study is only for D.C., Maryland and Virginia. But let's turn to that one first. Maryland and Virginia both have some type of tort restrictions, while D.C. does not. It's worth noting that a section heading for the GAO report is: "Limited Evidence Shows That Some Tort Reforms May Reduce Premiums and Defensive Medicine Costs" (p12) The GAO continues on page 13:

For example, one 1993 study found that obstetricians and gynecologists practicing in New York hospitals with high malpractice insurance premiums and claims frequency performed more cesarean sections than did physicians in hospitals with lower premiums and claim frequency. The Office of Technology Assessment concluded that this study presented strong evidence that hospitals with the excess cesarean sections were practicing defensive medicine. The Office’s broader study of defensive medicine, published in 1994, estimated that less than 8 percent of diagnostic procedures might be caused by liability concerns. However, the study stated that it is not possible to estimate the level and cost of defensive medicine. There may be a number of other reasons why a provider performs a particular service, including local standards of care, academic training, or requirements of managed care organizations. This study could not determine the primary motivation for a provider’s decisions.

OK, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that this sort of thing is difficult to measure. We are talking about an enormous segment of our economy. It is interesting to note that FactCheck misses the point of defensive medicine as discussed by the GAO report when FactCheck writes:

And a 1999 study in the Journal of Health Economics found only tiny savings – less than three-tenths of one percent – when studying the cost of Caesarian sections in states with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits.

Re-read the GAO passage from above: "The Office of Technology Assessment concluded that this study presented strong evidence that hospitals with the excess cesarean sections were practicing defensive medicine." The point isn't that cesarean sections cost more or less under a refored tort system, it that the more-expensive procedure is the one that is chosen as a defensive measure.

And don't even get me started that FactCheck criticizes the Stanford study for being too narrow in scope when they are citing equally narrow studies (that are aruably off-point).

But let's talk about facts FactCheck doesn't bother to include in their analysis, like a Harris Interactive Poll of physicians and their behavior in light of medical liability. [Link via Common Good]. The Harris Poll report says (emphasis mine):

[P]hysicians report that the fear of malpractice claims causes themselves and/or other physicians to:

Order more tests than they would based only on professional judgment of what is medically needed. (91% have noticed other physicians, and 79% report they themselves do this due to concerns about malpractice liability)

Refer patients to specialists more often than they would based only on their professional judgment of what is medically needed. (85% have noticed other physicians, and 74% report they themselves do this due to concerns about malpractice liability)

Suggest invasive procedures such as biopsies to confirm diagnoses more often than they would based only on their professional judgment of what is medically needed. (73% have noticed other physicians, and 51% report they themselves do this due to concerns about malpractice liability)

Prescribe more medications such as antibiotics than they would based only on their professional judgment of what is medically needed. (73% have noticed other physicians, and 41% report they themselves do this due to concerns about malpractice liability)

Just under two-thirds (61%) of physicians have noticed physicians being reluctant to make what they believe to be humane choices [in end-of-life situations] because of concerns that a family member might bring suit.

Half (50%) have noticed a physician resorting to aggressive treatments of terminally ill patients because of liability concerns.

Just under half (42%) have noticed a physician or staff member going against a patient's expressed wishes concerning life-prolonging medical interventions because of concerns that a family member might bring suit.

OK, but that's just an opinion poll. Maybe docs are exagerating their practice of defensive medicine. Let's talk about some macro-level numbers.

California enacted some pretty comprehensive tort reform (known by MICRA) back in 1975, so it seems like looking at healthcare costs in California versus the rest of the nation would be a good way to estimate what impact tort reform might have on a national basis. Now, it's worth noting that California's medical malpractice premiums are up a modest(!) 167% from1976-2000. Now, that is modest when compared to the 505% increase seen in the rest of the U.S.. (My quick math, which I am happy to have corrected, breaks that down to an annualized increase of about 7.2% in California compared to about 13.7% annual increases elsewhere.) But since the question of malpractice insurance being lower in tort-reformed states should be a given, let's look at the overall cost of medicine.

Of course, California has a high cost of living, so you might expect that per capita medical costs would be higher in California than the nation as a whole, but you would be wrong. According to the Kaiser Familiy Foundation, California's 1998 per capita healthcare spending was $3,429 versus $3,759 for the nation as a whole, or roughly 9% less than the national number. (Interestingly, this is the high range of the cost impact estimated by the Stanford study that FactCheck likes to discredit as being too narrow).

Or consider that a 2002 study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) found that "Between 1991 and 1998, average annual growth in per capita health spending ranged from 3.5 percent in California to 7.3 percent in Maine." [Article in HealthAffairs as PDF ($)] [CMS press release with article highlights] The CMS actually ranks Mississippi right behind Maine for per capita health care increases.

I could go on, but my main point should be clear: FactCheck.org is providing at best incomplete, and at worst biased, coverage of certain issues. This is an incredible disappointment given that they are being looked to by all sides of the political debate for balanced and accurate discussion of these issues.

ABC News...Kinda Honest | e-mail post

Drudge is reporting that ABC News management, by way of Mark Halperin, ABC's Political Director, is directing their reporters to more aggressively fact check George Bush than John Kerry. A reporter's bias slipping into their reporting is one thing, a management position takes things to a whole new level. Today ABC's online headlines even buy into Kerry's assertions about Bush being somehow responsible for the flu vaccine shortage. ("Kerry Chides Bush on Flu Vaccine Shortage")

But what I really loved is that when I went to the ABC News site, to see if they had any sort of reaction or response (they of course did not, that I saw), they did have their related news item "What it Means to Steal, to Cheat, to Lie" Where does it link to? The ABC News The Note, Halperin & Co's newsblog-cum-soapbox. Well, I guess that does pretty well sum things up.

Also, honestly, their claim that "we try to live to live professionally" is laughable in light of the recent Halperin directive. Or maybe, they do try, but their leanings are just so strong they overcome their attempts at professionalism. Maybe a 12-step program would be in order.

Real Numbers on Taxes | e-mail post

I am so very tired of hearing about the "tax cuts for the rich." George Bush is not making it up when he says everyone got a tax cut. Really. Not only that: on a proportional basis, the rich didn't even get a tax break.

For all the people who think George Bush gave an enormous tax cut to the rich (the "top 5%" Kerry always talks about), I'd like to start by calling your attention to one number: 53.7%.

What is that number? It is the percentage of the individual federal income tax burden carried by the "top 5%" that Kerry delights in demonizing in his open incitement of class warfare. That's right, the top 5% of households pays over half of the total individual tax burden. The top 20% of households tote the note for 82.1% of the individual tax burden.

Oh, and there's another number people should consider: 2.3%

What's that number? It's the increase in the share of the individual tax liability that top 5% are paying, while the lower 80% of households by income all bear a reduced share of individual tax liability.

Where do I get these numbers? They come from the Congressional Budget Office. You can read the report in HTML or as a PDF. Just to save some time, I'll pull some numbers just for the 2001-2004 period and include them here.

Share of Total Individual Income Taxes by Category Under Current Tax Law
(note the CBO report extends the projects to 2014)

Bracket	2001	2002	2003	2004
Lowest Quintile	-2.3	-2.3	-2.7	-2.7
Second Quintile	0.3	0.4	-0.2	-0.1
Middle Quintile	5.2	5.5	5.2	5.4
Fourth Quintile	14.3	14.8	14.8	15.2
Highest Quintile	82.5	81.7	83	82.1
All Quintiles	100	100	100	100
Top 10 Percent	67.7	66.6	67.9	66.7
Top 5 Percent	55.2	54	55.1	53.7
Top 1 Percent	34.4	33.3	33.6	32.3

Share of Total Federal Tax Burden by Category Under Current Tax Law
(note the CBO report extends the projects to 2014) You can read the CBO note for more details, but to simplify the total burden is computed by applying excise taxes based on estimated consumption and "that corporate income taxes fall on the owners of capital and allocates those liabilities--again, both as income and as taxes--to households in proportion to their income from interest, dividends, rents, and capital gains."

Bracket	2001	2002	2003	2004
Lowest Quintile	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1
Second Quintile	5	5.1	5.1	5.2
Middle Quintile	10	10.3	10.4	10.5
Fourth Quintile	18.5	19.1	19.2	19.5
Highest Quintile	65.3	64.2	64.1	63.5
All Quintiles	100	100	100	100
Top 10 Percent	50	48.5	48.5	47.6
Top 5 Percent	38.5	36.9	36.9	35.9
Top 1 Percent	22.7	21.2	21.1	20.1

One last table...

Change in the proportion of the individual income tax borne by each income group versus the proportion that the group would have paid under 2000 tax law

Bracket	2001	2002	2003	2004
Lowest Quintile	-0.5	-0.6	-1	-1.1
Second Quintile	-0.9	-0.9	-1.6	-1.6
Middle Quintile	-0.9	-0.8	-1.1	-1
Fourth Quintile	-0.6	-0.3	-0.4	-0.1
Highest Quintile	2.9	2.6	4.2	3.8
All Quintiles	0	0	0	0
Top 10 Percent	2.9	2.3	3.9	3.2
Top 5 Percent	2.6	1.8	3.3	2.3
Top 1 Percent	1.8	1	1.7	0.6

So, does anyone want to tell me how under federal tax policy the rich are really getting this great deal at the expense of everybody else?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Equal Time Post | e-mail post

One thing that is always a drag about being on the right side of the political spectrum is that the left has a near-monopoly on creative talent (or at least creative talent that takes the time to produce partisan works). A case in point is this great J. Crew catalog spoof for G.W. & Crew Flip-flops. [Also as a 1.8 MB PDF] Set aside your politics and you have to give creator Aaron Eiseman credit for some good creative execution.

The "catalog" actually closes with a wonderful quotation they attribute to Alexander Tyler*, that people from the right probably appreciate more than those from the left:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

I think we are probably in the selfishness phase.

* The origin of the quotation is very much questionable. [Loren Collins digs into the source] [Snopes breaks it down] On the other hand, spending some time flipping through Tytler's Universal History (available online at the University of Michigan) indicates he might not disagree with the assessment. "But still the Athenian population had the ultimate power of decision in all the affairs of the commonwealth; a consitituion that must have rendered fruitless the regulations of the wisest legislator that ever existed. The subsequent detail of the Grecian history will afford some strong instances of the miseries which flow from so defective a form of government." (v1 p102) Clearly Tytler wasn't exactly a champion for rule "by the people."

Enjoy the debates.

Paris Hilton Wants You To Stuff Her Ballot Box | e-mail post

Paris Hilton: Hard to recognize clothed. [Hat tip: The Decadent West]

P. Diddy's Citizen Change rolls out voter registraton campaign [Press release via Yahoo!]. That's right, P. Diddy and his merry band of "politically conscious" (at least they don't try to claim politically informed) celebrities, about half of whom actually even have full names, want to make voting "hot and sexy" to appeal to the youth.

I am genuinely ambivalent about the use of celebrities to motivate the youth vote. On one hand, broad participation in our democracy should be a good thing. On the other hand, anybody who needs P. Diddy or Paris Hiton to tell them they should vote probably shoudn't be allowed to vote. I know literacy tests were declared unconstitutional, but there honestly ought to be some way to at least enforce a certain expectation of voters being informed (if not intelligent). Of course, we would have a completely different political landscape if that happened, on both sides of the political spectrum.

My political elitist tendencies are coming on strong. I'll stop before I whip myself into a frenzy.

JibJab; O'Reilly on Stewart; Mondale Driving Like Kerry | e-mail post

JibJab, the guys who had the wonderful "Our Land" parody earlier this year have done it again, with "Good to Be in D.C." (to the tune of "Dixie") [AtomFilms has more server capacity]

It's not highbrow political thinking, but it was a good laugh.

Also, I caught Bill O'Reilly on The Daily Show with John Stewart last night. You can catch the rerun on Comedy Central today at 7PM Eastern/6PM Central. First, if Stewart and O'Reilly had a show together, it would become appointment television for me, it was a good session. Second, my opinion of Bill O'Reilly went up substantially. Politics aside (since he and I should be on the same side of things), I had previously thought of O'Reilly as a blowhard.

Also, for more humor, a client just came into my office telling me that he was almost run off the road by Walter Mondale who apparently was trying to pick a lane the way John Kerry picks a position on Iraq (i.e. he was all over the place).

Oil-for-Alliances News Roundup: Denials and Ignorance | e-mail post

In the wake of the Iraq Survey Group's report presented by Charles Duelfer, far more heat than light is getting generated. Here's a quick look at the news on it today.

French officials are angrily (according to Al-Jazeera), cautiously (according to the NYT) or indignantly (according to the IHT) denying the reports. The UK Independent reports the French think the report is an attempt to smear Chirac.

The NYT also reports: "Bernard Guillet, an adviser to Mr. Pasqua, has said the vouchers were given to people from the former interior minister's European parliamentary district who were interested in doing business with Iraq."

It sounds like Pasqua is not denying he got the vouchers, in contrast to Russia's Vladimir Zhirinovsky who claims to have never seen a voucher or a drop of oil. My suspicion is that Pasqua is setting up this spin because, in fact, the voucher lists will turn out to be pretty accurate.

The Houston Chronicle reports that Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco, Valero and El Paso have all recieved subpoenas from a federal grand jury investigating the Oil-for-Food program.

The Washington Post has a fairly decent piece, citing former assistant secretary of state Robert Einhorn (and had been with State under Clinton as well as Bush) as saying, "In the late '90s, we understood that lots of shenanigans were going on . . . under-the-table payments and so on, to curry favor and win support for eroding sanctions...We made various efforts to limit the scope of this." Of course Kerry is claiming that all of this discussion is some sort of retroactive explanation by the Bush administration for the war.

The Kansas City star carries the full AP piece on the story. CNSNews pulls some good highlights from the ISG report as well.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the Bush administration isn't planning to pressure any of the countries involved to get to the bottom of this, at least until after the election.

There's been more limited discussion of the amount of weapons technology that Russia was transfering to Iraq under the sanctions.

Also, Powerline takes AP reporter Scott Lindlaw to task for his coverage of the ISG report.

more miscellanea | e-mail post

OK, time to lighten things up a little bit. Here are a few things that gave me a laugh, or at least a raised eyebrow (whether or not the creator intended me to is another matter):

The Conference Bike is a tangible metaphor for most group projects ("One person steers, while everyone is free to pedal along or not").

If you ever saw the Saturday Night Live skit where Christopher Walken is playing a record producer working with Blue Oyster Cult, you will probably love this "More Cowbell" t-shirt. If you haven't seen the skit, you can watch this Windows Media clip. Also, check out "The Cowbell Project" if you're into this sort of thing. [Thanks ritalin.com for the t-shirt link]

The Decadent West is always funny in a take-no-prisoners kind of way. If you don't mind some(?) profanity, I highly recommend the DW take on the veep debate. Actually, the DW is one of the few sites that captured just how badly the debate went for Edwards, because it's really tough to find a polite way of saying it.

If, like me, you grew up with the "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop" commercials, there is now a tool to aid you in your quest for truth and to tell that smart-ass owl to shut it. That's right, a Lolly Pop Lick-o-Meter.

Finally, this is kind of a follow-up to the odd road signs I posted about a few weeks back. Presenting the "Hall of Technical Documentation Wierdness."

Do you like that satisfying sound of popping bubble wrap bubbles? Me, too. Unfortunately, this site's bubble wrap simulator is a keen demonstration that some things just don't virtualize very well. Of course, there seem to be thousands (millions?) of people who think masturbating to a text message box is a decent substitute for sex, so maybe I'm just too demanding.

NYT's Judith Miller Risks Incarceration in Witchhunt | e-mail post

Reuters via Yahoo reports that Judith Miller has been held in contempt (and could be jailed for up to 18 months, pending an appeal) for refusing disclose sources about the Valerie Plame affair, about which Miller never wrote or published. From the Reuters report:

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the Times' publisher, said in a statement the investigation has moved "dangerously off course" and Miller had done nothing wrong.
"She is not the person who revealed the identity of a CIA agent. Yet she is the one who is facing time in jail while the very people who exposed Ms. Plame remain unpunished," he said.

I just traded e-mails with Miller over this past weekend, alerting her to the initial London Times report on Iraqi reports of Oil-for-Alliances [post here], since she has demonstrated strong contacts related to Iraqi reporting, largely because of confidential sources (although she has been subjected to critcisms from all sides because of who some of those sources are).

I am appalled that U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Hogan (bio) took this action against Miller, and I certainly hope, for the sake of fairness, good reporting, the First Amendment and Judith Miller that the Appeals court reverses Hogan's inexplicable actions. Oddly, Robert Novak was the one who originally ran the Plame story, hasn't even been subpoenaed, or at least he isn't saying he has. [Newsday via AP]

Sorry I Cut Off the Wrong Arm; You Can Still Sign a Check, Right? | e-mail post

Yesterday's Star-Tribune reported on the new policy by HealthPartners, a large Minnesota HMO on their new policy of not paying hospitals or doctors for "never" mistakes (27 mistakes identified by the National Quality Forum as "serious reportable events"). In addition, the HealthPartners contracts will bar the medical provider from billing the patient for those unpaid fees. (You can get