This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter).
Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon
|
OK, the Republicans are looking completely fragmented, and that is tons of fun. Here they are on the states pollster.com tracks, using as the numbers the (pretty conservative) trend line they generate using the results from all the available polls:
- IA: Huckabee leads Romney by 6.3%
- NH: Romney leads McCain by 16.2%
- NV: Giuliani leads Romney by 4.8%
- SC: Romney leads Thompson by 3.0%
- FL: Giuliani leads Romney by 15.1%
- MI: Romney leads Giuliani by 1.9%
- CA: Giuliani leads Romney by 15.6%
- NY: Giuliani leads McCain by 31.7%
Now, on the Democratic side, there were only two people who were in first place in any state, and even if you count number 2 placements, it was still just Clinton and Obama with a lock on 1st and 2nd place on all of these early/important states.
But the republican side? There are 3 different candidates who are currently polling in first place in at least one of these states. And if you add in second place there are five candidates who are polling in first or second place in these states. FIVE. And in a lot of those states the gap between first and second (and sometimes third) is VERY SMALL.
What does that mean? It means crazy dynamics in the race. At least possibly. If Iowa and New Hampshire happen, and anybody who doesn’t win there collapses, it could still be over pretty quickly. But if we have different winners in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the strength of a third candidate manages to continue despite those losses to then compete in later states, then we could still have three viable candidates getting to Super Duper Tuesday and perhaps beyond.
So here is hoping for fun and excitement in the Primary season. Giuliani seems to be in some trouble lately. I don’t want him to be president, but I’d like him to stay strong enough so that we can get Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani all winning some important states and keeping this race alive as long as possible. It would be fun to see McCain come back and win a few too, but I’m not sure he still has it in him unless the others self-destuct (which is certainly possible).
The chink in Hillary’s armor in Iowa has been expanding rapidly these last few weeks. The trend has been clear for a bit, but as of now even on pollster.com’s really conservative trend line she has lost the lead (but barely). And her lead in other states has started to slip now that her weakness is showing in Iowa. Most of this has been due to one good speech by Obama at the JJ Dinner a few weeks back, followed by a series of missteps by the Clinton campaign. (Who thought that Kindergarten thing was a good idea, really? Come one…)
Anyway, from the pollster.com trend lines in some significant states:
- IA: Obama leads Clinton by 1.5%
- NH: Clinton leads Obama by 6.0%
- NV: Clinton leads Obama by 22.1%
- SC: Clinton leads Obama by 9.7%
- FL: Clinton leads Obama by 30.9%
- MI: Clinton leads Obama by 25.4%
- CA: Clinton leads Obama by 32.0%
- NY: Clinton leads Obama by 31.9%
Uh, OK. In most states Clinton is still blowing away Obama. However, as Ivan and I have discussed on the podcast a number of times, these early states matter a lot and can change the whole dynamic of the race. Hillary has always been weak in Iowa, her lead has always been smallest there. But now it has evaporated. Although Obama’s trend line is now higher, really Iowa is now a dead heat between Clinton and Obama with Edwards in spitting distance.
And Hillary’s lead is getting smaller and smaller in New Hampshire too.
If she loses in both of those, then other states where she has huge leads right now will also suddenly be in play.
If Obama wins both he will be in a very strong position. If Edwards gets Iowa and Obama gets New Hampshire then things will just be wide open and potentially VERY interesting in January and February even on the Democratic side.
Meanwhile, and I’ll get to this in another post soon, the Republicans are a mess. Things will almost definately be VERY interesting on that side.
But it is very nice that it is starting to look like the Dems might put on a show too.
Just saw this bit:
The Federalism Issue
(Matthey Yglesias, The Atlantic)
In practice, arguments about federalism are almost universally made opportunistically. People favor devolving power to the states when they think doing so will produce policies they approve of, and people favor concentrating power in Washington when they think doing so will produce policies they approve of. Everyone knows this. And while one might condemn the hypocrisy of it all, this always strikes me as a good thing to be hypocritical about. I don’t really have a principled view about the appropriate division of powers between states and the federal government and don’t really intend to develop one. The congressional policy being enacted here seems to me to be a good one, so that’s good enough for me.
My immediate response is that this is probably a very good example of one of the major problems of politics today. All politics SHOULD start with a core vision of what comprises good government… completely independent of any specific issues… completely blind to who may or may not be in power… as both issues and who is in power shift over time… then when looking at how to address any specific issue, that discussion should be framed within the constraints of that model.
When politics starts with individual issues and is organized only on trying to find the optimal way to game the system to get results on those issues, then of COURSE the system is going to get horribly corrupted over time. Maybe you will get results on those specific issues. The desired policy result in the short term will perhaps be exactly as desired. But over time, the shortcuts and distortions to the process eventually come back on some other issue in the opposite direction. It all becomes a muddled mess instead of a functioning system.
Now, it is one thing if there really was a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes good government… in terms of balance of powers between state, federal, local and between executive, legislative and judicial… perhaps even between national and international… and of course on the fundamental of which things government should be involved in at all, and which it should not be… but I think Yglesias actually has it correct. The real case is that most people actually don’t care and don’t have a principled opinion on those issues. They only use those things in whatever way happens at the moment to push their own view on some specific issue.
Yglesias seems to think that is OK. I think that is a horrible problem and perhaps core to the increasingly divided and dysfunctional political culture we see today.
Having some sort of national consensus — or at least real discussion — on what the proper roles, functions, and interrelations of the various parts of government — divorced from the specific issues of today — would be very healthy.
Unfortunately, it won’t happen.
Just a quick thought about the effort going on to change the way California selects electors. First of all, fundamentally I have no problem with the notion itself. States should be able to select electors any way they see fit. Winner take all, proportional to an election, or even with methods that don’t involve elections at all where the electors are selected directly by the legislature.
My radical proposal? Much like jury duty, select electors completely at random from the entire adult citizen population of the state. Unlike jury duty, excuse people from it ONLY for physical or mental inability to participate. It would be absolutely compulsory. Do the choosing only 48 hours before the electoral college votes, with absolutely no vetting in terms of who the newly chosen electors support. Make lobbying the electors on behalf your candidate illegal. An exception would be the electors themselves. The electors would be able to talk amongst themselves and lobby each other for the 48 hours before they have to vote. Sequester them at the moment they are chosen, deliver them to the state house to perform their vote, and then see what kind of results you get.
I imagine it would be a very interesting way of doing things. :-)
But in any case… if changes are made, although there may or may not be anything already enshrined in law to prevent it… I think any changes to how electors are selected by the states should be made one full election cycle in advance, so that all potential candidates can make their plans knowing the state of affairs for the full four year campaign cycle. That is only fair.
I know I am a bit behind, but I just watched the November 15th Democratic Presidential debate last night. Aside from everything else, I couldn’t help but thinking over and over that any candidate could instantly get a very good shot at my vote by simply saying:
“Wolf Blitzer, you are an idiot and an ass, please shut up.”
But nobody did.
Not just a single poll, but the trend. Ron Paul has recently overtaken Mike Huckabee to be trending at 4th place in New Hampshire.
Well, OK, they are separated by a really tiny margin at the moment that undoubtedly is not significant. (6.8% vs 6.6% with pollster.com’s method of figuring out a trend from the multiple polls.) The reality is that Paul and Huckabee have been neck and neck in New Hampshire for awhile and have been pretty much rising at the same pace. But hey, Paul in fourth place. Neat.
I guess wake me up again if he breaks 10% anywhere.
In all the coverage of Pakistan in the last week or so, lots of people from the President, to the Secretary of State, to various Presidential candidates have been all over TV saying, amongst other things, things to the effect of: “I have strongly urged President Musharraf to take off his uniform” or “Musharraf has said he would take off his uniform, and we urge him to do so sooner rather than later” or “President Musharraf must take off his uniform!”.
Now, I know what they all mean. But I keep seeing in my head President Musharaff going on Pakistani national television, saying “FINE, I will take off the uniform!” then proceeding to rip off his clothes and then run around the studio naked.
Not that I *want* this image in my head mind you, but whenever I hear them urging him to take off his uniform, that is what comes to mind. I mean, really. All these politicians are doing is urging the man to get naked.
Yeah, yeah, they really mean resign his military commission and become a civilian. But that is NOT what they are saying…
Over the last couple days I watched a long form (hour plus) item that was originally broadcast on C-Span a few weeks ago where Gov Huckabee took questions from a group of high school students and answered them taking however much time he liked.
A few thoughts on this… one, it was refreshing to see this kind of format instead of the soudbite things you get in the debates… it is nice to see someone actually having time to articulate and explain their positions. I’m trying to watch more of these type of things as we get closer to the end of the pre-primary season.
Second, I may disagree with Huckabee on quite a few things, but he seems like an honest forthright guy who is actually telling you what he believes. And it seems like he has spent a long time thinking about his positions, they aren’t just reflexive reactions, or the results of polling or focus groups.
This is also refreshing.
I doubt I would ever vote for Huckabee. But I realized that I would NOT be upset if this man was elected President. He would do some things I didn’t like in areas where we dissagree. But there are other areas where he seems reasonable and moderate and would just do a decent job. He reminds me a bit of George H W Bush… strongly held beliefs in a few areas, but basically a good guy trying to do what is right, and willing to be practical and compromise when needed. Huckabee probably wouldn’t be my choice, but it seems he would be “OK”.
This led me to think for a second, forgetting which candidates I would actually CHOOSE and who was my preference, which of them would I actually be UPSET about taking the Presidency.
So looking at the current top six in each party, here is what I came up with… I’d be “OK” with *all* of the candidates *except* the two front runners. Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton. I’d be pissed, upset, and worried about either one of them becoming president.
Paul, Thompson, McCain, Romney, Huckabee… Edwards, Richardson, Obama, Gore, Biden…
I think I’d be OK with all of them, even if they were not my first or second choices. Now, some I am actually a little unsure about… Thompson and Romney fit into that category. I haven’t spent enough time with either to really make a final call. I may yet find out things that move them into the “not OK” category. But for now…
The one thing I am apperantly sure of is that I strongly dislike both of the front runners.
I really hope the people in second and third pick up some more momentum and manage to knock them out of front runner status.
The idea of the two of them being the primary choices next November is just such a horrible thought.
Paul keeps saying he won’t, but I hope he reconsiders and runs 3rd party.
Then of course, the recent rumor is that Lou Dobbs is considering running too. He’d be in my “Upset” category, but a race with him in it sure would be fun to watch.
Just a couple notes on recent presidential polls. I mentioned this on the last podcast. The media gets all hyped up whenever a single new poll result comes out that shows something surprising. In the most recent case it is Hillary’s lead evaporating in several early states. Now, there maybe some things going on, but these polls are all extremely noisy. It is folly to ever look at the results of just one of them and try to claim anything.
Just mosey on over to pollster.com and look at the charts they produce putting together the results of many polls and looking at a combined over all trend.
With today’s data, here is what we have on the early states:
Dem side first:
- Iowa – Clinton up by 4.3%
- New Hampshire – Clinton up by 17.3%
- Nevada – Clinton up by 17.4%
- South Carolina – Clinton up by 16.6%
- Florida – Clinton up by 27.0%
- Michigan – Clinton up by 19.3%
- California – Clinton up by 26.7%
- New York – Clinton up by 31.5%
Clinton is ahead everywhere, usually significantly so. In every state Obama is in the #2 slot… except California, where a decent number of people are still apperantly hoping for Al Gore to jump in. In that case Obama is 3rd right behind Gore.
Yes, it is pretty close in Iowa, and the way things work Iowa can have the potential to change everything… and we are still a month and a half or so out from Iowa. So a lot can happen. But don’t believe the hype when one poll in Iowa comes out and all of a sudden people are saying everything has changed and Hillary is in trouble. That might happen. Frankly I hope it happens. I’d much rather have Obama than Clinton. But looking at the one poll is foolish. At the moment, although it may change, Hillary is still running away with this.
On the Republican side though, things are much more dynamic:
- Iowa – Romney up by 10.9% (Huckabee second)
- New Hampshire – Romney up by 9.3% (Giuliani second)
- Nevada – Giuliani up by 10.1% (Romney second)
- South Carolina – Giuliani up by 2.0% (Thompson second)
- Florida – Giuliani up by 13.2% (Romney second)
- Michigan – Giuliani up by 2.2% (Romney second)
- California – Giuliani up by 17.0% (Romney second)
- New York – Giuliani up by 34.5% (McCain second)
OK, just a little bit unsettled, with Romney doing his thing in Iowa and New Hampshire. But Giuliani is in the lead by decent amounts everywhere else… other than South Carolina and Michigan where it is close.
Second place is actually much more interesting on the R side. But it is as yet unclear how much that will actually end up mattering. In certain cases (especially in the first few states) who comes in second might actually have a large influence on the next few states…
Anyway, interesting stuff. But do look at the places like pollster that aggrigate poll results. If you are ever reading a story that says there is a new poll by “X” and then tries to draw conclusions based on the results of that one poll alone, just ignore it…. until and unless the results of that poll are backed up by the results of others.
Oh, and as a curiosity, of those early states Ron Paul is running at #6 in all of them except New Hampshire and New York, where he has now managed to squeak into fifth place.
|
|
