The 10,000 Mile View (US Politics Viewed from Oz)

Punting in Iowa

2008-01-02T12:01:00.000+11:00

(Punting as in the Australian word meaning betting on the outcome, not boating with a long pole, which I'm sure would be pretty difficult in Iowa in winter. Speaking of seasons, it's been 108 degrees F here the last two days. Yes, really. Which makes snowy footage from Iowa look even further away than usual.)

Its Jan 2nd here and the Des Moines Register poll and the CNN poll are in . The Register poll has caused quite a stir by putting Obama well in front on the basis of a large (40%) chunk of Democratic caucus goers not being registered Democrats. Naturally enough, the Clinton campaign and their many shills in the media have pooh-poohed this poll on both sample and methodology.

I'm inclined to think the Register sample is right and correctly weighted. That is, there really are a larger number of independents this year talking about showing up to caucuses and Obama is well supported in that group. I suspect however, that this group will be overly soft. That is, they say they'll show up to caucus but many of them won't. So the prediction won't stand up.

I'm betting (punting) that the end result will be somewhere in between the Register poll and the average of the others. That said, this is an environment destined to make pollsters look dumb (not that it's that hard anyway) and the range of reasonably probable results include anything from a big Obama victory to a clear win for either Hillary or Edwards, and any arrangement of second and third.

If the Register is right, and many new independents show up and caucus for Obama, then we have ourselves a whole new ball game. Which would be a feast of entertainment for us politics tragics. Not least because of panic it would set off in other campaigns.

The more brutal of the Clintonista's will want to get really nasty in that event. Which, as we saw with the flap about Obama's drug use a couple of weeks ago, would be a huge mistake. The candidate and her husband know this. The question is how short a leash they have on their attack dogs. Edwards and Co will probably go negative as well but they can get away with and it probably won't hurt them. But it won't help either.

As for GOP side of Iowa. I don't know what to say and I don't think any predictions are worth spit. If it wasn't for the writer's strike I'd accuse the Daily Show of inventing the whole thing in order generate material. Unbelievable.

Back via Bali

2008-01-02T11:25:00.000+11:00

I've been away. Or rather, my attention has been elsewhere. Namely the Australian election. For those tuning in late, we had a change of government with a swing of 5.something% removing John Howard from government and a Bush friend from the world stage. Howard also lost his own seat in parliment, which in our system is, like, ouchy.

Any lessons for the US election? Probably not a lot. The key issues were workplace relations and climate change. New PM Kevin Rudd has moved swiftly on the latter and ratified Kyoto before rushing off to the Bali conference, with a bunch of cabinet members in tow, to join the rest of the world in locking horns with the American delegation. All of which tells you that the centre/left in the western world generally is opposed to the Bush administration on climate change. But you knew that already.

Illustrative perhaps of the new government's contrasts with Howard is the rapid promiotion of Senator Penny Wong to cabinet as Minister for Climate Change. As well as being, in one pundit's memorable phrase, tough as nails and smart as paint, the senator also happens to be female, asian, mulitlingual and gay. I'm sure the culture warriors Bush sent to Bali to obstruct for their country didn't know where to start with Senator Wong. Their loss.

Speaking of the Bali conference. The lack of coverage in the US media was pretty depressing (although not as depressing as the US delegation's appalling positions on the issues). It was about the future of the planet for heavens sake. It was front page news here every day for a week but hardly rated a mention in your media. I normally avoid gratuitous America bashing, but I'm afraid in this case I'm falling back on the old, what planet are you people on?

The Electability Curve Revisited

2007-08-06T16:35:00.000+10:00

A few months ago I made some obervations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's primary race polling as compared to their general election electability.

(As ever I'm working from the Real Clear Politics averages of national polls)

At that time Obama seemed to be slowly gaining on Hillary in the primary race. That leveled out not long after I wrote that piece and has stayed that way for most of the intervening months. But, in recent weeks Hillarys numbers have improved into the low 40s whilst Obama's have continued to hover in the mid twenties. On the face of it Hillary seems to have picked up some undecideds and some of the people who are jumping off the Edwards wagon.

Meanwhile, the general election polls (which Joe Klein and others repeatedly call meaningless, but anyway...) show Obama's electability continuing to be better in some ways than Hillary's. Interestingly Obama does much better over Fred Thompson than Hillary, 13 % vs 4%. The question is : who are these people. They're able to think of voting for Obama but rather than vote for Hillary they'll go with Fred Thompson. Strange but true.

I think the position remains the same, Obama remains more electable but Hillary appears to be locking up more primary votes.

Others on the The Australian vs the Blogs Hoo Haa

2007-07-19T09:36:00.000+10:00

As a follow up to my previous posts on this topic you can see more of the Oz blogospheres response to The Australian's dummy spit on blogs and opinion polls at these links. The list was created by Lavatus Prodeo.

Once again here is the Australian's editorial .

larvatusprodeo.net ( and again )
Simon Jackman
Aussie Bob
Oz Politics
Rank and Vile
Howard Out
Tug Boat Potemkin
Public Opinion
John Quiggin
The Orstrahyn
please insert caffeine
Poll Bludger

Polls, Blogs, Editorials and the Devil

2007-07-15T11:08:00.001+10:00

We've just had an extraordinary reaction, including some quite troubling behaviour, from The Australian newspaper to blog comments about commentary on polling results.

(This post is the core of my response. My previous post "The Australian Spits the Dummy" lays out the full (electronic) paper trial and provides all the background for those interested in the gory details)

This week on Tuesday (10/7) The Australian published a Newspoll which showed no change from previous polls in the two party preferred voting intention, putting Kevin Rudd's Labour Party 10-12% ahead, but a gain for John Howard in the preferred prime minister numbers, narrowing the gap in that measure to 1 or 2 points. The accompanying headline was

Newspoll: Howard Checks Rudd’s March

The headline was accompanied by various articles talking up the significance of the preferred prime minister number and downplaying the unchanged voting intention numbers. This included a blog posting by Dennis Shanahan, Political Editor, entitled "Kevin's sizzle not snag-free" taking the same line and supporting the headline.

I was one of the 250 people that commented on Dennis Shanahan's blog post. Most of us took the line that we were seeing evidence of bias in favour of the government party, as did several independent bloggers including Crikey.Com and Mumble.

For myself I had set out to nibble Dennis’, and the editorial staff’s, ankles a little. I was surprised that the next day (11/7) we got two responses, in the form of a rebuttal from the CEO of Newspoll, and a post from Dennis Shanahan oin his blog (on which comments were closed after about an hour and 16 comments), in the next day's paper. I was flat out astonished to see that there was a response on this topic in the editorial on Thursday (12/7). Not just a response, but the whole editorial! Instead of a bit of ankle we got the whole leg. Amazing.

I discovered later that day that Peter Brent, one of the bloggers that criticised Dennis Shanahan's posts and related articles, had reported that he received a phone call from Chris Mitchell, Editor in Chief of the Australian, the previous day, prior the editorial beiong written, which he describes as follows

"A courtesy call from Editor-in-Chief Chris Mitchell this morning informed me that the paper is going to "go" Charles Richardson (from Crikey) and me tomorrow. Chris said by all means criticise the paper, but my "personal" attacks on Dennis had gone too far, and the paper will now go me "personally"."

The morning the editorial was published, Tim Dunlop, a resident blogger at News Limited's Australian umbrella web site, www.news.com.au, published a post to his blog "Blogocracy" which criticised the editorial in The Australian at some length. Later that same morning Tim Dunlop's post was removed from the news.com.au site. Tim Dunlop then stopped blogging for 24 hours and had this to say on his return.

"CODA: Apologies for the recent absence and lack of response, not to mention lack of posts. Yep, the editor here pulled a post yesterday, which I ain’t happy about, though of course, in the greater scheme of things editors pulling copy is hardly unusual. Nonetheless, it is something we are discussing.."

Thanks to other boggers we can read what Tim Dunlop's post said before it was pulled. I have preserved a copy here. Here's the money quote

“I think the editorial is ill-conceived and way off the mark in singling out Peter Brent in the way that it does. His site largely confines itself to interpretation and in doing so, provides a great service. The idea that he can’t comment without the editor of The Australian ringing him up to say they are going to “go” him is disturbing...”

Extraordinarily, in the following few days The Australian published no letters or blogs related to the Thurs 12/7 editorial. I sent in a response myself. I'm sure many of the original 250, plus many others have done likewise. None of which has seen the light of day in any of The Australians letters or blog pages in the subsequent few days (as at this writing).

So, there you have it. A major newspaper responding to run of the mill blog criticism by making scary phone calls, dedicating a entire editorial to the issue, apparently pulling an already publised item by a staff member of it's own organisation criticising this approach and then shutting out all mention of the issue in it's letters and blog pages on subsequent days. All out of sensitivity at being accused of bias.

They did protest far too much. We must have been closer to the nerve than we imagined.

Nothing could possibly have lent more credibility to the accusation of bias in the eyes of the general audience. And nothing could make all us blog folks more determined in our criticism the next time polling day rolls around.

I don't object to a major publication loudly and summarily rejecting amateur accusations of bias. We amateurs should expect that and take it on the chin. I do object to intimidation, public suppression of in-house dissent and dissent being shut out of supposedly open forums.

All of which is a textbook example of how to give your opponent oxygen and end up losing an argument when you started out in a position of strength. If I was paying the salaries of The Australian's editorial staff I'd be very unhappy right now. To paraphrase Zaphod Beeblebrox, 8/10 for self belief but minus several million for communications effectiveness.

And on a final note. The whole thing shows a deep discomfort with the 21st century reality of blogs and the Net. Especially the attempt to hide what Tim Dunlop wrote by pulling his post. These guy's clearly don't get how this confounded Internet thingy works.

The Australian Spits the Dummy

2007-07-14T08:41:00.000+10:00

I'm going to put this here even though it's all about Australian politics. I want to get the full, story down while it's fresh as I think it could have lasting interest. This post will contain the full ramble for those interested in the gory details. See my next post for a to-the-point wrap up.

(Preamble for US readers. Oz readers my wish to skip to the weird bit)

The Australian is a national broadsheet newspaper headquartered in Sydney. It's one of our main papers of record and the preferred home of business, legal and media industry reporting. It's owned by News Corp. Think of a more modern, better presented broadsheet with an editorial stance to the left of the Wall Street Journal but still right of centre.

The Australian publishes Newspoll. One of the two big, credible, regular, national opinion polls that come out monthly (or so). Since Kevin Rudd was elected opposition leader last December Newspoll and all it's competitors have been remarkably consistent in giving Labour a 55/45 ish lead over John Howard's conservative coalition in voting intention and Kevin Rudd a small but significant lead over John Howard as preferred prime minister. So far, so ordinary.

Now for the weird bit.

This week on Tuesday (10/7) the Australian published a Newspoll which showed no change in the two party preferred voting intention (despite a small bump in Labour's primary vote) but a gain for Howard in the preferred prime minister numbers, narrowing the gap in that measure to 1 or 2 points. The accompanying headline was

Newspoll: Howard Checks Rudd’s March

The headline was accompanied by various articles talking up the significance of the preferred prime minister number and downplaying the unchanged voting intention numbers. This included a blog posting by Dennis Shanahan, Political Editor, entitled "Kevin's sizzle not snag-free" taking the same line and supporting the headline.

Some 250 people, including myself, then proceeded to post comments saying, in essence, that numbers in the poll didn't support the headline and that we regarded this as evidence of bias driven by proprietorial direction. It's possible we used some colourful Australian language along the way and put our cases fairly strongly. Many of us having had this argument with Dennis once a month for sveral months. Here's my contribution

robertbe of Elwood (10 July at 09:14 AM)

Oh good grief Dennis. Could you lot be more transparent? A few points movement in approval ratings hardly warrants the headline today. Head office must be impressed by your diligence if not your effectiveness. As you note, in spite of your best efforts there has been no measurable change in voting intention since Christmas. Scary huh? You could end up looking like you have no leverage (gasp). In order to make a living you might have to fall back on, you know, actual journalism.

Again so far, so ordinary. A centre right paper talks up polling results to make them seem favourable to a centre right government. A bunch of blog commenters and other bloggers call them out for it. Happens all the time, right? But wait. This month turned out to be different.

The next day (Weds 11/7) The Australian published an article by the CEO of Newspoll defending the headline and Dennis Shanahan's position and dissing the bloggers as ill informed. Also, Dennis Shanahan posted another blog entitled "Howard's trend lifts him out of the trough" which basically defends his previous blog and marvels at the response it got. It also includes a jibe at "academic PhD aspirants" which seems to have been aimed Peter Brent, a PhD student and blogger (mumble.com.au) who had been part of the chorus of disapproval the previous day. Here's where things started to go off the rails. Comments on Dennis Shanahan's blog were closed off after only an hour so and only 16 comments. That same morning Peter Brent reports that he received a phone call from Chris Mitchell, Editor in Chief of the Australian, which he describes as follows

"A courtesy call from Editor-in-Chief Chris Mitchell this morning informed me that the paper is going to "go" Charles Richardson (from Crikey) and me tomorrow.

Chris said by all means criticise the paper, but my "personal" attacks on Dennis had gone too far, and the paper will now go me "personally"."

The next morning (Thurs 12/7) The Australian published an extraordinary editorial, taking up it's entire leader space, defending their editorial line and headlines related to the Newspoll and attacking blogs and bloggers in general and Peter Brent's blog in particular. I'm not going to summarise the editorial at length here. Safe to say it was long, rambling, full of pique and bile and deeply self involved. Here's the direct link. I've preserved a copy here. Just in case. You'll see why in a moment. Have a read. It's quite something.

The same morning Tim Dunlop, a resident blogger at News Limited's Australian umbrella web site, www.news.com.au, published a post to his blog "Blogocracy" which criticised the editorial in The Australian at some length. Later that same morning Tim Dunlop's post was removed from the news.com.au site. Tim Dunlop then stopped blogging for 24 hours and had this to say on his return.

"CODA: Apologies for the recent absence and lack of response, not to mention lack of posts. Yep, the editor here pulled a post yesterday, which I ain’t happy about, though of course, in the greater scheme of things editors pulling copy is hardly unusual. Nonetheless, it is something we are discussing. In the meantime, let’s just go John Howard and his new aircraft wallpaper, shall we?"

Thanks to other boggers we can read what Tim Dunlop's post said before it was pulled. I preserved a copy here, taken from Guido's Place.

Here's the money quote

“I think the editorial is ill-conceived and way off the mark in singling out

Peter Brent in the way that it does. His site largely confines itself to

interpretation and in doing so, provides a great service. The idea that he can’t

comment without the editor of The Australian ringing him up to say they are

going to “go” him is disturbing...”

Extraordinarily, the next day (Fri 13/7 ) The Australian published no letters or blogs related to the previous day's editorial. They must have received many.

I have since posted comments protesting all this to Tim Dunlop's blog at news.com.au, Phillip Adam's blog (he's their resident lefty, I was after a sympathetic ear) at The Australian and to the editorial staff via their email stream forum@theaustralian.com.au. All, unsurprisingly, all went unpublished and without response. I'm sure many of the original 250, plus many others have done likewise. None of which has seen the light of day in any of The Australians letters or blog pages in the subsequent two days. Here's what I attempted to get posted, which I'll rework as a my more-to-the-point post after this one (it was written before I had confirmed what had happened to Tim Dunlop).

I was one of the 250 people that commented on Dennis Shanahan's blog post "Kevin’s sizzle not snag-free" on Tuesday (10/7). Dennis' post and all those responses were about the Newspoll results and the accompanying headlines in the paper on that day. In particular, the significance of the change in the preferred Prime Minister numbers as compared to the primary vote. For myself I had set out to nibble Dennis’, and the editorial staff’s, ankles a little. I was surprised that we got two responses, in the form of a rebuttal from the CEO of Newspoll, and a post from Dennis in his blog, in the next day's paper. But, I was flat out astonished (as I'm sure the rest of the 250 were) to see that there was a response on this topic in the editorial on Thursday (12/7). Not just a response, but the whole editorial! Instead of a bit of ankle we got the whole leg. Amazing.

Of course, some of that fit of editorial pique was directed at those professional troublemakers over at Crikey.Com and Mumble. Still, it was pretty good fun for us amateurs to find we had helped to wake the beast.

I stand by my comments (you’ll find me in the stream as Robertbe of Elwood).

The hyperbole and bile in the editorial and the paper’s other responses misses the original point Which was simply this : the headline went to far given the substance of the numbers. The decision made by the headline writer looked an awful lot like it was driven by awareness of proprietorial direction. The overblown response, complete with the arrogant assumption that anyone commenting on a blog or otherwise active online is a left-wing imbecile, only serves to sharply increase that perception. You did protest far too much. We must have been closer to the nerve than we imagined.

One a final note. The comments on Dennis’ follow up response “Howard’s trend lifts him out of the trough” appear to have been shut off after only an hour or so allowing only 16 comments. I’m betting that dummy spit was part of a larger tantrum that then produced the editorial the next day. All of which is a textbook example of how to give your opponent oxygen and end up losing an argument when you started out in a position of strength. I’m sure your publicists have their heads in hands right about now. To paraphrase Zaphod Beeblebrox, 8/10 for self belief but minus several million for communications effectiveness. Have great weekend.

So, there you have it. A major newspaper responding to run of the mill blog criticism by making scary phone calls, dedicating a entire editorial to the issue, apparently pulling an already publised item by a staff member of it's own organisation criticising this approach and then shutting out all mention of the issue in it's letters and blog pages on subsequent days. All out of sensitivity at being accused of bias.

Nothing could possibly have lent more credibility to the accusation of bias in the eyes of the general audience. And nothing could make all us blog folks more determined in our criticism the next time polling day rolls around. If I was paying the salaries of The Australian's editorial staff I'd be very unhappy right now.

I don't object to a major publication loudly and summarily rejecting amateur accusations of bias. We amateurs should expect that and take it on the chin. I do object to intimidation, suppression of in-house dissent and censorship of supposedly open forums.

Keep it Zipped

2007-07-05T14:33:00.000+10:00

Anthony Villaraigosa's affair(s) and divorce made the papers here ( very briefly).

I know it's not considered cool in Democrat circles to buy into sanctimony about such things but I'm mad at him.

The party needs credible leaders who can put guys like him on notice. If you aspire to high office and you're married, keep it in your pants. You're being disloyal to your party as well as your wife.

If I'm the California money people, the party chairman, the DNC or whoever I'd be getting in Mayor Villaraigosa's face, using brutal language, and making him fear for his future right about now. In process making sure others learn from the example.

More 2nd Quarter : McCain's Pain Again

2007-07-05T09:17:00.000+10:00

A while ago I wrote here that there were bad indicators for McCain's campaign. It's not getting any better. In fact his cash on hand picture is so dire he's dropped many many staff. To borrow a famous Australian political line, a comeback from here would be Lazarous with a triple bypass.

The polls aren't great either. Viz.

That ain't a great trend line for Guiliani either. That quiet hum you hear in the background is Hillary and Barack feeling smug.

Of Cabbages and Kings

2007-07-05T08:06:00.000+10:00

Tel over at Swampland reminded us of this

"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States....
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments..."

Can you guess who it's talking about?

....

King George, the III, not the W,

The more it changes....

Happy independence day

2nd Quarter Scoreboard : Obama

2007-07-04T17:52:00.000+10:00

So, here we are 2 quarters in and the results are still coming in but, the shape of the money race is interesting to say the least.

Late in the previous quarter I gave this heavily qualified endorsement of Barack Obama : "... With some very big ifs. If he can continue to fund his campaign through large numbers of small donations from non-corporate sources. If he retains his commitment to thinking things through rather the forming policies for policy's sake. If he can avoid trade offs and debts to interest groups. If (and this is the big one) he can establish a constituency for change that reaches previous non-voters. He just might pull it off and arrive at the White House door, intact, as the sort of leader we need."

So, how is he doing on my ifs since then? The funding results that have just come in are exactly what I wanted. In fact they're ridiculously good. More than 250,000 donors for a clearly bigger total than Hillary has raised. Great. 10/10.

Policy wise his performance so far has been patchy. I, like many, was disappointed in the his health policy announcement. It came off as tepid, almost Hillary 1992 lite. And it's employer based. As many commentators who have looked in some depth at this, including the Kleins, Ezra (the good) and Joe (the not so good), have pointed out, the best shot at universal health cover may well be to move away from the employer mandate. It feels like Obama wimped on that even though he must know it's the real long term goal. His debate performances have been patchy. I feel like he either doesn't get or doesn't trust the format. Which in a way is commendable, but he needs to find a way to give short, punch-through answers without comprising his laudable willingness to look beyond surfaces. Not great. 6/10.

As to bringing in new constituencies. The picture looks good there. Head to head general election polling is a feeble reed indeed at this distance from Nov 08 but, such as it is, it is showing his general appeal holding up well. There also seems to be credible reporting that he is getting active involvement from the prveioulsy unengaged. The funding result with it's many small donors indicates a lot of new voter buy in as well. Just fine. 8/10.

So, we are seeing the right support infrastructure for Obama to get him to the White House door in the way that I wanted. But, we aren't yet seeing the policies. Now that his funding wagon has it's own, very considerable momentum I suggest Barack spends the summer getting the wheels bolted on to the policy engine. Significantly an honest working through of his health position could result in a change of tack. Which could be awkward. It will be worth it in the long run. Onwards and upwards.

When Lies Become Wounds

2007-04-25T21:41:00.000+10:00

The Jessica Lynch and Tillman family testimony is heartbreaking. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz should go to jail or The Hague for this alone.

How tragic that brave people get chewed up by such appalling propogandists. Good on Jessica Lynch and the Tillmans for appearing, and good on the committee for giving them the shot.

By the way, how great is Henry Waxman? If you wrote such a character in a movie and then made him the congressman for Beverly Hills and then cast someone who looks like Henry Waxman they'd say you were hopelessly over the top. Reality wins again.

The Hillary Gang

2007-04-25T17:11:00.000+10:00

This exchange at Swampland got me thinking about Hillary's people.

Ana Marie Cox pointed to a story about Hillary's people responding to claims "that their fundraising style is not just aggressive, but threatening and retaliatory". I must say the claims seem well founded.

I commented with, in part, this.

I am concerned about the bunkered down style of the Clinton operation, because it goes to what sort of administration they would make. The next administration is going to have to listen to everybody and tap in to all the energy and talent it can possibly get it's hands on. And it will still have a monumental task to dig us out of all the holes dug for us by George W My-Brain-Hurts.

If the Clinton people are already this far dug down into their fox hole, and seeing the landscape as littered with grudges, how on earth are they going to form the basis of the sort of administration we need?

This response from Becks G

Here here! Clinton is as bad as W. We don't need another one! We need a fresh breeze to waft through the WH and erase the stench of W's flawed Presidency. Clinton would just add to it. We need an Obama-breeze!!

and this from DonB

"If the Clinton people are already this far dug down into their fox hole,"

The Clintons know how to run a war and win. Something we can't say about Bush.

And my reply

Yes, they do.

But, here's the thing.

War ain't the answer.

McCain and His Pain

2007-04-25T16:26:00.000+10:00

This from Ana Marie Cox over at Swampland highlights McCain's diffculties.

To which I added this comment.

Interesting numbers Ana.

It will be fascinating to see how much of a premium primary voters on both sides of the aisle put on electability. On the face of it the GOP folks appear to rate it more highly given that Guiliani (electablish but at odds with the base) is leading on that side and Hillary (not so much with the electable) is leading on the other side.

Conventional wisdom would have it that this will change once the bases get to know more about these candidates. But then, as someone in the dead tree Time has already pointed out, conventional wisdom would have told us that none of the top 3 candidates on either side have any business running for President in the first place.

And just to drive home the Senator's situation here's the grab from the RCP Averages trend

Now that's not a trend line to write home about. Also, notice Thompson starting to head Romney, and that's unannouced with no money spent. Great, another old actor. Just what we need.

Obama's Foreign Policy Warm Up

2007-04-25T16:17:00.000+10:00

See this over at Swampland about Obama's foreign policy speech. Joe Klein is right in the highlights he picks out.

Here's the actual speech.

From this side of The Pond can I just say, bravo.

Objects in the Mirror

2007-04-25T10:18:00.000+10:00

I thought this over at RCP about Hillary's rear view mirror (as in objects may be closer than they appear) was on the mark. Based on Rassmusen's numbers, which I respect, Obama is right there. Money quote :

"Combine the data points and you have Obama's appeal over Hillary in a nutshell: "much more likeable, just as electable.""

On the current RCP averages I might change that to "at least as electable".

The thing is, Obama's electability has plenty of room to grow within his favourable/ unfavourable spread. Given, luck, skill and hard work another 10 points is easily doable. Attacking Hillary's unfavourables may well turn out to be like wearing down El Capitan with a toothbrush.

The Electability Curve

2007-04-20T08:08:00.000+10:00

I’m once again reading with interest the RealClearPolitics.com averages of opinion polls. A few things emerging over the past month :

Obama is gaining on Hillary, slowly, slowly, in national polls of likely or registered voters but is still 9 points down.

In head-to-head general election polling Clinton remains behind Giuliani and tied with McCain. Obama is at least tied with Giuliani and may be starting to move ahead. Importantly he has moved to a clear lead over McCain. Edwards is very close to Giuliani and McCain. All the leading Democratic candidates would beat Romney hands down.

There appear to be curiously overlapping groups here. The “any credible Democrat” group appears to be good for 43% or so. The “anyone but Hillary group” appears to be holding solid at 45% or so. Weirdly the results won by Obama and Edwards against Giuliani and McCain, as compared to Hillary, appear to show that there are some democrat leaning voters in the “any credible Democrat” group who are prepared to vote Republican just to avoid electing Hillary. Hillary’s continuing lead in the national democrat nomination polling shows that the “anyone but Hillary” group is coming mainly from independents and Republicans but it must include some Democrats as well.

What does this tell us about the road ahead? It’s starting to look like this. If you want to get a Democrat elected President you have two main courses of action from here out. Either find a way to knock the “anyone but Hillary” vote down to below 40% or nominate Obama and/or Edwards, preferably as a joint ticket, with the order not all that important but probably Obama at the top.

It’s still a year out and this is all a long punt at this stage. But, if by late fall there is no improvement in the size of the "anyone but Hillary" vote, and her unfavourables remain anchored at 50% (as they have for the last year) then her electability becomes an urgent issue. If Obama and/or Edwards are still holding or beating the GOP frontrunners at that time then Democrat primary voters should think really hard before voting for Hillary.

It should be said that Hillary’s unfavourables/anyone but her vote is unfair and unreasonable and is the result a successful demonisation campaign. That’s tough and it should be resisted but if, in the end, resistance fails, the cold truth is that this election is too important for the party to ignore electability shortcomings in candidates and we need to look elsewhere.

Time to Choose

2007-04-11T13:17:00.000+10:00

Now that we have the first quarter of the presidential campaign under our belts and we've had enough time to sort out the top tier of candidates, one starts to feel under pressure to pick a candidate to support. If for no other reason than to define where you stand on the issues.

I've been back and forth and I think there is much left learn but, I think it is possible to pick someone at this stage. So, here's how I came down to it.

I think it's important to start at the end. That is, to start by thinking about what sort of president, and, importantly, what sort of administration team we want to see wading into their first 100 days in office in February 2009. This may seem obvious, but it can be tricky because it forces you to think through the question of how we get there from here. It also forces you to think about how we got to where we are now and what we want to change.

We stand at the end of a sequence of administrations that were all formed in the climate of a conservative revival that began in the 70s as a reaction to the 60s counter culture. We've had the founder of the revival, Ronald Reagan, his chosen successor, GHW Bush and his successor's son, GW Bush. This sequence was preceded and then interrupted, by two centrist, religious, southern Democratic governors, able to swim against the tide temporarily by differentiating themselves from the body of their own party.

The mainstream of the Democratic party have been shut out of the presidential process for nearly 40 years. To a lesser extent an older stream of the Republican party - the traditional, moneyed, WASP patriarchy - has been shut out for even longer. Bush Snr was really pretty much of this background but his candidacy and presidency were very much enabled and shaped by the Reagan revival.

So, in choosing who we want in power in 2009, we could pick representatives of one of these 4 long standing streams, Reagan GOP, traditional GOP, Clintonian centrist Democrat or traditional Democrat. Or we could go for something else altogether. I think the best answer is something else, because each of the 4 established streams have fairly rigid mindsets which include ideas that leave them unable to respond adequately to the enormous challenges of 21st century government.

George W Bush's principal legacy to American political life will be that his incompetence has managed to achieve what two generations of Democrats could not. He has brought an end to the Reagan conservative revival. Leaving it washed up and exposed as both morally and intellectually bankrupt. It is clear from the 2006 mid-terms and all the current polling that the American electorate has decided this and is keen to move on. So, the Reagan GOP is pretty much a non-starter at this point.

The traditional, corporatist GOP seems an unlikely choice as well. They represent interests that are far too narrow to be relevant to most of what's happening around us.
The traditional Democrat stream has been struggling to engage effectively for a couple of generations. In similar style but to a lesser extent than the traditional GOP they have too narrow a focus and keep getting blindsided by a world that is far more dynamic and complex than the one that formed their mindset 40 years ago.

So, on the face of it, this leaves the Clinton centrists as the most likely of the main established streams to deliver effective government. Whilst it is true that their determination to rethink things, along with their naked ambition and relentless opportunism, gives them a somewhat better chance to get a handle on current issues than some of the other contenders I think they also come up well short of what's needed. This is partly because this stream of politics has solidified into a something of a closed shop.

The very successful fund raising operations of the Clintons have hardened into a closed group of sponsors, interests and operatives who are bound together as much by loyalty to each other as by any coherent philosophy. All of which is exacerbated by the somewhat bizarre process of anointing a former first lady as the lead candidate. I very much fear that an administration formed from this stream could fail badly, by getting locked into too many deals and quickly descending into a bunker mentality.

So, where does that leave us? Whilst it is depressing that all the main streams of political life in America are inadequate to the task of forming a good government, the upside is that this forces us to think creatively about a new approach. Challenges that are dynamic in nature and global in scope require leadership that is operating independently of compromises between interest groups. It requires decision making based more in what you know and less in who you know. Everybody feels their part of the elephant and a compromise decision combining everybody's feel can seem like the right answer. The problem is that in the 21st century the beast keeps growing new legs.

What manner of president and administration do we need to deliver effective government? I think we need a president who is personally responsible, independently minded, intelligent and driven to solve problems. Critically, the dynamic challenges of this century require that a president not be bound by loyalties and compromises accumulated in the process of getting elected. We need to back such a president with a cabinet that is broadly based, chosen on merit and goal focused.

In other words it needs to someone who has the right personal qualities and capacities who arrives at the White House through a side door. All the various paths to the front door lead through too many toll booths and require promises to too many trolls under too many bridges. They all deliver candidates to the door carrying the seeds of failure.

In the end I think that the candidate with the best chance of being the president we need and forming a government that can work is Barack Obama. With some very big ifs. If he can continue to fund his campaign through large numbers of small donations from non-corporate sources. If he retains his commitment to thinking things through rather the forming policies for policy's sake. If he can avoid trade off's and debts to interest groups. If (and this is the big one) he can establish a constituency for change that reaches previous non-voters. He just might pull it off and arrive at the White House door, intact, as the sort of leader we need.

Critically, Obama needs to answer his most obvious shortcoming. Namely, inexperience. I think the best response to that is to turn the question on it's head. As in, "You say that like it's a bad thing". What much of the political establishment means by, and has lived with, as "experience" is actually about connections. It's about who you know. It contains the assumption that you can't get things done unless you know people that owe you. For the problems this new president will face that sort of experience is the wrong answer.

The other, more conventional, answer to a lack of experience is to form a good team of advisers and proxies, a government in waiting with breadth and depth. Embodying in the process the idea that what matters in a president is personal qualities and capacities. That a curious intellect, a top tier capacity to synthesize and a clear set of principles matter more than detailed previous knowledge of, say, Pakistani politics or pharmaceutical cost pressures.

I think these two approaches can deal with the experience question well enough to give the candidate a shot in a general election.

So there you have it. My tortured reasoning on why the best choice is to back Obama. Now, if only everyone would agree with me would could save a couple of billion bucks and go fishing for the next 20 months.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like W?

2007-04-07T15:29:00.000+10:00

This is a sequence I got involved in at Swampland, which starts with this piece in the dead tree version of Time by Joe Klein, in which Joe declares the Bush presidency dead in the water and muses about what to do with such a Presidency in it's lame duck years. Followed by a blog in which Joe cast doubts the wisdom/practicality of impeachment and many commenters howl for immediate impeachment.

Ana Marie Cox's husband (Swampdad) weighed in with this :

I really like his article - even tho he says in the blog he is not calling for impeachment. [Then] what the f**k is he calling for?

Love,

Sam

To which Joe replied

Ana, ask Swampdad to think about the effects of impeachment: If successful, you get President Cheney. If unsuccessful, you get a latter day precedent--any President, and especially the next President, is more likely to be impeached than not. Impeachment was cheapened by Republicans in the last administration; it shouldn't be cheapened by Democrats in this one. It should be saved for the most blatant cases of serious criminality, not for criminal adolescence and incompetence.

As for what to do now: oppose the Bush foreign policy without proposing precipitate and ill-considered alternatives (listen to politicians like Jim Webb, John Warner, Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel on Iraq), publicize any ensuing acts of carelessness (like Walter Reed) and expose--and block--Rovean overreach. And try to find a next President who is more thoughtful and judicious.

Upon which I commented

Joe is right. Hard as it is to swallow, impeachment for incompetence is not the right answer and not what the founders wanted. It's just too bad a precedent. That said, we should be absolutely vigilant for any evidence of an impeachable offense and act swiftly if it crops up.

Short of impeachment, whats to be done? One of the better (if somewhat fantastic) scenario's would be the removal of Cheney and the appointment of a compromise, centrist, caretaker VP (which is the only kind this Senate will approve). Colin Powell would be my choice but maybe there's some responsible, moderate ex-governor. So, any time and effort put into possible crimes that require the removal of Cheney is absolutely worthwhile. And the Dems should start thinking about who would be an acceptable stand in if the gap comes up.

A few more thoughts.

The most destructive effects of this administration have been the result of the symbiosis between Cheney's ideology and Bush's stupidity. These tragic failures have been enabled by the fact that Bush is dumb enough to do the evil things Cheney dreams up. Break them up and you reduce the damage, potentially, a lot.

Replacing Cheney is a really good way to contain the damage the Administration could do in the next two years. Critically, it also means that if you then come up with valid grounds for impeachment you don't end up President Cheney. A prospect that gives horrific new meaning to "out of the frying pan and into the fire". In fact, any candidate to replace Cheney as VP would have to be credible as a caretaker President, keeping in mind the real potential for this President to be impeached, resign in disgrace or otherwise be hounded from office.

Perhaps the most realistic hope of moderating out the potential damage to America and the world from this Administration is to slowly build a veto proof majority out of Democrats and disaffected Republicans. There's some hope that, at least issue by issue, moderate Republicans and those facing reelection will be persuaded to override vetoes on key pieces of legislation. It will require top class legislative leadership to pull that off and sadly it's not clear that Pelosi and Reid have what it takes. Steny Hoyer just might though.

Perhaps the bigger issue, which goes to the biggest risk for catastrophic error, is to wrest back the war power. Given the horrible consequences of stumbling in to war with Iran, Syria or North Korea, any damage Congress sustains in a full out war powers fight is a price worth paying. That course of action would require big brass ones. Which appear to be in short supply in Congress.

Finally to echo what Joe said. On Iraq, it's always a good idea to listen to Jim Webb .

Keeping the General in View (Swampland 4)

2007-02-25T16:48:00.001+11:00

Linda,

I was working from the Real Clear Politics averages of a basket of national polls (Marist, Qinnipiac, Rasmussen etc). As an average it makes a reasonable stab at washing out the biases of individual polls as well as the effects of different sampling techniqiues and differnent definitions of "likely voter".

I think you interpreted me as being overly optimistic about the Dem's chances in the general. I'm not. In fact, I was saying that they need to avoid hubris. Particularly the sort of hubris that implies that it doesn't matter what we do to each other in the primary because the nominee will win the general election. I'm happy to stick with with my conclusions. Which are :

The Democratic base is staying fairly loyal regardless of which prospective nominee you ask them about, but the GOP base is not.

Nevertheless, a moderate(ish) GOP nominee with security credentials would still have a real shot at holding the middle ground and winning the general election.

The GOP can blow their chances in the general election by nominating the wrong person.

The Dems will have a fighting chance in the general election by nominating any one of their front runners.

So, the biggest factor and highest priority for the GOP is to pick the right nominee. By contrast, the biggest factor and highest priority for the Dems is to position their nominee, whoever they are, to compete effectively for the middle ground in the general election. Importantly, this means that the Dems need to avoid delivering a nominee into the general election arena who is too damaged by the primary process to compete.

So, the sort of thing we've seen over the past few days, which makes all candidates come off as vicious, small and immature is exactly what the Dems don't need. Which is why I'm happy to pile on and say that both David Geffen and the HRC operatives who started all this have been both dumb and disloyal to their party.

Geffen Loses Focus : A Comment (Swamland 3A)

2007-02-25T16:46:00.000+11:00

From Linda at Swampland (time.com)

RB: I don't know what polls you are looking at, but keep in mind that these polls generally are taken from likely voters that are either registered as GOP or DEM. The independent voter is virtually ignored until after the primary-caucus rounds.

The way it works is voters to vote in primary-caucus must be registered with a declared party. All voters can change their party preference, including independents, if they want to vote in the primaries-caucus. This can make no difference or it can be significant.

Just a caution. But you are right that the GOP is hurting at this point. Giuliani hasn't been 'hit' yet by the negative campaigners. That could be significant.

Geffen Loses Focus (Swampland 3)

2007-02-25T16:43:00.000+11:00

I had a look through the latest Real Clear Politics poll averages for general election head to heads. A couple of things caught my eye. Giuliani is holding up well against all democrats.

The Dems numbers against the GOP front runners are fairly closely clustered between 41 (Obama v Giuliani) and 46 (Clinton v McCain). The GOP are much more spread out with the floor being down around 30 (Romney v Obama or Edwards). This seems to say that the bedrock support is lower for the GOP than the Dems. Which means that the GOP have an excellent opportunity to commit suicide by nominating the wrong candidate.

It also seems to say that, regardless of who they nominate, the Dems are looking at roughly Gore/Kerry support levels when up against a moderate Republican with good name recoginition.

Which brings me (back on topic) to say that it's really stupid for the Dems to damage each other with independents and uncommitteds by having this sort of school yard spat.

I'd also stretch the numbers to say that neither Obama or Edwards are not that far behind on the electability stakes. Meaning that money, luck and charisma could close the gap. HRC Inc know this which is why they are leaving nothing to chance.

I think we may be confident that Bill is yelling words to that effect at people even as we sit here.

Tony Goes the Other Way (Swampland 2)

2007-02-25T16:41:00.000+11:00

Blair's withdrawal has dropped Howard in it up to his eyebrows. It's made his whole argument fall to bits. The papers here this morning are laughing long and hard. This from the Australian's Matt Price

"This British withdrawal couldn’t have come at a worse time for the Prime Minister.

After spending the last fortnight hammering Kevin Rudd on his withdrawal policy—and injuring Barack Obama and the US Democrats in the crossfire—John Howard must face the fact that Tony Blair is retreating as well."

And that's the Murdoch paper.

We'll be sure and get the sweets and flowers out for Cheney.

Wait a minute.. the skies over Sydney habour have darkened. The air has suddenly developed an unnatural chill. A dark shape is emerging and moving across the waters towards the Prime Ministers house....

Howard Obama Post Game (Swampland 1)

2007-02-25T16:36:00.000+11:00

This is the first of several notes that I'm posting here today which I first posted as comments on time.coms Swampland blog over a 2 week period around the time of the Howard Obama fracas and then the Geffen-Clinton-Obama affray.

_________________________

On the subject of the coalition, Linda asked that I pass on any wash up from John Howard's Obama brain burst. The latest poll from the Australian (based on interviews done just after Howards teeth met Obama's ankle) came out yesterday with these numbers

Preferred Prime Minister : Howard 37, Rudd 47
(was Howard 40, Rudd 39)

Satisified/Not : Howard 44/46 Rudd 68/13
(was Howard 44/44 Rudd 60/15)

Party Vote Coalition (Howard) 46 Labour 54
(was 44 56)

So, the personal numbers for Howard got worse and his opponent got a big boost. The preferred Prime Minister numbers are a big deal here. A lose on that number hasn't happened to Howard in 10 years in office and the gap is a record in the 21 years this poll has asked that question. It's also significant in that it tends to be a leading indicator response to recent events that shows up in the party vote over the longer run.

There was a slight bobble in the party vote the other way but this appears mostly to consist of minor party votes leaking to the conservatives. I suspect this was wingnuts to Howards right deciding he was one of them after all.

Long story short, it cost him, big time.

Cheney arrives here tomorrow. As you might imagine we're all very thrilled that he's stopping by.

I have this vision that he'll arrive at Howard's house on Sydney habour alighting directly from the deck of a Los Angeles class nuclear sub.

I forgot to say.

From the same poll :
Support for a Stay the Course approach to Iraq : 30%.
Yes, going onto Iraq was a good idea in the first place : 21%

So, really, not so much with the willing for us.

Howard Keeping His Head

2007-02-21T16:03:00.000+11:00

Love this to bits
The silouette in the back is opposition leader Kevin Rudd (who really does look like Tin Tin)

0h No He Didn't !? (John Howard bites Obama and embarasses his country)

2007-02-12T13:17:00.000+11:00

Well, I'd been leaving this go quiet after the midterms figuring it would take a while for the process to build enough for thoughts from across the pond to be even remotely interesting. Then John Howard went and opened his mouth.

In case you haven't heard Mr Howard bucketed Barrack Obama's deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq and suggested if he were Al Qaeda he would be praying for a Democrat to win the White House. Yikes!

To steal a line from Aaron Sorkin and CJ Gregg; firstly, I hardly know where to start, but firstly.

You just don't do that. To wade into an ally's (or anybody else's) internal politics in such a partisan way is outrageous, unacceptable, and just plain dumb.

Not only is this dumb and insulting in general but the realpolitik downsides are enormous. We now have an entire field of presidential candidates who will not give Mr Howard or Australia so much as the time of day if (as is likely) one of them becomes president. See Terry McAuliffe's comments for a brief taste.

So, can I say right off the bat, that I'm confident the vast majority of Australians are very embarrassed and not a little concerned. I think we can also be sure that a very large majority of Americans are wondering what the hell this Howard guy thinks he's doing.

So, I guess, what an observer over here may be able to contribute is some context (which is not be construed at any point as being within driving distance of an excuse, because there is none). I suspect there are two elements to this, one is electoral panic. Mr Howard is, as of this morning's papers, looking at some of the worst numbers of his career. His opponent, Kevin Rudd (in spite of looking like Harry Potter gone grey and sounding like your social studies teacher) is at 65% approval, the voting intention is running his way 58% to 42% and he's leading Howard as preferred Prime Minister by %48 to 42%. I realise it's not necessarily easy to get a sense of these numbers if you haven't been following Australian politics, but trust me, for Mr Howard, to use a technical term, they suck buckets.

Howard has been acting rattled for a few weeks now. He knows he's in trouble and he's thrashing around looking for traction. He thought he had it with a grand new $10 billion plan to fix up problems with inland rivers and water ( a huge issue here) but this morning's poll numbers have the opposition preferred on the environment by 60% to 22% (ouch). This may be partly because the opposition front man on the environment is none other than Peter Garrett. Yes, the Midnight Oil Peter Garrett. You remember him, bald, 7 feet tall and smarter than any 5 other rock stars put together.

The other factor driving Mr Howard to this folly is his obsequious relationship with the Bush administration. If Bush and Cheney are born to rule frat boys, then John Howard is the pathetic nerd gimp that is willing to do anything (and I mean the whole National Lampoon playbook) to be let into the fraternity. Cheney is visiting us next week and it's not outside the bounds of possibility that Howard though this was a good way to earn himself a pat on the head.

Anyway all I can say is we're really embarrassed and we'll be taking local electoral steps to correct this interruption to normal service as soon as possible.

It's The Stupid, Stupid

2006-11-14T21:58:00.000+11:00

On thinking more about why my predictions were too pessimistic for the Dems, and having a read around the usual suspects I've come to some conclusions about where I went wrong.

I'm cribbing here mainly from one of the very scholarly folks on Real Clear Politics, whose name I've lost. Anyhow, this gent and I had much the same predictions, Dems get 222 in the House and 49 in the Senate.

The suggestion is that we took the poll data and moderated it to allow for the structural advantages that the GOP had. Money, redistricting, get out the vote, organisation, and did I mention money? Here's the thing; we assumed that all the GOP candidates in the seats in play would make compentent use of the money etc. that they had access to. Turns out many of them took all that scattered it into the wind (I could use a blunter Australian expression here but this is a family channel, right).

The lesson is that not all candidates are equally effective and that the structural advantages don't avail much (especially in a bad year) if the candidate is just to stupid to use them properly.

And of course candidates in that category are now no longer in office. Which is as it should be. Which is not to say there weren't some OK congress members who did everything right and still got run over by the train.

And There They Go

2006-11-14T21:50:00.000+11:00

Well, well. I was wrong. The polls were mostly right and we have ourselves a ball game.

A takeover of both houses is a huge deal ( in spite of conservative backfilling about the winning Dems being pretty conservative really). A whole new set of opportunities and threats come into play with plenty of scope for either side to make a stand or blow it big time.

How is all this playing in Aus? Well it's got our conserative Prime Minister and Bush loyalist, John Howard, pretty nervous at least as far as security policy goes. Domestically it may not count for a great deal although it will give the other side of the aisle some heart. Which they need.

One issue is that free trade is pretty much a bipartisan position here and some of the new congresspeople are sounding pretty protectionist. That's a worry.

Anyhow. On with the show and start picking up your markers for 08 and the big roulette wheel.

Here We Are

2006-11-07T22:07:00.000+11:00

Well, the day has come. I write at 6:00 AMish ET on election day (aka 10:00 PM Australian Eastern Summer Tme).

So, I said several weeks ago I wanted to see two real bad days for the Republicans before I would believe in Democrat takeovers in both houses. They've had about 1.8 real bad days.

The polling and analysis I consider respectable (Real Clear Politics, Rothenberg, CNN/Time) are giving a pretty good shot to the Dems in the house and a long shot in the senate.

So, I guess it's money down time for us amatuers . Here is my best guess of the results and why.

House : Democrats 222 : Repubilicans 213

Why : Same old story, money, encumbancy, redistricting. People hav been getting excited about a wavw and there is enouigh there for a majority but...The wave is way to small to break through the buffering that all those things provide the Republicans, and produce big results. It was there, maybe, for a while, but good economic news, John Kerry and scare tactics have held the line.

Senate : Democrats 49 : Republicans 51

Why : Montana seems like its going towards the Republicans, and the odds of the Dems getting both Virginia and Missouri are just to long to believe in.

I'll say this. If the Democrats take the senate they should carry Harold Ford, Clare McCaskill and Jim Webb into the chamber shoulder high, with ticker tape. They have all been better than their party machine, and better than it derserved.

Oh, and if that happens the Republicans should see to it that George Allan and Bob Corker are taken out into the Mall, tied down and whupped. Hard. They would've failed their party and they have noone to blame but themselves.

And finally, regardless of the outcome, the Dems should make it clear that John Kerry is not allowed to speak in public without permission. Ever.

Essential Reading

2006-09-17T18:49:00.000+10:00

If you haven't read "Fiasco" by Thomas E Ricks, run, don't walk, run, to your nearest book store and grab a copy.

Everything you didn't want to know about the Iraq War is in there. Impeccably researched and coolly, carefully, compelling written. Prepare to be very angry.

Mr Ricks already has one Pulitzer. If I were him I'd make some more space on the mantelpiece.

CT GOP Goes AWOL

2006-08-24T14:24:00.000+10:00

I quick Ooops I was Wrong. Seems there are no statistically significant Republicans in Connecticut. The latest polling (CNN.COM) shows Lieberman (Ind) 44%, Lamont (Dem) 42%, Schleschinger (GOP) 3%(!). So, the danger of dividing the Centre and Left vote and getting a Republican elected appears to be small. OK, so it's a tough state for the GOP, and, in these weird circumstances, Lieberman may be acting as a default GOP choice, but 3%. Oy!

My other concerns about the wisdom of rolling Lieberman stand.

Fear and Loathing in Connecticut

2006-08-15T10:41:00.001+10:00

Joe Liebermans loss in the Democratic primary in Connecticut (pauses to check spelling, that silent second 'c' catches me out) was a bit a of a surprise. The punditry is awarding this as a victory to the "netroots" movement and perhaps it is, in part. We should also remember that the good people of Connecticut may have their own reasons.

To the extent that the netroots folks are responsible they may find they've scored an own goal. That Senator Lieberman was well to the edge of the party is unarguable. But tossing him out may have been a cure much worse than the disease. It creates many problems. In a tight, crucial national Senate race it may just place a seat in play. If Lieberman runs as an independent the middle/left half of the general electorate may divide, handing a Republican a majority (which is why preferential voting systems are better, but that's a whole other can of tuna). It has also given the Republicans a handy talking point about the Dems being hostage to extremists etc. That will bite some, at least for a little while. Worst of all it is a diversion of time and money. This is a testing election. Every body and every dollar counts. If the Dems are serious about mounting an insurgency they need to keep a total focus on their actual enemy.

To paraphrase Zaphod Beeblebrox : 8 out of t 10 for the tactical result, but minus several million for strategic intelligence.

And Donald Went Up The Hill Again

2006-08-04T10:04:00.000+10:00

So, Donald Rumsfeld went up to Senate Armed Services with the generals in tow and they had a tough time of it. We've seen this before. Will it make any difference? Probably not, although John Abizaid's comments on the danger of civil war in Iraq were not helpful to the Republican cause. That said, I doubt that there is anyone who was going to be turned off by those comments who hadn't already been turned off, or decided for themselves something very similar to what the General said.

The Democrats, Clinton of NY to the fore, did an Ok job of shooting fish in a barrel but I'm not sure they made any particular ground. They did at least avoid the opportunity to screw up and/or go too far.

So, I think we're left where we were. With the likelyhood favouring a change of House majority by a very narrow margin. I'm still looking for two more real bad days for the GOP before I'm going predict a clear majority for the Dems or dismiss the possibility of a narrow GOP survival.

Here We Go

2006-07-29T18:21:00.000+10:00

So, it's August already and the deep, sticky end of the mid-term elections is nearly upon us. Do Australians know or even care? Well, yes, many know, some care and all will be interested in the results. For those of us here who are actually interested in the details it's pretty easy to keep up through the Internerd and cable news networks. And the best part is we get the news coverage but we're spared the advertisements. The tricky bit is we have no first hand feel for the electoral mood on the ground. We have to rely on second hand analysis of the electorate with the added twist of trying to fathom out where each analyst is coming from.

Who do I rely on? Well, CNN.COM (the US edition) in the first instance, for straight up news coverage. Not so much for commentary since they changed to just Molly Ivins (from the left) and R. Emment Tyrell Jnr (from the right, with a name like that it could hardly be otherwise). I find them both so polarised as to be useless for getting a real read. Who else? Time magazine, Australian broadsheets, cable rebroadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC news, the New York Times email edition and Fox News (for a read on where the conservative punditry is at).

So, it's a wired world. We all knew that. On to the mid-terms.

The first thing that strikes an Australian observer about US congressional elections is the importance of money and second thing is the power of encumbancy. We have public funding of federal elections and whilst the parties raise corporate contributions at a national level, members of our house of reps spend nothing like the time and effort on fund raising that US congress members spend. Also, our electorates are small enough that they are not reachable as TV markets so there is next to no TV advertising for individual candidates in house seats.

Encumbancy seems to be a much bigger advantage in the US system than it is here. Partly this is because we have a genuinely independent, national electoral commission that sets all electorate boundaries. This means that there is no scope for fiddling at a state level and the political parties have little means to influence boundaries. Another reason for the difference is that voting here is more party based. That is, if the national leadership of a major party is popular every MP in that caucus gets a boost. Conversely, if a national leadership is on the nose with the general electorate every single MP in that party will take a hit. An individual MP's personal strengths might mediate the size of the hit but it is rare to buck a national trend on local factors alone.

So, at first blush, an Australian sees a national leadership with the seriously negative numbers that the Bush administration and the GOP congressional leadership have, and expects that every single GOP member of the House is going to pay, many of them with their seats. Of course this ain't necessarily so. Money, local factors, and encumbancy can be expected to protect many GOP members from the consequences of their leaders' failures . Also many are hard at work distancing themselves from the President and the leadership ("the Devil made me vote that way" defence).

My best guess at this early stage and from this great distance is that the House will change hands, very narrowly and that there will be enough softness on the righthand edge of the Democratic party for every vote in the new house to be a battle. This is not an enticing prospect. An even more do nothing congress. My sense is that the advantages of encumbancy act as a buffer but they can be overcome if the tide gets high enough. It's well inside the bounds of possibility that a couple more bad breaks for the GOP could see the electoral mood cross a tipping point and set off a rout. They know this, that's why they're in do nothing mode.

It's going to be an interesting ride.