[Why do I have 20 states, when everyone else has 17? Because I'm taking a wider view of the definition of "swing" states. In practice, WA, ME, CO, and VA are probably not going to be in play.]
If you do nothing but look at the change in employment rate, assuming that states not on the standard swing list will stay where they are, Kerry wins the election 290-248. That's phenomenal, especially when you consider that Bush carries both Ohio and Pennsylvania in this scenario. Picking up one of those two large battleground states would seal the election easily.
Update: the March employment numbers show an upward revision of the January and February numbers. Still, I think the change in unemployment is an important figure.
Contributors through blogs mean no harm link
March 29
To the editors of the Aberdeen News, and the citizens of South Dakota,
I'm one of the many Internet users who gave money to Stephanie Herseth's congressional campaign. I found her web page through an advertisement on a Democratic leaning blog (an Internet journal or magazine) called Talking Points Memo (www.talkingpointsmemo.com) and was very impressed. I gave her $50, my first ever campaign contribution. I think of blogs as direct mail advertising for the 21st century -- many readers are very interested in politics and are eager to feel a sense of grassroots involvement in the political process. He web page is by no means "secret", and all political contributions will be reported under election laws, so everyone will be able to see just how much (or how little) of a difference the contributions of blog readers make.
I want assure your readers that I am not trying to "infect" the good state of South Dakota with any sort of strange West Coast values. If anything, I gave to her campaign because I missed the more moderate progressive attitudes of Democratic politicians in my home state of Georgia. While there are certainly blogs whose authors oppose the War in Iraq and many of President Bush's policies, there are others who have mixed feelings about the war and our President. And even though I may disagree with Ms Herseth's position on gay marriage, I am not going to withdraw my support when there are more important issues facing our country, like improving Medicare's new prescription drug benefit and moving towards renewable sources of fuel like ethanol.
If you are truly concerned about the influence of out-of-state money on your elected officials, you should also be looking at Larry Diedrich's contributors. As of the last filing period, Mr. Diedrich has received no money from individual contributors -- only Political Action Committees. He has taken money from PACs representing congressmen Devin Nunes and Wally Herger of California, as well as Judy Biggert and Dennis Hastert of Illinois. In the February special election for a Congressional seat in Kentucky, Speaker Hastert went so far as to practically bribe the citizens of the Louisville area. He promised a bailout for tobacco farmers if they elected the GOP candidate. The people of Louisville did not take kindly to being told who to vote for and selected a Democrat, and I hope the people of South Dakota choose their votes on their own as well, be it for a Democrat or a Republican. Ms Herseth, meanwhile, has received almost as much money from individual contributions as she has from PACs, and while some money does come from blog readers, the vast majority of her individual contributors are still from South Dakota.
But while money may be important in running a campaign, in the end it is the voters who are important on election day. More than anything else, I encourage everyone to vote in the upcoming June election, and take part in the great American democracy.
Sincerely,
Nick Beaudrot
Seattle, WA
Weekly news roundup, March 22 - March 26th. link
March 26
Based on the Rassumssen tracking poll, Clarke seems to have done his damage against Bush. Between Sunday and today, Bush has gone from a three point lead to trailing by three points. I tend to agree with most analysis here: that this campaign will damage his second most important character trait -- being "honest and trustworthy" -- which is exactly what Howard Dean's talking points have been. At this point, a Bush re-election
Perhaps most importantly, the fact that a Viacom subsidiary published the book means CBS will be the network that pushes the story most, if it lasts any longer than this week. Previously, CBS has been the most conservative of the news networks -- remember, this is the network that decided not to air "The Reagans" because it wasn't flattering enough to Ronald Reagan, the network that refused to run MoveOn.org ads during the Super Bowl, the network that continued to run the Medicare ads (not the fake news, but the straight up 30-second ads) when all the other networks stopped running them -- and now its White House correspondents have a massive reason to question basically everything that comes out of the White House.
On the non-election front, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow went to oral argument this week. This is the now-famous pledge case, where an aggresive atheist is arguing that the pledge should not be read in his daughter's classroom because it has the words "Under God" in it. Note that he's not arguing that his daughter should be allowed to leave the room, or not participate in the pledge, or say the pledge but skip the words "Under God" -- he's arguing that the existence of the pledge itself. It is almost certain that the Court will reverse the lower court's decision; Rehnquist and Thomas are certain "reverse" votes, Kennedy thinks he doesn't have standing, O'Connor thinks there is already precedent that allows Newdow's daughter to decline saying the pledge, Ginsburg is worried about a slippery slope where singing "God bless America" on a semi-regular basis is forbidden. Breyer seems to think this case might fall under "ceremonial deism" -- watered down religion that falls underneath the Establishment Clause, as does Souter doesn't have any remarks in the Times' transcript. Stevens doesn't say much, though his questions to the Solicitor General and the School District suggest he is the justice most receptive to Newdow's argument (he is also the most liberal justice, so that's not really in question). It is almost certain that the court will rule against him, at best 5-3, and probably 7-1, unless Souter is convinced by Newdow's response that the pledge is an affirmation that endorses religion and encourages children to endorse religion.
Having said all this, I learned a fair bit about the history of the pledge this week, and I now hope that some day we can remove the words "Under God" from it. The pledge was written in 1890 and part of the Reconstructionist movement to punish the old Confederacy -- you should listen closely to the pledge the next time you say it -- and it did not originally contain the words "Under God". They were added under the Eisenhower administration to add further contrast to God-fearing U.S. of A. with those atheist Communist folks in the Soviet Union. At the same time the "In God we Trust" appeared slogan on the dollar. Essentially, the pledge is the Southern Cross for the whole country, reminding us how different we are from Kruschev and his gang. Given the ability of the Confederate flag to wear out its welcome, I suspect it may be a while before we change the pledge. Not being an atheist, I would like to think that this small bit of ceremonial deism doesn't hurt anyone. But apparently it does. I hope that non-proselytizing religion still has a place at the public square, because I happen to think that most forms of religion tend to help people focus on doing good. But if I'm told that it's offensive to you, I'm happy to tone down my rhetoric.
Some folks who are far more libertarian than I am think that not just the phrase "Under God" should go, but the whole pledge should, Government should not have the right to require/coerce children to essentially take an oath until the age of 18, if at all. I disagree. First, I'm just not a libertarian absolutest. Social liberties, sure, but policies like gun control, prevention of drug use under certain circumstances, and faith based non-profit grants make too much sense to take the hardline view that the government should be as limited as possible. Second, I think there is some established precedent that the Government essentially has the right to preserve itself -- I know it's really sketchy of me to rely on Dennis v. United States, but I can't think of any other precedents that state this clearly, though I'm sure they're out there. Please let me know if you know of any.
Most of all, I think this was a chance to give the overburdened Supreme Court clerks a chance to take a break, since no one
Bad News Friday:
Rice to meet with 9/11 panel, in private, and not under oath -- there is talk that the commission now has leverage to put her under oath, if not under oath in public, if she's just doing this to rebut other witnesses. While I hope this happens, I am really starting to wonder what exactly the 9/11 commission is going to accomplish. Hopefully we will get some recommendations to improve FBI-CIA cooperation, and maybe some way of improving the process of escalating threat information to the President.
Snow says China currency should float -- what, you're going to wave a magic wand and suddenly China's just going to fall in line? Though I am not a monetary policy expert, my impression is that this is the right thing to do, but isn't it to China's great short term advantage to peg its currency to the dollar? How do you propose we convince them to get there, Mr. Snow?
Bush Administration criticizes Tiffany -- Because Tiffany criticizes the Bush Administration for drilling a three mile copper and silver mine. I don't know if these resources are really needed, but I tend to think the world's supply of silver is doing just fine. Besides, shouldn't they have the right to protest the Government's decisions if they are facing a boycott?
Sharon coming to Washington -- "as the administration sharpens its focus on Mideast peacemaking". I'm sorry, but the irony of Bush and Sharon meeting to talk about the Mideast peace process right now is more than I can take.
Bush: "I want to improve rural Internet access! Home ownership is up! Make my tax cuts permanent so we can cut discretionary spending to zero!". By the way, don't worry about your mounting household debt.
Kerry: "I will create 10 million jobs".
Lower the cost of discovering potential donors. I'm not the first person to say this; many people have said that the best thing the Internet has done is reduce the cost to a campaign of identifying supporters willing to give their time and money.
Push donors towards competitive elections. Voters contributing hard money online have access to a wealth of information about which races are competitive and which are not. And while there may be some bias to pick candidates who you agree with, or who are in your home state, it's reasonable to suspect that funding drives on the internet can largely be funnelled to campaigns that need them most.
Since the Democrats generally trail the Republicans in hard money contributions, it's important that this scarce resource go to the place it's needed most. Evan Bayh is a terrific fundraiser, but he's never going to need the millions of dollars he can raise. Find someone who needs it, like Barbara Boxer, Inez Tannenbaum, or Tom Daschle, and give to them instead.
Here's another example: there are two Democrats running for GA-12, a district that encompasses the small cities of Savannah and Athens, plus a slew of rural counties in between (if this seems like a goofy district, you'd be right; Georgia has been one of the victims of crapulent post-2000 re-redistricting). One of them is Doug Haines, and the other is John Barrow. Haines has $60K cash on hand, while Barrow has $360K. On top of that, Haines has earned some bad blood locally, while John Barrow is serving on the Clarke County commission relatively well. Now, Haines is doing more blog advertising, on the theory that blog readers are more liberal than the general electorate. But do you want ideological purity? Or do you want to win?
Mobilize letter to the editor drives. I'm amazed that this hasn't happened already. Let me give you an example of the Republican party already doing this with great success:
On Februrary 10th, the Portland Oregonian ran an op-ed piece panning the new prescription drug benefit.
On February 23rd, an HHS administrator sends a letter to the editor repeating talking points on the drug plan.
Now, I know most newspaper readers don't read the op/ed page, but some important people do. First of all, I suspect that almost everyone who reads the op/ed page votes. Second, someone on the newspaper staff has to read the letters to the editor, so they'll be more likely to print both sides of the issue the next time it comes up. This sort of coordinated response, complete with sanitized language, is missing on the left. And it could easily be accomplished, and the Internet is a perfectly good tool to help mobilize this sort of effort.
This does nothing to reduce the cost of elections per se, but it does increase the amount of "free media" that progressives get. The Right is already in on this game, so why shouldn't the Left join in? The most important aspect of having a broad reaching set of activists interested in writing LTEs get the right people to send the letters, either (a) local citizens served by the newspaper, or (b) bigwigs with the relevant organization who will get a good byline "Joe Smith is the Director of Communications for the League of Conservation Voters". Having every LTE volunteer give their zip code and the organizations they're affiliated with is a perfect start.
Scrub the language on both sides. Paul Waldmen of the Gadflyer has a good article on this subject. This is another game that the right Right plays that the Left doesn't. The Right Wing Media Machine (TM) have done an incredible job keeping disciplined use of the best terms on any cause, at least the one that best suits conservative purposes. "Intact dilation and extraction" became "partial-birth abortion". The "inheritance tax" became the "death tax". "Giving tiny tax cuts to the working class, plus massive tax cuts to millionaires" became "broad tax relief". "Universal health care" became "socialized medicine". "Affirmative action" became "quotas". "Opposition attacks" became "research reports". And so on. There's no equivalent effort on the progressive side. I know, we like to think that politicians should all be geniuses, but if they're that smart, they should be able to distill their message into language that the swing voter -- who is often not college educated, of modest means, and does not always live in the city -- can understand.
What language changes are needed? I don't know, I'm not a speechwriter. But if enough people put their heads together, I'm sure there's a solution here somewhere. I suggest starting by turning "federal deficit" into "future taxes, plus interest", which has the advantage of being 100% true. Start with that and go from there.
Update: Kerry has beaten me to the punch, and it's a better sound bite! The deficit is now the "birth tax". I love it!
Develop feedback mechanisms to discover what works and what doesn't. I have vague memories of channel surfing through MTV and seeing a segment on their "Rock the Vote" tour, a combination of summer concerts and voter registration drives. With about 1,000,000 concert goers, I think they had registered something like 10,000 voters. That's pathetic. We should be able to figure out which voter registration, contact, and turnout initiatives are working, and which aren't.
Clock management 101, or, how Bush won the 2000 Presidental debates link
March 11
In 2000, Gore was leading Bush by 5 to 8 points leading up to the October debates. After the debates, most polls showed a draw. How did this happen? I decided to troll through the transcripts, and I found a very disturbing pattern.
Let's take this exchange from the first debate as an example:
MR. LEHRER: All right. On the Supreme Court question, should a
voter assume -- you're pro-life; you just stated your position.
GOV. BUSH: I am pro-life.
MR. LEHRER: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the Supreme Court, or any other court, federal court, will also be pro-life?
GOV. BUSH: Voters should assume that I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. But the voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy. And that's going to be a big difference between my opponent and me.
I believe that -- I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government; that they're appointed for life, and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal, activist judges; I believe in strict constructionists, and those are the kind of judges I will appoint.
I've named four Supreme Court judges in the State of Texas, and I would ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They're good solid men and women who have made good sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.
MR. LEHRER: What kind of appointments should they expect from you, VICE PRESIDENT GORE?
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Both of us use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome. I don't favor litmus tests. But I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution. And in my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with the -- with our country and our history.
And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment. And when the phrase "strict constructionist" is used, and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying that the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I mean, it's very clear to me. And I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade.
MR. LEHRER: Is the vice president right? Is that a code word for overturning Roe v. Wade?
GOV. BUSH: Sounds like the vice president is not very right many times tonight. I just told you the criterion on which I'll appoint judges. I've had a record of appointing judges in the state of Texas. That's what a governors gets to do. A governor gets to name supreme court judges. And I've given my answer.
MR. LEHRER: All right.
GOV. BUSH: He also reads all kinds of things into my tax plan and in my Medicare plan. And I just want the viewers out there to listen to what I have to say about that.
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: That's a yes. It is a code.
MR. LEHRER: Reverse the question. Reverse the question. (Laughter.) What code phrases should we read by what you said about what kind of people you will appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court?
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: It would be very likely that they'd uphold Roe v. Wade. But I do believe it's wrong to use a litmus test. But -- (laughs) -- if you look at the history of a lower court judge's rulings, you can get a pretty good idea of how they're going to interpret questions. Now, a lot of questions are a first impression, and these questions that have been seen many times come up in a new context. And so -- but, you know, this is a very important issue because a lot of young women in this country take this right for granted, and it could be lost.
It is on the ballot in this election, make no mistake about it.
GOV. BUSH: I'll tell you what kind of judges he'll put on there. He'll put liberal, activist judges who will use their bench to subvert the legislature, that's what he'll do.
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: That's not right.
MR. LEHRER: New subject, new question.
Look closely. Notice anything? Besides Gore trying to wrangle a straight answer out of Bush and failing.
This is all one exchange; there are no intervening new questions, only follow-ups. But Bush managed to go into the "hurry up offense" and reach the end zone just before the buzzer. He succeeded in repeating his talking point right before the discussion moved to a new topic. In the first debate, there were fifteen questions. How many times did Gore get the last word in?
Once.
Taxes. Education. Medicare. Oil development. Judicial appointments. You go down the line, and every time Bush gets one last zinger in, whether it's an attack on Gore or the shortened (and often vague or sugarcoated) version of his position. In fact, Gore even noticed what was going on [emphasis added]:
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: If I -- just briefly, Jim, I know. I found a couple of other things that we agree on, and we may not find that many this evening -- (laughs) -- so I wanted to emphasize them. I strongly support new investments in clean coal technology. I made a proposal three months ago on this. And also domestic exploration, yes. But not in the environmental treasures of our country. We don't have to do that. That's the wrong choice. I know the oil companies have been itching to do that, but it is not the right thing for the future.
GOV. BUSH: No, it's the right thing for the consumers. Less dependency upon foreign sources of crude is good for consumers, and we can do so in an environmentally friendly way.
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, can I have the last word on this?
MR. LEHRER: New question.
GOV. BUSH: Of course. (Laughter.)
This is part of the reason Gore kept getting pissed off and sighing. How about the second debate, did it go any better? This debate was more free wheeling, so it's hard to figure out where the questions begin and end. But I count nine or ten final answers for Bush, and two for Gore. And one last time, in the third debate, where Lehrer clearly tried to keep a tighter lid on things, Gore got the last word in 4 times. And one of those was just to repeat that he agreed with Bush on the death penalty, though using a 10-cent phrase when Bush used a 5-cent one. Bush, meanwhile, got the last word in 10 times.
The bottom line: If John Kerry knows what's good for him, he will write both the Bush campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates today and demand that each candidate receive an equal number of opportunities to have the "final answer" in an exchange.
Q Scott, Ambassador Zoellick testified on the Hill today. I wondered if you could talk to me about what the White House sees as the economic benefits of outsourcing, or do you simply see it as a right of American business under the free enterprise system?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you heard the President of the United States talk earlier today about the last thing we need to do is to retreat into economic isolationism. That would hurt our economy. Our economy is moving in the right direction. New jobs are being created; 364,000 jobs in the last six months, I believe it is, have been created. The economy is moving in the right direction because of the policies that this President has taken and the policies that he is advocating.
One part of continuing to build upon the steps that we have taken is to open markets globally. And that's why the President is aggressively working to expand trade and make sure that there is a level playing field. We live in a changing economy and it's important that we make sure that workers also have the skills they need to fill the high-paying, high-skilled jobs of the 21st century. There are a lot of high-growth sectors within the economy and we need to make sure that workers are prepared to fill those jobs.
Because of the actions that -- and I would remind you that American workers are the most -- are the best in the world. They can compete with anyone, anywhere, as long as there is a level playing field. But trade, free and fair trade is important to economic growth here in America. The President is focused on creating jobs here in America and making sure that workers are prepared for the jobs that are available in the 21st century. Foreign companies are coming to America to --
Q I'll stipulate that --
MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. Foreign companies are coming to America because they know that American workers are the best in the world. And they're coming here and creating jobs. We have an environment that is leading to more robust job creation, but there's more that we need to do. The President is not satisfied because people are still looking for work and they cannot find a job.
However, he makes some (perhaps) unrealistic assumptions. The most unrealistic is that members of congress take a fixed position over the course of their career. So, having seen all this, I'm not sure what to make of it.
That being said, there are a number of amusing things to note:
"Baghdad Jim" McDermot (D-WA) represents my congressional district, and is perhaps the most liberal congressman. That's right, he is more liberal than Dennis Kucinich. He battles for this title with Maxine Waters (D-CA, some part of LA), John Conyers (D-MI, Detroit), Bob Filner (D-CA, CA/AZ/Mexico border), and Pete Stark (D-CA, Oakland). Just to be clear, he represents a largely (70-80%) white city with very little in the way of crime wrries and a relatively high income, and ends in the same bucket as the vegan, snowboarding, Hawaii-visiting Kucinich, three congresspersons who all represent an inner city (or part of an inner city), and one congressman who represents our country's border.
To a certain degree, this is strategic. After all, the odds that McDermot would ever lose his seat are quite low; Seattle is a very socially liberal district on everything except perhaps race relations. And while the state hates taxes, I don't think the city does. So McDermot serves the useful purpose of gadfly for issues more mainstream Democrats might be hesitant to raise.
Barbara Boxer, public enemy number one for the Republican party, is perhaps the most liberal member of the Senate. This suggests that a moderate Republican holds a decent chance of defeating her in the upcoming election, though since it is also a presidential election year it may be hard to counteract the Democratic pull of the rest of the state.
John McCain (R-AZ) has apparently lost his mind. After being one of the more moderate Republicans over the past 6 years, he's now one most conservative senators in the 108th congress. This may be due to the Republican co-opting of the medicare overhaul, and being in lock-step on tax cuts, so we may see his location on this spectrum change in the coming year. For instance, McCain broke ranks on several gun control amendments.
Zell Miller (D-GA) is the only senator to cross over into the realm of moderate Republicans. In the 108th congress he seems to be moving further right.
If you're a Democrat, you should be very scared of the alternative budget being proposed by Don Nickels (D-OK). Nickels is one of the top 5 most conservative Senators. His proposals include accelerating the repeal of the "death tax" and increasing federal revenue by cracking down fraud in the EITC (the EITC is a tax credit for the working poor. You only qualify if you make less than $33,000 in wages a year), which has to be the least efficient way of getting money into federal hands I can think of. Thankfully, he's also retiring this year.
Can we please have a return to sanity on the "death tax"? The estate tax--or, as Republicans like to call it when they're denigrating it, the "death tax"-- is a hefty tax collected on your assets after you die. Let me make this clear, the government takes your money after you are no longer alive to use it. Now, certainly, you might want to give your money to your children. But if you're going to do that, you should have done that before you died. I've heard that the "death tax" affects family farms; fine, don't start applying the estate tax until your estate is worth more than $3 million or $5 million. But taking half the assets of the Hilton family is perfectly reasonable; Paris and Nikki can still go shopping all they want with the remaining hundreds of millions of dollars. By the way, lumniaries like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Sr. (and probably John Kerry) favor the estate tax.
Senator Kerry (D-MA) is smack in the middle of the Democratic party. If he's going to pick a senate member as a running mate, it's going to be someone more conservative, and someone from a red state or a light blue state. That leaves options like Murray and Cantwell (WA), Daschle (SD), Wyden (OR), Graham and Nelson (FL), Bingaman (NM), Kohl (WI), Carnahan (MO), Bayh (IN, and my personal favorite in this race), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln and Pryor (AR), or Max Cleland (GA).
Ralph Nader told Democrats that they should "relax and rejoice" that he's running for President. Given that he's polling above 5%, I'm worried that he doesn't understand what's going on. Remember that in 2000, with a boring candidate and unenergized Democratic base, Nader had to scratch and claw in order to get on the ballot. He only made it onto the ballot in 43 states. This time, he's not running as part of the Green party, so he will have an even harder time getting on the ballot. What, I asked, are Nader's chances of getting on the ballot? I dug up the Reform Institute's ballot access requirement scorecard, which has signature and fee requirements for candidacy. Then I lined this up with the 2000 election results to figure out where Nader is going to get on the ballot. Of course, just because you voted for Nader doesn't mean you're going to sign a ballot petiton for him. What we really want to know is the percentage of die-hard, we-hate-the-system Nader voters. To do this, I looked up percentage of votes Nader received when he appeared as a write-in, versus when he appeared on the ballot, and compared neighboring states.
Nader was not on the ballot in Georgia, where he got 0.5% of the vote. He got 1.6% in Florida, 1.45 in South Carolina, 0.95% in Tennessee, and 1.1% in Alabama.
Nader was not on the ballot in Indiana, where he got 0.8% of the vote. He got 2.5% in Ohio, 2.0% in Michigan, 2.1% in Illinois, and 1.5% in Kentucky.
Nader wasn't on the ballot in Wyoming, and got 2.1% of the vote on write-ins. He got 5.9% in Montana, 3.5% in Nebraska, 4.7% in Utah, and 5.3% in Colorado (he was also a write-in in Idaho, and had no vote count in South Dakota).
Nader wasn't on the ballot in Idaho, where he got 2.1% of the vote. He got 5.9% in Montana, 4.7% in Utah, 5.0% in Oregon, 4.1% in Washington, and 2.5% in Nevada (he was also a write-in in Wyoming).
Nader was not on the ballot and received no count in South Dakota, Oklahoma, and North Carolina, so I can't really look at those vote totals. But in each of these states, there is a clear pattern. We can see that the die-hard support for Nader probably amount 25-40% his voters; these are dyed-in-the-wool Greenies. Let's use these voters as a base, and see what the chances are that Nader will get on the ballot. I'll stick to key swing states; if Nader gets on the ballot in Vermont and Texas, well, bully for him.
Nader needs 94,023 signatures in order to get on the ballot in Florida. He got 97,488 votes in Florida, where he was on the ballot. I find it extremely unlikely that all those voters are going to sign a petition to have him ruin the election again; I think they've all learned their lesson.
Nader needs 3,000 signatures to get on the ballot in New Hampshire. He got 22,198 votes there in 2000. So there's a very good chance he'll get on the ballot there.
Nader needs only 5,000 autographs to get on the ballot in Ohio. He got 117,857 last time, so it's almost certain that he'll get on the ballot there.
Nader needs 25,000 signatures in Pennsylvania. He got 103,392 votes, so he has a good but not great chance of getting on the ballot.
Nader needs only 1,500 signatures in Iowa, where he got 29,374 votes.
And so on, and so forth. All totalled, here are my assesments of where Nader will appear on the ballot.
Very unlikely (40% or more of Nader voters sign petition): Florida, New Mexico, West Virginia
Somewhat likely (10-25% of Nader voters sign petition): New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia
Very likely (10% or less of Nader voters sign petition): Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin
And here's a trusty map (the darker the green, the more likely Nader is to make it onto the ballot):
Of course, it only takes a few thousand nasty Republicans engaged in sabotage in order to get him on the ballot in several states. Most telling, Nader is starting his signature drive in Texas. This, to me, is a clear sign that Nader isn't going to torpedo the election in key swing states. But perhaps I am being optimistic.
Weekly News Roundup, February 29th-March 5th link
March 5
I don't know what to make of Haiti. I tend to agree with The New Republic's analysis that we were correct to re-install Aristide in the early 1990s, but that he has in good faith not been a good president since then.
I have no clue how Haiti affects the election. Foreign policy is complicated and not easily reduced to ten words or less. At best, it's another example of the Bush administration doing what it thinks is right without so much as thinking about the long-term consequences, but selling that to the American people is tough (especially, when, for instance, things go apparently well in the aftermath).
The Bush ads aren't that offensive. It's going to be difficult to hold an election where it's not appropriate to discuss 9/11. Clearly we should applaud the country for coming together at that time, be it because of Bush or inspite of him. But we should be critical of policy decisions since then, including, oh, I don't know, diverting several hundred thousand troops from Afghanistan to wage war in Iraq.
I am okay with using footage from 9/11. I think I draw the line at the flag-draped coffin. Given that there is no footage of bodies coming home from Iraq, it seems unequal to allow Bush to use footage of coffins from 9/11.
I am okay with Bush using firefighters, even if the firefighters union endorses Kerry.
As I understand it, there's a certain amount of evidence that positive ads don't actually do anything, especially if you don't have any programs to go with them. So it may not matter.
If Kerry adds 40,000 new troops, as he promised, and all of the technology he's proposed, I don't understand how he'd propose to shrink the deficit. The only, and I mean only, way I can see it working is if he agrees to shrink the Navy in order to expand the Army, which, given our current military commitments, is probably the right thing to do.
I'm going to say it again and again: Kerry needs to find parts of the government he can make smaller. Shrink the tax code, shrink stupid military programs like missle defense and tactical nuclear weapons, merge things like import-export banks, etc.
Is it me, or is this election getting really nasty really fast. I mean, no one is even trying to be above the fray.
It's like we've given up all pretense of having a reasonable debate on, well, anything.
Jobs are killing the prez. Credibility is going down.
You can run a 2-minute long ad putting Bush's predictions next to reality and destroy his credibility. It's going to be wonderful.
John Kerry Fundraising Tour, or, Does He Get It? link
March 5
John Kerry has released the schedule for his first round of fundraising. This is probably the first hint as to his general election plan, and it looks like he has a decent understanding of how this game works. He has 16 visits planned (I'm counting the four California stops as two visits, and the Providence/Boston stop as one visit). So where is he going? The electoral college value of each swing state is included. And as always, my trusty red-state, blue-state map is of great importance.
7 stops in "deep blue" states: Northern California, DC, Illinois, Boston, New York, and New Jersey. I understand there's symbolic value in being in New York City
4 stops in "middle blue" states: Southern California, two in Pennsylvania(21), and Michigan (17).
1 stop in a "light blue" states: Florida (27)
3 stops in "light red" states: Missouri (11), and two in Ohio (20)
1 stop in a "middle red" state: Louisiana (9)
1 stop in a "deep red" state: Texas
Here are the missed swing states, from bluest to reddest:
Washington (11)
Minnesota (10)
Oregon (7)
Wisconsin (10)
Iowa (7)
New Mexico (5)
New Hampshire (4)
Nevada (5)
Tennessee (11)
Arkansas (6)
Arizona (10)
West Virginia (5)
Virginia (13) -- though one may credit his DC stop as effectively a Virginia stop
There are three big elements to this fundraising swing, as far as I can tell.
Most of Kerry's time is spent in "big ticket" states.
There are no trips to the fast-becoming-more-Democratic Southwest, the Northwest, or the upper Midwest
Almost all his trips are to large cities that are heavily Democratic (of course, to an extent, that's where the donors are).
The last trend is the most disturbing. The biggest exceptions are Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, two smaller, relatively conservative cities. But as I mentioned before, Kerry seems to equate "going to Atlanta" with "going to Georgia". At a time when the Southern Heritage folks are writing letters to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, complaining about the "city-state" of Atlanta and its tyranny over the state's constituents (these constituents, by the way, voted to reject the Confederate battle flag), Kerry needs to be spending time outside the city, proving that he's not just there to win over the city-folk, but that he can be the man for the country-folk too. To put it another way, In a battle between the City and the Country, the Country wins. In any state where the non-urban population outnumbers the urban population, or where the city residents might be somewhat conservative, the Republicans can win by appealing to conservative social values, not raising taxes, and railing against the slick-talking city folk, especially with a folksy-acting incumbent President going up against the intelligent and well-spoken but frequently wordy Kerry. Since the flyover states and much of the Deep South are more or less impregnable, this spells disaster for the Democrats. If Kerry does not understand this, he may be well and truly doomed in the national election. But we shall see.
Other than the thought of starting the campaign from San Francisco -- think of the fun the right will have with "Mayor Newsom kicks of Kerry's fundraising tour" -- this is what I'd call a good but not great plan. I would have added a stop in Las Vegas, Phoenix, or Albuquerque; replaced the stop in Miami with a stop in Jacksonville, Tampa, or Orlando; and added a secondary stop to a smaller city, like Youngstown, Dayton, Louisville, Norfolk. Columbia, Harrisburg, Flint, Ann Arbor, or something like that.
In addition to voting in the Democratic primary, today Georgia voters voted to retain the 2003 state flag. This replaced the 2001 state flag, which featured miniature copies of older flags, including one that had the Confederate battle flag, which replaced the 1956 flag, which consisted only of the state seal and the Confederate battle emblem.
Georgians should be honest here, and recognize that the 1956 flag was instated as a protest of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, et al., reasserting "states' rights" in the face of a Supreme Court decision requiring the integration of public schools under the equal protection amendment to the constitution. Several other states either put the Confederate emblem on their state flag or began flying the Confederate flag at the state capitol. No amount of ranting and raving on the "heritage" of the former Confederacy will cover up this fact.
Of course, in 2004 the Confederate battle flag -- one that might fly to tell your troops where to rally to -- has now been replaced by the Confederate civil flag -- one that might fly over the capitol of the Confederacy in Birmingham or Atlanta or Richmond or wherever it was at the time. So while this is clearly progress and eleminates the more symbolicly racist battle flag, the "heritage" of the old Confederacy is alive and well.
I love my home state. Really. I do.
Last
updated by Nicholas Beaudrot on 11:29 13 February 2005
