| Apr 29 | Friday Latin American Roundup |
| Apr 25 | The Value of Incumbency |
| Apr 25 | On Parliamentarianism |
| Apr 25 | More Common Good & Politics of Definition |
| Apr 24 | Topics I Really, Really, Really, Cannot Comment On |
| Apr 22 | Braves Outlook |
| Apr 22 | Pushback, Part Deux |
| Apr 21 | We're All in This Together |
| Apr 20 | Key Arena Adventures |
| Apr 18 | Patchwork Healthcare Insanity |
| Apr 17 | Insanity |
| Apr 15 | Agent Smith, Reincarnated as an Economics Professor |
| Apr 13 | Friday Latin American Roundup, Chinchilla Blogging, & Shuffle! |
| Apr 12 | Busbymania, or, The Fuzzy Math of Chris Bowers |
| Apr 11 | Wake Me Up When |
| Apr 9 | More Great Stuff from Peter Levine |
| Apr 7 | Friday Crashing the Gate Blogging |
| Apr 6 | The Somewhat Fuzzy Math of Howard Schultz |
| Apr 4 | Free Beer |
| Apr 1 | Opening Day |
Worldpress.org has a much broader collection of newspapers, and also tells you the ideological bend of the paper you're reading.
Immigration issues in the US arent't front-page material for Mexican newspapers these days. But here's what they have covered:
I'm not sure what to make of the Democracy Corps polling that shows Republican incumbents faring significantly worse than Democratic incumbents. Because of the state of Delaymandering, incumbent Dems will always be stronger than Republicans, because Democratic voters have been compressed into as few districts as possible. In my Copious Free TimeTM, I'll take a look at the 2004 election results for the 416 seats where there's an incumbent, to see just how much (or little) things have changed.
... okay, so I went ahead and did the math. In 2004, House Democrats earned 65.7% of the vote in the 199 incumbent-held districts they'll defend, while Republicans earned 61.0% of the vote in their home turf. If the Corps' polling is correct, this means Dems can expect to shave between 8 and 12 points off the margin of victory for the average Republican. That means the top 47 Republicans, and then perhaps some more, may be vulnerable.
Mark Schmitt (and Matt Yglesias) have been debating what one-party Democratic control might look like. Yglesias concedes that we're not going to have a completely Democratic House and Senate in 2007, and probably not in 2009, so to some extent this is an intellectual exercise. But at the same time, Schmitt notes that the Republican coalition may in fact be reduced to a "rump" containing almost no pro-choice or pro-environment legislators, and very few pro-labor ones. This makes for a very interesting policy conundrum; organizations like the Sierra Club will find it very hard to advance bipartisan coalitions on many issues.
It's worth pointing out that the bipartisan give-and-take present in the Senate in the 1990s was almost certainly the exception, and not the rule. Surely, the senate has been a bipartisan organization since the New Deal, when populist Republicans from the breadbasket allied with Democrats, and in the Civil Rights Era, when the Rockefeller Republicans teamed up with all the non-segregationist Democrats, or in the 1980s, when moderate Democrats compromised with a Republican majority. But in the era of Republican rule from 1983 1893 to the Depression, interrupted only by Woodrow Wilson (with an assist from Teddy Roosevelt), bipartisan cooperation was quite rare, as it was in the immediate post-reconstruction era. Note this model of partisanship from Keith Poole et al., from their book Polarized America.
It's no "Chronic-WHAT-les of Narnia", but this video (28+ mb) is both traumatizing and hilarious at the same time.
Drinking Liberally, this Thursday and Every Thursday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th ave E.
Parts I and II of the Teixeira and Halpin study is online, where the duo points out that in key swing demographics, Democrats face a significant gap on the question of "knowing what they stand for". In large part this is due to the constant mantra from GOP allies in reactionary talk radio and the he-said, she-said nature of most political reporting. Call it the "identity gap" or the "conviction gap", the authors claim that perceived indecisiveness leads to issue bleeding, pointing out that despite 53% disapproval for the situation in Iraq, Bush won a majority, thanks to the 36% of voters who thought it was going "somewhat badly" that voted for Bush (search for "how things are going"). In addition, only 45% of the public "trusted Kerry to handle the economy", which is absurd, considering that under the last Democratic President the economy took of like a rocket and saw wage gains up and down the income ladder.
Unfortunately, Teixeira & Halpin don't offer much evidence for their thesis. They point out that even among constituencies that Democrats win, the party often faces a gap on the question of "knowing what they stand for", Bush's support even among voters who thought Iraq was going poorly, and the puzzling results on the economy. It's possible that the second result is really a proxy for "do you trust Kerry not to raise your taxes", and the first result is simply due to the built-in Republican "advantage" on foreign policy, one that has probably disappeared at this point. But "The Politics of Definition" is trying to argue that issue failures and the identity gap are linked; that it's simply impossible to improve Democratic performance on these issues without convincing voters that they "know what they stand for". Perhaps, and at this point, I'll try anything.
I think Drum's criticisms of the T&H strategy are off the mark. There's nothing wrong with searching for key constituencies, and using their views of the world to shape your message. Not surprisingly, a lot of swing voters are concerend about health care, economic insecurity, and Iraq.
Also, not surprisingly, John Edwards gets this.
It hasn't been a good two weeks for Atlanta. Chipper Jones and Marcus Giles have already gone down with injuries, and for the first week of the season the pitching was wretched. The rotation has improved a bit, but the bullpen has continues to struggle mightily.
On the plus side, this team can mash. The Braves are currently second in the NL in runs behind Cincinnati, and only Colorado and Arizona stand much chance at passing them. When healthy, a Renteria-Giles-CJones-AJones-Francoeur-LaRoche-Langerhans-McCann lineup has plus hitters everywhere, with Kelly Johnson, Matt Diaz and Wilson Betemit on the bench (!!). Of course, the large caveat here is "when healthy"; right now the Braves are putting Pete Orr & Tony Pena, Jr. on the field day in and day out. Needless to say, that's ... suboptimal.
The real question is what to do with Chipper Jones. It's time to admit that he's getting too old and injury-prone to play third base every day. In many ways, the team would be better off sticking Chipper at first base, letting Betemit play third all the time, and packaging Adam LaRoche for some relief pitching. Now, let me just say that I love Adam LaRoche as an everyday first baseman, and if the Braves didn't have so many decent young outfielders, I would just put Chipper in left field and solve the problem that way. But as it is, I'd rather see LaRoche find another home where he can hit 28 home runs a year. Hopefully in the American League.
Beyond the Chipper conundrum, there are two questions that will define the season.
Solve those questions, and the Braves can win 95 games this year and keep pace with the Mets.
We have yet to hit summer, but gas shortages are already occuring. Now would be a good time to cut back on car travel, if you can. Some ideas:
Leave other ideas in the comments.
The supposedly cash-poor Sonics have sent a letter to the mayor's office, indicating a willingness to commit $18.3 million towards stadium reconstruction, as long as they get all the operating revenue from Key Arena, including revenue from non-Sonics events. The team also wants "credit" for investments paid for by city-backed bonds financed with stadium revenue from previous years. Wow, I didn't know you could do that sort of thing! Maybe I can get in on this game as well ...
Dear Seattle City Council,
In light of recent public negotiations with the Seattle Supersonics ownership group, I would like to make the city council a similar offer. I hope that the council will join me in a public-private partnership by investing in a pony. I am willing to contribute ten dollars ($10) in direct private investment towards the purchase of said pony. I believe that this is a fair offer, and this figure should not be treated as a starting point for further negotiation.
I arrived at the $10 figure by estimating payments to the city already made during my previous three-and-a-half years of residency here in Seattle, through sales taxes, property taxes paid by my landlords, and traffic & parking tickets. Over three years, I estimate having paid over two thousand dollars ($2,000) to the city of Seattle. Perhaps those funds have already been used to pay for police protection, public health initiatives, road repair, or security guards at Key Arena, but they really ought to have been used for my policy preference, a pony. Therefore I believe I am entitled to "credit" for past investment in our joint equine venture. Additional investment of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for purchase of the pony & stable upkeep must be made by the city itself.
In exchange for my participation in this partnership, I believe Nicholas Beaudrot Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter "Beaudrot Enterprises") is entitled to all revenue originating from this pony, through appearances at state fairs, hay rides, Bumbershoot and other public events events. Surely the civic value of a pony more than offsets the financial investment, leaving the city with little need for any additional revenue.
I eagerly await your response and hope we can arrive at an amicable solution.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Beaudrot
CEO & President, Nicholas Beaudrot Enterprises, Inc.
It looks like we are now in Act II of the stadium financing play. The Sonics ownership clearly wants to stay in Seattle rather than sell the team, and is willing to invest in the team's future; the question is how will the city and the Sonics share investment and revenue, and how much public accountability the Sonics will have for their finances.
Via Kevin Drum, todays WSJ features an op-ed from Dr. Benjamin Brewer pointing out that we currently have "corporate socialized medicine", and that the situation has gotten so bad that doctors might be better off in a single-payer system. This is one of my favorite sub-topics on the health care agenda, since I can't possibly imagine that doctors enjoy having staff chase down patients and insurance companies to get paid.
The next time you go to the doctor's, count the number of signs you see talking about billing & payment regulations, or how much time you spend making sure they'll take your insurance.
Drinking Liberally, this Tuesday and every Tuesday, 2307 24th ave E.
Weekend Content:
On the first post, which drew more comments than I expected, let me just say that I find the concept of the USA agitating for War with Iran one hundred percent insane. Bush once said, "no President wants war", and he better mean it.
J. Bradford DeLong's Morning Coffee
I can't tell if his Hugo Weaving-esque deadpan is intentional or not. I laughed, at the very least.
It's all immigration reform today.
Shuffle is on the flip.
We're close to the final tally in the CA-50 special election, and Francine Busby has walked away with 43.9% of the vote. Chris Bowers is nervous, and Markos is upset with low turnout. This is uncommonly silly. The race to replace Duke Cunningham took place in suburban San Diego, for crying out loud. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the permanent Democratic majority won't appear instantly either. What's next, unhappiness that Democrats can't field credible House candidates in rural Utah? Frustration that the Party has yet to win the race for Orange County Commissioner?
I'm not just being a naysayer; I have numbers to back me up. The closest analogy to Tuesday's special election is the 2002 governor's primary. The Democratic primary was effectively uncontested, while Republicans had two and a half major candidates plus several also-rans. The results for CA-50 back then?
Gray Davis, et al. (D): 33,659 (33.6% of the two-party vote)
Bill Jones, Richard Riordan, Bill Simon, et al. (R): 66,496 (66.4%)
Just to make things perfectly clear, here are the numbers from Tuesday's special election:
Francine Busby (D): 59,816 (45.0% of the two-party vote)
Brian Bilbray, Eric Roach, Howard Kaloogian, et al. (R): 73,201 (55.0%)
Total turnout is up 33%, Democratic turnout is up 77%, and Democratic performance is up over 11% since the spring of 2002. Busby's 45% number roughly matches John Kerry's performance at the Presidential level, but is 6.5% higher than Busby's run for Congress in 2004. Yes, the Democratic party needs to do a better job converting poll voters into absentee voters, but let's not browbeat ourselves over what appears to be serious progress.
I am not the biggest fan of protesting. It always strikes me as an ineffective form of political action; why am I going to change my mind because a few—and let's be honest, after the initial anti-war rallies in 2003, most protests weren't very large—people disagree with my position very passionately? Flyers, going door to door, and pushing the issue with friends and family always struck me as a better way to force political change.
I'm also quite sure that my dislike of protesting stems from my dislike 1960s revisionism. Lets remember, the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act didn't turn into law until eleven years had passed since Brown v Board of Education, and they came at the cost of significant riots, to say nothing of outright domestic terrorism by segregationist forces. We forget this, but MLK was a rabble-rouser, and was not taken seriously by the civil rights "establishment" for quite some time. Sure, there was progress, but even then it was painfully slow, and it came very close to tearing the country in half. On the Vietnam War front, Eugene McCarthy's primary against LBJ almost certainly helped put Richard Nixon in office. Protests continued to escalate for another six years without ending the war. Nixon intentionally sought large crowds of protestors in 1972 to tar the anti-war position as a bunch of dirty hippies, helping him slag the McGovern campaign into oblivion. I once pointed out to a friend that between Iraq and gay rights, we were starting to re-live the sixties, and how unhappy I was about those developments. She looked at me like I was crazy. Wouldn't you like to see social change and progress? Sure, but not if it means that I have to start hating my neighbor just because he doesn't care as much, and certainly not if it means living in a country where riots are the norm.
The recent immigration-related rallies feel different. Nathan Newman and Publius explain why; these protests are huge, and the protesters come from outside the ethnic and ideological clique that drove the Civil Rights & Vietnam protests. The non-Cuban Latino immigrant population hasn't ever been seriously mobilized in this country, and now they have a reason to become politically active. So unlike your run of the mill giant-puppet crusade against nuclear power, the IMF, or logging old-growth forest, these rallies represent an historic political shift.
Drinking Liberally, this Tuesday and every Tuesday, at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th ave E, 8pm to closing time.
My Favorite Blogger Who No One Reads and Everyone Should has more great stuff:
Here's the where and when for this weekend's Crashing the Gate book signings:
Friday, April 7th, 7:00 p.m.
Seattle Labor Temple
2800 1st Ave, Hall 1 (map)
SeattleSaturday, April 8th, 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Marymoor Park
6046 West Lake Sammamish Pkwy NE (map)
Redmond
Members of the media may be interested this fact sheet.
The Sonics' ownership continues to rattle the saber with the state legislature, threating both a move to Bellevue and the sale of a team. This is getting silly; the Sonics are not about to go to the poor house tomorrow. But perhaps there's a reason the ownership group is getting antsy. I spent an hour or so today taking a closer look at the situation.
In 2001, the Howard Schultz-led investment group purchased the Sonics for a reported $200 million Since 2001, the Sonics claim to be losing $10-12 million a year. Because the Sonics are "losing" money, the investment group derives some tax advantage from their "unprofitable" investment. More on that later. In their quest for a sale, the Sonics are seeking a "competitive sales price", somewhere between $350 and $400 million.
Suppose the Sonics found a buyer at the low end of their price range today. At that point, they will have invested $200 million in the initial purchase, plus operating losses of $60 million. Their return on investment is now $350m/260m - 100% = 34.6%. By comparison, $260 million invested in the S&P 500 on January 11th, 2001 (the team's purchase date) would be worth $257 million today. It's a good thing they didn't put their money in the stock market! Overall, annual return on investment amounts to roughly 5.0%. A $400 million price tag nets the owners more than a 7% annual return—very good work, if you can get it. How long can the ownership group afford to keep "losing" $10 million a year on the Sonics? Suppose they hold the team until their Key Arena lease expires in 2010. At that point, their total net investment in the Sonics is $300 million. If they accept a purchase price of $350 million, they will have turned a $50 million profit over 10 years. That's not bad, but I see why they're getting antsy. A $50 million profit amounts to 16% growth, or a 1.5% annual return on investment, which may be lower than inflation. A $400 million price will mean only a 3% annual return. At that point, they'd be better off putting the money into Treasury bonds or something equally humdrum investment. The Sonics will make money; but the owners probably have other ways that they can make more money. That's the problem the team faces. The current owners need to sell the team in the next two years in order to turn a reasonable profit.
The unspoken assumption here is that ownership's claim of $60 million in losses is legitimate. If, in fact, the team has lost only $20 million over the past six years, Howard Schultz & co will walk away with a healthy return whenever they sell the club. Since the Sonics are owned by a private investment group, we have no way of validating their financial claims. But there are good reasons to be skeptical. There is a long history of sports teams ... how to say this politely ... using creative accounting techniques to help make the case for taxpayer subsidies. As former COO of Major League Baseball Paul Beeston once said, "I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss and I can get every national accounting firm to agree with me. " At a minimum, the Sonics' ownership should open their financial information to public scrutiny if they're going to keep getting public money.
Drinking Liberally meets tonight at 8pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th ave E. Congressional Candidate Darcy Burner will be stopping by to thank everyone for helping her meet her fundraising goals.
I'll be passing out flyers for this weekend's Crashing The Gate book signings. If you're willing to take some of them and drop them at your local coffee shop, tack them up on your office bulletin board, or in general spread the word, I'll buy you a beer. If you have an industrial strength staple gun I can borrow to put flyers on telephone poles, I'll get you a pitcher. If you go completely nuts and make an 8.5"x11" version (here's the original Photoshop document) ... talk to me and we'll work something out.
I don't get why there's a lot of renewed optimism about the M's this year. I'm psyched to see a full season from King Felix, but like any pitcher, he's one sore shoulder away from the disabled list.
Meanwhile, the NL East will feature a dogfight between the revamped Mets, the Phillies, and of course, the Braves. Everyone seems to think This Is The Year It Ends For Atlanta, and while I've agreed with that consensus at least twice before (in 2001 and 2004), I really don't see why it should happen. Simply by getting a full season out of Jeff Francouer and not having Brian Jordan as a regular for the first two months of the season, the offense will improve by standing in place. What happens with the rotation is of course a different matter, but I have confidence they'll pull it together.
Play ball!
Last
updated by Nicholas Beaudrot on 09:00 02 September 2006