| Aug 31 | Polling in Iraq |
| Aug 30 | From Bush Disapproval to Democratic House Votes |
| Aug 29 | WA-8: Getting Closer |
| Aug 23 | The DC Press Corps Is Not Your Friend |
| Aug 23 | On Partisanship |
| Aug 22 | Glug Glug |
| Aug 21 | On Income Inequality |
| Aug 20 | And So Do We! |
| Aug 11 | Map Mania |
A friend and I have a running argument over the costs, benefits, and feasability of remaining in Iraq and accomplishing some real reconstruction. I'm on the "we've done enough; there's nothing else a Western, Christian army is going to be able to accomplish side; Iraq won't be a real threat to domestic security any time soon; and it's immoral to keep the troops there without any real likelihood of success" side, he's on the "if we actually fixed water, electricity, etc., the hatred would die down; if we leave Iraq will descend into a regional proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran; and it's immoral to leave Iraq worse than we left it" side. I counter that there's no way the US can engage in any reconstruction given the current level of violence, and that there's so much ill will even between the Iraqis who aren't fighting and the US army that the situation is irrepairable in the next few years. We're both guessing, based on anecdotal evidence in the news and on blogs.
But there's finally some hard data. The US forces draws their strongest support from the Kurds, but even then only garners 36% approval. That's the bad news. More important, though, are the top three reasons the public thinks we really invaded Iraq. First is "it's about the oil" (76%), second is "to build military bases" (41%), and third is "to help Israel" (32%). The US could, if we were willing to work at it, dispel these notions. Well, okay, we're not going to broker a peaceful resolution to the Israel-Palestine issues in the next few months. But a President could go to the Middle East, declare "we will not build permanent military bases in Iraq", and announce plans to tax oil profits and use the money to build power plants, sewer pipes, whatever you want. And you'd have to walk the walk, too. Bring in Arabic TV stations to film the demolition of existing bases, and let Iraqi construction workers take care of building the sewer system. You wouldn't convince the whole country, but you'd convince a lot of people, perhaps enough to turn support against the militias and insurgents.
I'm not saying it's that simple. Many news articles report that militias target anyone who is at all associated with the Americans—teachers, policemen, etc.—so lots of Iraqis would fear working to rebuild Iraq on behalf of America. And obviously Bush shows no interested in bipartisanship when it comes to Iraq. But it appears that if you wanted to form a bipartisan coalition of Reality-Based foreign policy types who thought we had to take reconstruction seriously before we left the country, you could do it, and you'd have some chance of success. I wouldn't be happy about it, but maybe you could.
Comparing the crosstabs in the Reichert-Burner poll to those in the Cantwell-McGavick race shows just how much ground Darcy can gain by tying her opponent to our currently unpopular President. While Reichert managed to earn the votes of 27% of those who disapprove of Bush, McGavick can only manage 14%. That means that with an aggressive campaign tying Reichert to Bush, Darcy can reasonably expect to swing 6-8% (that's 13% of 58%, more or less) of the electorate to her side. That puts the race at a much closer 48-47 margin for Reichert.
Now, there are no guarantees in politics, so Darcy's campaign will have to work to convince voters that the best way to send a message to Bush is to vote D. But winning is within the realm of possibility.
The latest SurveyUSA poll shows Darcy Burner (D) within striking distance of Dave "'Sometimes the leadership comes to me and says, 'Dave, we want you to vote a certain way'" Reichert (R). Call it good-but-not-great news. Even though Reichert was famous before becoming a Congressman, Darcy draws 41% of the vote despite having very little name recognition or active TV & radio campaigning. She can now pocket that 41% as "no more Bushism" voters and focus on convincing one out of every 6 remaining voters it's time for a change in the other Washington.
I think Stefan Eric is wrong; making this election about Bush almost certainly works to Darcy's advantage. At the moment, the crosstabs show Burner drawing votes from 79% of Democrats, but only 66% of those who disapprove of Bush. Stefan thinks that Democrats have to offer a positive agenda. To win the election just by winning over anti-Bush voters, she'd have to win around 87% of the members of that second group. By comparison, Kerry won 93% of the voters who dissapproved of Bush's job in 2004, so it's not out of the question. But it has to happen—soon—if the race is going to become competitive. So it's time to put all your footage of Reichert praising Bush on YouTube.
Also, the crosstabs shows Reichert leading 58-39 among 18-34 year old voters, and that the youth vote will account for 25% of the electorate. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
National Journal contributor and Hotline editor Chuck Todd has decided that since John Edwards advocates a gradual withdrawl of troops from Iraq and raising the minimum wage—positions supported by almost 60% of the public—he's too liberal to be elected President.
No comment.
Over at Horse's Ass, David Goldstein is happy to report on the Californication of Washington State politics. Most of the 39 unchalleneged State Leg seats this cycle belong to Democrats (the article doesn't give a specific number, but certainly almost everyone in the Seattle Area faces at most token opposition). In the short term, that's a good thing, insofar as it demonstrates the state's commitment to fiscal responsibility and accountability in government, rather than the reckless tax-cuts-above-all "ideas" coming from most Republicans these days.
But in the long term, I think the hardening of Washington into a one-party state would not be a good thing. Single-party rule breeds corruption, machine politics, and a government that stands primarily for the status quo. Now, keeping the peace in Dodge can be a good thing, but when government gets in the way of needed change, a near undefeatable ruling party can be a bad thing. A healthy, reality-based opposition party would probably lead to a government that better serves the people of Washington.
There's a debate running on how much (or little) government policy is responsible for the fall and rise of income inequality over the last century, kicked off by Paul Krugman and best summarized by Brad DeLong. DeLong reviews the evidence and places the root causes as "technology and society"; the coming of the computing age, and the change in public discourse from a communitarian worldview to a more individualistic one. Combined with policy changes to corporate law, labor law, and the tax structure, the trend ..
Delong's conjecture suggests The Winner-Take All Society is right; that changes in the way we produce any number of goods and services have increased the share of the compensation pie going to a very small number of producers. And that's really the only insight I have; if you want more, read DeLong's writing and the aftermath, which features commentary from many people much, much smarter than I am.
After many trials and tribulations, here's a nice map of the Lieberman-Lamont race. In this map, white represents townships whose vote closely matched the 51.7-48.2 final tally. Purple represents areas where Lamont exceeded his overall vote totals; green is for Lieberman, similarly. This map is not scaled by population, so remember that most of the state resides in the Stamford-New Haven-Hartford corridor
Lamont's strongest performance was not in the affluent Southwest corner of the state, but in the Northwest towns of Canaan (popn 1081, median HH income $54,688), Salisbury (3977, $53,051), Sharon (2968, $53,000), Cornwall (1434, $54,886), and Warren (1254, $62,798). Recall that median household income in Connecticut is the highest in the country, at $56,409, so these are solidly middle-class towns. Lieberman Lamont also carried every township in Tolland and Middlesex counties—the second counties from the right in both the north and south half of the state (census.gov has a better map). Some of these towns, like Lyme and Ellington, are well off, but others like Ashford and Chaplin are certainly middle class. One might look at this map and think that the split among small middle class towns was between those that are in the near-orbit of major cities, where Lieberman fared best, and those that are distinct hamlets, where Lamont dominated.
Note that Lamont's weakest regions also happen to have major military-industrial employers; Sikorsky airfcraft in the lower Naugatuck valley in the Western part of the state, and the Coast Guard Academy in New London to the East. Isn't there also a submarine base or shipyard somewhere around there as well? Update: right, the Groton submarine base.
Last
updated by Nicholas Beaudrot on 09:00 02 September 2006
