12 November 2008
11 November 2008
Veterans Day
Just 6.1 of the 23.6 million veterans in the United States served in peace time. About half of U.S. veterans served because they were drafted.
Around the same time, Eisenhower added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, and put "In God We Trust" on currency, in an effort to juxtapose the United States against the Soviets. A large share of the nation's Ten Commandments monuments when up at that time. It was also a time marked by loyalty oaths, black listing in Hollywood, and the McCarthyistic Red Scares. Indiana Jones petulantly tells a Russian psychic operations officer who has him in custody, "I Like Ike," as he starts to make his escape in the latest movie incarnation of the character.
The dilution of Veteran's Day from the more specific Armistice Day, has kept the holiday relevant, at a time when veterans with visible and invisible scars return from the Iraq and Afghan wars return home, but at the cost diluting its symbolic impact. For most of us, Veteran's Day is just another banker's holiday, a sort of Memorial Day lite, without the beer and BBQ.
When I lived in New Zealand, and when I visited Europe, I was stunned by how intense national memories of the slaughters of World War I are, even today, when almost all World War I veterans who returned have died natural deaths. In New Zealand, Armistice Day was nicknamed "Poppy Day" in recognition of the poppy filled fields where so many of their men died in huge, senseless set piece battles whose injustices fueled acid bath of class resentment that powered industrial era Democratization in those countries. While the U.S. bore serious casualties in World War I and World War II, Europe and Japan suffered far more than we did. We entered both wars late and spent the bulk of our involvement winning rather than facing relentless defeats.
Unfortunately, the volunteer force of today, like our society, has increasingly become divided by class, just as it was up until World War I all the world over. Our enlisted ranks are filled with young men and women who are not college bound, or can't afford to go to college without the G.I. Bill. Our officer corps is full of young men and women who have graduated from college and sometimes law or medical school. A surprisingly large share of military officers who make careers of their service, rather than mustering out after a four or five year tour, have attended the nation's military academies. Few enlisted soldiers managed to make it to officer candidate school and rise to officer status without college. Experienced sergeants continue to quietly lead the green junior officers who outrank them. The larger country, where class divides are as great as they have been since Hoover was President, mirrors this trend. Equally important, very few members of the upper middle class serve at all.
The democratizing impact of the draft on the military is now long gone. One wonders if the sense of equality and common cause developed by draftees wasn't an important reason that our economy remained fairly democratic, distributionally, when those veterans returend to civilian life. Has an end to military service, like the end of public voting that occurred and produced dramatically reduced voter turnout in the Progressive era, undermined our sense of community? Even today, older voters often go to the polls together, and share coffee and talk afterwards, making a morning of it on election day. For younger voters it is all business -- sitting around the kitchen table in order to get the ballot out as one more bit of work to produce.
While soldiers are often stereotyped as stupid brutes, low on empathy and big on mindlessly following orders, success in war requires you to be reality based and understand your surroundings. In an era of "low intensity warfare" cultural sensitivity is critical to military success. The exposure to the rest of the world that soldiers experience, even if they don't serve in wartime, changes them and broadens their horizons.
Every professor I've ever met who is old enough to have done so cherished the experience he had teaching soldiers who returned to college on the G.I. Bill after World War II and Korea, because they had a maturity, seriousness, focus, and powerful desire to learn that typical fresh out of high school undergraduates often lack.
We have one of the smallest active duty militaries that we've had since before World War II. Yet, we are fighting two regional wars and deployed many other places across the globe. A small portion of us are doing yeoman's work, while the rest of us live life as usual, without so much as a tax increase to pay for the war, or any kind of sacrifice at all. Thank you to all of you who are doing more than your fair share. The rightness or wrongness of the wars fought aren't your business. That is the stuff of politicians. You're simply doing your duty to your country, in spades.
Veterans Day originated as “Armistice Day” on Nov. 11, 1919, the first anniversary of the end of World War I. Congress passed a resolution in 1926 for an annual observance, and Nov. 11 became a national holiday beginning in 1938. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation in 1954 to change the name to Veterans Day as a way to honor those who served in all American wars.
Around the same time, Eisenhower added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, and put "In God We Trust" on currency, in an effort to juxtapose the United States against the Soviets. A large share of the nation's Ten Commandments monuments when up at that time. It was also a time marked by loyalty oaths, black listing in Hollywood, and the McCarthyistic Red Scares. Indiana Jones petulantly tells a Russian psychic operations officer who has him in custody, "I Like Ike," as he starts to make his escape in the latest movie incarnation of the character.
The dilution of Veteran's Day from the more specific Armistice Day, has kept the holiday relevant, at a time when veterans with visible and invisible scars return from the Iraq and Afghan wars return home, but at the cost diluting its symbolic impact. For most of us, Veteran's Day is just another banker's holiday, a sort of Memorial Day lite, without the beer and BBQ.
When I lived in New Zealand, and when I visited Europe, I was stunned by how intense national memories of the slaughters of World War I are, even today, when almost all World War I veterans who returned have died natural deaths. In New Zealand, Armistice Day was nicknamed "Poppy Day" in recognition of the poppy filled fields where so many of their men died in huge, senseless set piece battles whose injustices fueled acid bath of class resentment that powered industrial era Democratization in those countries. While the U.S. bore serious casualties in World War I and World War II, Europe and Japan suffered far more than we did. We entered both wars late and spent the bulk of our involvement winning rather than facing relentless defeats.
Unfortunately, the volunteer force of today, like our society, has increasingly become divided by class, just as it was up until World War I all the world over. Our enlisted ranks are filled with young men and women who are not college bound, or can't afford to go to college without the G.I. Bill. Our officer corps is full of young men and women who have graduated from college and sometimes law or medical school. A surprisingly large share of military officers who make careers of their service, rather than mustering out after a four or five year tour, have attended the nation's military academies. Few enlisted soldiers managed to make it to officer candidate school and rise to officer status without college. Experienced sergeants continue to quietly lead the green junior officers who outrank them. The larger country, where class divides are as great as they have been since Hoover was President, mirrors this trend. Equally important, very few members of the upper middle class serve at all.
The democratizing impact of the draft on the military is now long gone. One wonders if the sense of equality and common cause developed by draftees wasn't an important reason that our economy remained fairly democratic, distributionally, when those veterans returend to civilian life. Has an end to military service, like the end of public voting that occurred and produced dramatically reduced voter turnout in the Progressive era, undermined our sense of community? Even today, older voters often go to the polls together, and share coffee and talk afterwards, making a morning of it on election day. For younger voters it is all business -- sitting around the kitchen table in order to get the ballot out as one more bit of work to produce.
While soldiers are often stereotyped as stupid brutes, low on empathy and big on mindlessly following orders, success in war requires you to be reality based and understand your surroundings. In an era of "low intensity warfare" cultural sensitivity is critical to military success. The exposure to the rest of the world that soldiers experience, even if they don't serve in wartime, changes them and broadens their horizons.
Every professor I've ever met who is old enough to have done so cherished the experience he had teaching soldiers who returned to college on the G.I. Bill after World War II and Korea, because they had a maturity, seriousness, focus, and powerful desire to learn that typical fresh out of high school undergraduates often lack.
We have one of the smallest active duty militaries that we've had since before World War II. Yet, we are fighting two regional wars and deployed many other places across the globe. A small portion of us are doing yeoman's work, while the rest of us live life as usual, without so much as a tax increase to pay for the war, or any kind of sacrifice at all. Thank you to all of you who are doing more than your fair share. The rightness or wrongness of the wars fought aren't your business. That is the stuff of politicians. You're simply doing your duty to your country, in spades.
The Colorado Independent Downsizes
The Colorado Independent (formerly known as Colorado Confidential) has embarked upon a major post-election lay off, although it will still have three full time staffers and one part time reporter.
The online magazine does original reporting about Colorado politics, mostly from a left leaning perspective. I was on its staff from its inceptions in the summer of 2006 through all of 2007. It has paid reporters and editors, and has won numerous awards from the Society for Professional Journalism.
At its peak, it had more reporters covering the Colorado politics beat than any of the state's newspapers or television stations, although it had a much smaller total staff because unlike many of its news competitors, it is not a full service news organization covering every type of news story, and because it didn't need marketing or printing operations. Even with a reduced staff, the Colorado Independent will still have a staff that rivals that of the politics reports for many national news organizations in the state, and that of the state house bureau of a medium sized city newspaper.
The individual state publications don't even incur rent expenses, with reporters operating out of home offices and coffee shops, and meeting via conference calls for all but a few in person staff meetings a year. Until now, most of the reporters were part-time. So, the content to cost ratio is very high.
The Colorado Independent is funded entirely by the Washington D.C. based Center for Independent Media, which in turn is a non-profit funded by major donors and foundations dedicated to providing reporting free of corporate influences that fund commercial media outlets and strongly influence donor dependent public radio. The Center for Independent Media operates multiple sister publications in various U.S. states as well as a national desk, although the Colorado Independent was the first of its publications to come online.
The online magazine does original reporting about Colorado politics, mostly from a left leaning perspective. I was on its staff from its inceptions in the summer of 2006 through all of 2007. It has paid reporters and editors, and has won numerous awards from the Society for Professional Journalism.
At its peak, it had more reporters covering the Colorado politics beat than any of the state's newspapers or television stations, although it had a much smaller total staff because unlike many of its news competitors, it is not a full service news organization covering every type of news story, and because it didn't need marketing or printing operations. Even with a reduced staff, the Colorado Independent will still have a staff that rivals that of the politics reports for many national news organizations in the state, and that of the state house bureau of a medium sized city newspaper.
The individual state publications don't even incur rent expenses, with reporters operating out of home offices and coffee shops, and meeting via conference calls for all but a few in person staff meetings a year. Until now, most of the reporters were part-time. So, the content to cost ratio is very high.
The Colorado Independent is funded entirely by the Washington D.C. based Center for Independent Media, which in turn is a non-profit funded by major donors and foundations dedicated to providing reporting free of corporate influences that fund commercial media outlets and strongly influence donor dependent public radio. The Center for Independent Media operates multiple sister publications in various U.S. states as well as a national desk, although the Colorado Independent was the first of its publications to come online.
Obama and the White Vote
We took a look at Obama's performance with white voters in all 50 states.
In 13 of them, Obama received less than 35% of the white vote. His three lowest performing states: Alabama (10%), Mississippi (11%), and Louisiana (14%). The other 10: GA (23%), SC (26%), TX (26%), OK (29%), AR (30%), UT (31%), AK (32%), WY (32%), ID (33%), and TN (34%).
On the other hand, Obama won the white vote in 18 states and DC: CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, IA, ME, MA, MI, MN. NH. NY. OR, RI, WA, WI and VT. Obama's lowest percentage of the white vote he received in a state that he won: NC (35%).
The highest percentage of the white vote Obama received in a state he lost: MT (45%)
From here (paragraph breaks added).
Also, notably from the same source:
(In 2004, 42% of voters nationwide were college graduates, and they split equally for John Kerry and George W. Bush. This time, that number was boosted to 44%, and the vote broke 53%-45% in the Democrat's favor.) But consider this: In 2008, college-educated voters outnumbered non-college grads at the polls in eleven states (CO, VA, NH, PA, NJ, CT, MD, NY, MA, VT, and DC). Barack Obama won all of them -- by an average of more than 24 percentage points. In states that McCain won, on average, 42% of voters were college grads. In states that Obama won, on average, 47% had a college diploma.
The two sets of numbers are not unrelated.
Write In Candidates
Wikipedia examines the history of write in candidates in U.S. elections. The state and federal offices won by write-in candidates in races where there was an opponent on the ballot identified there are as follows (candidates winning when there was no one on the ballot in which they wrote in, or who mounted notable failed campaigns are omitted):
There have been more than 23,000 Congressional elections in the United States during the 20th and 21st centuries, and a little less than 1,500 U.S. Senate elections in U.S. history. Just There have been roughly 125,000 state legislative elections in the 20th and 21st centuries. Each of those elections could have had two major party primary elections. So, about 73,500 potential federal elections and 375,000 state legislative elections produced just six write in winners.
Four federal elections have been won by write in candidates facing opponents on the ballot. Two were segregationists running on a segregationist platform. One used the process to circumvent the fact that he was defeated in the Republican party platform (Joe Lieberman later did the same thing as a third party candidate). Charlie Wilson of Ohio (not to be confused with Charlie Wilson of Texas who was the patron of U.S. involvement in the Afghan civil war as a proxy against the Soviets) would have been able to get on the ballot in Colorado, as parties can place candidates on the ballot without a petition through the caucus process.
In each of the two state legislative cases, there were dead men on the ballot, and situation could have been resolved by having voters vote for the dead man (not unprecedented in U.S. history) creating a vacancy.
Are there any cases in history where a write-in candidates opposed by a candidate on a ballot has been elected to a state or county elected office in Colorado? It has never happened in a federal election in Colorado.
Senate
Democrat (later Republican) Strom Thurmond was elected in 1954 to the United States Senate in South Carolina as a write-in candidate.
House of Representatives
Democrat Dale Alford was elected as a write-in candidate to the United States House of Representatives in Arkansas in 1958. As member of the Little Rock school board, Alford launched his write-in campaign a week before the election because the incumbent, Brooks Hays, was involved in the incident in which president Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce racial integration at Little Rock Central High School. Racial integration was unpopular at the time, and Alford won by approximately 1,200 votes, a 2% margin.
Ron Packard of California finished in second place in the 18 candidate Republican primary to replace the retiring Clair Burgener. Packard lost the primary by 92 votes in 1982, and then mounted a write-in campaign as an independent. He won the election with a 37% plurality against both a Republican and a Democratic candidate. Following the elections, he re-aligned himself as a Republican.
Democrat Charlie Wilson was the endorsed candidate by the Democratic Party for the 6th congressional district in Ohio to replace Ted Strickland in 2006. Strickland was running for Governor and had to give up his congressional seat. Wilson, though, did not qualify for the ballot because only 46 of the 96 signatures on his candidacy petition were deemed valid, while 50 valid signatures were required for ballot placement. The Democratic Party continued to support Wilson, and an expensive primary campaign ensued - over $1 million was spent by both parties. Wilson overwhelmingly won the Democratic primary as a write-in candidate on May 2, 2006 against two Democratic candidates whose names were on the ballot, with Wilson collecting 44,367 votes, 67% of the Democratic votes cast. Wilson faced Republican Chuck Blasdel in the general election on November 7, 2006, and won, receiving 61% of the votes.
State legislatures
Charlotte Burks won as a Democratic write-in candidate for the Tennessee State Senate seat left vacant when the incumbent, her husband Tommy, was assassinated by his opponent, Byron Looper, two weeks before the elections of November 2, 1998. Because the assassination occurred only two weeks prior to the elections, the names of the dead incumbent and his assassin remained on the ballot, and Charlotte ran as a write in candidate.
Carl Hawkinson of Galesburg, Illinois won the Republican primary for State Senator from Illinois' 47th District in 1986 as a write-in candidate. He went on to be elected in the general election and served until 2003. Hawkinson defeated another write-in, David Leitch, in the primary. Incumbent State Senator Prescott Bloom died in a home fire after the filing date for the primary had passed.
There have been more than 23,000 Congressional elections in the United States during the 20th and 21st centuries, and a little less than 1,500 U.S. Senate elections in U.S. history. Just There have been roughly 125,000 state legislative elections in the 20th and 21st centuries. Each of those elections could have had two major party primary elections. So, about 73,500 potential federal elections and 375,000 state legislative elections produced just six write in winners.
Four federal elections have been won by write in candidates facing opponents on the ballot. Two were segregationists running on a segregationist platform. One used the process to circumvent the fact that he was defeated in the Republican party platform (Joe Lieberman later did the same thing as a third party candidate). Charlie Wilson of Ohio (not to be confused with Charlie Wilson of Texas who was the patron of U.S. involvement in the Afghan civil war as a proxy against the Soviets) would have been able to get on the ballot in Colorado, as parties can place candidates on the ballot without a petition through the caucus process.
In each of the two state legislative cases, there were dead men on the ballot, and situation could have been resolved by having voters vote for the dead man (not unprecedented in U.S. history) creating a vacancy.
Are there any cases in history where a write-in candidates opposed by a candidate on a ballot has been elected to a state or county elected office in Colorado? It has never happened in a federal election in Colorado.
Promising News From Alaska and Minnesota
There were two U.S. Senate races that were too close to call.
These matter more than the several close U.S. House races (where a Democratic majority is clear and there are no filibusters), and the President race where Missouri remains close, but the electoral college victor is clear so it doesn't matter. In contrast, each additional U.S. Senate win for the Democrats reduced the viability of Republican filibuster threats. It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but moderates in each party often differ with fellow party members on filibuster voters, so each vote matters.
An analysis from last Friday of the votes remaining to be counted in Alaska suggests that Democrat Mark Begich who is currently trailing in the count, is likely to prevail over incumbent Republican U.S. Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens. New information about the number of votes still uncounted in that race improve the Democrat's chance.
Minnesota Democrat Al Franken is also closing the gap with incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota which is likely to produce a recount after the first round of voting is over. At last count, 206 votes out of 2.88 mllion cast separated the candidates (with Coleman's early lead eroding).
There will be a runoff election in Georgia, but it would be very hard for the Democrat in that race to prevail. The Republican won 49.9% in the first round, and about 3% went to a Libetarian candidate who is not in the runoff. The Democrat will need to win essentially 100% of the Libertarian vote to prevail, or will have to win over a lot of people who voted for the Republican the first time, and will have to maintain excellent voter turnout. The runoff is in early December.
These matter more than the several close U.S. House races (where a Democratic majority is clear and there are no filibusters), and the President race where Missouri remains close, but the electoral college victor is clear so it doesn't matter. In contrast, each additional U.S. Senate win for the Democrats reduced the viability of Republican filibuster threats. It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but moderates in each party often differ with fellow party members on filibuster voters, so each vote matters.
An analysis from last Friday of the votes remaining to be counted in Alaska suggests that Democrat Mark Begich who is currently trailing in the count, is likely to prevail over incumbent Republican U.S. Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens. New information about the number of votes still uncounted in that race improve the Democrat's chance.
Minnesota Democrat Al Franken is also closing the gap with incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota which is likely to produce a recount after the first round of voting is over. At last count, 206 votes out of 2.88 mllion cast separated the candidates (with Coleman's early lead eroding).
There will be a runoff election in Georgia, but it would be very hard for the Democrat in that race to prevail. The Republican won 49.9% in the first round, and about 3% went to a Libetarian candidate who is not in the runoff. The Democrat will need to win essentially 100% of the Libertarian vote to prevail, or will have to win over a lot of people who voted for the Republican the first time, and will have to maintain excellent voter turnout. The runoff is in early December.
Pollster Accuracy
For reference purposes, I provide the pollsters ranks by accuracy with respect to the national popular vote for President:
CNN: 0.5
Ipsos: 0.5
Pew: 0.7
Rasmussen: 0.7
ARG: 1.5
Research 2000: 1.7
ABC: 2.5
IBD: 2.7
Hotline: 3.7
Gallup: 4.5
Zogby: 4.5
Battleground: 5.7
CBS: 5.7
Fox: 5.7
CNN: 0.5
Ipsos: 0.5
Pew: 0.7
Rasmussen: 0.7
ARG: 1.5
Research 2000: 1.7
ABC: 2.5
IBD: 2.7
Hotline: 3.7
Gallup: 4.5
Zogby: 4.5
Battleground: 5.7
CBS: 5.7
Fox: 5.7
Election Improvements
A panel is considering election improvements in Colorado. A few suggestions:
1. Provide mail-in ballots with postage pre-paid. It is cheaper in the aggregate, it is cheaper to clerks who must otherwise pay postage due on insufficient postage ballot which costs more than a metered rate for all ballots returned, and it doesn't place a burden on the voter that looks like a poll tax.
2. Allow election day voter registration. It is proven to improve turnout. And, now that we have an online statewide voter registration database and an ID requirement, this doesn't open the door to fraud.
3. Allow felons on parole to vote. Voting helps people re-engage with society promoting rehabilitiation. It reduces the odds of technical parole violations or election crimes due to confusion about the law. And, bureaucratically, it is easier to let everyone who is not currently incarcerated vote, than it is to enforce a limitation on voting for a very small percentage of the total electorate. It also better fits the spirit of the state constitutional provision, even though the state constitution has been held to allow parolees to be prevented from voting.
4. Limit challenges to voting eligibility based upon age and citizenship. Any challenge to eligibility to vote based upon age or citizenship should be required to be lodged at least three months prior to an election, or within three months of registering to vote for the first time in the state, whichever comes later. An age and citizenship of the driver's license bureau that someone is a U.S. Citizen aged eighteen or older should be conclusive proof of those facts. In the case of a person who has previously voted, a challenger who contests age or citizenship should be required to post a bond for the costs and attorneys fees incurred by the government and the person challenged if the challenge is unsuccessful, and should further be required to compensate the person challenged in the amount of $100 if the challenge is unsuccessful.
5. Prepare monolingual ballots in multiple languages from which a voter may choose when there are ballot issues on the ballot. A bilingual ballot is longer and more complicated to read and complete for all readers when there are ballot issues on the ballot. Physically longer ballots also cost more to mail and take more time to scan. This is particularly true when there are ballot issues on the ballot. While Spanish language ballots are required by law to be available and should be available upon request, it is not necessary that every ballot have both English and Spanish language descriptions of ballot issues.
6. End write in candidate options when someone is running for office; omit unopposed candidates from the ballot. Write-in candidates win elections so rarely that it makes national news when they do win. Not a single candidate on the ballot for county, state or federal office in Colorado, or for federal office nationally, won this year or for many, many elections in the past. A futile right is a useless write. But, allowing write-in candidates to run adds to the complexity of the election process and complicates the ballot. The possibility of a write-in candidate is also the main practical reason that unopposed candidates appear on the ballot, which also makes ballots longer and more complex without improving the ability of the public to make a decision.
7. Require candidates in races with three or more candidates for a single office to obtain a majority to be elected; hold a runoff otherwise. I discussed this change in a previous post-election post. Among its many virtues is that it frequently reduces the need for a recount in a close election where there is a third party candidate.
8. Fix whatever's wrong with Boulder County. This year, for the second time in a row, Boulder's vote counting process was seriously FUBAR, lagging far behind the rest of the state. Somebody needs to get them new equipment, new elections officials, or both, to prevent this from happening again.
1. Provide mail-in ballots with postage pre-paid. It is cheaper in the aggregate, it is cheaper to clerks who must otherwise pay postage due on insufficient postage ballot which costs more than a metered rate for all ballots returned, and it doesn't place a burden on the voter that looks like a poll tax.
2. Allow election day voter registration. It is proven to improve turnout. And, now that we have an online statewide voter registration database and an ID requirement, this doesn't open the door to fraud.
3. Allow felons on parole to vote. Voting helps people re-engage with society promoting rehabilitiation. It reduces the odds of technical parole violations or election crimes due to confusion about the law. And, bureaucratically, it is easier to let everyone who is not currently incarcerated vote, than it is to enforce a limitation on voting for a very small percentage of the total electorate. It also better fits the spirit of the state constitutional provision, even though the state constitution has been held to allow parolees to be prevented from voting.
4. Limit challenges to voting eligibility based upon age and citizenship. Any challenge to eligibility to vote based upon age or citizenship should be required to be lodged at least three months prior to an election, or within three months of registering to vote for the first time in the state, whichever comes later. An age and citizenship of the driver's license bureau that someone is a U.S. Citizen aged eighteen or older should be conclusive proof of those facts. In the case of a person who has previously voted, a challenger who contests age or citizenship should be required to post a bond for the costs and attorneys fees incurred by the government and the person challenged if the challenge is unsuccessful, and should further be required to compensate the person challenged in the amount of $100 if the challenge is unsuccessful.
5. Prepare monolingual ballots in multiple languages from which a voter may choose when there are ballot issues on the ballot. A bilingual ballot is longer and more complicated to read and complete for all readers when there are ballot issues on the ballot. Physically longer ballots also cost more to mail and take more time to scan. This is particularly true when there are ballot issues on the ballot. While Spanish language ballots are required by law to be available and should be available upon request, it is not necessary that every ballot have both English and Spanish language descriptions of ballot issues.
6. End write in candidate options when someone is running for office; omit unopposed candidates from the ballot. Write-in candidates win elections so rarely that it makes national news when they do win. Not a single candidate on the ballot for county, state or federal office in Colorado, or for federal office nationally, won this year or for many, many elections in the past. A futile right is a useless write. But, allowing write-in candidates to run adds to the complexity of the election process and complicates the ballot. The possibility of a write-in candidate is also the main practical reason that unopposed candidates appear on the ballot, which also makes ballots longer and more complex without improving the ability of the public to make a decision.
7. Require candidates in races with three or more candidates for a single office to obtain a majority to be elected; hold a runoff otherwise. I discussed this change in a previous post-election post. Among its many virtues is that it frequently reduces the need for a recount in a close election where there is a third party candidate.
8. Fix whatever's wrong with Boulder County. This year, for the second time in a row, Boulder's vote counting process was seriously FUBAR, lagging far behind the rest of the state. Somebody needs to get them new equipment, new elections officials, or both, to prevent this from happening again.
DNC Protest Cases Still Weak
According to Brian Vincente, executive director of the People's Law Project, of the first 18 cases set for trial, only one has resulted in a conviction.
So far, the city attorney has dismissed eight defendants, juries acquitted six and judges acquitted two. One faces retrial after a jury deadlocked. . .
But City Attorney David Fine noted that about 50 of the protesters arrested have entered guilty pleas.
From here.
Unimpressive and a waste of the City's time and money.
10 November 2008
State Races In 2008
Tim Storey, at the non-partisan National Conference of State Legislatures has prepared an interesting recap of the 2008 elections results at the state government level. Among the highlights (facts his, analysis mine):
State Legislatures
Democrats have a majority of state legislative seats. This has been the case for most of the period from the aftermath of the 1938 election to the aftermath of the current election. Democrats fell behind in 1948, and were tied in 1952 and from about 1998-2000. Democratic strength in state legislatures peaked around 1974 at almost 70%. Democrats now hold a majority of the seats, but well under 60% of them.
The Democratic share of state legislative seats in the South has fallen from a peak of 94% in the late 1950s, that had been steady since 1938 at least, to 53.5% after the 2008 election, a decline that has occurred steadily since, with the exception of a small boost for Democrats in the early 1970s.
Democrats have controlled state legislatures in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama since Reconstruction (despite the fact that the parties themselves have flipped their positions on the liberal to conservative scale at the national level in this time frame), which suggests that the Democratic party in these states may differ materially from the Democratic party nationally. In the South, only Arkansas and North Carolina have Democratic party controlled state legislatures and Democratic Governors. The fact that Obama lost handily in Arkansas and just barely won North Carolina, despite Democratic party control of state government, is notable. While not strictly in the South, West Virginia, where Democrats also control state government is also trending towards the Republican party.
The 2008 elections continued Democratic declines in Southern state legislatures. Republicans picked up a net six state legislative seats in the South, while Democrats picked up a net 38 state legislative seats in the East, 41 in the Midwest and 25 in the West. Republicans took control of state legislature in Tennessee and Oklahoma that previously had divided control.
Democrats took control of state legislatures in New York, Wisconsin and Nevada that were previously under divided control. In Ohio and Alaska, a Republican controlled legislatures are now under divided control.
The only state that voted for Obama in which Republicans control the state legislature after the 2008 election is Florida. Six states that voted for McCain have state legislatures controlled by Democrats (West Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana).
Every state legislature in the Northeast, except Pennsylvania (which has divided control) is controlled by Democrats after this election. There are only three states in the Northeast with Republican Governors (Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island).
Governors
Republican Governors preside in every Gulf Coast state from Texas to South Carolina. Democratic Governors now preside in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. Nevada, Idaho and Utah are the only states in the Mountain West with Republican Governors.
Divided Control Still The Norm
The Governorship and both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by the same party in only a few states. Democrats hold seventeen states. Republicans hold eight. Twenty four states have split control. Nebraska is theoretically split in control because its unicameral legislature is officially non-partisan, but in practice this state is also held by Republicans as most state legislators would be Republican if they declared a party affiliation.
Redistricting
Louisiana and Missouri are the only states that voted for McCain that are projected to lose seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2010 census. McCain's states are expected to gain a net eight seats in reapportionment.
North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and Oregon are the only states that voted for Obama that are projected to gain states in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2010 census. Obama's states are expected to lose eight states in reapportionment.
The Northeast and Midwest will lose twelve seats. The South will gain eight seats.
Realignment
State legislative race results re-emphasize the notion from the federal elections in 2008 that we are seeing the continued progress of Republicans in the South, and their continued decline in the East. Reapportionment will encourage Republicans to stick to a strategy that cements their character as a Southern regional party.
But, Republicans are losing their stranglehold of the Mountain West and Alaska, even as they make progress in Appalachia and hold fast in the Great Plain states and in the Mormon dominated states of Utah and Idaho.
Also, the "New South" is beginning to emerge as a challenge to Republican hegemony. Virginia, lead by District of Columbia suburbs in Northern Virginia, seems on its way to joining Maryland in its Democratic political leanings.
State Legislatures
Democrats have a majority of state legislative seats. This has been the case for most of the period from the aftermath of the 1938 election to the aftermath of the current election. Democrats fell behind in 1948, and were tied in 1952 and from about 1998-2000. Democratic strength in state legislatures peaked around 1974 at almost 70%. Democrats now hold a majority of the seats, but well under 60% of them.
The Democratic share of state legislative seats in the South has fallen from a peak of 94% in the late 1950s, that had been steady since 1938 at least, to 53.5% after the 2008 election, a decline that has occurred steadily since, with the exception of a small boost for Democrats in the early 1970s.
Democrats have controlled state legislatures in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama since Reconstruction (despite the fact that the parties themselves have flipped their positions on the liberal to conservative scale at the national level in this time frame), which suggests that the Democratic party in these states may differ materially from the Democratic party nationally. In the South, only Arkansas and North Carolina have Democratic party controlled state legislatures and Democratic Governors. The fact that Obama lost handily in Arkansas and just barely won North Carolina, despite Democratic party control of state government, is notable. While not strictly in the South, West Virginia, where Democrats also control state government is also trending towards the Republican party.
The 2008 elections continued Democratic declines in Southern state legislatures. Republicans picked up a net six state legislative seats in the South, while Democrats picked up a net 38 state legislative seats in the East, 41 in the Midwest and 25 in the West. Republicans took control of state legislature in Tennessee and Oklahoma that previously had divided control.
Democrats took control of state legislatures in New York, Wisconsin and Nevada that were previously under divided control. In Ohio and Alaska, a Republican controlled legislatures are now under divided control.
The only state that voted for Obama in which Republicans control the state legislature after the 2008 election is Florida. Six states that voted for McCain have state legislatures controlled by Democrats (West Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana).
Every state legislature in the Northeast, except Pennsylvania (which has divided control) is controlled by Democrats after this election. There are only three states in the Northeast with Republican Governors (Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island).
Governors
Republican Governors preside in every Gulf Coast state from Texas to South Carolina. Democratic Governors now preside in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. Nevada, Idaho and Utah are the only states in the Mountain West with Republican Governors.
Divided Control Still The Norm
The Governorship and both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by the same party in only a few states. Democrats hold seventeen states. Republicans hold eight. Twenty four states have split control. Nebraska is theoretically split in control because its unicameral legislature is officially non-partisan, but in practice this state is also held by Republicans as most state legislators would be Republican if they declared a party affiliation.
Redistricting
Louisiana and Missouri are the only states that voted for McCain that are projected to lose seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2010 census. McCain's states are expected to gain a net eight seats in reapportionment.
North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and Oregon are the only states that voted for Obama that are projected to gain states in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2010 census. Obama's states are expected to lose eight states in reapportionment.
The Northeast and Midwest will lose twelve seats. The South will gain eight seats.
Realignment
State legislative race results re-emphasize the notion from the federal elections in 2008 that we are seeing the continued progress of Republicans in the South, and their continued decline in the East. Reapportionment will encourage Republicans to stick to a strategy that cements their character as a Southern regional party.
But, Republicans are losing their stranglehold of the Mountain West and Alaska, even as they make progress in Appalachia and hold fast in the Great Plain states and in the Mormon dominated states of Utah and Idaho.
Also, the "New South" is beginning to emerge as a challenge to Republican hegemony. Virginia, lead by District of Columbia suburbs in Northern Virginia, seems on its way to joining Maryland in its Democratic political leanings.
Will A Big Three Bailout Work?
General Motors has more bad news:
Dale Oesterle, at Ohio State University, discusses the much discussed prospect of an automobile industry bailout (paragraph breaks adeed):
From here.
Professor Oesterle is right that the automobile industry dilemma is very different from that of the financial sector problems. He is also right in his argument that it takes bankruptcy, not just a bailout, to allow these companies to survive. But, his conclusion, that the businesses should be liquidated, is probably wrong.
Why?
First, existing contractual obligations are an important source of the Big Three Automakers lack of operating profitability.
All three of the Big Three Automakers have large legacy costs to laid off employees. General Motors owes more for retiree benefits other than pensions (its pensions aren't horribly funded, but other benefits are unfunded) than it does to bond holdes. Payments for retiree benefits are treated as operating costs.
General Motors has large contingent liabilities owed to its spun off Delphi division.
One of the reason that the Big Three have been slow to lay off employees or reduce production is that existing union contracts make it very expensive to lay off workers. Only a fraction of the cost of employing a worker is removed from operating costs by laying off a worker, who receives generous benefits compared to unemployment insurance, if laid off.
Likewise, the Big Three have been slow to thin their bloated dealership network or discontinue excess brands, because dealers have to be bought out under existing contracts at a high cost. These companies have a dealership network designed for a much larger market share. More dealerships mean fewer sales per dealer. Fewer sales per dealer means that dealerships need a larger middle man cut than they could survive on with more sales. The larger middle man cut compared to the competition limits the ability of the manufacturers to increase their dealer invoice price, which decreases operating revenues.
Finally, existing contract provide for greater compensation per hour to factory workers than the labor market requires, and greater compensation per hour to factory workers than the competition pays.
These contractual obligations could be reduced (in addition to reducing current financing costs), to bring these companies closer to operating profits in bankruptcy.
Second, his analysis is insufficiently dynamic. A proposed merger of General Motors and Chrysler, for example, would almost certainly slash the number of automobile brands offered by the Big Three and would also almost certainly reduce the number of vehicles produced that are chasing the same shrinking market segments. This reduction in the supply of vehicles would boost prices.
A proposed merger would also remove financing operations from General Motors and Chrysler, allowing those businesses to focus more on their core businesses.
And, allowing these businesses to survive a little longer would also allow an eventual modest increase in the demand for big, less fuel efficient vehicles, as oil prices stablize at more modest levels, and would buy them time to shift their production capacity to more fuel efficient models.
Third, liquidation is a bad option. Automobile manufacturers have assets that are worth far more when they are a going concern than they do at liquidation value. Automobile factories aren't worth much for any other purpose. Neither are car dealerships, which are often in "automobile row" strip developments with most other competitors already represented. Who would buy Delphi in a liquidation other than the manufacturers that spun off the company in the first place?
Foreign automakers who have built plants in the United States have established that it is possible to build and sell cars at a profit in North America. All three automakers have major restructurings in place. But, if there is going to be a bailout, it might be better structured as mother of all debtor-in-possession financing deals than as a pre-collapse bailout.
This has the virtue of preventing private investors who simply made bad investing decisions from benefiting unduly from the bailout, which might look something like the Amtrak nationalization of the private sector passenger rail system.
[GM] said that the troubled mortgage industry and frozen credit markets have raised doubts that the mortgage business of its GMAC LLC financial arm can survive.
The filing says that the value of Residential Capital's mortgage loans have deteriorated due to weak housing prices, delinquencies and defaults. It is also having trouble raising capital.
GM owns 49 percent of GMAC LLC, with the rest owned by Cerberus Capital Management LP. . . .
GM also said in the filing that Delphi Corp., its former parts-making operation that was spun off in 1999, is unlikely to emerge from bankruptcy protection in the short term and may not be able to emerge at all.
Dale Oesterle, at Ohio State University, discusses the much discussed prospect of an automobile industry bailout (paragraph breaks adeed):
The big three American automobile companies are showing substantial operating loses. GM is losing $1 billion or more a month. How does a capital injection help? The companies will just burn through the cash (using it to pay labor or pay off debts, old and new, until it is gone).
The banks, on the other hand, that are receiving bailout funds have operating profits (they can borrow low and lend high) but suffer from capital requirement issues (which limits what they can lend). A capital infusion helps meet capital requirements, frees up lending and the banks can make a profit. Auto companies are not similar. Unless the auto companies can build and sell a car or truck at a gross profit (a profit neutral of debt service or taxes) it makes no sense to bail them out. They should be liquidated.
From here.
Professor Oesterle is right that the automobile industry dilemma is very different from that of the financial sector problems. He is also right in his argument that it takes bankruptcy, not just a bailout, to allow these companies to survive. But, his conclusion, that the businesses should be liquidated, is probably wrong.
Why?
First, existing contractual obligations are an important source of the Big Three Automakers lack of operating profitability.
All three of the Big Three Automakers have large legacy costs to laid off employees. General Motors owes more for retiree benefits other than pensions (its pensions aren't horribly funded, but other benefits are unfunded) than it does to bond holdes. Payments for retiree benefits are treated as operating costs.
General Motors has large contingent liabilities owed to its spun off Delphi division.
One of the reason that the Big Three have been slow to lay off employees or reduce production is that existing union contracts make it very expensive to lay off workers. Only a fraction of the cost of employing a worker is removed from operating costs by laying off a worker, who receives generous benefits compared to unemployment insurance, if laid off.
Likewise, the Big Three have been slow to thin their bloated dealership network or discontinue excess brands, because dealers have to be bought out under existing contracts at a high cost. These companies have a dealership network designed for a much larger market share. More dealerships mean fewer sales per dealer. Fewer sales per dealer means that dealerships need a larger middle man cut than they could survive on with more sales. The larger middle man cut compared to the competition limits the ability of the manufacturers to increase their dealer invoice price, which decreases operating revenues.
Finally, existing contract provide for greater compensation per hour to factory workers than the labor market requires, and greater compensation per hour to factory workers than the competition pays.
These contractual obligations could be reduced (in addition to reducing current financing costs), to bring these companies closer to operating profits in bankruptcy.
Second, his analysis is insufficiently dynamic. A proposed merger of General Motors and Chrysler, for example, would almost certainly slash the number of automobile brands offered by the Big Three and would also almost certainly reduce the number of vehicles produced that are chasing the same shrinking market segments. This reduction in the supply of vehicles would boost prices.
A proposed merger would also remove financing operations from General Motors and Chrysler, allowing those businesses to focus more on their core businesses.
And, allowing these businesses to survive a little longer would also allow an eventual modest increase in the demand for big, less fuel efficient vehicles, as oil prices stablize at more modest levels, and would buy them time to shift their production capacity to more fuel efficient models.
Third, liquidation is a bad option. Automobile manufacturers have assets that are worth far more when they are a going concern than they do at liquidation value. Automobile factories aren't worth much for any other purpose. Neither are car dealerships, which are often in "automobile row" strip developments with most other competitors already represented. Who would buy Delphi in a liquidation other than the manufacturers that spun off the company in the first place?
Foreign automakers who have built plants in the United States have established that it is possible to build and sell cars at a profit in North America. All three automakers have major restructurings in place. But, if there is going to be a bailout, it might be better structured as mother of all debtor-in-possession financing deals than as a pre-collapse bailout.
This has the virtue of preventing private investors who simply made bad investing decisions from benefiting unduly from the bailout, which might look something like the Amtrak nationalization of the private sector passenger rail system.
PC Line Broken
Windows Vista was the last straw that has brought the first Mac ever into my office. A Vista driven machine actually arrived, but after a week using it, it was returned. I'm not in the market for a new computer myself yet, but like watching the drama play out.
As of August 2008:
The rise of netbooks (cheap mini-laptops) has also hurt Vista:
It is hard to imagine Microsoft making a more stunningly bad business move. It is hard to know what has gone wrong in the company that caused this to happen, although the departure of Bill Gates from active management of the company may be an important factor.
As of August 2008:
"[N]early 35 percent of all current-model PCs (that is those that normally ship with Vista installed) in the repository to be running a different OS.
In other words, more than a third of customers chose to dump Vista from their new PCs -- typically in favor of XP, but sometimes also one of the Server variants.
The rise of netbooks (cheap mini-laptops) has also hurt Vista:
Microsoft has invited manufacturers to put Vista on netbooks, but only a few - notably HP's new 2133 Mini-PC - run the operating system, because Vista's hardware requirements are usually too high.
That means Microsoft earns less revenue per PC sold - because the company sells XP licenses at a fraction of the price of Vista licenses, according to IDC's O'Donnell.
As many as 25 percent of netbooks don't use Windows at all and instead run the Linux operating system.
Microsoft, though, has promised that its next operating system, Windows 7, will work as well on netbooks as on high-end gaming PCs.
It is hard to imagine Microsoft making a more stunningly bad business move. It is hard to know what has gone wrong in the company that caused this to happen, although the departure of Bill Gates from active management of the company may be an important factor.
New England Once Had Republicans
After the 2008 election there will be no Republicans in the House of Representatives from New England (from any of its twenty-two seats), and two of the three Republicans out of the twelve U.S. Senators from New England (Snowe and Collins in Maine) are the most moderate Republicans in Congress, while the third is no die hard conservative. It wasn't always so. Once upon a time, the Republican party was the leading political party in New England:
New England is, at the moment, in a dominant party phase similar to that of the Democratic party in the South prior to the civil rights movement. It is an environment fertile for the emergence of a new or reimagined political party, perhaps even a regional one.
The Democratic party is more pro-business, more free market oriented, and more socially liberal than it was in the days when New Englanders with those ideologies voted Republican. The real question now, in New England and nationally, is which pieces of the old Republican party remain most uncomfortable with the Democratic party and most able to find common cause with each other.
At their first presidential convention, in 1856, Republicans nominated John C. Fremont on a platform of abolishing slavery in the territories - a widely held view in the North. While Fremont lost, he carried 11 Northern states. Later, Abraham Lincoln captured the presidency by winning 18 Northern states.
By the late 1940s, Republicans held 21 of 28 of New England's seats in the House of Representatives. But the turning point came in 1964, when the Republicans nominated conservative Barry Goldwater for president, said Gary Rose, a political science professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.
Known for being fiscally conservative but more socially liberal, Northeast moderates - dubbed the Rockefeller Republicans after the former New York governor - started to be eclipsed by the more socially conservative wing of the party. . . . "There is no longer, to speak of, a moderate voice within the party," Rose said. "It's a party that's becoming more narrow and there's really no sense of compromise within the party." . . .
[I]n New England, where Republicans historically have often favored fiscal responsibility, abortion rights, protection of personal liberties and strong environmental policies. . . .the problem worsened with the 1994 so-called "Republican Revolution," when midterm congressional elections added 54 Republican seats in the House.
"They lost their way and I think more and more New England people, especially those who were Republicans basically because of smaller government and less government intrusion into our lives, started to see their party led by people whose foremost issues were social issues, religious and values and morals, etc.," [Connecticut Republican leader] Cafero said. . . .
One bright spot for the GOP in New England has been their control of governorships. Republicans are governors in Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island. . . . "The only reason they've been able to survive is they've acted like Democrats," Rose said. "They too, I think are going to become endangered species."
Thomas Whalen, a political historian at Boston University . . . . said there is now an opportunity for an independent third party that takes populist stands to develop in New England and envelop moderate Republicans. . . . "There is no place in the GOP now for the moderates and they need to find a home," Whalen said. "The brand is dead in New England."
New England is, at the moment, in a dominant party phase similar to that of the Democratic party in the South prior to the civil rights movement. It is an environment fertile for the emergence of a new or reimagined political party, perhaps even a regional one.
The Democratic party is more pro-business, more free market oriented, and more socially liberal than it was in the days when New Englanders with those ideologies voted Republican. The real question now, in New England and nationally, is which pieces of the old Republican party remain most uncomfortable with the Democratic party and most able to find common cause with each other.
Evaluating Judges
There are basically two dimensions upon which judges are evaluated.
One is simple competence. Does a judge have a suitably judicial demeanor, act ethically, get his or her work done in a timely manner, and understand the law?
The other is ideological. Judging provides far room for discretionary decision making than the "judge as umpire" metaphor would suggest. Some judges are more conservative, some are more liberal, and judges tend to moderate their ruling when they are on panels of multiple judges with different ideologiies. A new study compares different ways of evaluating judicial ideology empirically.
One is simple competence. Does a judge have a suitably judicial demeanor, act ethically, get his or her work done in a timely manner, and understand the law?
The other is ideological. Judging provides far room for discretionary decision making than the "judge as umpire" metaphor would suggest. Some judges are more conservative, some are more liberal, and judges tend to moderate their ruling when they are on panels of multiple judges with different ideologiies. A new study compares different ways of evaluating judicial ideology empirically.
Circuit City Bankrupt
National electronics retailer Circuit City has petitioned for bankruptcy under Chapter 11.
Vendor trade creditors are the largest outsider creditors. "Hewlett-Packard has a $118.8 million claim followed by Samsung ($115.9 million), Sony ($60 million), Zenith ($41.2 million), Toshiba ($17.9 million) and others. Smaller creditors include GPS navigation system maker Garmin, Nikon, Lenovo, Eastman Kodak and Mitsubishi."
The 2005 bankruptcy reforms have made it far harder for retail firms to emerge from Chapter 11, so the prospects are not particularly bright for Circuit City. But, hopefully for the chain, "Circuit City said it had lined up $1.1 billion in loans to provide working capital while it is in bankruptcy protection. That replaces a $1.3 billion asset-backed loan it had been using." In ability to make funds available to anyone but secured creditors who loan against inventory and accounts receivable is a common cause of an inability of retail firms to reorganize succesfully under Chapter 11.
The leading owner of Colorado based Ultimate Electronics is also a major shareholder of Circuit City, which may portend a possible attempt by Ultimate Electronics to buy out the larger, but less profitable chain.
"The company said in its filing that it had $3.4 billion in assets and $2.32 billion in liabilities, as of Aug. 31." Its falling stock price had put it at risk of being delisted from the stock exchanges, and it had been at risk of not receiving Christmas season inventory shipments from suppliers worried about getting burned if the company collapsed. The company's sales are down, its CEO was replaced in September, and it was already closing many stores. "Circuit City Stores Inc. announced a week ago it planned to close 155 of its more than 700 U.S. stores by Dec. 31."
Vendor trade creditors are the largest outsider creditors. "Hewlett-Packard has a $118.8 million claim followed by Samsung ($115.9 million), Sony ($60 million), Zenith ($41.2 million), Toshiba ($17.9 million) and others. Smaller creditors include GPS navigation system maker Garmin, Nikon, Lenovo, Eastman Kodak and Mitsubishi."
The 2005 bankruptcy reforms have made it far harder for retail firms to emerge from Chapter 11, so the prospects are not particularly bright for Circuit City. But, hopefully for the chain, "Circuit City said it had lined up $1.1 billion in loans to provide working capital while it is in bankruptcy protection. That replaces a $1.3 billion asset-backed loan it had been using." In ability to make funds available to anyone but secured creditors who loan against inventory and accounts receivable is a common cause of an inability of retail firms to reorganize succesfully under Chapter 11.
The leading owner of Colorado based Ultimate Electronics is also a major shareholder of Circuit City, which may portend a possible attempt by Ultimate Electronics to buy out the larger, but less profitable chain.
"The company said in its filing that it had $3.4 billion in assets and $2.32 billion in liabilities, as of Aug. 31." Its falling stock price had put it at risk of being delisted from the stock exchanges, and it had been at risk of not receiving Christmas season inventory shipments from suppliers worried about getting burned if the company collapsed. The company's sales are down, its CEO was replaced in September, and it was already closing many stores. "Circuit City Stores Inc. announced a week ago it planned to close 155 of its more than 700 U.S. stores by Dec. 31."
Two Trillion In Secret Federal Reserve Loans?
Apparently, the Fed Reserve, in addition to its $700 billion of loans pursuant to the TARP program created in the bailout bill, has made $2,000 billion of loans pursuant to pre-existing programs.
But, the Fed is refusing to disclose the recipients of these loans or the terms of the loans (e.g. the collateral received in exchange). Bloomberg is suing to get the information.
But, the Fed is refusing to disclose the recipients of these loans or the terms of the loans (e.g. the collateral received in exchange). Bloomberg is suing to get the information.
07 November 2008
Zero Interest Loans
One of the mysteries of the economic universe is the zero interest loan.
I don't mean that zero interest loan from your mother or your lover or your uncle or business colleague. These are simple gifts based upon a principal of reciprocity and mutual obligation. Similarly, zero interest or low interest loans offered by non-profits and government agencies are frequently an intended form of subsidy designed to leverage a lot of benefit, with a fairly modest cost to the provider.
I also don't mean that zero interest loan that is tied to a particular purchase, like a zero interest loan from a car dealer in connection with a new car. This is simply deceptive labeling. When you get a zero interest loan you are simply paying a higher purchase price up front, in lieu of interest. In the case of a car loan, or a home loan with a teaser interest rate, the trade off between a lower purchase price or zero interest financing is often even expressly offered to the customer.
What I mean is a genuine (usually unsolicited) loan offer from an unrelated party, like a credit card issuer, usually on a balance transfer, for a fixed period of time, with no balance transfer fee (or a nominal one far less than any market interest rate would generate), with no pre-payment penalty or obligation not to transfer the funds when the zero interest rate expires.
It isn't that I don't understand that there are ways for a credit card company to make money by offering zero interest loans. If you don't pay down your loan quickly and stay with that company after the zero interest rate expires, you end up paying interest to them instead of someone else. If you miss a payment or otherwise trigger a default (for example, under a universal default provision of the card agreement), they can charge you interest even sooner at an extra high default interest rate. If you have a card from the company that you transferred a balance to, you may also end up using the card to make new purchases upon which the card issuer earns merchant fees and interest on balances that aren't paid before a grace period expires.
But, offering a zero interest loan is not cost free to the offering bank. The offering bank assumes the risk of default on your loan, and default risk is higher than ever, particularly from people who are carrying balances on high interest credit cards that they need to transfer. In addition to the default risk, a certain amount of money must be spent to issue statements and processing payments. Finally, the offering bank must pay someone else interest to let the bank use the money that is loaned to the customer. The bank also has to pay considerable marketing costs to send out millions, or even billions of these offers to customers, in the hope that customers will do business with them. On a $10,000 balance transfer with a one year zero interest period, this may cost the bank several hundred dollars in marketing costs, processing costs and its own borrowing costs. If the program is to be profitable, these costs must be recovered somehow.
What surprises me is that these offers actually work to generate profits for the bank (and if credit card companies are offering them, presumably they do . . . although I've seen many of these offers come in my mail from Washington Mutual whose loose underwriting ultimately caused the bank to fail). Indeed, this may be remote evidence of the rather well established economic fact that executive compensation is more closely related to the scale of an enterprise than its profitability. Executives at marginally profitable or money losing big businesses are often paid better than executives at smaller business with a good return on investment. So, managers have an incentive to increase market share and hence the scale of the business, so long as the company doesn't lose so much money that it goes out of business.
Still, generally, financial companies are exceedingly wary of transactions that a consumer can control in a way that denies the financial company any return. This kind of deal, that allows a consumer to get a substantial benefit without anyone obviously paying for it, with no strings attached, is something that financial companies generally go to great lengths to avoid.
For example, individual health insurance policies almost always include a huge premium, with significant "pre-existing condition" exclusions and limited coverage for maternity coverage, on the theory that the insured can otherwise get a huge bargain by buying maternity coverage only when the insured is or is about to become pregnant, and then cancelling the coverage as soon as a child is born and home safe. It isn't unusual for premiums to be so high that all the expenses attributed to a healthy child birth are recovered in eleven months. Dental care policies are similarly cagey about offering benefits for major dental work that can be deferred or anticipated by an insured.
Yet, big national banks, which often have business partners who offer health and dental insurance, offer to let you have their money, use it for free for six months to a year, and then move on to another bank, paying them nothing but principal payments on the loan in the meantime.
Part of me wonders if these kinds of programs are designed collusively by the industry as a whole, as another arm of the Consolidated Credit Corporation program funded by credit card companies to encourage self-help repayment on favorable terms by debtors instead of bad debt and bankruptcy by debtors who are crushed by high interest rates. But, I'm not away of any such collusive activities, and if they did exist they would seemingly violate anti-trust laws. Is there some secret special rule that allows issuers within the credit card processing system to charge back losses on balance transfers within a certain time period or something? There are no such arrangement of which I am aware.
I also wonder how balance transfers interact with the luxury purchase rule in bankruptcy that denies a discharge for large luxury purchases and cash advances made on the eve of bankruptcy. Does a balance transfer of a debt incurred for a luxury purchase made on the eve of bankruptcy retain its luxury purchase character with the new creditor? Does a balance transfer count as a cash advance for bankruptcy purposes? Has a bank accepting a balance transfer rendered your debt to them non-dischargable without disclosing that fact? I haven't researched the issue, and I'm not even sure that there is settled law resolving the issue uniformly in all jurisdictions. But, my gut instinct is that the balance transfer paying bank is in a worse position in bankruptcy than the original creditor and does not receive these benefits.
I wonder about the strategic behavior by credit card consumers mostly because that is the only way that I have ever seen anyone use these kinds of offers. People with really bad credit don't get them. People with good credit who are carrying credit card balances are usually savvy enough to use them in a ruthless and strategic fashion with no regard for the bank's well being. Presumably, there are less savvy people out there, or the forces in inertia and the odds of simple mistakes that trigger fees and interest are greater than I would assume. But, I honestly don't really know why the genuine zero interest loan practice helps credit card companies make a buck, which is potentially relevant far beyond this particular niche zero interest loan pheneomena, because it may illuminate a great deal about how these companies really make their money.
A comment from anyone who can direct me to credible sources describing the economics of these transactions would be appreciated. One news report I did find on the practice (at a California bank for business loans) identified a low cost of funds for the bank as an important factor making the program work.
I don't mean that zero interest loan from your mother or your lover or your uncle or business colleague. These are simple gifts based upon a principal of reciprocity and mutual obligation. Similarly, zero interest or low interest loans offered by non-profits and government agencies are frequently an intended form of subsidy designed to leverage a lot of benefit, with a fairly modest cost to the provider.
I also don't mean that zero interest loan that is tied to a particular purchase, like a zero interest loan from a car dealer in connection with a new car. This is simply deceptive labeling. When you get a zero interest loan you are simply paying a higher purchase price up front, in lieu of interest. In the case of a car loan, or a home loan with a teaser interest rate, the trade off between a lower purchase price or zero interest financing is often even expressly offered to the customer.
What I mean is a genuine (usually unsolicited) loan offer from an unrelated party, like a credit card issuer, usually on a balance transfer, for a fixed period of time, with no balance transfer fee (or a nominal one far less than any market interest rate would generate), with no pre-payment penalty or obligation not to transfer the funds when the zero interest rate expires.
It isn't that I don't understand that there are ways for a credit card company to make money by offering zero interest loans. If you don't pay down your loan quickly and stay with that company after the zero interest rate expires, you end up paying interest to them instead of someone else. If you miss a payment or otherwise trigger a default (for example, under a universal default provision of the card agreement), they can charge you interest even sooner at an extra high default interest rate. If you have a card from the company that you transferred a balance to, you may also end up using the card to make new purchases upon which the card issuer earns merchant fees and interest on balances that aren't paid before a grace period expires.
But, offering a zero interest loan is not cost free to the offering bank. The offering bank assumes the risk of default on your loan, and default risk is higher than ever, particularly from people who are carrying balances on high interest credit cards that they need to transfer. In addition to the default risk, a certain amount of money must be spent to issue statements and processing payments. Finally, the offering bank must pay someone else interest to let the bank use the money that is loaned to the customer. The bank also has to pay considerable marketing costs to send out millions, or even billions of these offers to customers, in the hope that customers will do business with them. On a $10,000 balance transfer with a one year zero interest period, this may cost the bank several hundred dollars in marketing costs, processing costs and its own borrowing costs. If the program is to be profitable, these costs must be recovered somehow.
What surprises me is that these offers actually work to generate profits for the bank (and if credit card companies are offering them, presumably they do . . . although I've seen many of these offers come in my mail from Washington Mutual whose loose underwriting ultimately caused the bank to fail). Indeed, this may be remote evidence of the rather well established economic fact that executive compensation is more closely related to the scale of an enterprise than its profitability. Executives at marginally profitable or money losing big businesses are often paid better than executives at smaller business with a good return on investment. So, managers have an incentive to increase market share and hence the scale of the business, so long as the company doesn't lose so much money that it goes out of business.
Still, generally, financial companies are exceedingly wary of transactions that a consumer can control in a way that denies the financial company any return. This kind of deal, that allows a consumer to get a substantial benefit without anyone obviously paying for it, with no strings attached, is something that financial companies generally go to great lengths to avoid.
For example, individual health insurance policies almost always include a huge premium, with significant "pre-existing condition" exclusions and limited coverage for maternity coverage, on the theory that the insured can otherwise get a huge bargain by buying maternity coverage only when the insured is or is about to become pregnant, and then cancelling the coverage as soon as a child is born and home safe. It isn't unusual for premiums to be so high that all the expenses attributed to a healthy child birth are recovered in eleven months. Dental care policies are similarly cagey about offering benefits for major dental work that can be deferred or anticipated by an insured.
Yet, big national banks, which often have business partners who offer health and dental insurance, offer to let you have their money, use it for free for six months to a year, and then move on to another bank, paying them nothing but principal payments on the loan in the meantime.
Part of me wonders if these kinds of programs are designed collusively by the industry as a whole, as another arm of the Consolidated Credit Corporation program funded by credit card companies to encourage self-help repayment on favorable terms by debtors instead of bad debt and bankruptcy by debtors who are crushed by high interest rates. But, I'm not away of any such collusive activities, and if they did exist they would seemingly violate anti-trust laws. Is there some secret special rule that allows issuers within the credit card processing system to charge back losses on balance transfers within a certain time period or something? There are no such arrangement of which I am aware.
I also wonder how balance transfers interact with the luxury purchase rule in bankruptcy that denies a discharge for large luxury purchases and cash advances made on the eve of bankruptcy. Does a balance transfer of a debt incurred for a luxury purchase made on the eve of bankruptcy retain its luxury purchase character with the new creditor? Does a balance transfer count as a cash advance for bankruptcy purposes? Has a bank accepting a balance transfer rendered your debt to them non-dischargable without disclosing that fact? I haven't researched the issue, and I'm not even sure that there is settled law resolving the issue uniformly in all jurisdictions. But, my gut instinct is that the balance transfer paying bank is in a worse position in bankruptcy than the original creditor and does not receive these benefits.
I wonder about the strategic behavior by credit card consumers mostly because that is the only way that I have ever seen anyone use these kinds of offers. People with really bad credit don't get them. People with good credit who are carrying credit card balances are usually savvy enough to use them in a ruthless and strategic fashion with no regard for the bank's well being. Presumably, there are less savvy people out there, or the forces in inertia and the odds of simple mistakes that trigger fees and interest are greater than I would assume. But, I honestly don't really know why the genuine zero interest loan practice helps credit card companies make a buck, which is potentially relevant far beyond this particular niche zero interest loan pheneomena, because it may illuminate a great deal about how these companies really make their money.
A comment from anyone who can direct me to credible sources describing the economics of these transactions would be appreciated. One news report I did find on the practice (at a California bank for business loans) identified a low cost of funds for the bank as an important factor making the program work.
Turnout and Dropoff
In the 2000 Census, Colorado had a voting age population of 3,204,471 with a U.S. citizen voting age population of 2,993,981. Thus, 93.4% of voting aged Coloradans were U.S. citizens. A county by county breakdown can be found here.
As of 2008, the number of eligible voters has grown with Colorado's population.
The estimated voting aged population in Colorado at the time of this November's election was 3,770,624. The source I linked suggests that 92.5% of voting aged Coloradans were U.S. citizens in 2008. Thus, about 282,797 people in Colorado are ineligible to vote because they are not citizens (note also that many non-citizens in Colorado are legal immigrants with appropriate resident visas). Of U.S. citizens, 22,481 people were ineligible to vote because they were incarcerated in prison for felonies, as were 8,196 people who were ineglible to vote because they were on parole for felonies. Thus, there were a total of 30,677 ineligible felons in Colorado. On the other hand, there were 73,854 overseas persons who were eligible to vote in the U.S. (mostly military personnel who are deployed, missionaries and their families, families of business people abroad, and foreign students).
Thus, there were 3,529,620 people eligible to vote in Colorado on election day.
The biggest barrier for many of these people was voter registration. In this election in Colorado there were 3,203,583 registered voters in the state, of whom 2,582,189 were "active registered voters." Inactive registered voters haven't voted in recent elections are are often people who have moved (or died) without updating their voter registration information.
The number of registered voters is 90.8% of the number of eligible voters in the state. The number of active registered voters in the state is 73.2% of the number of elgibile voters in the state. Probably at least half of eligible voters who do not vote are not eligible to vote on election day because they are not properly registered to vote.
While final numbers are working their way in, we are approaching a good estimate of turnout in this election in Colorado:
Turnout as a percentage of voting age population was about 60.7%. About 64.9% of those eligible to vote in this year's November election in Colorado did so. Turnout was 71.6% of registered voters, and 88.8% of active registered voters.
But, even turnout doesn't tell the whole story. Many voters abstain from voting on every matter presented to them on the ballot. Of those who voted for President (the item with the greatest voter participation):
* 2.8% did not vote for U.S. Senator
* 3.8% did not vote on Amendment 48 (the state Amendment with the least drop off)
* 11.9% did not vote on Amendment M (the state Amendment with the most drop off)
* 18.7% did not vote for a member of Congress (although drop off varied by Congressional District).
* In judicial retention races for the statewide offices of Colorado Supreme Court Justice and Colorado Court of Appeals Justice, the percent not voting ranges from 26.0% to 27.6%. (Notably, all appellate judges did receive an affirmative "yes" vote from a majority of those voting in the election, although the margin was only about 51% of those voting for the justices and judges receiving the least votes in absolute terms).
In the three C.U. Regent races, 20.9% to 44.5% of those who voted in the corresponding Congressional race did not cast a vote for a C.U. Regent candidate. In the two State School Board races, 7.4% to 26.2% of those who cast a vote in the corresponding Congressional race did not cast a vote for a State Board of Education candidate. Keep in mind that these drop offs are on top of the substantial drop off from the Presidential race to the Congressional races.
As of 2008, the number of eligible voters has grown with Colorado's population.
The estimated voting aged population in Colorado at the time of this November's election was 3,770,624. The source I linked suggests that 92.5% of voting aged Coloradans were U.S. citizens in 2008. Thus, about 282,797 people in Colorado are ineligible to vote because they are not citizens (note also that many non-citizens in Colorado are legal immigrants with appropriate resident visas). Of U.S. citizens, 22,481 people were ineligible to vote because they were incarcerated in prison for felonies, as were 8,196 people who were ineglible to vote because they were on parole for felonies. Thus, there were a total of 30,677 ineligible felons in Colorado. On the other hand, there were 73,854 overseas persons who were eligible to vote in the U.S. (mostly military personnel who are deployed, missionaries and their families, families of business people abroad, and foreign students).
Thus, there were 3,529,620 people eligible to vote in Colorado on election day.
The biggest barrier for many of these people was voter registration. In this election in Colorado there were 3,203,583 registered voters in the state, of whom 2,582,189 were "active registered voters." Inactive registered voters haven't voted in recent elections are are often people who have moved (or died) without updating their voter registration information.
The number of registered voters is 90.8% of the number of eligible voters in the state. The number of active registered voters in the state is 73.2% of the number of elgibile voters in the state. Probably at least half of eligible voters who do not vote are not eligible to vote on election day because they are not properly registered to vote.
While final numbers are working their way in, we are approaching a good estimate of turnout in this election in Colorado:
[A]s of Thursday, the secretary of state reported that 206,566 people voted on Tuesday, though the number will increase when everything is finally counted. Still, the total is expected to fall far short of the 1 million or more people expected on Election Day.
The statewide unofficial vote count is largely finished, though the final numbers are still in flux. Election workers still have to pore through problem ballots, such as mail ballots that are missing signatures, and provisional ballots cast by people whose voter registration is in question.
But the latest numbers indicate that roughly 2.25 million people voted - by mail, at early polling sites or on Election Day. Assuming that the same number of provisional ballots are validated this year as in 2004, that would take the number of voters to about 2.29 million.
That's a jump over the 2.15 million people who voted in 2004, but not the flood of voters that many elections officials predicted.
It also represents little change in percentage of voters who turned out. This year saw a slight increase in turnout considered against the number of registered voters but a slight decrease from 2004 when considered against "active" voters - those who cast ballots in the last even-year election, in this case 2006.
Turnout as a percentage of voting age population was about 60.7%. About 64.9% of those eligible to vote in this year's November election in Colorado did so. Turnout was 71.6% of registered voters, and 88.8% of active registered voters.
But, even turnout doesn't tell the whole story. Many voters abstain from voting on every matter presented to them on the ballot. Of those who voted for President (the item with the greatest voter participation):
* 2.8% did not vote for U.S. Senator
* 3.8% did not vote on Amendment 48 (the state Amendment with the least drop off)
* 11.9% did not vote on Amendment M (the state Amendment with the most drop off)
* 18.7% did not vote for a member of Congress (although drop off varied by Congressional District).
* In judicial retention races for the statewide offices of Colorado Supreme Court Justice and Colorado Court of Appeals Justice, the percent not voting ranges from 26.0% to 27.6%. (Notably, all appellate judges did receive an affirmative "yes" vote from a majority of those voting in the election, although the margin was only about 51% of those voting for the justices and judges receiving the least votes in absolute terms).
In the three C.U. Regent races, 20.9% to 44.5% of those who voted in the corresponding Congressional race did not cast a vote for a C.U. Regent candidate. In the two State School Board races, 7.4% to 26.2% of those who cast a vote in the corresponding Congressional race did not cast a vote for a State Board of Education candidate. Keep in mind that these drop offs are on top of the substantial drop off from the Presidential race to the Congressional races.
Ford Still Losing Money
Third quarter financial results are out, and Ford is lost $129 million in the third quarter, which would be horrible if it weren't for the fact that it lost $8.7 billion last quarter. The main reason that this is a bright spot, however, is that it removed a $2 billion liability for future retiree health care costs from its books in a one time transaction, by having the UAW assume responsiblity for retiree health care costs after Ford established a trust to finance that obligation.
Ford is still burning through cash, however, consuming $7.7 billion of cash in the quarter leaving it a reserve of $18.9 billion. Thus, if it can't turn itself around or secure more financing (despite adverse bond ratings), Ford will run out of cash sometime in June or July of 2009. Industry analysts are more hopeful and think that Ford has enough cash to keep operating until some time in 2010.
The news is not good for company employees. Layoffs are planned for 2,260 more white-collar employees in North America, after a year that has already seen substantial employment reductions.
Segment reporting reveales more of the nature of the problem:
Foreign operations remain profitable, as are its financing operations, but this is all swallowed up in the pit of its core North American motor vehicle manufacturing business that loses thousands of dollars for each vehicle it sells in North America.
Ford has sold its Jaguar and Land Rover subsidiaries and is believed to be looking for a buyer for money losing Volvo.
All three of the Big Three CEOs are in Wasington this week asking for a bailout.
Ford is still burning through cash, however, consuming $7.7 billion of cash in the quarter leaving it a reserve of $18.9 billion. Thus, if it can't turn itself around or secure more financing (despite adverse bond ratings), Ford will run out of cash sometime in June or July of 2009. Industry analysts are more hopeful and think that Ford has enough cash to keep operating until some time in 2010.
The news is not good for company employees. Layoffs are planned for 2,260 more white-collar employees in North America, after a year that has already seen substantial employment reductions.
The automaker started the year with 89,000 employees in North America but reduced that number to 80,200 as of Sept. 30 through attrition, hirings, buyouts and layoffs.
In a further effort to cut costs, Ford said it will eliminate merit pay increases in 2009 for salaried workers in North America, along with performance bonuses for salaried employees worldwide. It also will suspend matching contributions for U.S. salaried employees who take part in the company's savings and stock investment program.
Segment reporting reveales more of the nature of the problem:
Ford said it lost $2.6 billion pretax in North America, compared with a loss of $1 billion in the year-ago period.
It recorded a pretax profit of $480 million in South America, compared with $386 million last year. In Europe, the company made $69 million, a sharp drop from the $293 million in the year-ago period.
Ford's Asia-Pacific operations made $4 million, down from $30 million a year ago, while it lost $1 million on its interest in Mazda, compared with a profit of $14 million in the third quarter of last year.
Volvo lost $458 million, wider than the $167 million loss last year. Ford Motor Credit Co. had a pretax profit of $161 million, far lower than the $546 million in the same quarter last year.
Foreign operations remain profitable, as are its financing operations, but this is all swallowed up in the pit of its core North American motor vehicle manufacturing business that loses thousands of dollars for each vehicle it sells in North America.
Ford has sold its Jaguar and Land Rover subsidiaries and is believed to be looking for a buyer for money losing Volvo.
All three of the Big Three CEOs are in Wasington this week asking for a bailout.
06 November 2008
Republican Geography II: Red States, Blue States
This post continues ideas explored in a post yesterday.
How many of the Republicans in the next session in Congress come from states that McCain won in 2008?
West Virginia: 1 Representative
Kentucky: 2 Senators, 4 Reresentatives
Missouri: 1 Senator, 5 Representatives
South Carolina: 2 Senators, 4 Representatives
Georgia: 1 Senator (and possibly another Senator), 7 Representatives
Tennessee: 2 Senators, 4 Representatives
Alabama: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Mississippi: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Arkansas: 1 Representative
Louisiana: 1 Senator, 6 Representatives
Texas: 2 Senators, 20 Representatives
Kansas: 2 Senators, 3 Representatives
Nebraska: 1 Senator, 3 Representatives
South Dakota: 1 Senator
North Dakota: None
Wyoming: 2 Senators, 1 Representative
Montana: 1 Representative
Arizona: 2 Senators, 3 Representatives
Utah: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Idaho: 2 Senators, 1 Representative
Alaska: 1 Senator (and possibly another Senator and possibly 1 Representative)
Total: 28 plus possibly 2 more Republican Senators, 70 Republican Representatives
In states Obama won, there are 12 plus possibly 1 more Republican Senators, and 105 plus possibly 5 more Republican Representatives.
The states with the most Republican members of Congress that Obama won are:
California: 19 Representatives
Florida: 1 Senator, 15 Representatives
Ohio: 1 Senator, 9 Representatives
Pennsylvania: 1 Senator, 7 Representatives
Illinois: 8 Representatives
Virginia: 1 Senator, 6 Representatives
Michigan: 7 Representatives
North Carolina: 1 Senator, 5 Representatives
Indiana: 1 Senator, 4 Representatives
New Jersey: 5 Representatives
Why bother compiling these numbers? Because they go towards identifying the ongoing historical trend of realignment.
In May of this year, a post noted that "the net decline in support for Democratic presidential candidates among white voters over the past half-century is entirely attributable to partisan change in the South."
Also notable when evaluating the impact of the current election is that there were 44 Blue Dogs (i.e. conservative Democrats) in the House prior to this election. A majority in the House is 217 votes. Democrats need about 261 votes in the House to pass legislation over the objections of the Blue Dogs. The Democrats are just shy of having a majority that large.
A post written in advance of the 2006 election notes something that was true then and remains true of the few Republicans who continue to hold federal office in the Northeast. By and large they are moderates. At the time, the post noted that:
Sununu just lost his bid for re-election in 2008. Thus, there are four Republican Senators from the Northeast, including all three of the least conservative Republican Senators in the U.S. Senate, and one who leans moderate compared to his caucus.
The three moderate Republican Senators of the group are in the same political territory as independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who is steadily drifting to the political right, despite caucusing with the Democrats so far (Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President this year, for example), Ben Nelson, the Democratic Senator from Nebraska, Gene Taylor who is a Democratic Senator from Mississippi, Bill Nelson who is a Democratic Senator from Florida, Senator Byrd from West Virginia and Senator Landrieu from Louisiana who are also among the ranks of the most conservative Democrats in the U.S. Senate. Of these six conservatives who caucus with the Democrats, five come from states that McCain won in 2008. All other members of the Democratic caucus are more liberal than these six individuals (except Lieberman who has a moderately liberal overall voting record despite his immense symbolic estrangement from the Democratic party) and all Republicans.
There are no Republican representatives in New England, there are just three of them in New York, there are five in New Jersey, there are seven in Pennsylvania, there are two in Maryland and there is one in Delaware.
Two of the remaining three Republican Representatives from New York, McHugh and King, are exceptionally moderate for Republicans. So are four of the five remaining Republican Representatives from New Jersey (LoBiondo, Chris Smith, Ferguson, and Frelinghuysen), four of the remaining seven Republican Representatives from Pennsylvania (Gerlach, Dent, Murphy and Platts), Republican Representative Gilchrest from Maryland (one of two Republicans from the state in Congress) and Representative Castle from Delaware.
Thus, of the four Republican Senators and eighteen Republican Representatives left in the Northeast, three of the Senators and twelve of the Representatives are very moderate as Republicans go. There is just one truly conservative Republican Senator and there are just six truly conservative Republican Representatives left in the Northeast.
Republican Senator Voinovich from Ohio is another blue state Senator who has tried to put at least a little distance between himself and both President Bush and the hard core conservatives of his party. Blue State Minnesota Republican Coleman, who is currently facing a recount in his bid for re-election is also moderate as Republicans go, as are both of Alaska's Senators, one of whom is also facing a recount in the wake of his criminal convictions for fraud. The rest of the Republican caucus is more conservative. Thus, all moderate Republican Senators outside Alaska hail from states that Obama won in 2008.
The existence of these moderate Republicans from blue states is important because they make the filibuster a less potent threat than it might otherwise appear to be in a party that was completely disciplined, as the Republican party once had a reputation for being. Even if Democrats fail to secure a filibuster proof sixty vote caucus, there are several moderates in the Republican party who may be unwilling to invoke a filibuster in support of conservative causes when their party colleagues might.
There will be, at most, about seven moderate Republicans (two of whom are struggling to be re-elected this year), and about six moderates in the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate, who frequently break with their party. In addition to illustrating the difficulty Republicans may mount in overcoming a filibuster, however, this also illustrates that the Democratic caucus is less united than it might seem. While Senate Democrats can pass legislation without votes from any of these Democratic or Republican moderates, a threat of a filibuster that includes some conservative Democrats and all moderate Republicans can still stop a bill in the Senate.
Also, the existence and geography of moderate Republicans establish that the conservative brand of Republicanism is a Southern regional phenomena to a greater extent that mere party identification numbers (recited above) would suggest.
How many of the Republicans in the next session in Congress come from states that McCain won in 2008?
West Virginia: 1 Representative
Kentucky: 2 Senators, 4 Reresentatives
Missouri: 1 Senator, 5 Representatives
South Carolina: 2 Senators, 4 Representatives
Georgia: 1 Senator (and possibly another Senator), 7 Representatives
Tennessee: 2 Senators, 4 Representatives
Alabama: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Mississippi: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Arkansas: 1 Representative
Louisiana: 1 Senator, 6 Representatives
Texas: 2 Senators, 20 Representatives
Kansas: 2 Senators, 3 Representatives
Nebraska: 1 Senator, 3 Representatives
South Dakota: 1 Senator
North Dakota: None
Wyoming: 2 Senators, 1 Representative
Montana: 1 Representative
Arizona: 2 Senators, 3 Representatives
Utah: 2 Senators, 2 Representatives
Idaho: 2 Senators, 1 Representative
Alaska: 1 Senator (and possibly another Senator and possibly 1 Representative)
Total: 28 plus possibly 2 more Republican Senators, 70 Republican Representatives
In states Obama won, there are 12 plus possibly 1 more Republican Senators, and 105 plus possibly 5 more Republican Representatives.
The states with the most Republican members of Congress that Obama won are:
California: 19 Representatives
Florida: 1 Senator, 15 Representatives
Ohio: 1 Senator, 9 Representatives
Pennsylvania: 1 Senator, 7 Representatives
Illinois: 8 Representatives
Virginia: 1 Senator, 6 Representatives
Michigan: 7 Representatives
North Carolina: 1 Senator, 5 Representatives
Indiana: 1 Senator, 4 Representatives
New Jersey: 5 Representatives
Why bother compiling these numbers? Because they go towards identifying the ongoing historical trend of realignment.
In May of this year, a post noted that "the net decline in support for Democratic presidential candidates among white voters over the past half-century is entirely attributable to partisan change in the South."
Also notable when evaluating the impact of the current election is that there were 44 Blue Dogs (i.e. conservative Democrats) in the House prior to this election. A majority in the House is 217 votes. Democrats need about 261 votes in the House to pass legislation over the objections of the Blue Dogs. The Democrats are just shy of having a majority that large.
A post written in advance of the 2006 election notes something that was true then and remains true of the few Republicans who continue to hold federal office in the Northeast. By and large they are moderates. At the time, the post noted that:
[Maine Senator] Olympia Snowe is rated as the third most liberal Republican in the U.S. Senate by the American Conservative Union. . . The remaining Northeastern Republicans in the Senate [are] moderate Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the moderate Republican Susan Collins of Maine, and the Republican incumbents from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg and John Sununu . . . Specter is rated by the American Conservative Union as the second most liberal Republican in the U.S. Senate, after Lincoln Chafee [who is no longer a Senator]. They rate Susan Collins is the fourth more liberal Republican, coming right after third most liberal Olympia Snowe, also from Maine. Neither of New Hampshire's Republicans are particularly conservative, although Gregg is less prone to voting the party line than Sununu.
Sununu just lost his bid for re-election in 2008. Thus, there are four Republican Senators from the Northeast, including all three of the least conservative Republican Senators in the U.S. Senate, and one who leans moderate compared to his caucus.
The three moderate Republican Senators of the group are in the same political territory as independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who is steadily drifting to the political right, despite caucusing with the Democrats so far (Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President this year, for example), Ben Nelson, the Democratic Senator from Nebraska, Gene Taylor who is a Democratic Senator from Mississippi, Bill Nelson who is a Democratic Senator from Florida, Senator Byrd from West Virginia and Senator Landrieu from Louisiana who are also among the ranks of the most conservative Democrats in the U.S. Senate. Of these six conservatives who caucus with the Democrats, five come from states that McCain won in 2008. All other members of the Democratic caucus are more liberal than these six individuals (except Lieberman who has a moderately liberal overall voting record despite his immense symbolic estrangement from the Democratic party) and all Republicans.
There are no Republican representatives in New England, there are just three of them in New York, there are five in New Jersey, there are seven in Pennsylvania, there are two in Maryland and there is one in Delaware.
Two of the remaining three Republican Representatives from New York, McHugh and King, are exceptionally moderate for Republicans. So are four of the five remaining Republican Representatives from New Jersey (LoBiondo, Chris Smith, Ferguson, and Frelinghuysen), four of the remaining seven Republican Representatives from Pennsylvania (Gerlach, Dent, Murphy and Platts), Republican Representative Gilchrest from Maryland (one of two Republicans from the state in Congress) and Representative Castle from Delaware.
Thus, of the four Republican Senators and eighteen Republican Representatives left in the Northeast, three of the Senators and twelve of the Representatives are very moderate as Republicans go. There is just one truly conservative Republican Senator and there are just six truly conservative Republican Representatives left in the Northeast.
Republican Senator Voinovich from Ohio is another blue state Senator who has tried to put at least a little distance between himself and both President Bush and the hard core conservatives of his party. Blue State Minnesota Republican Coleman, who is currently facing a recount in his bid for re-election is also moderate as Republicans go, as are both of Alaska's Senators, one of whom is also facing a recount in the wake of his criminal convictions for fraud. The rest of the Republican caucus is more conservative. Thus, all moderate Republican Senators outside Alaska hail from states that Obama won in 2008.
The existence of these moderate Republicans from blue states is important because they make the filibuster a less potent threat than it might otherwise appear to be in a party that was completely disciplined, as the Republican party once had a reputation for being. Even if Democrats fail to secure a filibuster proof sixty vote caucus, there are several moderates in the Republican party who may be unwilling to invoke a filibuster in support of conservative causes when their party colleagues might.
There will be, at most, about seven moderate Republicans (two of whom are struggling to be re-elected this year), and about six moderates in the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate, who frequently break with their party. In addition to illustrating the difficulty Republicans may mount in overcoming a filibuster, however, this also illustrates that the Democratic caucus is less united than it might seem. While Senate Democrats can pass legislation without votes from any of these Democratic or Republican moderates, a threat of a filibuster that includes some conservative Democrats and all moderate Republicans can still stop a bill in the Senate.
Also, the existence and geography of moderate Republicans establish that the conservative brand of Republicanism is a Southern regional phenomena to a greater extent that mere party identification numbers (recited above) would suggest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)