These Three Things

Support: the efforts of the Horizon Foundation and their coalition partners (known collectively as Sugar Free Kids Maryland) to terminate, with extreme prejudice, the state’s sales tax on bottled water.  Tax relief combined with promoting healthier beverage options? Seems like sound public policy.

Support: the decision by the Obama Administration to move in the direction of normalizing relations with Cuba.  Up until recently, our policy toward our neighbor has been caught up in a Cold War vortex, with some modifications over the past couple of decades.  I am well aware of the regime’s human rights record, which doesn't exactly differentiate Cuba from at least 30 other nations I could rattle off.  This presents an opportunity for the U.S. to expand our influence, and promote our ideals, during what promises to be a transitional period in Cuba’s history. It is better that the diplomatic shift occurs now before any potential post-Castro chaos ensues.  The differing perspectives I have heard today tend to be backward looking, politically motivated, and neglectful of the present-day needs of the Cuban people.  President Obama is dealing with the world as it is, and a reality-based foreign policy is a very good thing.

Support: an open exchange of ideas among Democrats as the Party constructs a new path forward.  A rigorous discussion among multiple presidential candidates would help facilitate a much-needed national conversation as to what constitutes a Democratic governing vision and which principles and policies we should emphasize as we seek to regain our electoral footing. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

A Morning Conversation

“So why isn’t the Administration cutting deals on Keystone? On immigration?”

“Both fine questions Slats, but the President seems to be doubling-down.  Partially out of principle, partially because of optics…he doesn’t want to appear to be getting rolled, and the last element is that he doesn’t have much in the way of negotiating partners, with the GOP leadership in Congress being what it is.”

“Almost makes Newt look statesman-like.”

“Might be an overstretch. Is that coffee in that cup?”

“No. It’s a Drambuie Sunrise. It’s all the rage in Zurich now.”

“Sure.  Anyway, it is shaping up to be a brutal two years for 44. The only good news for the White House is that HRC is going to take a fair amount of heat.”

“The discourse is going to become increasingly polarized as candidates for the Big Chair appeal to their respective bases.  Compromise is going to be difficult on most domestic issues.  No will to deal, not with the aspirants bashing DC as they crisscross Iowa and New Hampshire. ”

“And the traditional pivot to a foreign policy focus isn’t promising either.   ISIS/ISIL, Putin indulging his revanchist inclinations, no hope of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.  What’s left? Maybe going after narco-terrorists in the Western Hemisphere?"       

 

“It’s 11:45 pm in America.”

“Perhaps not so dour a prognosis, but Happy Days have not yet arrived.”

“They should have spun off Potsie and Ralph Malph.  A good screwball buddy sitcom could have really helped with ABC’s Tuesday night prime time line up.”

“That isn’t what I meant and that is also a debatable proposition.  But I would have watched “The Tuscaderos!”

“Santorum would love another popular resurgence of ‘50s nostalgia. Of course he would embrace it without any sense of irony and he would forget all of the ‘unpleasant’ parts." 

“Of course not, the actual history of the time wouldn’t fit with his image of that decade as some sort of halcyon era of permanent triumphalism.”

“Pleasantville all over again, at least the first half of that movie.”

“Might not even need to worry about Santorum running again.  He said he would announce his decision in June of 2015.”

“Late.   Who is going to sit on the sidelines that long…for him?  The money and talent will flow elsewhere.”

“Yep.  It would be a significant infrastructure deficit. However, he still has some support on the ground in Iowa.  But he doesn’t want to limp into the fall debates looking like an also-ran four months before the Caucuses.”

“But if he runs, it will just make the Democratic Party seem considerably more centrist.”

“Santorum.  Cruz. Paul.  All together on one stage?  Hillary should be so lucky.”

“Or Bernie Sanders.”

“You need to spend more time state-side.  That just isn’t going to happen.  Are you catching your news on RT?”

“Heaven forbid! Pravda redux.  Now, what do they have on tap here?”

“It's a Panera. So nothing.”

“Right, let’s go.”

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

 

      

An Older Prediction - Time to Get your Stats On

Taken from a Facebook note I wrote & posted on November 2, 2012.  Such a simpler time...now  with an update in the post-script!
  

The 2012 Presidential Election: My Prediction

November 2, 2012 at 3:21pm

Election predictions, essentially, are a parlor game.  That said, if you are in the campaign industry, are fortunate enough to get it right, and enough people know that you got it right, you can wear that laurel wreath as a symbol of your political genius for a decade. (For those in the industry, you know who I am talking about...no names please).

In some election cycles, calling winners and losers at this stage of the game, the weekend before Election Day, is relatively easy.  At this point, former Vice President Mondale knew he wasn’t going to defeat President Reagan.  Senator McGovern knew that he wasn’t going to deny President Nixon a second term.  I am quite certain that Judge Parker looked at the map when he was running against President Theodore Roosevelt and said the 1904 equivalent of “Gentlemen, I am hosed.”

In other cycles, including some recent presidential elections, the outcome was far more uncertain.  Both 2000 and 2004 fell into that category.

Bear in mind, a national presidential election is really 51 state elections (or 50 states + DC if you want to get technical about it).  Electoral college votes determine the winner of the election and they are awarded on a winner-take-all basis.  Win a state by a million votes?  Congratulations, you receive 100% of the electoral votes for that state (we can discuss Maine and Nebraska later, I am making a point here).  Defeated in a state by one vote?  Too bad, because the winner just won 100% of the electoral votes for that state. Loser.

In short, small differences in one or a handful of states can determine the outcome.

Everyone knows that a flip of just 269 votes in Florida would have tipped the election from Governor Bush to Vice President Gore in 2000.  Common knowledge.

Fewer people know just how close 2004 was.  To this day, I am convinced that Senator Kerry’s flip-flop gaffe cost him the election.  Some people know that if 59,300 votes in Ohio flipped from President Bush to Kerry (only one percent of the state vote and .048% of the national vote), then John Kerry would have been our nation’s 44th President.  Fewer still are aware that a flip of even fewer votes (18,776 or .015359% of the national vote) would have sent the election to the House of Representatives.  This would have been accomplished by the following flips in three states:

Nevada 10,751 votes from Bush to Kerry (5 electoral votes)
Iowa 5,030 votes from Bush to Kerry (7 electoral votes)
New Mexico: 2,995 votes from Bush to Kerry (5 electoral votes)

So by a relatively small percentage of the vote in three states, 17 electoral votes would have gone from Republican to Democratic, resulting in a 269 – 269 tie and a nation full of Constitutional scholars debating “Does our Presidential Selection Process Work?”  (Note: this assumes that the Democratic elector who voted for Edwards, and I wonder how that Minnesota elector feels about that today, would have cast their ballot for Kerry instead of playing around).

In any event, 2004, based solely on the criteria of the percentage of the national vote that, if flipped, would have changed the outcome, was the sixth closest presidential election ever.  It was even closer than the fabled Truman – Dewey showdown of 1948.

Percentage of the National Vote Difference (flip from eventual winner to eventual loser) from smallest to largest percentage for the seven closest presidential elections:


1. 2000 (Bush vs. Gore) - .00025% (269 votes flip in Florida & Gore wins)
2. 1884 (Cleveland vs. Blaine) - .0052% (524 votes flip in New York & Blaine wins)
3. 1876 (Hayes vs. Tilden) - .00529% (445 votes flip in South Carolina & Tilden wins)
4. 1916 (Wilson vs. Hughes) - .00923% (1,711 votes flip in California & Hughes wins)
5. 1960 (Kennedy vs. Nixon) - .01052% (7,245 votes flip in four states to Nixon & the election goes to the House) or .01777% (12,236 votes flip in five states & Nixon wins outright).
6. 2004 (Bush vs. Kerry) - .01535% (18,776 votes flip in three states & the election goes to the House) or .04848% (59,300 votes flip in Ohio & Kerry wins outright).
7. 1948 (Truman vs. Dewey) - .02564% (12,487 votes flip in two states & the election goes to the House) or .06016% (29,294 votes flip in three states & Dewey wins outright).

Yes, I spent part of a vacation in 2010 working out the math for every presidential election. Everyone has hobbies...

I know, enough history already. So, let’s turn to 2012.

First, I believe that both President Obama and former Governor Romney start off with a base of around 125 electoral votes.  Remember, it takes 270 electoral votes to win.

If either Obama or Romney were to lose one of the states in their “core” (for example, if Obama lost California or if Romney was defeated in Texas), then do not expect a long night, as a landslide is about to occur.  In which case, many pollsters should be drummed out of the industry.  This scenario is unlikely to happen.

There is a second tier of states for each candidate where an upset is very unlikely, but possible.  For Obama, this would be a state such as New Mexico.  For Romney, it would be South Carolina.  Adding such states up with the mortal-lock states, you end up with around 180 electoral votes apiece.


There is a third tier, which is small for both Romney and Obama, where they have a lead but could lose.  Minnesota & Oregon for Obama and Arizona for Romney fit this bill.  If you add up the electoral votes in this category, the President is right around 200 electoral votes and Romney is slightly above 190.  Overall, it is still very close.

This race fundamentally comes down to 11 (and most likely nine) states: Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan.  These states, primarily the first nine, will play an out-sized role in determining if Obama will be re-elected or if Romney will become the 45th President.

I expect that certain states that voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 will end up in the Republican column in 2012.  I do not believe the President will win any states that voted for McCain in 2008.   That, combined with reapportionment, gives Mr. Romney a much better shot at 270 compared to the previous Republican presidential nominee.

That said, I expect that President Obama will win both Pennsylvania and Michigan, putting him 237 electoral votes, 33 short of victory.

I predict that the President will win in Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia.  Moreover, I predict that Romney is likely to carry Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado and Iowa.

Turning to the two states that factor in performance at the congressional district level when awarding electoral votes, assuming that both Maine Congressional districts vote for Obama and that Romney wins all of the Congressional districts in Nebraska, that works out to 278 electoral votes for President Obama and re-election…and 260 electoral votes for Mitt Romney and a return to the private sector.

More important than the prediction is the possibility that only a small number of votes will determine who wins the Presidency.  In short, vote.

Post-script:

So yes, I called it conservatively for President Obama - who captured 332 electoral votes compared to 206 for Romney, definitely out-performing my projected outcome.  Call me a pessimist.

But with a flip 214,764 votes in four states...Florida, Ohio, Virginia and New Hampshire, Romney would have obtained 270 EVs, just enough to win.  That number of popular votes may sound like a sizable number, and it is...but it represents a mere .166% of the popular votes cast for President that year.  Thus, it was the 15th closest Presidential election in U.S. history, based on my "vote flip" model.  In short, looking at relatively recent presidential election cycles, it was closer than the 1992 election (19th overall) and not as close as the 1976 election (11th overall).

Just some fun facts on a Saturday afternoon.  Not that I am thinking about 2016.  Not at all.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.
 



  

Road to the White House 2016: Manilow, Mistakes and Mandates

Déjà Vu

Could you be the dream that I once knew
Is it you
Déjà Vu
Could you be the dream that might come true
Shining through
I keep remembering me
I keep remembering you

Déjà Vu

            - Lyrics by Isaac Hayes and Adrienne Anderson. Performed by Dionne Warwick. Produced by B. Manilow

What concerns me most about the most recent, incarnation of the Hillary Clinton for President movement is captured succinctly by the name of the highly visible Super PAC extolling her virtues, Ready for Hillary.

It all feels oddly familiar.  A campaign, or in this case, a proto-campaign, that seems more focused on the candidate than on what she or he might deliver.

Of course this is a grotesquely unfair criticism.  Hillary Clinton is not a candidate, at least not yet. 

The problem is her past.  In 2007 - 2008, she ran largely on a solid resume and the perceived strength of her brand.  She trusted that those elements, along with a top-flight campaign team and oodles of ready money, would be sufficient to clinch a first ballot nomination.

Depending on your perspective, a tragic or a fortunate (and possibly hilarious) thing happened next.  Some member or members of her quite well-paid campaign team - reportedly - forgot how delegates are allocated in Democratic primaries and caucuses.  This is important as delegates ultimately determine who receives the nomination.  They were playing for high stakes and some key person or people (who shall not be named here) couldn't be bothered to thumb through a rulebook.  Figuratively speaking, of course. At least that is how the story was covered.  In the fog of the fight, who knows where the truth resides?

She did catch a run of bad luck.  The American electorate was looking for a clean break from the Bush years…and her candidacy represented not so much a fresh start but a risorgimento of the previous Administration, one that still elicited mixed emotions, even from a fair number of Democrats.

Enter then-Senator Barack Obama and the Politics of Change.  He seized a moment, in part because he had a theme larger than himself – while still amplifying his biography – and because voters trusted that he would deliver on that promise.

Even then-Governor Clinton knew, in 1992, that he needed something beyond his record.  His campaign famously employed a compelling messaging troika: “Change versus more of the same,” “It’s the economy stupid,” and “Don’t forget health care.”

Fast forward to the present day.   Some heavy-hitting Clinton backers decide to launch a vehicle promoting Hillary Clinton as a potential presidential candidate.   Instead of linking it something actual voters care about or even a broad theme that suggests the outlines of a vision, they opt for “Ready for Hillary.”

When I first head that name, I thought: Are they criticizing voters for, presumably, not being ready for Hillary in 2008? Are they saying, in so many words, you were children but now it’s time to grow up?  Are they mocking us?  Hardly the inspirational stuff of “Yes We Can.”  More akin to “Why Didn’t You Before?”

I know, I know.  A Super PAC is not a presidential campaign.  But if you look at the roster of folks associated with Ready for Hillary, it is enough to give one pause.  If she runs, will she be a better candidate this time around?  Will she make the campaign about something larger than her admittedly impressive credentials?  How will she Connect?     

Or will we see an imitation of Clinton 2008?  She could probably get away with it, minus the ridiculous unforced errors, at least in the Democratic nominating process.  Democrats are so concerned about locking in the accomplishments of the Obama Administration, they want as close to a sure-fire winner as possible.  There is a measure of risk aversion and, on paper, Hillary Clinton offers the best path to 270 electoral votes…. possibly even a mandate in 2016, depending on how the next two years shape up.

In any event, I hope that the brain trust advising Team Hillary is smart enough to learn from the past, but not dwell in it.  

Stay tuned, as more will follow.