Wednesday, September 10, 2014

An Unexpected Visitor - Part One


The day took an abrupt turn when I received a collect call from my former mentor, Slats MacCune.  He was at the Wicomico Regional Airport and he needed a lift.  Apparently, his mobile phone battery was juiceless and neither the car rental agency nor the pay phone would accept Maltese lira banknotes as valid currency.  I could hear him in the background, complaining loudly about unfavorable exchange rates, while the operator asked me if I would accept the charges.

Of course I would.

Three hours later and heading westbound on 50, Slats is slouched in my passenger seat.   He had just finished extolling the virtues of Machala in the summer and Oslo in the winter when the conversation drifted to politics.

“Listen,” I told him, “I need to head to the Columbia Democratic Club forum tonight, but I can drop you off at the house or Victoria Gastro Pub.”

“Bogota or Medellin?”  He suddenly seemed interested.

“Neither. Col-Umbia, not Col-Ombia,” I replied.

“Ah. Gotcha,” he paused.  “So is there an In-and-Out Burger we can stop at?” 

“We are east of Texas so no.  Anyway, you might be bored.  It is for the Howard County Board of Education.   Important but perhaps not your speed.”

Now Slats had earned, or at least acquired, a decent sum of money over the years.  Sometimes, these funds came from the coffers of political candidates whose ideologies or personal morals could charitably be described as “sketchy.”  Semi-retired these days, he nonetheless continues to hover around the edges of the Game and, lacking the ready availability of a more entertaining option, he stated emphatically and marginally profanely that he was up for attending the gathering.

We arrived shortly before the event was set to begin.  We were ten feet away from the main doors of the Jeffers Hill Neighborhood Center when Slats said he forgot something in the car, and could he borrow my keys.  Sure. 

I went in solo and grabbed a seat in the back of the room, which was best for observing the actions and reactions of the candidates as well as the local folks who assembled to watch the event and perhaps ask a question.  I chatted with a couple of people, waved at a few familiar faces, and took out my notepad.  I sat next to Maureen Evans Arthurs, who I wish was participating in the Forum as a candidate.  

The following analysis is based on the notes I scrawled hastily over the course of the evening:  

One last item before I launch into this dissection:  seven candidates participated, all but Mike Smith.  Dan Furman walked in right before the session began and Dr. Zaneb Beams had to leave early due to an important family obligation.  A couple of the current members of the Board of Education not up for re-election were also in attendance, Janet Siddiqui and Ellen Flynn Giles, in addition to around 25 other concerned office-holders, candidates, activists, and citizens.

Introductory Statement Mini-Summaries:

Bess Altwerger:  Bio. Equity.  Concerned about the implementation of Common Core and PARCC.

Zaneb Beams.  Bio.  “Wellness for the whole child.”

Allen Dyer.  Bio.  The need for the education system to “produce good citizens.” Openness (an oft-repeated Dyer theme). Closing the achievement gap. Working with County government.

Sandra “Sandy” French.  Almost all biography.

Dan Furman.  Bio.  “Equality of opportunity.”  Focusing on the specific needs of students.

Christine O’Connor.  Bio. Pledges to be a “full-time” Board Member.

Cynthia “Cindy” Vaillancourt. Bio.  Equity gap.  Achievement gap.  Getting people to recognize that problems exist and talk about solutions.  Start times.  Bad cereals/nutrition options.

Spartan Considerations thoughts: 

Given two minutes apiece, most of the candidates handled their introductions fairly well.  Altwerger deftly positioned herself as thoughtful academic and Common Core skeptic.  Beams had a solid point of differentiation given her background as a pediatrician.  Even Dyer, and this blog isn’t a fan of his, connected on some important issues.  O’Connor came across as practical, roll-up-our-sleeves, sort of educator who would spend time in the schools identifying, and helping find solutions, to challenges. Vaillancourt was energetic, and her “Lucky Charms” anecdote drew some laughter while being an effective means of talking about school nutrition.

Furman’s statement was fine but he is very low-key.  Having a mild-mannered Board Member isn’t a bad thing, in light of some of the personalities involved.  That said, his speaking style is a bit less than terribly engaging. 

French’s opening remarks were mostly, and perhaps entirely about her background.  That was disappointing.  Everyone else took the time to pivot to specific policy matters or other broader concerns but she chose to focus on her history.  A lost opportunity for French.

The only formal question from the Columbia Democratic Club, posed by Alan Brody, focused on the existence of inequality in Howard County schools.  Did it exist or no?  If yes, what examples could the candidates cite?  If no, how can the system remain free from inequality?

Unsurprisingly, all of the candidates agreed that inequities existed.

O’Connor focused on overcrowding, the need for a 13th high school, and the importance of redistricting.

Vaillancourt talked about over-crowding, a more equitable allocation of resources, helping all of the children in an effort to meet all of their needs.

Altwerger discussed economic disparities and the need for diverse student populations in the schools.  She believes that the neighborhood feeder system should be retained while working out solutions to avoid overcapacity issues.

Beams said that the inequities spanned four areas:  nutrition, size/over-crowding, buildings/physical facilities, and musical education.

Dyer stated that there were connections between “pockets of poverty” and problems in the classroom and mentioned a correlation between FARMS numbers and the aforementioned poverty pockets.  In a comment sure the raise the ire of educators, but not pounced on by any of the other candidates, he stated his belief that some teachers were “resistant” to “working harder” and that this resistance is why great educators are unwilling to teach at schools that are perceived to offer tougher environments for teachers. 

French stated largely accurately, perhaps a bit too fatalistically, that there are “always inequities somewhere.”  She indicated that professionals were hired to look at redistricting as well as to work on nutrition and the physical facilities.  She stressed the need to collaborate with the State and County governments for funding.  She also mentioned the developments occurring at Bryant Woods regarding free lunches as an example of progress. 

Furman spoke about Maintenance of Effort and the need to look beyond per-pupil based funding and more at the needs of specific schools; that while Clarksville and Oakland Mills, for example, may be similar in terms of the sheer number of students enrolled, they have “different needs” and solutions should be tailored accordingly.

Spartan Considerations thoughts: 

Dyer stepped in it, but he knew what he was doing.  The downside, for him, is that statements like that will remind voters of his issues when it comes to working well with others.  French’s response was also a little underwhelming.  She hit her stride as she kept talking but she started off her response sounding like an HR manager, and not a Board Member, when she was listing the hires made by the HCPSS.  Furman made some good points, but damn he could use some media training.

As this is running long, I am going to stop here, before I launch into the questions posed by the audience members.   This looks like a two or three part post.

Side note: has anyone seen a black Honda Civic HX? 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

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.
 



  


Friday, September 5, 2014

Elections and Consequences


I, for one, am elated that Election Day is fast approaching.  I am looking forward to a respite from campaign analysis; and a shift to writing about other topics of interest. So stay tuned as more will….not so fast.

This one is for progressive-minded Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated HoCo voters who are undecided or possibly Kittleman-leaning in the Howard County Executive race.  Let’s play a game of “What If?”

Let’s assume the following scenario:  Larry Hogan – a B-tier GOP gubernatorial candidate - loses to LG Anthony Brown in November, by a single-digit margin, while Senator Allan Kittleman manages to pull off an upset and is elected the next Howard County Executive. 

Given this set of circumstances, Kittleman immediately becomes the R-to-watch and the front-runner for the Republican nomination for Governor in 2018.  Moreover, he would have a genuine shot at winning, as he is clearly more serious than Hogan (who isn't a slouch, but still...).

So by voting for Kittleman this November, you are helping to position a surprisingly conservative Republican for statewide office…someone who received a failing grade from the Maryland State Education Association while obtaining an “A” from the National Rifle Association and possessing a 100% rating from Maryland Right-to-Life.

Neither a moderate temperament nor a centrist voting record on a couple of issues can obscure the reality that Kittleman is not the progressive choice in the race for Howard County Executive.  So my advice, not that you asked for it, is to take a careful look at the totality of his voting history and issue stances and ask yourself, is this someone who will be the best advocate for families and communities like mine or is there a better choice? 

And will a vote for him now help elect a rather conservative Republican Governor in Maryland in 2018?  Just something to consider.

Oh yes...stay tuned, as more will follow.   

Monday, August 25, 2014

The Curious Case of Allan Kittleman’s Campaign


First, I have no personal animus toward Senator Kittleman.  He and I have only spoken in-person on one occasion and he was quite pleasant.  He seems reasonably thoughtful.  Moreover, and this is pure speculation-on-stilts, I assume he makes a fine neighbor.  Need to borrow a snow-shovel to get your car out of the driveway?  I am guessing he has a spare and would be glad to help you out.  Anyway, that is how he comes across.

Even if all of this is true, none of it is a reason to vote for him for Howard County Executive. 

He is running a new set of ads that impart the message: vote for the person, not the party.  I don’t buy into that line of thinking. The party to which a person belongs should tell you quite a bit about him or her.  We aren’t born hard-wired as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green or other.  We choose our partisan affiliation.  Sometimes, over the course of our lives, we re-visit our decisions because we evolve and/or the party changes.  For whatever reason(s), Allan Kittleman decided to stick with the GOP, even in its most recent incarnation – with so much energy coming from its Tea Party wing.

So why did he stay?  Well, this is why I encourage my fellow HoCo denizens to check out the website: www.kittlemanfacts.com.  The reader can see that the reality of his voting record in Annapolis does not exactly square with the moderate image many folks have of Senator Kittleman.  Sure, he tends to adopt more centrist positions on some issues compared to his hard-right colleagues…but take a look at his votes on guns, on education, on the minimum wage, on women’s health issues, and on the environment and one can see that the Senator is actually quite conservative on several important public policy matters.

In addition, he seemed to imply at a candidate forum a few weeks back that a vote for him was a vote to pull the Republican Party in the right (read: correct) direction.  If he really wanted to continue fighting that fight (and again, his voting record will demonstrate that he was aligned with less-than-progressive members of the GOP at least on the issues outlined in the previous paragraph), then why not stay in the State Senate and use that as a forum?  Why not run for re-election instead of seeking another office?    I suppose Kittleman and perhaps his Inner Circle know the answers to those questions.  In any event, that goes to his personal motivations, which need to be distinguished from what he would do in the public sphere, if elected. 

And how can we predict what he might do?  By looking at the choices he has made in the past.  Personally, I believe his decision to remain with the Republican Party and a thorough look at his surprisingly conservative voting record on certain issues are what some like to call “telling facts.”  And while mud can be washed off, facts cling for a very long time. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.


 

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

This one is for you...

HoCo Pollster...come out to play.
HoCo Pollster...come out to play-i-ay!
HoCo Pollster...come out to play-ee-ay!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFQWXsLUokY




Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Cabal of the Simple-Minded


So I split for Hispaniola for half of a fortnight and I return to find Brown/Ulman up by only six over Hogan/Rutherford.  

I can only assume some as of yet unnamed madness enveloped the Free State while I was roaming the streets of Santo Domingo, searching for an establishment that served high caliber mofongo.  My old friend and current expat, Slats, recommended a spot 18 miles away in Boca Chica – but the roads were far too treacherous and the moon too high in the sky to hazard such a journey. 

But I digress.  The purveyors of Conventional Wisdom, referenced in the title, would have you believe that the Maryland gubernatorial election should be a cakewalk for the Democratic ticket.  “Safe D” they say. 

I still believe that LG Brown will be our next Governor. That said, at this stage of the game, our Dream Team is coming across a bit more Gamble and Hoitz.  For those who recall that film, it worked out in the end but it damn sure wasn’t pretty.

Caveat: I don’t know the particular methodology of the latest aforementioned survey nor have I explored the internals.   This poll could very well be an outlier.  Other, earlier opinion research from June and July shows a Brown lead in the 15% range.  Personally, as of this writing, I feel the lead is in the 10% ballpark.

My larger point is that Republican candidates for Governor can, and have, won in deep-blue states.   Let’s look at some (fairly) recent examples:

In Vermont in 2000, Gore captured 50.6% of the vote, with Nader pulling in another seven percent; then-Governor Bush finished with 40.7%.  Four years later, Kerry secured 58.9% compared to 38.8% for President Bush.  In 2002, Jim Douglas (a Republican) eked out a 45% plurality and won against a Democratic Lieutenant Governor.

Want a better case study?  Sure, how about Massachusetts.  In 2000, Gore carried the state with 59.8% of the vote with Nader obtaining another 6.4%.  Bush? A mere 32.5%.  In 2004, Kerry crushed Bush 61.9% - 36.8%.  In 2002, some Michigan transplant called Mitt defeated the Democratic gubernatorial nominee (the State Treasurer) by a 49.8% - 44.9% margin.  

How about closer to home?  In 2000, Gore won Maryland with 56.5% while Bush managed only 40.3%.  In 2004, the margin tightened a bit – with Kerry only able to win by 13% (55.9% - 42.9%).  Meanwhile, in 2002, GOPer Bobby Haircut beat a Kennedy, also the state LG, with 51.55% of the vote.

Now, 2002 was an odd election cycle – being the first following 9/11.  That said, non-presidential general elections, with lower turnout, can be grim for Democratic office-seekers.

Here is my take on the political realities:

First, many Democrats who did not participate in the primary will vote for the ticket in November.  They just aren’t focused on the race yet.  The challenge is that they need a reason to pay attention and I don’t believe that the Brown/Ulman team is providing a compelling rationale for activation….at least not yet. 

Beyond that, and this applies to a relatively tiny but important slice of the Democratic electorate, there are still some hurt feelings from a bruising primary.  I believe the vast majority of Mizeur and Gansler voters will come home, but some won’t.  I can see a handful from both camps sitting this one out, with perhaps a small percentage of Mizeur voters voting Libertarian while a few Gansler people cross over to vote for Hogan.  Not hordes of voters mind you, but such races can be decided at the margins, by thousands of votes scattered across the state. 

Perhaps Labor Day will witness a spectacular re-unveiling of Brown/Ulman.  That said, it is a little too quiet, even by August standards.  And those who believe that a built-in D advantage ensures their victory would do well to ponder the political fates of Doug Racine, Shannon O’Brien and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.  Brown/Ulman need to consolidate the Democratic base, appeal to Independents and reachable Rs - starting now - otherwise they might be spending more time in La Romana than Annapolis come January.  Slats can hook them up. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.