Archive for April, 2008

After the fiasco two weeks ago, when the Illinois Senate buried Rep. Franks’ recall amendment (HJCRA28), Senator Hendon introduced his own recall amendment in the Senate. This version (SJCRA70) is substantially similar to Rep. Franks’ recall but has a few changes: the ability to recall judges, the Governor and Lt. Governor have to be recalled together, and salaried local officials can be recalled.

Two weeks ago, I testified at the Senate Executive Committee hearing on HJCRA28 and spoke specifically about the ability to recall judges. There is understandably some concern with this (and rightfully so) that unpopular but legally sound decisions could cause a judge to be recalled from office. I had proposed that as a prerequisite to recalling a judge, the judicial discipline process in Article VI, Section 15 of the current state constitution be used. At the time, Senator Hendon expressed that he liked the idea and he has incorporated my suggestion into his current amendment.

The big problem with the bill that no one has caught so far (and admittedly, I missed it when I testified two weeks ago) is that an officeholder subject to a recall can also run to succeed himself should the recall succeed. To illustrate, let’s say Blagojevich/Quinn get a successful recall petition that’s on the ballot. Both can, in turn, can submit the right paperwork to run in the succession election that occurs during the same election. It is important to note because of the condensed time frame, there are no primaries. This means, like what occurred in California in 2003, you would have a crowded field running to replace a recalled official. It is entirely plausible that an official who is successfully recalled will be able to get “re-reelected” with a plurality of the vote in a crowded field. That is why most recall provisions prohibit the recalled official running from running as a successor candidate. There is no prohibition in this amendment.

An interesting idea surfaced two weeks ago during the recall debate then, that because the Governor and Lt. Governor run together as a ticket that they must be recalled together. I find this idea rather unconvincing considering that there is no requirement that they must be impeached together. I think it is a ploy to accomplish two things: put Lt. Governor Quinn in the hot seat for pushing this issue and make it harder to accomplish recalling a governor successfully. Voters who may want to recall a Governor may vote no simply because they don’t want to “take it out” on the Lt. Governor. I am not sure how much of an effect it has, but it’s there.

Lastly, the big change and big win is the inclusion of local officials in the recall amendment itself. The amendment, however, restricts recall to only “salaried” elected officials. This immunizes school boards, for one. In smaller towns or counties, elected officials there may not draw a salary. Officials who are paid per-meeting “stipends” may also not be subject to recall. It’s a limitation that I can live with, but I prefer that anyone elected can be recalled. It’s philosophically sound that way. I’m not sure the reason for shielding unpaid officials.

I certainly do think that SJCRA70 is an improvement on HJCRA28 with the adding in of judges and most local officials. I think the threshold for signatures could be lowered to 10% for all the offices and would like to raise the number of counties needed for statewide recalls, but by and large I think most of it is good. The show-stopper here is that a recalled official can run to be their own successor which all but nullifies the intent of recalling them in the first place.

After the fiasco two weeks ago, when the Illinois Senate buried Rep. Franks’ recall amendment (HJCRA28), Senator Hendon introduced his own recall amendment in the Senate. This version (SJCRA70) is substantially similar to Rep. Franks’ recall but has a few changes: the ability to recall judges, the Governor and Lt. Governor have to be recalled together, and salaried local officials can be recalled.

Two weeks ago, I testified at the Senate Executive Committee hearing on HJCRA28 and spoke specifically about the ability to recall judges. There is understandably some concern with this (and rightfully so) that unpopular but legally sound decisions could cause a judge to be recalled from office. I had proposed that as a prerequisite to recalling a judge, the judicial discipline process in Article VI, Section 15 of the current state constitution be used. At the time, Senator Hendon expressed that he liked the idea and he has incorporated my suggestion into his current amendment.

The big problem with the bill that no one has caught so far (and admittedly, I missed it when I testified two weeks ago) is that an officeholder subject to a recall can also run to succeed himself should the recall succeed. To illustrate, let’s say Blagojevich/Quinn get a successful recall petition that’s on the ballot. Both can, in turn, can submit the right paperwork to run in the succession election that occurs during the same election. It is important to note because of the condensed time frame, there are no primaries. This means, like what occurred in California in 2003, you would have a crowded field running to replace a recalled official. It is entirely plausible that an official who is successfully recalled will be able to get “re-reelected” with a plurality of the vote in a crowded field. That is why most recall provisions prohibit the recalled official running from running as a successor candidate. There is no prohibition in this amendment.

An interesting idea surfaced two weeks ago during the recall debate then, that because the Governor and Lt. Governor run together as a ticket that they must be recalled together. I find this idea rather unconvincing considering that there is no requirement that they must be impeached together. I think it is a ploy to accomplish two things: put Lt. Governor Quinn in the hot seat for pushing this issue and make it harder to accomplish recalling a governor successfully. Voters who may want to recall a Governor may vote no simply because they don’t want to “take it out” on the Lt. Governor. I am not sure how much of an effect it has, but it’s there.

Lastly, the big change and big win is the inclusion of local officials in the recall amendment itself. The amendment, however, restricts recall to only “salaried” elected officials. This immunizes school boards, for one. In smaller towns or counties, elected officials there may not draw a salary. Officials who are paid per-meeting “stipends” may also not be subject to recall. It’s a limitation that I can live with, but I prefer that anyone elected can be recalled. It’s philosophically sound that way. I’m not sure the reason for shielding unpaid officials.

I certainly do think that SJCRA70 is an improvement on HJCRA28 with the adding in of judges and most local officials. I think the threshold for signatures could be lowered to 10% for all the offices and would like to raise the number of counties needed for statewide recalls, but by and large I think most of it is good. The show-stopper here is that a recalled official can run to be their own successor which all but nullifies the intent of recalling them in the first place.

Here is another very brief post from Craig “Mr. Stallion” Kline. His alternative title for this article is: “Why the Supers Will Demand a Joint Ticket and Mr. Stallion Will Demand a Joint.”

Here is what the superdelegates will no doubt be considering:

…………………….SOLIDLY DEMOCRAT………………………………….

states…………………electoral votes…….outcome (or likely outcome)

California -……………..55……………….Clinton
New York -……………..31……………….Clinton
Pennsylvania – ………21……………….Clinton
Illinois – …………………21……………………………….Obama
Michigan – ……………..17 ………………Clinton
New Jersey – …………..15……………….Clinton
Massachusetts -……..12 ……………….Clinton
Washington – ………….11……………………………….Obama
Maryland – ……………..10……………………………….Obama
Minnesota – …………….10………………………………Obama
Wisconsin – …………….10 ……………………………..Obama
Connecticut – …………..7…………………Clinton
Oregon -………………….7……………………………….(Obama)
Rhode Island -………….4………………………………..Obama
Maine -……………………4…………………………………Obama
Hawaii – ………………….4…………………………………Obama
DC – ……………………….3…………………………………Obama

TOTAL: ………………………………………..158…………….84

The Blue State analysis will cut two ways: HRC will argue that she is the safest bet in the Blue States, and Obama will argue that he will carry all of them anyway.

Obama supporters may question whether the primaries between Obama and Clinton tell us anything about the general election against McCain, but the exit polls and general election polls provide a large body of evidence. Current polling suggests that HRC would win the general election by a larger electoral vote margin than Obama, and exit polls suggest that more Obama supporters would support HRC than vice-versa. Now I do not think either of these polls are due much credence, but they flavor the background against which Obama has to argue both: that he is the safer bet against McCain and that he can rally a larger base. Note that the argument will not be about whether Obama can carry enough blue states to win, but about whether he can carry the blue states better than HRC to ensure a safer and larger win, that will ensure down ticket victories and a public mandate for change.

HRC supporters will point out her demonstrated strength, vis-a-vis both McCain and Obama, in California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New England. Traditionally that is a winning hand. There is a strong precedent in brokered conventions to focus the floor discussion and reports on who will be the safest bet in the big blue states. Obama will have to overcome this precedent, but he has the unique advantages of having locked up the pledged delegate count, and the nearly singular support of the african-american portion of the democratic constituency. .

………………………..BATTLEGROUND…………………………………….

Florida – ………………….27 ………………Clinton
Ohio – …………………….20 ……………….Clinton
Georgia -…………………15………………………………Obama
Missouri -……………….11…………………………….. Obama
Tennessee -……………..11……………….Clinton
Arizona -…………………10………………..Clinton
Louisiana -……………… 9 ……………………………..Obama
Colorado -………………..9………………………………Obama
Kentucky -……………….8 ………………..(Clinton)
Iowa -………………………7 ………………………………Obama
Arkansas – ………………6………………….Clinton
Nevada -…………………..5………………….Clinton
West Virginia – ………..5…………………(Clinton)
New Hampshire – …….4…………………..Clinton

TOTAL: …………………………………………96 ……………51

The Battleground State results will also be difficult for Obama to use to his advantage. Right now he can point out the polling data, which shows him doing roughly as well, some-times better, some-times worse in Battleground States. The problem for Obama is the large Battleground States of Ohio and Florida, places with diverse obstacles for Obama. Those two States alone constitute 1/3 of the Battleground electoral votes; and a good number of the other battleground states have challenging demographics for Obama: like Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Nevada, and Arizona.

Colorado, Louisiana, and Georgia will be key symbolic States for the Obama argument to the superdelegates: those are the reddest states Democrats have won since Carter, and Obama can probably win them while HRC would probably lose them. Jimmy Carter is expected to endorse Obama “officially” fairly soon, and this could play well with some older democrats and particularly well in Georgia. If Colorado, Louisiana and Georgia are Blue for Obama, then he can credibly suggest he would fair well in the even more traditionally red states.

HRC’s argument starts with Ohio and Florida. She carries the rust belt and Appalachia areas, as evidenced partly by Ohio. This has long been prime democrat territory, with deep catholic sympathies to the Kennedy populism. Somehow, HRC has been able to appeal to that demographic, and the imminent Edwards endorsement will strengthen her support base. But Clinton’s appeal to the moderates and quasi-conservatives ends here: it does not extend to the northwest or the prairie states like Obama’s appeal. In this sense, Colorado, Louisiana et al might become symbolically important, and the general election polls of these states should give us a good read about the battleground state arguments. If HRC has no chance in those states, then she has no chance anyplace redder: and what you see is what you get. If Obama is leading in those states, then he can make a credible argument about his red state appeal and changing the new democratic coalition, or a new post partisan politics, etc. Obviously, if he is struggling in these states vis-a-vis McCain, his position is difficult.

Obama can put some of the redder battleground states in play, but HRC has the argument that she is the safer bet in the big battleground states and the traditionally ‘democrat friendly’ battleground states.

……………………SOLIDLY REPUBLICAN……………………….

Texas – …………………..34………………..Clinton
North Carolina – ……..15………………………………(Obama)
Virginia – ……………….13……………………………….Obama
Indiana – ………………..11………………..(Clinton)
Alabama – ………………9………………………………..Obama
South Carolina – ……..8………………………………..Obama
Oklahoma -……………..7………………….Clinton
Kansas – …………………6………………….Clinton
Mississippi – …………..6 ……………………………….Obama
Nebraska – ……………..5………………………………..Obama
Utah – ……………………5 ……………………………….Obama
Idaho – …………………. 4………………………………..Obama
Montana – ………………3………………………………(Obama)
Alaska – …………………3……………………………….Obama
South Dakota – ……….3……………………………….(Obama)
Wyoming – …………….3………………………………..Obama

TOTAL: ….(TEX: HRC)……………………58.. ………..77
……………….(TEX: OBAMA)……………..24…………..111

Obama totally dominates in red states, projected to win 12 out of 16, and he can make a partial argument regarding Texas. Despite his dominance elsewhere, Obama’s red state argument, which is crucial to his candidacy, will center on Texas. Bill Clinton was right when he said that Texas was critical for the nomination.

Obama will have difficulty arguing that he won Texas because primaries are much better predictions of the general election vote than caucuses are. Nevertheless, current polling in Texas shows Obama doing better (though not winning ) against McCain than HRC: and these polls are probably on to something, because a huge percentage of the Ron Paul anti-war camp is located in Texas. The Ron Paul camp hates Hillary, and won’t vote for McCain, the question with these voters is whether Obama can sufficiently distance himself from his backers like George Soros, Zbigneiw Brzezinski, Anthony Lake et al. If Obama can demonstrate his obvious advantage with the anti-war movement in Texas, then he can make a credible argument that his ‘grassroots’, ‘on-the-ground’ caucus victory in Texas is due considerable credit. If he can convince the supers that he won Texas, than he can use a much move favorable electoral vote metric for both red states and the general election:

Obama’s 111 to HRC’s 24 in Red States, and Obama’s 246 to HRC’s 282 in total electoral votes. That is a close enough margin in electoral votes, and a large enough margin in Red States, that Obama can credibly argue a new democratic coalition and the legitimacy of his pledged delegate count and ‘number of states’ victories.

If HRC’s argument regarding Texas holds up, that primaries are far more reliable indicators of electoral support than caucuses, then she will be able to use the following metric:

Obama’s 77 to HRC’s 58 in Red States, and Obama’s 212 to HRC’s 316 in total electoral votes. If that metric is used, Obama is in big trouble. And despite current polling, there is a fair likelihood that the Texas primary will be given more credence than the caucus. If brokered convention history tells us anything, it is that caucuses, current polling and Red State success are disfavored as basis of arguing advantage. Obama needs to make all three arguments in regards to Texas, and no matter how plausible these arguments are, there are diverse obstacles he needs to overcome in order to gain a hearing on the merits. Obama will need to demonstrate that he can carry white rural voters and latinos, in order to make a credible argument about Texas. He can demonstrate improved strength with white rural voters by placing close in WV, Kentucky while and winning North Carlina and the Northwest states.

Obama really only has three chances at demonstrating strenght with latinos: 1) roll out a comprehensive immigration reform policy more favorable and specific than HRCs (risky); 2) have Richardson take on a more visible roll in policy, administrative commitments and political events (probably not going to cut it); or 3) have a re-do in Florida and finish within 10%(too late and little chance of funding).

Obama aids would be wise to keep Florida options open, as the popular vote argument becomes more important and the need to demonstrate some strength with Latinos may swing the analysis regarding Texas.

Quick notes:

Perhaps HRC will win North Carlina after all.
The media has been hostile, and Obama himself has been aloof, towards the marvelous speeches of Rev. Wright during these past few days. Wright obviously must have the green light from the Obama camp to try to repair his image to some, while Obama tries to stay distanced in the eyes of others. This sort of triangulating has not yet been a strength of Obama’s.
Edwards sure is being a dramatic prom queen about his endorsement. This means, of course, that his endorsement will be a media parade that will dominate a day or two of the media coverage, possibly with political events that will provide HRC timely momentum. I would guess the endorsement comes this Friday.
If Obama loses North Carolina, he needs to consider a re-do in Michigan. I have long since thought that a re-do is completely unrealistic, the sort of things pundits talk about when their only agenda is to confuse people new to politics. The (non-private) funding was never in place, the national parties and the state parties are having the exact same fights they have had all year, etc, etc.
But if Obama loses North Carolina and Indiana, a re-do is more realistic than his shot at the nomination. At that point, he would have lost 3 out of the 4 largest Red State primaries.

Joint Ticket an absolute certainty
Here is why, and it is simple: the supers will decide the nominee. They have been, this whole time, asking and sometimes demanding a joint ticket. Many of the ‘undecideds’ are insisting on it. Nancy Pelosi does not represent the majority on this issue, but her statements provide key insight into what she is reacting to. The supers realize that a joint ticket will maximize the democratic voting base and financial coffers: and this will bring the most voters out on election day ensuring a huge trickle down victory. Democrats in the east are worried about losing the support of HRC’s ‘Reagan democrats’ or Obamas african americans, and Democrats in the west are worried about losing HRC’s latinos or Obama’s progressives.
And then there is the money. HRC is out-raising McCain 2 ½:1. Obama is out-raising McCain 3:1. Neither has dipped into their general election funds, while McCain already has. Democrats don’t just want to win: they want to win big. A joint ticket offers exactly what Obama promises: a new democratic coalition. There are many pressuring Obama to commit to a joint ticket for this reason: it is consistent with what he has promised. HRC has already committed to a joint ticket, say friends on the staff in back in Westchester, NY.
Furthermore, a popular vote victory by HRC ensures a joint ticket. Any other result will allow the Republicans to claim a party split, no matter what happens. The supers know this, and they know that the only way to defeat the theme of a party split is a joint ticket. Therefore, they are ‘undecided.’

At the end of the Convention, a majority report sponsored by HRC will argue she should lead the joint ticket.

Eventually, the red-blue-battleground analysis will probably be discarded, and the joint ticket demographics will be considered. HRC’s head-to-head electability argument will probably have given her the presumptive lead, but that presumption will have to be supported by the joint ticket analysis. It is hard for me to guess what the analysis will look like at that point, but if Obama is unable to get a re-do in Florida, HRC’s California-Florida-New York victories will probably win her the nomination, unless Obama can show that he, and only he, could top a winning ticket in Texas.

Commentary on the chart: I used the maps from the past four presidential elections and came up with 3 categories of States; “Solidly Democrat” voted Democrat each time, “Battleground” had mixed votes, and “Solidly Republican” voted Republican every time. The reason I used the last 4 general elections, as opposed to the last 5, 6, or 10, is because the Republicans dominated the 80s, and 1976 American demographics are simply incomparable with the modern electorate.

Nevertheless, use of the past four election cycles has a built-in bias for HRC, because the States that Bill won in 1992 and 1996 become “Battleground” states. Yet this advantage is not just an advantage in my chart…HRC has a chronological advantage due to the recent success of Bill. This advantage is not just in the minds of voters, but deeply integrated into the concepts of modern politics, including what many superdelegates will consider blue states and battlestates.

The problem for Obama, is that these general election polls are using 5-year averages to calculate the party-split parameter. Consider: 70% of the country is against the war, 70% of the country is against G.W., but 50% of the country is gonna vote for McCain?? That’s impossible. Polls do not always use the party-split parameter splits when inquiring about war approval, President approval, and the like: but the party-split parameter is always used in electoral polls. Obama needs to disprove the fantasy that McCain has any chance: while HRC needs to perpetuate this myth.

….of course, the superdelegates are probably all bought and sold by Clinton, as Obama probably is too.

But there are many many reasons to expect a joint ticket, even if Obama isn’t bought and sold by Clinton. As long as the myth of a close race remains, the Democratic nominee will be hard pressed to pass up the general election funds of the other candidate. Amongst all the theatre about HRC’s campaign being broke (the New Yorkers are really chuckling at this, “Clintonian downplaying of expectations”), it is rarely mentioned that, of course, neither candidate has dipped into their general election fund yet. They both have record breaking general election war chests, and if either candidate passes up the other, they will almost certainly blow their chances at a landslide.

A 1964 type “public mandate” is available for the Democrats to take. If the superdelegates and the Democratic establishment have any say in this election, there will be a joint ticket.

-Mr. Stallion

Its finals, so no time for a long post But I saw this post by Francis Fukuyama, and I had to comment. Now I know Fukuyama has taken some hits because of his overly optimistic view of the future in “The End of History” and because of his neocon past. However, this is an interesting view of China that I had never seen before, and I think it should be shared with the agora.

The underlying assumption in libertarianism is that more government is bad, and local governments are better than state and national governments because the people would have more direct control. As a practical corollary to that, it was assumed that all of the human right violations in China stems from action authorized by Beijing; that it was the large national government that was trampling the right of the peasants that had little to no direct oversight.

However Fukuyama suggests that it is the local governments that initiate the harmful initiatives that curtail human rights, and it is the central government that wants it to stop but lacks the power to make that happen. It is almost like a twisted version of a libertarian paradise. The central government is too weak to coerce the state and local governments, but instead of freedom flourishing, it flounders.

Right now I don’t have the time or the research to make an argument on this one way or the other, but I thought it would be an interesting thought to start a day with.

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, PETA just announced a $1,000,000 (1 million) prize for the first scientist who can grow chicken meat in a test tube and make it commercially viable.

“PETA is offering a $1 million prize to the contest participant able to make the first in vitro

chicken meat and sell it to the public by June 30, 2012. The contestant must do both of the following:

• Produce an in vitro chicken-meat product that has a taste and texture indistinguishable from real chicken flesh to non-meat-eaters and meat-eaters alike.
• Manufacture the approved product in large enough quantities to be sold commercially, and successfully sell it at a competitive price in at least 10 states.”

Okay, so first off I’m going to go at it from an economic point of view. A million dollars, really? Is that all? I imagine that developing technology to mass market test tube meats would cost tens of millions. A million sounds like a tiny drop in the bucket.

From a purely culinary standpoint this is disgusting. I don’t know about any of the rest of you, but to eat real free range chicken that’s walked around and eaten worms and corn is quite a treat. There’s not much meat. It’s a little tough, but it’s also incredibly flavorful in ways that store bought chicken from chickens that have spent their entire lives in tiny cages just isn’t. I imagine test tube meat would be even more flabby and uniformly flavorless.

EEEWWW. Does no one else fine the concept of eating meat grown in a test tube revolting? I’ve recently become a vegetarian – okay, well a 95% vegetarian, I’ll still eat meat to avoid offending someone or when there aren’t many options – and my rationale wasn’t animal cruelty. If a group is concerned with animal cruelty, pointing out the conditions the animals are raised in and lobbying for more sustainable practices or offering attractive vegetarian alternatives seems the way to go. Developing meat in a test tube sorta doesn’t.

Test tube meat seems to offer something for nothing. We get meat without hurting the animals. We get meat presumably without the methane. We get meat. I’m not going to lie, meat is pretty damn tasty, but really? Test tubes? I’m all for sustainable agriculture and a shift away from factory farming. I actually wouldn’t mind having a chicken coop for eggs like my dad used to when my sisters were kids. People and livestock animals have a symbiotic relationship and this would completely destroy that relationship. There wouldn’t be a cow if humans hadn’t engineered them from Aurochs. There wouldn’t be any of these animals, especially at the numbers they currently exist, if we hadn’t taken the most docile specimens of the original stock and selectively bred them for stupidity, fatness, and docility.

This wouldn’t really help the animals, without the need for meat, we wouldn’t have the need for the animals. I suppose the next project would be eggs and milk from floating udders or something. I’m not religious, but this strikes me as profoundly against the laws of all gods and nature. Meat is supposed to come from a living thing. You eat the flesh of another you gain its strength and all that. I’m not defending the status quo, I think it’s pretty bad. But test tubes seem like going from bad to worse.

Imagine a world where one private company holds the patent rights to your chicken or your beef. Ok well the beef thing is sort of true alreday. Something like 90% of all Holstein cows (our black and white dairy cows) are descended from two bulls. That’s a disaster waiting to happen, but anyway. Maybe I’m paranoid, but if they started marketing test tube meat I would either want strict labeling or I’d never eat meat again, even at the risk of being “that guy” at dinners.

Efforts should be focused elsewhere. On improving the conditions of raising livestock. Encouraging people to eat less meat. Phasing out subsidies on feedstock to make the price of meat reflect the actual costs of production, thereby assisting in #2. Helping people raise their own livestock so they see the value of that succulent chicken breast as they feed and eventually kill their own chicken.