Wait for it...

How much heat do you think Obama will catch for supposedly calling the Cambridge police stupid? I am betting the "blogosphere" is already catching on fire.

In case you are wondering, referring to a recent where a black man was arrested after breaking into his own home*, Obama said, "[t]he Cambridge police acted stupidly [given there was evidence the man was in his own home]."

*And showing two forms of ID to top it. Of course, he was arrested for disorderly conduct (charges were dropped today), not breaking and entering.

Already Unhappy

Alright, so I am a little impatient. I want to know the results that are coming in now. In 2004 I watched the election uber-closely. I found the websites of various Secretaries of States which generally have a page that report the results as they come in (they don't report until polls close).

So I started looking. Yes, I started looking for these pages for Ohio, Florida and Minnesota at 6:45am. And I can't find any of them. None.

If anyone else knows where to find these pages I would be much obliged. In the meantime, I guess I have to rely on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC exit polls (they generally don't report things at the same time.

Voter Registration Online, Kinda

Both campaigns have made it incredibly easy to register online, but I will present the McCain link because that is what I have in front of me. Basically it's just like filling out the form on paper, except that the site populates all the fields in the appropriate form for your state, you download the PDF and... mail it. That last part is weird. But whatever. Maybe other states have straight-up online registration, just not MN.

https://secure.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/registertovote/information.aspx

@Tubagirl: I didn't forget you! You and Katie were two, so Jen & J doubled my readers.

Am I A Bad Person For This?

CNN just ran an article announcing that Congress finally announced their resuce bill. From the article:

Lawmakers' goal is to shore up a deal before financial markets around the world open on Sunday evening.

By which they mean the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Naturally, the first thing I do is to look up the time in Japan, they are 14 hours ahead of CST (3:00pm here 5:00am there). Next I look up the hours for the TSE: trading starts at 9:00am.

Finally I have to smile, in kind of an evil way, at the thought of over 400 congress-persons running around (literally) trying to find the votes to get this to go through.

Guys, you have 3 hours and 39 minutes to find the votes, pass the bill, and get it signed.

Enjoy.

Up Too Late / The Bailout

First, I don't really know why I am up right now. I really need my sleep. Second, on a topic I wasn't going to blog about...

CNN has an article titled: Congressional Leaders Reach Tentative Deal On Bailout. By then end of this post it will have been updated in under 20 minutes and hence is scarce on details. But there is a single part of the three paragraphed article I want to quote and comment on:

The aim of the deal is to prevent credit from drying up and causing a meltdown of the U.S. economy.

• First, we are talking about the world economy. There is saying that when the U.S. sneezes (economically) the rest of the world catches cold. This is much bigger than the average joe understands.
• Second, when CNN says "meltdown" they mean it. The MSM (mainstream media) hasn't been completely truthful on the current crisis (and I will call it a crisis). The financial periodicals are comparing it to late 1929 -- the beginning of the Great Depression -- and for good reason.
• Third, damn near every American (or person on this planet for that matter) will be affected by this deal. You make think that New York is too far away to matter but odds are your mutual fund, 401k, or pension is tied up in this mess. Sorry, but it sucks for you.
• Fourth, CNN says "aim." The real point here is the people that understand the current situation (there are very few, a few dozen at most; some of us simply believe those people are right [and maybe understand why they are]) may or may not be fixed by a "Rescue Package." This is shooting from the hip, that is not secret, but there isn't a better plan. We are certainly damned if we don't pass this bill (and the global economy) and may be if we do. The only certainty is that not trying is sure to fail; the bill at least has a chance to help things.
• Fifth (I am almost done): don't blame your incumbents come election time, even though they will have almost certainly voted for a $700b bill that you don't like. Given the reasons above it is the most responsible thing to do even if their constituents do not like it.
• Finally: I won't say much more about this in future posts unless someone specifically asks me to in a comment. I am a finance/econ major, even if I lack a PhD. I can explain the broadest components of the crisis, the bill, and why it matters if anyone cares. (E.g., what drying up credit means [more than most people realize] and why this is so important [the aspects the MSM keeps missing.])
  

P.S. Rumor is that I have another reader. A 250% increase in a month isn't bad! (Ok, so that means 5 people...)

P.P.S.: For most of the people that read (meaning all five) who care very little about this type of post I have another coming up. I just have to actually type up half of it, the half that was written in pencil instead of typed. And I should have another Bethel University Commons Time Lapse Video up soon.

YOU Won't Get Anything From Me Either

I wanted a free Obama button (ironically, it might arrive after the election) and MoveOn.Org (MOO) started sending me emails, which I knew would happen.

I know that both of my readers are more interested in my personal life than my politics. But I still like writing about politics. I promise I'll put personal stuff in here soon as well. Soon.

Dear MoveOn member,

I'm not your monkey [member].

Did you watch Sarah Palin's speech last night?[Last night meaning at the RNC convention] [...]

No.

...The speech told us a lot about her.

That was the point.

It told us that she can distort the facts and deliver mean-spirited zingers with the best of them. It told us that if Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter ever need a stand-in, she'd be a great pick.

So, she's in politics. Like you! (And heh, Rush and Ann are entertaining, if vulgar in what they put out. That's kinda the point. Like you!)

It told us that she can be condescending and dismissive of the real work Barack Obama did helping real people on the South Side of Chicago...

If true this part is quite condemning.

...It told us that she can uphold the long Republican tradition of lying about Democratic tax cuts—even though Obama's plan would give Americans a bigger break than McCain's.

Read: Tax breaks aimed at the middle class, not the upper. Even though tax breaks virtually always benefit the upper class.* (See Obama's The Audacity of Hope to understand my point) 

But the speech—written by one of President Bush's speechwriters...

So what? Hope the speechwriterr is good at writing speeches. That is what they are supposed to do. Do you expect them to use Barack's speech writers?

...didn't tell us the truth about Sarah Palin's extremist positions...

Ah, she IS a conservative! NO WAY for a REPUBLICAN!

 ...And the more that people know her far-right views, the less they support her. (There's a partial list below.)

 Uhm, right. Aren't you just say she was mobilizing the Republican base?

One of the best ways to get the word out about Palin is to write a letter to the editor of your local paper.

Read: Write our talking points to your favorite paper (or all of them)!

Today's a great day to write because this is very relevant—it just happened last night. Plus, our online tool makes it easy and has great tips.

Read (great tips): Our talking points

 Please take a few minutes to write a quick letter to the editor now:

No.

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=95&id=13709-10483324-ww1oKlx&t=3

Palin's speech and the reaction to it also made clear why McCain picked her. It wasn't a decision about who's most qualified to serve a heart-beat away from the presidency—it was a political decision about pleasing the far-right base of the Republican party...

I said it first! It is about mobilizing [see noted right below] the base and getting votes. The kind of things you need to do to get elected!

Note: First to say it when this was written, not posted (others have gotten to it; it's not like it isn't obvious...)

Writing a letter to your local paper is a great way to make sure voters understand that...

...Is a great way to get our talking points across (a normal tactic of all sides).

...The opinion pages are the most widely-read pages of the newspaper...

Really? (For seriously!)  I would have guessed weather followed by sports.

...Write today, and your letter's a lot more likely to get published because it's so topical..

Topical? "Palin is bad because she is a conservative?" (Like many Republicans...)

...It'll help sway the editorial board too.

Sad but true.

Here are a bunch of points you might want to include in your letter:

Read: The talking points I was talking about earlier.

Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task."

 

Always dangerous when leaders thing they are the tool that God uses. (Although Biblically this is true, but complicated.) Of course, if she actually means it's God's task, not ours, that is hard to argue with (and I would not).

She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." ^{1, 2}

I wonder -- seriously -- if that is a bad thing for a state governor.

Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party.Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'" ³

This is politics...

Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools...

 Bad. Bad Bad Bad.

 She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.⁴

Some of us call this an open mind. Especially for a conservative conservative.

Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade." ⁵

Her view is slightly (if only so) more nuanced than that.

Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP. ⁶

EVERY POLITICIAN HAS TIES TO OIL. IT POWERS THIS COUNTRY! You had better hope that they know big oil.

Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest. ⁷

Not gonna support MO.o's example, but yes, it is pretty far right.

Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches. ⁸

As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library.

Which books?

 Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." ⁹

She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." ¹⁰

[Bridge] Yup, pretty much more or less. She most definately was playing politics to her advantage there.

The plain fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin did a bang-up job delivering a Karl Rove-style political attack speech last night...

And Rove has done quite well. In 2004 all that was needed was a candidate that we thought could still breath and think!

...That makes her a skilled politician but it doesn't make her views any more palatable for voters...

It does make her more palatable for voters or she wouldn't have said it. This is POLITICS!!!

...Americans don't really want another far-right, anti-science ideologue in the White House.

Some do, actually.

Please help get the word out about where Sarah Palin really stands on the issues.

I think we all actually know, as you pointed out so eloquently throughout most of this letter.

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=95&id=13709-10483324-ww1oKlx&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

Nothing for MO.o!

–Nita, Ilyse, Wes, Karin and the rest of the team

Hooray!

P.S. If you haven't seen it, check out the Daily Show clip on Palin. It's worth a watch

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24753&id=13709-10483324-ww1oKlx&t=5

It's probably funy. That is what Comedy Central does. I haven't seen it yet though.

[MO.o] Sources

1. "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'," Associated Press, September 3, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24701&id=13709-10483324-ww1oKlx&t=6





2. "Palin wasn't 'really focused much' on the Iraq war," ThinkProgress, August 30, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24702&id=13709-10483324-ww1oKlx&t=7





3. "The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/





4. "McCain and Palin differ on issues," Associated Press, September 3, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24703&id=13709-10483324-ww1oKlx&t=8



5. Ibid



6. The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/



7. Ibid

8. Ibid.



9. "Mayor Palin: A Rough Record," Time, September 2, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24704&id=13709-10483324-ww1oKlx&t=9





10. The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/
I do like sources part. Even if I haven't checked most of them out.

Want to support our work?..

Obama's? Probably. MoveOn.org's? No.

 We're entirely funded by our 3.5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

No. NO chipping in to MoveOn from madjon.


mj's notes:



*They have more money, so any tax break helps them. It skews the numbers a bit so that it looks like the breaks were "only" for the wealthy. BUT a 5% tax break will benefit the top 1% of income earners (in dollars) more than the rest of us. Simple math:


$100m * 105%[**] = $5m saved.
$30k * 105%[**] = $1,500 saved


Even though both sides get a 5% tax break.


**105% being a 5% tax break, completely made up by me.

A Thought on Attack Ads/Energy

P.S. (PRE-Script): There will be a few more political posts, especially as we get down to Novemeber, but I know my readers don't care a whole lot about my views on politics. This isn't a surprise, everyone has their views and very rarely are they nuanced enough to be worth reading. I'll try to get some more personal stuff up. Maybe "creative writing," if I can get around to it. At any rate...

I have no problem with attack ads. Not in theory at any rate. I don't want to know just why I should vote for a given candidate, I want to know why I should vote for him or her instead of the other candidate. Odds are they both have some pretty good ideas, and I want to see them fight over which ones are actually better.

Of course, the ads Al Franken has been running (at least on the radio) in Minnesota are pretty ridiculous. They go something like, "Norm Coleman is in bed with special interests because he [insert non-substantive routine political action here.]"

McCain's "Biggest Celebrity in the World" ad was no better -- but at least I got to see the entertaining backfire.

What would be really interesting is an attack ad that doesn't boil down to a 3 second soundbite, or is so easily dismissed. Everybody accuses everybody of being in bed with special interests, a term so vaguely defined I'm not sure what it means. Except that it is bad. Instead I would like to hear a 30 second ad that goes something like:

[Person]'s energy policy is going to drive [region and/or country] into further trouble by relying on more drilling. At best, digging into ANWAR and putting in more off-shore drilling rigs will increase the world's oil supply by about 1% -- after 10 years. Not nearly enough to affect gas or energy prices in a way you'll notice at home. Vote for [the other person] who doesn't support ineffective energy policies.

That's gotta be about 30 seconds. The next ad would explain why "alternative energy" (another vague term) is a better deal.

Bonus: Yes, my fake ad does support my own view on energy. Drilling anywhere around the U.S. isn't going to help us anytime soon and OPEC can respond by cutting production whenever it wants to. We even throw out the whole environment ruining thing because idea is almost as bad as E85 (sorry Iowa, Ohio) which may take as much energy to make as it produces -- or more.* McCain and Obama differ mostly in how much drilling we do and how much money we put into alternative energy.

*I'm sure I posted on this at some point in the past. Probably a long time ago. See Time's The Green Energy Scam for more details. But basically, E85 is the worst alternative energy idea anybody has put into practice yet. It's singular strength is that is in essence a subsidy for American farmers.

You Won't Get My Money From This Email

From my inbox:

[madjon]--

In the next 36 hours, the McCain campaign will be pouring millions of dollars -- if not tens of millions -- into negative attack ads against Barack Obama.

This is what political campaigns do.

Before John McCain accepts the Republican nomination on Thursday, his campaign has to spend every last dollar of primary funds they've raked in from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.

Yours had to do the same thing.

Just yesterday, they aired a new negative ad in 14 swing states. His campaign manager even admitted that all McCain has to rely on is attacks, saying that for them, "This election is not about issues."

Full quote: "'This election is not about issues,' said Davis. 'This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.'"

 Read: This is about McCain vs. Obama, not what they platforms they stand on. And he is more right than wrong (read the article if you want, Davis isn't denying that people care about the issues, just not as much as personalities this time around. On the other hand, that's always been the case...)

He doesn't want Americans to notice that the Republican platform is the most extreme we've ever seen -- opposing stem cell research, denying a woman's right to choose no matter what the circumstance, and continuing to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq.

Generally both sides want at least the party base to know the platform...

With so much at stake, we can't allow another election to be determined by petty and divisive political tactics.

Including this damned email.

Make a donation of $5 or more to fight back against an unprecedented week of negativity from John McCain.

Not from this email.

The McCain campaign is trying to distract voters from the real issues -- so we're going to focus on what they're trying to hide.

They've come out against the life-saving possibilities of stem cell research.

For years now in fact.

They don't even mention protecting equal pay for equal work.

For years now in fact.

They support huge tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

For years now in fact.

They've almost completely ignored the $10 billion we're spending every month in Iraq.

For years now in fact.

And they make zero exceptions for a woman's right to choose -- even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother.

For years now in fact.

If that all sounds like more of the same, that's because it is.

For years now in fact.

John McCain is offering a third term of the disastrous Bush agenda...

Agreed.

...so it's no wonder his campaign would choose to focus on attacks instead of issues.

The next President is the issue of Presidential elections. Thus, an attack ad against Obama does constitute an ad concerning an issue.

Please make your donation of $5 or more today:

Again, not from this email.

https://donate.barackobama.com/fightback

I know we've asked a lot from supporters like you recently, and many of you contributed just last week.

I forgot.

But the stakes are high...

Yes, it's a Presidential election.

...and there are less than 9 weeks before Election Day. It's going to require unprecedented resources to defeat John McCain...

Like a breathing Democrat?

...and bring about the change America so desperately needs.

That's gonna be the hard part.

Thank you for all you do,

Including such a response to your emails?

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Politics

So it's finally time to start caring about the 2008 presidential race. 2007 was about the entertainment, we are finally getting down to "the real thing," kinda.

My dad correctly predicted the Iowa caucus for the Democratics. From some conversations from a student Obama activists, Obama probably won because he had more people on the ground -- a lot more people. The polls as of yesterday still had put Hilary ahead, and the truth is, she probably still is. Her supporters just didn't go and vote like Obama's did.

The caucus results are more important right now than the polls because you can win more easily simply through voter turnout. Once you hit November, more people get out anyway, hence your ability to win by getting people out that normally would not goes down. At that point, polls matter quite a bit.

I have my own theory on predicting what party will win the Whitehouse, it's this: whichever party is more unified at its beginning. Basically, which party has the smaller spread in the caucuses. Unfortunately, I quickly found out this is hard to empirically verify.

I started by looking at numbers for the Iowa caucus, but can only find them back to 1972 for Democratics, and 1976 for Republicans. The other problem is that whenever an incumbent ran he ran unopposed (at least for all practical purposes). Hence, the theory only works on years when there wasn't an incumbent.

Since 1976 (when both numbers from Iowa were available) there has only been three such elections: 1976 (I don't count Ford as a real incumbent), 1988, and 2000. This is not enough data.

Of course there are other ways to find numbers, but its hard to find good numbers. I don't know where I can find poll results for a similar time period and if I could I'd probably have to pay for them, and even then I would have to find a way to compensate for different polling methods and confidence intervals (e.g., statistical problems).

So in the mean time I might have to find a new theory, at least if I want it to be empirical. I might still be right on this one, but it doesn't do a lot of good without the data to predict.