Category Archives: Politics

Math for Donkeys

I think it was the Electoral Map that turned me on to fivethirtyeight.com, and it is fivethirtyeight.com that has this quality post.

Post Pennsylvania, he (she?) breaks down the remaining primary contests and explains what might or might not happen.  More specifically, he explains what needs to happen for Clinton to win.  He shows a few different ways to run the numbers – delegates won, popular votes, with caucuses, etc., and shows how they play out depending on the outcome of the remaining primaries.

The poll/math/stat geeks will love the whole article, but those of you seeking the bottom line should scroll to the graph at the bottom: For Clinton to get an even chance of winning the nomination, she needs to improve her polling numbers in the remaining states by an average of 13 percentage points over her current standings.  For her to lock it in, she needs 40 points improvement!

What about Florida and Michigan, you say?

Michigan and Florida are now completely irrelevant from the standpoint of the pledged delegate count. Obama will lead the pledged delegate count even with the entire Michigan and Florida delegations seated — unless Clinton improves her current poll standing by at least 23.3 points.

The race is over.  The only question is how long it will take Hillary to concede.

The Clintons, In the Rear-View Mirror

Great post from Andrew Sullivan. This is not a man who is hoping for a Clinton cabinet appointment. I wish I could write as well as he does (though, would if I wrote as well as him, would I choose to write so much? It’s a question we’ll never answer.)

Will I re-read this post in the first week of November and bemoan my sense of optimism? Maybe. I promise not to be ashamed of it. I’m confident that I won’t look back and wish I’d pulled for Clinton II.

I’m still unsettled and ambivalent about Obama. But I have a clear opinion on Hillary: send her back to the swamps of NewYarkansas.

The State Police and the Felon

So Tom Finneran was not content to earn a few hundred thousand dollars per year with his radio gig. His original post-Speaker job as a lobbyist had been interrupted by that pesky felony conviction. The Mass Biotech Council didn’t want a felon as their public representative, and he was fired.

But a year had passed since then. Evidently Finneran thought that was enough time that people would forget that he was a felon and a perjurer. Is he that stupid? Or does he just have really low opinion of the public and its memory? It’s tough to say.

Whatever he thinks about the public, he miscalculated what his bosses at WRKO would think about his moonlighting. They recognized that when a talk radio host takes money from public employees he won’t be seen as a “fair” commentator. They enforced their contract with Finneran and forced him to give up his lobbying gig.

All of the press that I read about this was focused on WRKO and what they would do. Would they let Finneran be a lobbyist? Or would they (further) sell out their journalistic principles? What I can’t figure out is how the State Trooper’s union got off the hook.

Why would the State Trooper’s union hire a felon as their public representative? Aren’t they supposed to be on the side of the law? Of all the lobbyists, union leaders, senators, representatives, governors, and other State House insiders, why would they choose one who violated his oath and broke the law?

I’m not suggesting that it was illegal to hire a felon as a lobbyist. But it’s about the public relations, it’s about the image. If the State Police think they are best represented by a law breaker, what does that say about their respect for the law?

House to Bush: Get a Warrant!

I’m delighted that the House found the backbone that was so mysteriously missing in the Senate.The “Protect America Act” has been a continuing source of horror and amazement to me.  I mentioned this last month. To review:

  1. The government wants information that it isn’t legally entitled to demand.
  2. The government asks the telephone companies to provide that information.
  3. The telephone companies break the law and breach the privacy of their customers.
  4. The Senate thinks this is a fine thing.
  5. The Senate votes to prevent lawsuits against the telephone companies.
  6. The House refuses to go along and does not approve the bill.

I think the Senate is horribly wrong.  I want those companies to stand up and say “No, we won’t break the law.”  When the government overreaches, when the government tries to violate the law, I want every citizen and corporation to reject the request.  I want the citizens and corporations who break the law brought to justice.  Last month when the Senate voted to delay and consider amendments, I was greatly encouraged.  My hope proved false as senators on both side of the aisle failed their constituents, not to mention their oaths to the Constitution.

The other part of this bill, of course, is that it would extend the permission to engage in warrantless wiretaps on Americans.  The Senate also approved the extension of this unconstitutional law.  The Senate caved to Bush’s bullying: “If you don’t approve this, FISA will expire.”  The House correctly identified this as crap; more importantly, it was willing to bet that the American public will also identify it as crap.  FISA did not expire.  Warrantless wiretaps on Americans expired.  And a get-out-of-jail-free card was not granted to telcoms that should have know better than to break the law.

It’s also worth noting that the House offered a 21-day extension of the current law.  This was rejected by the White House.  If this law is as important as Bush thinks it is, why would he reject an extension?  The obvious answer is that he’s trying to pressure and hurry Congress into a rash decision.  The Senate fell to this tactic, but the House did not.

The Ides of February have passed.  The PAA was not extended.  The government continues to investigate terrorists.  And when it wants to wiretap and spy on Americans?  They should do exactly what the Constitution instructs them and the FISA law permits them to:  get a warrant.

Why I’m Not Voting for Hillary Clinton

I don’t think I’ve ever voted in a meaningful presidential primary. I’ve assumed that my primary vote wouldn’t matter unless I moved back to New Hampshire. But here I am, 10 days away from the primary, and the outcome is in question for both parties. I’m a registered Democrat these days (I know that’s news to some of you, but I changed parties a while ago). So who am I voting for? I can tell you I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton.

I strongly believe that politics today and the culture of Washington is broken. I believe that both parties are guilty of playing positions for the sake of victory. They’re not fighting for what is best. They are fighting for a victory. They tell their supporters that “best for the country” and “victory” are the same thing, but this is not the case. The world is not divided into simple black-and-white, us-versus-them issues. No party has a monopoly on good ideas. No party is right on every issue. Anyone who claims they have all the answers is not to be believed.

I think Hillary Clinton represents the ugly side of partisan politics. I recognize that she has been demonized by the ugly side of the conservative movement, but that does not absolve her of blame. But she hasn’t just stooped to their level. She has embraced the “politics of destruction” as her own.

Furthermore, I am unconvinced that her positions are her own. I’ve listened to her talk and read her statements for years. I’m left with the impression that she only speaks after consulting her pollsters. If it won’t get her elected, she won’t say it.

I recognize that these statements are subjective and hard to prove. Let me offer a few examples.

First up is her attacks on Obama for talking about Ronald Reagan. Clinton claimed that Obama “said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years.” Her husband went farther, saying “[Obama] said President Reagan was the engine of innovation and did more, had a more lasting impact on America than I did. And then the next day [Obama] said, ‘In the ’90s the good ideas came out from the Republicans.'” And then there is the radio ad Clinton ran in South Carolina that accuses Obama of endorsing ” . . . ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis.”

These attacks are distortions. You can hear Obama’s statements, in his own words, here and here. He was not endorsing the policies of Reagan. He was speaking, in a historical sense, of Reagan’s legacy. He did not endorse the policies that the Clintons vilified. Clinton apparently did not think that her ideas were enough to win over voters. She felt that she needed to distort her opponent’s position in order to win votes. And, she thought that the distortion was justified. The ends justified the means.

We should be choosing our next president on the basis of their ability to govern well. I’m deeply suspicious of a candidate that thinks the best way to demonstrate leadership is to distort the statements of her opponent.

My second example is Clinton’s use of terrorism and fear of terrorism to scare voters. I believe that President Bush has repeatedly used this tactic to push his policies. I want voters to make a rational choice at the ballot box. They shouldn’t make their choice out of fear. Clinton said “And look what happened in Great Britain. Tony Blair leaves, Gordon Brown comes in, the very next day, there are terrorist attacks. Thankfully, they were unsuccessful, from London to Scotland. So, you’ve got to be prepared on day one with everything ready to go.”

Obama correctly recognized this as the scare tactic that it is: “When Senator Clinton uses the specter of a terrorist attack with a new prime minister during a campaign, I think that is part and parcel with what we’ve seen the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points.”

My third example is older, but serves to support my claim that she is a slave to her pollsters. March of last year, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace said “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that [the U.S. military] should not condone immoral acts.” Clinton was already a candidate for president. Her first answer was very weak: “Asked on ABC News on Wednesday if she agreed with General Pace’s view that homosexuality was immoral, Mrs. Clinton said, “Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude.””

The next day she had a new take on the issue. I can only assume this was after consulting with her presidential advisors. It would be hard for her to win the Democratic nomination without support from gay and lesbian voters: “‘I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple,’ she said. ‘It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world.'”

I ask, if it was so plain and simple, why didn’t she say so herself? Why did she need a spokesman to say it?

I’m not sure who I want to be our next president. I’m sure I don’t want it to be Hillary Clinton.

Small Handful of Small States

Ned ranted about silly parts of the presidential election.  I agree with 90% of what he says, but that last 10% . . . I started to respond in a comment on his blog, but the comment got long-winded enough that I decided to post here instead.  “The whole focus on early primaries seems completely out of whack to me, where a small handful of small states get to make big choices for everyone.”

My response is: If not New Hampshire. . . then which state?  What’s the alternative?  It’s an interesting question.  (And yes, I grew up in New Hampshire.)

I agree with another commenter, Dave, that one of the good parts of having New Hampshire pick first is retail politics.  The voters in New Hampshire, I’d argue, are less biased by the 30-second commercial or, god forbid, the 6-second newsbite quote.  They get to meet the candidates, listen to them for extended periods of time, and answer their questions.  Money matters, of course, but it matters less when you are there to shake people’s hands.

It’s a level of interaction that is inconceivable if you haven’t participated in it.  I went skiing with Bob Kerry and his one leg.  I joked with Elizabeth Dole.  I nearly grabbed Bob Dole’s pen by mistake.  I met every president from Reagan to Bush I (Clinton was elected while I was in college, and he broke my streak).

If not New Hampshire, then where?  A southern state?  A western state?  California is bigger and more diverse, but doesn’t it get decided by the television commercial, and thus the dollar?  If you look at small-population states, they’re all pretty white, just like New Hampshire.  Delaware, maybe, has a case to make; it’s small enough and more diverse than most.  But Nevada?  North Carolina?  Pick your biases, no matter which one you choose.

Another option is to have a national primary – no order of voting, just everyone vote the same day.  Again, I think that favors the best-funded candidates.  The dark-horse candidate doesn’t have a chance to make a run.  The current system permits candidates to rise and fall over time.  During each primary a new scrutiny is applied to the new frontrunner.

I agree with Ned that we have to break out of the two-party rut.  It’s just a matter of where to start.

Civil Service Still Broken

When I ran for state representative in 2004, reform of the civil service system was one of my key themes. There is so much wrong with it. The years pass, and the system is still broken.

The system was originally intended to take patronage and nepotism out of hiring decision. The system is supposed to bring the best applicants into the fire and police departments. It’s supposed to create a pool of qualified candidates that then go through a regular hiring system (interviews, etc.) But, the system has been so warped by arbitrary “preferences” that the candidate’s qualifications (test scores) are almost irrelevant. The best-scoring candidates are routinely pushed out of the hiring pool by lesser-qualified candidates who meet some “preference” criteria. Everyone has to take the exam, but the hiring is driven more by your preference than by your score. MassInc has a fantastic piece by a Civil Service Commissioner that goes into detail explaining how these lesser-qualified candidates get hired.

The current law also discriminates on the basis of age, not merit. How is it possible in today’s Massachusetts that a qualified candidate is simply excluded from consideration because they’re too old?

Today’s Globe has a new reminder of yet another failing of the system: good ‘ol patronage. To recap:

  1. Applicant scores poorly on civil service exam. (633rd on the list).
  2. Applicant calls up Senate President Therese Murray. (” . . . who, said two public officials involved in helping the Hayhursts, told several influential people throughout the process that the Hayhursts were family friends and were deserving of special treatment.”)
  3. Applicant calls up his state rep who activates the Representative Buddy System. (“Representative Stephen Stat Smith of Everett cosponsored the measure. ‘The reason I signed on is, as a new legislator, I’m not really familiar about the process,’ he said. ‘So I looked to some reps who are friends of mine who had some easy things that weren’t going to be controversial, and I just signed on to provide assistance to them and learn more about the process.'”)
  4. Applicant enjoys an 88-minute Senate approval followed by House approval the next time it was in session. Applicant waits for Patrick to not-veto the move.
  5. Applicant passes 632 more-qualified candidates, most of whom will never even get to even interview for the job.

The civil service is just begging for reform. Unfortunately, I think you need to reform the legislature, first.

Vote For The Candidate You Want

I post often enough about my philosophy on voting that I should create a category for it. Not sure what I’d call the category, though. What combines my thoughts on Mass’s one party rule, the press, none of the above, and leaving a ballot blank? In my mind, all of these concepts are linked. They’re all symptoms or partial solutions for problems I see in our political culture.

From the New York Time’s political writer/blogger Matt Bai, writing about this “distinct political culture that we in the media have wrought:”

Ten years of endless blather about the game of politics on cable TV have trained the most engaged American voters to handicap candidates rather than hear them, to pontificate about who might win rather than deciding whom they actually want to win. Voters seem to approach politics increasingly as pundits, and they look to poll numbers to tell them who’s electable and who isn’t, never stopping to realize that they are the ones who get to decide.

He’s absolutely right. How often do you find yourself talking about who you think is going to win, rather than who you want to win?

As a town, as a state, and as a country we’re straitjacketed by our self-imposed limitations. We don’t have to vote for these people when we find them lacking. We can vote for the ones that we want. When we find the courage to do this we will finally get what we want, rather than settle for what we got.

My hope is that by talking it about it, people will become more introspective while making choices in the ballot booth. When you realize your own biases it makes it easier to confront and remove them from the decision making process. I also hope if I noodle around the issue long enough, I’ll find a more powerful tool to solve the problem.