Fresh Blood

I read a very insightful post on the Intrade forums by JBinMO:
I see an anti-establishment movement towards "fresh" new blood in national politics. Devoted "right" and "left" aside, the people in the middle are completely disgusted with the arrogance, back biting and "questionable" decisions made by incumbants. They want more than negative ads and partisan bickering. The voters are about to flush the toilet that is Washington.

Obama tapped into the early aspect of this movement with his "hope and change" and "transparency" promises. But, his idea of change was NOT what the voters expected and his idea of transparency has not been true transparency.

Palin was a crowd draw and rallied the base because she was a fresh face, plain spoken and could be associated with people known in everyday life that gets things done.

Scott Brown had a message on issues and from what I understand, did very little negative ads. He was a "fresh face" that people could identify with and support..hoping he could make a difference in the barrel of snakes that occupy Washington.

I am taking all my available trading funds and will be investing in long shot "fresh" faces in national politics. Any incumbant will be vulnerable, including Obama in 2012

I think this is right on the money. Voters are not particularly well informed about any policy details. Most couldn't explain cap-and-trade, or tell you what the government spends most of its money on, or tell you much about what's actually included in the health-care reform bill. What they do know is that most politicians are corrupt, ignorant windbags who think of themselves first, their campaign donors second, and the public hardly at all.

And the voters are right. There are exceptions, of course. I think Obama is generally well-intentioned, though he often lacks the courage of his convictions. But as a rule, our national politics are dominated by thoughtless partisans (John Boehner), listless clock-punchers (William Lacy-Clay Jr.), and amoral party-switchers (Arlen Specter).

On a recent plane trip, I sat in front of two Tea Partiers who talked politics through the entire flight. I heard this phrase over and over again: "I don't give a shit which party they're from, I'm voting against the incumbent."

So far conservatives have been far better at harnessing this energy. But they're not guaranteed to carry it into the November elections. Right now they're busy filibustering a jobs bill. Last week they defeated a proposal for a deficit-reduction committee, and some of the votes against it came from Republicans who had co-sponsored the bill last December. That's ridiculous, and if they continue to block legislation in bad faith, the party as a whole will start to look ridiculous.

Party politics aside, fresh faces will have a huge advantage. Anyone who can plausibly claim to bring good faith to governance will have a storm of angry voters supporting them.

Just Don't Ask

Evidently Obama has finally gotten around to his campaign promise to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. The big news today is that Defense Secretary Gates thinks it should be repealed. But, um, first he wants to study it for a year or more. What were they doing the first year Obama was in office? Don't ask. This is yet another case where Obama pursues a middle course that irritates his supporters and encourages his opponents.

In Intrade terms, this means the DADT.REPEALED.JUN10 and DEC10 contracts will expire at zero.

Health Care Reform in Intensive Care

David Axelrod, on Meet the Press, asked about what would happen with health care reform:
“The president is determined that we deal with the problems in front of us, and health care is one of those problems.”

Now, there's two ways you can answer this question about health care. If the health care bill were in great shape and about to pass? You'd say, "Health care is our top priority." If you had a bleak outlook but didn't want to give up entirely? You'd say something very similar to what David Axelrod said. If you wanted to give up, but didn't want to dominate this particular news cycle with that story? You'd say something very similar to what David Axelrod said.

I continue to think Democrats will pass something, but it will be quite a bit more limited than the full "Obamacare" package. The party leadership is hinting at this in the way they refer to their reform plans. All last year, it was "health care reform." Over the last week or so, they've started calling it "health insurance reform." Here's White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer and Nancy Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami using the phrase.

Health care reform is not completely dead, but when you have Rahm Emmanuel saying Congress will do a jobs bill, then a bank tax, then financial regulation, then get back to health care, you have to think prospects look pretty dim. Johnathan Chait refers to this as the "My boyfriend is going to do a world tour with his rock band, then have a totally platonic weekend in Vegas with his ex-girlfriend, then join the Army, and then we'll get married" plan. Meanwhile, the best the supporters can do is insist that HCR still has a pulse.

I'm sure there are quite a few progressives who would love to dope-slap Max Baucus for spending all of last summer negotiating with Charles Grassley in the obviously pointless Gang of Six.

Now this is Hubris

(Via The Big Picture)

GMO, an investment group managing over $100 billion in assets, released its official forecasts for returns on different asset classes:


In other words, the future will look exactly like the past!

I have no idea where asset prices will be in 7 years, but I can predict this chart will be horribly, hilariously wrong.

Efficient markets what?

Sometimes the markets are dumb, sometimes they're just slow.

Yesterday Apple unveiled its terribly named IPad, to nearly universally negative reviews. Twitter was filled with IPad Fail posts. The highest-rated post on Digg was titled "8 Things That Suck About the IPad." Anybody paying attention knew last night this thing was going to bomb. The market, though? Took till about 10:30 AM to figure it out.



Very easy 2-3% in a day if you shorted at the open and covered in the afternoon. I've missed out on a lot of money assuming that the market is smarter than it really is.

Obama hires McCain's campaign manager

Really? A spending freeze?

(Alternate title: Obama Gives the Finger to Everyone who Still Liked Him)

They are panicking in the White House. I mean, Obama gave his speech on bank re-regulation basically on the spur of the moment. Barney Frank came out a few hours later to say it wasn't going to happen in the next 4 years. These decisions just seem to be coming impulsively.

And now this? Obama wants to freeze spending and pass a second stimulus bill? It just doesn't work, and it comes off as a transparent pander. Not only that, but it's a pander to the economically illiterate Tea Partiers who will never like him anyway. It's bad economics, it'll never get through Congress, and it demonstrates to a lot of people that Obama is just not serious about governing.

Jon Stewart has been asking for the last year whether Obama was getting his ass handed to him, or whether he was a Jedi master, 5 steps ahead of his opponents. I guess now we know which it is...

Test your Intrade IQ

Fed Chair Ben Bernanke will almost certainly be re-confirmed. The value of his re-confirmation contract on Intrade has gone from a low of 75 on Friday to 94.9 this morning. Which of the following news items tells us most about what will happen with Bernanke?

A. Harry Reid announces he will support Bernanke.
B. Mitch McConnell says he expects Bernanke to be confirmed.
C. Judd Gregg and Chris Dodd say they expect Bernanke will be confirmed.
D. John McCain announces he is leaning against voting to confirm Bernanke.