This is not good for his presidential aspirations:
Huckabee commuted sentence of man tied to police slayings. This is pretty much Willie Horton all over again. This isn't even the first time one of the prisoners Huckabee has granted clemency have committed new crimes. In 1999, Huckabee pardoned serial rapist Wayne Dumond, who went on to rape and murder two women, one of them pregnant. The two cases together are serious evidence of bad judgment on Huckabee's part. I doubt if he even runs now.
Where have you gone, George Voinovich?
Last weekend, the Senate finally voted to bring health reform legislation up for debate. This required a 60-vote cloture motion, which passed with a total of 60-39. All Democrats plus Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman voted for it, which isn't too surprising. What is surprising is the abstention on the Republican side: George Voinovich.
Voinovich is a moderate Republican, or at least as moderate as any Senate Republican besides Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. He's also retiring in January 2011.
George, there is a terrific opportunity for your national profile here. You know how every pundit knows who Olympia Snowe is? You know how she gets personal meetings with Obama about health care? How she can bring barrels of pork back to Maine as part of the bargain to buy her support? That could be you. All you have to do is send some quiet signals that your vote might be gettable. Nothing too crazy. Just mention some things in private to Harry Reid, and maybe abstain rather than oppose on the first significant vote on health care.
And then? You'd have the power to dictate huge portions of the health care bill. The way the Senate vote count is now, Obama will give you whatever you want if you'll come over to support it.
I don't know what you plan on doing after retirement. But if you want to, you can become nationally known in the next year as the Senator who puts country before party. The guy who crossed party lines to strike a tough deal and get health reform done right -- not too liberal, but not too conservative either. Write a book about how politics is getting too polarized! Pundits from Jon Stewart to 60 Minutes will love you for it.
Just sayin'... it'd be a great career move, and you'd get to shape the biggest legislation in the last decade.
Voinovich is a moderate Republican, or at least as moderate as any Senate Republican besides Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. He's also retiring in January 2011.
George, there is a terrific opportunity for your national profile here. You know how every pundit knows who Olympia Snowe is? You know how she gets personal meetings with Obama about health care? How she can bring barrels of pork back to Maine as part of the bargain to buy her support? That could be you. All you have to do is send some quiet signals that your vote might be gettable. Nothing too crazy. Just mention some things in private to Harry Reid, and maybe abstain rather than oppose on the first significant vote on health care.
And then? You'd have the power to dictate huge portions of the health care bill. The way the Senate vote count is now, Obama will give you whatever you want if you'll come over to support it.
I don't know what you plan on doing after retirement. But if you want to, you can become nationally known in the next year as the Senator who puts country before party. The guy who crossed party lines to strike a tough deal and get health reform done right -- not too liberal, but not too conservative either. Write a book about how politics is getting too polarized! Pundits from Jon Stewart to 60 Minutes will love you for it.
Just sayin'... it'd be a great career move, and you'd get to shape the biggest legislation in the last decade.
Moving Numbers: New political soap opera
This time it's literally a soap opera. I just stumbled upon Moving Numbers, a web-series about a fictional Senate campaign in Pennsylvania. Moving Numbers (at least the first 2 episodes) is to politics what Playmakers was to the NFL: a drama with ridiculous plotlines and marginal acting that's tremendously fun to watch.
More ACORN paranoia
After every election, there is a re-canvassing process, where election officials double-check the numbers reported from each precinct. Inevitably, there are errors. Sometimes 129 votes becomes 192. Sometimes it becomes 29. The point of the process is to correct these human errors.
When this process took place in Minnesota's senate election in 2008, Al Franken gained about 519 votes. The Wall Street Journal took this as prima facie evidence of vote tampering, and was quick to point the finger at Acorn.
Now in NY's 23rd district, recanvassing has produced the opposite result: Conservative Party candidate Hoffman gained 2,159 votes. And Hoffman's response? Blame Acorn!
Man, these Acorn guys are good!
When this process took place in Minnesota's senate election in 2008, Al Franken gained about 519 votes. The Wall Street Journal took this as prima facie evidence of vote tampering, and was quick to point the finger at Acorn.
This entire process is being overseen by Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who isn't exactly a nonpartisan observer. One of Mr. Ritchie's financial supporters during his 2006 run for office was a 527 group called the Secretary of State Project, which was co-founded by James Rucker, who came from MoveOn.org. The group says it is devoted to putting Democrats in jobs where they can "protect elections."
Mr. Ritchie is also an ally of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, of fraudulent voter-registration fame.
Now in NY's 23rd district, recanvassing has produced the opposite result: Conservative Party candidate Hoffman gained 2,159 votes. And Hoffman's response? Blame Acorn!
As evidence surfaces, we find out that reported results from election night were far from accurate. ACORN and the unions did their best to try and sway the results to Obamacare supporter Bill Owens...
Oswego County elections officials blame the mistakes on "chaos" in their call-in center that included a phone system foul-up, and on inspectors who read numbers incorrectly when phoning in results. This sounds like a tactic right from the ACORN playbook.
Man, these Acorn guys are good!
Overexposing Sarah Palin
The debate continues at 538 about whether Sarah Palin will run for president, and if so, how she'll do.
I don't think Palin will run, for reasons I laid out in my post in October. If she is running, she's pursuing a terrible strategy.
Here's the thing. Palin has tremendous name recognition. But her name is associated with prideful ignorance. There are plenty of policy areas where she has absolutely no knowledge. Even if you agree with her politics, you wouldn't want her to be president any more than you would Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. There was a solution to this. Palin could have gone back to Alaska, not quit, gotten a couple popular policy initiatives under her belt, and buckled down and studied national issues. When she re-appeared in 2011, she would have a chance to re-introduce herself to the nation. If she had done her homework, the pundit reaction would have been, "Wow, she's a lot smarter than we thought she was."
She did the exact opposite of all that. Fulfilling her real job as a governor was so unimportant that she quit.
And why not? She's going to make millions from her book and speaking appearances. She'll ride the crest of her wave of popularity for as long as she can, and afterwards she'll settle down to do a TV show or something like that. She'll remain a kingmaker within the Republican party, with all the 2012 candidates begging for her endorsement. She gets all the fun of telling other people what to do without enduring much criticism herself.
Her popularity cannot possibly continue at this level. Our national attention span is too short to continue caring about her for much longer. Like J Lo, Mariah Carey, and Paris Hilton, celebrity icons who felt inescapable a few years ago, Palin will settle into a comfortable semi-obscurity.
I don't think Palin will run, for reasons I laid out in my post in October. If she is running, she's pursuing a terrible strategy.
Here's the thing. Palin has tremendous name recognition. But her name is associated with prideful ignorance. There are plenty of policy areas where she has absolutely no knowledge. Even if you agree with her politics, you wouldn't want her to be president any more than you would Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. There was a solution to this. Palin could have gone back to Alaska, not quit, gotten a couple popular policy initiatives under her belt, and buckled down and studied national issues. When she re-appeared in 2011, she would have a chance to re-introduce herself to the nation. If she had done her homework, the pundit reaction would have been, "Wow, she's a lot smarter than we thought she was."
She did the exact opposite of all that. Fulfilling her real job as a governor was so unimportant that she quit.
And why not? She's going to make millions from her book and speaking appearances. She'll ride the crest of her wave of popularity for as long as she can, and afterwards she'll settle down to do a TV show or something like that. She'll remain a kingmaker within the Republican party, with all the 2012 candidates begging for her endorsement. She gets all the fun of telling other people what to do without enduring much criticism herself.
Her popularity cannot possibly continue at this level. Our national attention span is too short to continue caring about her for much longer. Like J Lo, Mariah Carey, and Paris Hilton, celebrity icons who felt inescapable a few years ago, Palin will settle into a comfortable semi-obscurity.
Hoffman "Unconcedes" in NY-23
They're still counting votes in New York's 23rd district. On election night, Hoffman trailed Owens by 5,335; after recanvassing, he trails by 3,026. And now there are 10,000 absentee ballots which have yet to be counted. Statistically, it's very unlikely Hoffman will pull it out. At least 10-20% of the absentee vote will go to Scozzafava. Then Hoffman would have to win the remaining ballots by better than a 2:1 ratio. It's not impossible -- absentee results are often quite different from live voter results. Still, I would put the odds of Hoffman prevailing at less than 5%.
This won't affect Intrade's results. They correctly expired the contract after Hoffman conceded, the media and elections officials universally declared Owens the winner, and Owens was sworn into Congress. The Intrade contracts always include the clause, "Any change to the result after the contract has expired will not be taken into account."
I was surprised when Hoffman conceded on election night. At the time, the race certainly favored Owens, but results were still coming in from pro-Hoffman counties. The media hadn't called the race. Generally, I don't see the advantage gained by rushing a concession in a close race -- I don't think it harms a losing candidate's political standing to say, "Let's wait until all the votes are in."
This won't affect Intrade's results. They correctly expired the contract after Hoffman conceded, the media and elections officials universally declared Owens the winner, and Owens was sworn into Congress. The Intrade contracts always include the clause, "Any change to the result after the contract has expired will not be taken into account."
I was surprised when Hoffman conceded on election night. At the time, the race certainly favored Owens, but results were still coming in from pro-Hoffman counties. The media hadn't called the race. Generally, I don't see the advantage gained by rushing a concession in a close race -- I don't think it harms a losing candidate's political standing to say, "Let's wait until all the votes are in."
Monday Morning Schadenfreude
I've hated the New England Patriots generally and Bill Belichick in particular for some time now. So I was certainly happy when Belichick decided to go for it on 4th and 2 at his own 28 and failed. The thing is, it really wasn't that bad a call.
Brian Burke goes through the numbers. He uses historical averages for 4th down conversions, punt distances, and odds for scoring from the X yard line with Y minutes on the clock. His conclusion? If the Patriots go for it, they win the game 79% of the time, while if they punt it, they win 70% of the time.
If you look at the specifics of this particular game, it supports the decision even more. The Colts had just scored on successive 78-yard touchdown drives which averaged under 2 minutes apiece. Given the way the Patriots' defense was playing, if the Colts got the ball back, they were nearly certain to score. Belichick's best option was to go for it and hope to run out the clock.
"Schadenfreude" doesn't fully capture the joy of seeing Belichick publicly humiliated for making the right decision. I think this fully qualifies for "morose delectation," "the habit of dwelling with enjoyment on evil thoughts."
Brian Burke goes through the numbers. He uses historical averages for 4th down conversions, punt distances, and odds for scoring from the X yard line with Y minutes on the clock. His conclusion? If the Patriots go for it, they win the game 79% of the time, while if they punt it, they win 70% of the time.
If you look at the specifics of this particular game, it supports the decision even more. The Colts had just scored on successive 78-yard touchdown drives which averaged under 2 minutes apiece. Given the way the Patriots' defense was playing, if the Colts got the ball back, they were nearly certain to score. Belichick's best option was to go for it and hope to run out the clock.
"Schadenfreude" doesn't fully capture the joy of seeing Belichick publicly humiliated for making the right decision. I think this fully qualifies for "morose delectation," "the habit of dwelling with enjoyment on evil thoughts."
August... Thankgiving... Christmas... Easter?
Congress is not good with deadlines.
July 14: Obama wants health care bill passed before August recess
September 10: Biden: Health care bill 'Before Thanksgiving'
November 10: Reid says health bill will be done by Christmas
At this point, I don't think a bill of any kind will pass before the end of the year. There's no solution in sight for the Lieberman/Nelson problem. The Stupak amendment on abortion threatens to split the Democratic caucus. There's a whole lot of compromising to be done, and several Democrats who would probably prefer to let the clock run out.
July 14: Obama wants health care bill passed before August recess
September 10: Biden: Health care bill 'Before Thanksgiving'
November 10: Reid says health bill will be done by Christmas
At this point, I don't think a bill of any kind will pass before the end of the year. There's no solution in sight for the Lieberman/Nelson problem. The Stupak amendment on abortion threatens to split the Democratic caucus. There's a whole lot of compromising to be done, and several Democrats who would probably prefer to let the clock run out.
Limits of Prediction Markets
Guest post today from Gabriel Weil, who many know from the Intrade forums as GAW38. I think he's one of the smartest guys on the forum, and I hope he posts here more often.
The controversy over US.GOVT.HEALTHPLAN.DEC09, the contract on the public option, illustrates the limits of prediction markets. It's really easy to write a contract for election results and be confident that it will eventually be clear what the expiry prices should be. For legislative outcomes, and other events that involve a wide array of qualitatively different potential results, this task becomes much more difficult. As a result, I usually stay away from such markets. In this case, I took advantage of the situation a little and shorted the public option contract after one of the clarifications, and was able to take a decent profit after the price plunged to single digits.
Interestingly, even after the clarifications, the intrade price continued to be cited as a indicator of the likelihood that the final bill would include a public option. See this post: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/10/the-resurrection-of-the-public-plan.html on Marginal Revolution, a blog run by two George Mason economists, Tyler Cowan and Alex Taborrok. Their colleague, Robin Hanson, is a strong proponent of using prediction markets to guide public policy. I agree that is a project worth exploring, but one of the problems it would run into is developing a mechanism for incorporating the many nuances of public policy with clear and well-defined contract rules. Sure, intrade could be doing a lot better with writing clear rules than it has to date, but it also has the luxury of using broad generalities. Any effort to use prediction markets in policy formation must drill down to a much greater extent to the details on policy debates.
This is one of many challenges that prediction markets like intrade must confront if they are to advance from a curiosity to something of truly great social value and importance. It's also difficult to tell how serious an obstacle this is just yet, because intrade has not made a great effort to overcome it.
The controversy over US.GOVT.HEALTHPLAN.DEC09, the contract on the public option, illustrates the limits of prediction markets. It's really easy to write a contract for election results and be confident that it will eventually be clear what the expiry prices should be. For legislative outcomes, and other events that involve a wide array of qualitatively different potential results, this task becomes much more difficult. As a result, I usually stay away from such markets. In this case, I took advantage of the situation a little and shorted the public option contract after one of the clarifications, and was able to take a decent profit after the price plunged to single digits.
Interestingly, even after the clarifications, the intrade price continued to be cited as a indicator of the likelihood that the final bill would include a public option. See this post: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/10/the-resurrection-of-the-public-plan.html on Marginal Revolution, a blog run by two George Mason economists, Tyler Cowan and Alex Taborrok. Their colleague, Robin Hanson, is a strong proponent of using prediction markets to guide public policy. I agree that is a project worth exploring, but one of the problems it would run into is developing a mechanism for incorporating the many nuances of public policy with clear and well-defined contract rules. Sure, intrade could be doing a lot better with writing clear rules than it has to date, but it also has the luxury of using broad generalities. Any effort to use prediction markets in policy formation must drill down to a much greater extent to the details on policy debates.
This is one of many challenges that prediction markets like intrade must confront if they are to advance from a curiosity to something of truly great social value and importance. It's also difficult to tell how serious an obstacle this is just yet, because intrade has not made a great effort to overcome it.
Why Creigh Deeds failed
Interesting article in Politico about Creigh Deeds' failed campaign strategy. In short, he tried to re-run John Kerry's presidential campaign: go negative on the other guy, and deny you believe in anything. Amazingly, this didn't work out so well.
Memo to all Democrats in 2010: running away from Obama isn't going to make voters consider you separately from him, it's going to make it look like you've got something to hide.
Memo to all Democrats in 2010: running away from Obama isn't going to make voters consider you separately from him, it's going to make it look like you've got something to hide.
Just curious
When exactly was Obama going to get serious about cutting bonuses and firing the bank executives who caused the credit crisis? It's good policy and great politics...
Overinterpreting the election results
There's a lot of Sturm und Drang about what last night's election results mean in terms of Obama and the national political scene. This happens all the time -- when there's an entire industry dedicated to producing political news, people need plenty of opinions to fill airtime. Less than a tenth of what is discussed on the Crossfire-style shows has any impact whatsoever on how people actually vote.
Two principles explain what happened last night:
-When the economy sucks, incumbent parties get whacked.
-The party out of power nearly always wins in off-year elections. These low-turnout elections are dominated by intensity, and the party out of power is always more pissed off than the party in power. In 2001, less than two months after the September 11th attacks, with Bush's approval rating in the upper 80s, Democrats won the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia. Of course, back then the Democrats claimed those elections were a referendum on Bush, and the Republicans said it was no such thing.
NY's 23rd is such a special case that it really shouldn't be extrapolated. Scozzafava was chosen by a committee of Republican insiders, and she was almost certainly chosen because of personal favors and connections. If there had been a primary, Hoffman would have won, and then would have won the general with 60+% of the vote. Instead, the chaos last weekend highlighted just how conservative Hoffman was, and lost him votes from moderate Republicans and independents.
But go ahead, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, dailykos, redstate, mydd, freerepublic, talkingpointsmemo, National Review, The Nation, Weekly Standard, Mother Jones, Air America, littlegreenfootballs, Huffington Post, and facebook: Tell me all about how last night means Americans are rejecting Obama, Sarah Palin, socialism, nutty conservatism, and bipartisanship.
Two principles explain what happened last night:
-When the economy sucks, incumbent parties get whacked.
-The party out of power nearly always wins in off-year elections. These low-turnout elections are dominated by intensity, and the party out of power is always more pissed off than the party in power. In 2001, less than two months after the September 11th attacks, with Bush's approval rating in the upper 80s, Democrats won the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia. Of course, back then the Democrats claimed those elections were a referendum on Bush, and the Republicans said it was no such thing.
NY's 23rd is such a special case that it really shouldn't be extrapolated. Scozzafava was chosen by a committee of Republican insiders, and she was almost certainly chosen because of personal favors and connections. If there had been a primary, Hoffman would have won, and then would have won the general with 60+% of the vote. Instead, the chaos last weekend highlighted just how conservative Hoffman was, and lost him votes from moderate Republicans and independents.
But go ahead, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, dailykos, redstate, mydd, freerepublic, talkingpointsmemo, National Review, The Nation, Weekly Standard, Mother Jones, Air America, littlegreenfootballs, Huffington Post, and facebook: Tell me all about how last night means Americans are rejecting Obama, Sarah Palin, socialism, nutty conservatism, and bipartisanship.
Eh.
Made a couple hundred bucks last night. Highlights:
-Sold a good bit of my Hoffman position in the 75-85 range before polls closed.
-Bought a bunch of Christie at 30-40 around 6 PM when the exit polls were saying 57% of NJ voters approved of Obama.
Lowlights:
-Sussex county, NJ, reported its results wrong for about 15 minutes. It's a very Republican county, but initially turned in results showing 65%+ for Corzine. This messed up my model and resulted in some bad trades.
-Took a long-shot on Hoffman later in the evening when it appeared that he was outperforming in certain counties. Obviously that didn't turn out.
Overall, I get the feeling that the tenor of the Intrade markets has changed. There's a lot less dumb money out there than there used to be. In 2008, there were plenty of people basically betting their favorites without regard to odds. By now it seems most of those people have either lost their money, withdrawn it, or gotten smart.
-Sold a good bit of my Hoffman position in the 75-85 range before polls closed.
-Bought a bunch of Christie at 30-40 around 6 PM when the exit polls were saying 57% of NJ voters approved of Obama.
Lowlights:
-Sussex county, NJ, reported its results wrong for about 15 minutes. It's a very Republican county, but initially turned in results showing 65%+ for Corzine. This messed up my model and resulted in some bad trades.
-Took a long-shot on Hoffman later in the evening when it appeared that he was outperforming in certain counties. Obviously that didn't turn out.
Overall, I get the feeling that the tenor of the Intrade markets has changed. There's a lot less dumb money out there than there used to be. In 2008, there were plenty of people basically betting their favorites without regard to odds. By now it seems most of those people have either lost their money, withdrawn it, or gotten smart.
More meta-predictions
The Hoffman-Owens contest has gone to 80-20 on Intrade. Hoffman will continue to gain until polls close, possibly touching 90.
In New Jersey, Corzine will drop to 40 before the polls close. The exit polls will show a race too close to call. Early results will favor Christie, with urban areas coming in for Corzine later in the night.
McDonnell gets declared winner as soon as polls close in Virginia.
I'll be trading in large volume tonight.
Key times:
7 PM ET: Polls close in Virginia.
8 PM ET: Polls close in New Jersey.
9 PM ET: Polls close in NY-23.
In New Jersey, Corzine will drop to 40 before the polls close. The exit polls will show a race too close to call. Early results will favor Christie, with urban areas coming in for Corzine later in the night.
McDonnell gets declared winner as soon as polls close in Virginia.
I'll be trading in large volume tonight.
Key times:
7 PM ET: Polls close in Virginia.
8 PM ET: Polls close in New Jersey.
9 PM ET: Polls close in NY-23.
For the Record
Here are my picks to win. Note that this is independent of the Intrade odds, just who I think is a favorite.
Virginia: McDonnell is a slam dunk. Deeds ran an uninspired campaign and will lose by 10% or worse.
NY-23: Hoffman. Siena has Hoffman up by 5, PPP has him up by 15. Hoffman's supporters are much more fired up than Owens', which matters a lot in off-year special elections. Siena also found 18% undecided, which injects a bit of uncertainty, but I think most of those people are going to stay home. I wouldn't be surprised if Hoffman wins by more than 10%, or if he wins in a squeaker. I would be quite surprised if Owens wins by better than a few points.
NJ: Christie, but it'll be very, very close. The average poll has Christie up by 2-3 points. That'll be balanced out by Corzine's organizational advantage. Tie-breaker goes to a Republican base which is more energized for Corzine. Daggett will pull 10-15%, and exit polls will show those voters would have split about evenly or stayed home had Daggett not run.
Maine Gay Marriage ballot: Polls have put this at 50/50. In keeping with the theme of an energized conservative base, I think gay marriage gets banned in a close vote. Beyond the liberal/conservative split, this issue has a difference between younger and older voters. Older voters will turn out in much better numbers, especially when there's nothing else important on the ballot.
Special bonus meta-prediction: Nate Silver will make all the same calls, complete with extensive hedging about the NJ race.
Virginia: McDonnell is a slam dunk. Deeds ran an uninspired campaign and will lose by 10% or worse.
NY-23: Hoffman. Siena has Hoffman up by 5, PPP has him up by 15. Hoffman's supporters are much more fired up than Owens', which matters a lot in off-year special elections. Siena also found 18% undecided, which injects a bit of uncertainty, but I think most of those people are going to stay home. I wouldn't be surprised if Hoffman wins by more than 10%, or if he wins in a squeaker. I would be quite surprised if Owens wins by better than a few points.
NJ: Christie, but it'll be very, very close. The average poll has Christie up by 2-3 points. That'll be balanced out by Corzine's organizational advantage. Tie-breaker goes to a Republican base which is more energized for Corzine. Daggett will pull 10-15%, and exit polls will show those voters would have split about evenly or stayed home had Daggett not run.
Maine Gay Marriage ballot: Polls have put this at 50/50. In keeping with the theme of an energized conservative base, I think gay marriage gets banned in a close vote. Beyond the liberal/conservative split, this issue has a difference between younger and older voters. Older voters will turn out in much better numbers, especially when there's nothing else important on the ballot.
Special bonus meta-prediction: Nate Silver will make all the same calls, complete with extensive hedging about the NJ race.