Polls Show Race Tightening, But Democrats Still Have Uphill Battle

If you were to follow the conventional wisdom coming from the news media pundits you might believe that the Democrats are facing certain doom and Barack Obama is highly unpopular. There is still over a month before the election and there are signs that the election is tightening. While both houses of Congress are now in play, it is too early to predict the results. One problem with the conventional wisdom saying that the Democrats will do poorly is that this could influence behavior and harm Democratic chances, such as by reducing contributions when donors believe the race is futile.

The latest polls are showing that the difference in the generic ballot and in enthusiasm are not looking as badly for Democrats as previously. Republicans might have been more enthusiastic for months about a chance to vote out the Democrats, but the prospect of the extremist ideas of the GOP dominating Congress is starting to make more Democrats  interested in voting. Democrats remain at a disadvantage in having to defend many seats which have traditionally been held by Republicans before the 2006 and 2008 elections. Voters in off-year elections are also more likely to be older and more partisan as opposed to the younger and more independent voters who propelled Obama to victory.

While Obama’s popularity is down (as Ronald Reagan’s was at this point in his presidency), the claim coming from many Republicans that Democrats wish to distance themselves for Obama, like most memes spread by the right wing media, is false. Democratic leaders are actually encouraging Obama to campaign more, knowing that he can often connect with the voters more successfully than members of Congress can. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Obama is not on the ballot and Democratic candidates still have to get a discouraged electorate to turn out to vote for them.

Some of the polls do not mean very much but make for some interesting discussion. Besides showing a tightening in the race, the recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll tried to show what the electorate wants and does not want. The manner in which this was reported gave a false impression of contradictory results as there are sizable numbers of both Democrats and Republicans answering making the desires of both come out high in the results. That said, here is how NBC summarized what voters don’t want:

And here are the most unacceptable outcomes: Palin becoming the GOP’s leading spokesperson (55% unacceptable), Pelosi continuing as speaker (51%), the Democrats continuing to hold the majority in Congress (42%), and the Tea Party becoming a major force in Congress (41%). If some of these results seem somewhat contradictory, well, they are. But these two lists do give you a gauge — however imperfect — what voters want and what they don’t. Here’s a final set of numbers: 41% said it’s an acceptable outcome if President Obama is dealt a setback in the midterms, while an identical 41% said it would be unacceptable, which is just more evidence that November will be more of a referendum on the economy and Washington than on the president.

It is a good sign that a majority do not want Palin leading the Republican Party, but I’m surprised by how much worse she came out here compared to the Tea Party.

If we bought the argument that Obama is to blame for the Democrats’ problems, the natural question would be whether he is susceptible to a primary challenge within his own party. In a poll which has near zero predictive value of what would happen in an actual race, Gallup found that Obama leads Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical Democratic primary race by 52 percent to 37 percent. Not surprisingly, Obama does better among liberals while the more conservative Clinton does better among conservative and female voters.

Rand Paul Wants To Keep His Views On Medicare Out Of Political Campaign

If you read conservative publications and pay close attention to conservative politicians when they are speaking about their beliefs as opposed to campaigning for office you will note that their beliefs are often far more radical than the platforms they campaign on. Rand Paul has been caught trying to pass himself as someone who is not as extreme as he actually is and is furious that is opponent,  Jack Conway, has brought up old statements from Paul which are documented on YouTube:

Democrat Jack Conway appeals to retired voters with his latest attack in the Senate race, airing a television ad that shows Republican Rand Paul saying “the real answer to Medicare” would be for seniors to pay a $2,000 deductible.

Paul denounced the ad that began airing Tuesday as “politics at its lowest form.” The tea party movement-backed Paul said he doesn’t favor a $2,000 Medicare deductible, though he referred to it during a political meeting about 15 months ago to make the point that recipients need to share in the costs of the health care program for seniors, which faces looming shortfalls.

Rand Paul obviously realizes that it is not wise to discuss his actual views in the midst of a political campaign and to try to pretend he is not as radical as he actually is. Paul now claims that Conway’s ad is a lie, but Conway is supported by video of Paul on YouTube:

Conway’s campaign said it culled Paul’s comments from a June 2009 appearance in Lexington. The clip could be viewed on a YouTube video of Paul addressing leaders of the Center-Right Coalition of Lexington. During his remarks, Paul referred to Medicare as “socialized medicine” but also said, “We can’t just eliminate Medicare.”

“But we have to figure out how to get more to a market-based system,” Paul says during the clip. “It’s counterintuitive to a lot of people, but you have to pay for things if you want prices to come down. So you really need higher deductibles. And the real answer to Medicare would be a $2,000 deductible, but try selling that one in an election.”

Paul is clearly wrong in objecting to his own words and ideas being raised in the campaign. He is also wrong about the economic ideas. This gets back to a couple of common misconceptions among Republicans–that most Medicare beneficiaries can afford to pay for needed services out of pocket and that health care is so expensive because people are obtaining unneeded health care.

Obviously the financial status of Medicare beneficiaries varies widely, but many could not afford a $2000 deductible. Such a deductible would lead to lower Medicare expenses in the short run. The ultimate result would be that many people would avoid paying for routine treatment of chronic diseases, which is very common in the Medicare population. This leads to higher costs in the long run (along with a deterioration in the quality of life for our elderly population) as it is far more expensive to pay for the catastrophic results of lack of routine medical care.

Barack Obama on the Tea Party, Fox, Criticism From The Left, His Accomplishments, and Climate Change

Rolling Stone features an interview with Barack Obama in the October 15 issue. Here are some of the key points, beginning with Obama’s view of the Tea Party as he diplomatically mentioned but played down the xenophobia and racism seen in many supporters:

What do you think of the Tea Party and the people behind it?
I think the Tea Party is an amalgam, a mixed bag of a lot of different strains in American politics that have been there for a long time. There are some strong and sincere libertarians who are in the Tea Party who generally don’t believe in government intervention in the market or socially. There are some social conservatives in the Tea Party who are rejecting me the same way they rejected Bill Clinton, the same way they would reject any Democratic president as being too liberal or too progressive. There are strains in the Tea Party that are troubled by what they saw as a series of instances in which the middle-class and working-class people have been abused or hurt by special interests and Washington, but their anger is misdirected.

And then there are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the president. So I think it’s hard to characterize the Tea Party as a whole, and I think it’s still defining itself.

Obama also was asked about Fox (which is a bit redundant after he was asked about the Republican Party and the Tea Party in previous questions):

What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it’s a good institution for America and for democracy?
[Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.

(more…)

The Blogosphere vs. Barack Obama

I feel like the we have returned to the days of the 2008 Democratic Primary as a number of liberal bloggers (primarily but not entirely Clinton supporters) have spent the day bashing Obama. The latest round of this got underway with a blog post from Peter Daou (who worked for Hillary Clinton) and was picked up by the usual suspects. Others, such as Ezra Klein and Steve Benen, put the dispute into perspective, with Steve referring back to a recent post which outlined many of the liberal accomplishments under Obama which some on the left often ignore.

From a political perspective, Daou is overstating the problem when claiming that liberal bloggers such as “Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, Digby, Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hamsher” are “bringing down the Obama presidency.” Most people haven’t even heard of these bloggers, and polls have shown a very high level of support for Obama among liberals and traditional Democratic voters. Many liberals can handle acknowledging Obama’s accomplishments and showing some understanding of the political situation he is working in while also disagreeing on some issues.

On the other hand, we have seen a number of signs that this criticism is getting under Obama’s skin (along with that of close associates like David Axelrod). It is a safe bet that they are surprised by the amount of criticism they are receiving from those they expected support from. However to claim they are bringing down Obama is absurd. I think that Obama, as well as the Congressional Democrats, face far more problems due to the apathy towards voting from the average voter who is disillusioned by the slow progress on the economy than they are harmed by those who are upset by compromising of progressive principles.

This is not to say that all of those engaging in the Obama bashing today are sore losers among the Clintonistas or that there is no validity to their complaints. Those such as Glenn Greenwald who concentrate on civil liberties issues do have more to legitimately complain about. Even here a bit of perspective is needed from those who claim that Obama is worse than Bush. Obama is well aware that should there be another terrorist attack on his watch the right will blame it on any areas where they could argue Obama let up on the “war on terror.” This could easily result in a right wing backlash with greater restrictions on civil liberties.

It is of value for bloggers such as Greenwald to point out the problems with Obama’s policies but more of a sense of perspective is needed. Some of Obama’s decisions have been wrong, but we are hardly living in a dictatorial police state, or even in a state as bad as we would have under the Republicans as some on the far left claim. (It is also notable that the tea party supporters who attack Obama for a number of imaginary offenses have largely been silent on these issues).

I also could not help but think, seeing how many primary opponents of Obama are leading the attacks, that most likely either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards would be far to the right of Barack Obama on these issues based upon their past records.

While advocates of a single payer system have many valid arguments, it was disappointing during the health care debate to see some such as Jane Hamsher distort the Democratic plan as dishonestly as was done by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Besides, there was zero chance that a single payer plan would pass.

Obama’s mistake here it was more on selling reform as opposed to the type of reform which was passed. The Democrats were delusional to think opposition to health care reform would vanish after passing it, especially when most of the benefits won’t be seen for a couple more years. I don’t buy the argument being made by some that initially pushing for an agenda which is further left would lead to more liberal results, but on health care I do believe that it could have affected public perception of the plan.

Obama antagonized many liberals for quickly shooting down any chance of a single payer plan and also played into the hands of Republicans who falsely claim that his plan represents a government takeover of health care. Imagine if Obama had started out saying there are basically four ideas which might be considered:

  1. “Socialized medicine” where there will be a government run health care system and government bureaucrats run the system.
  2. A single payer plan, like Medicare, in which government pays instead of private insurance companies, with health care facilities remaining in private hands.
  3. A mixed plan similar to the Republican counter-proposal to the Clinton health care plan with controls over what insurance companies could do, exchanges to promote sales of private plans, etc.
  4. Continuing the status quo where bureaucrats from the insurance companies often make the decisions and where many people are denied insurance coverage entirely.

Obama then could reject both socialized medicine and the status quo. When he ultimately went with #3 it would be more accurately framed as a moderate option to the status quo and not a radical plan. Maybe such framing would have even made it easier to push for the public option, which would still be a long way from the rejected choice of socialized medicine.

Democrats Challenging Republicans Incumbents In Some Districts

Between a bad economy (even if caused by Republican policies) and needing to defend many former Republican-controlled districts, it is inevitable that the Democrats will lose some seats this year. The problem is worsened in an off-year election when younger, more liberal voters are historically less likely to vote. Just based upon these trends it was easy to predict short term gains for Republicans in 2010, while long term demographic trends favor the Democrats. In some areas these demographic trends are already being seen and might help reduce GOP gains in 2010.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Democrats are targeting seventeen districts now held by Republicans but where there is a chance to win. These are districts which have younger voters, a larger number of immigrants, and districts which voted for Obama in 2008.

At the core of the Democrats’ strategy is demographics. The 17 districts are largely places that have been transformed by infusions of young people and immigrants, changing their character and – Democrats hope – making them ripe for a switch from red to blue on the congressional map. In this way, California’s Third District is a window into one of the rare places where Democrats are not on the defensive, but instead are seeking to turn the antiestablishment mood of this election cycle to their advantage.

While Republicans across the country are targeting Democrats for supporting an unloved legislative agenda that has failed to prompt strong economic growth, Democrats like Bera are trying to turn that message on its head. They paint Republican incumbents as agents of Washington gridlock for their near-lock-step opposition to President Obama’s initiatives. In areas trending less conservative, the message could resonate.

Many pundits are arguing that Republicans have the momentum this year which will help them to victory in races which otherwise might be competitive. They claim this could be a wave election where the close seats all go in one direction. While too early to say if this is true, this belief is largely based on the flawed and inconsistent generic Congressional ballots. To assume that Republican incumbents cannot be beaten because of this misses four key points:

  1. Democrats have been improving on the generic ballot in several recent polls
  2. Even polls that show a majority plan to vote Democratic, dislike of Republicans is high, suggesting that at least some Republican incumbents are still vulnerable if the Democrats put up a good candidate to oppose them
  3. Republican leads in the generic ballot were based upon large leads in southern and mountain west states with Democrats leading in the rest of the country
  4. There are still several weeks to go and the election is far from over

SciFi Weekend: The Event, Fringe, Big Bang vs. Community, and Preparing for First Contact

The Event had its premier episode this week and was widely compared to Lost. The unfavorable nature of some of the comparisons is a little unfair as Lost had two hours to set up the situation in its pilot episode.  Lost also started out more modestly, appearing to be a show about survivors of a plane crash. We gradually learned how far more complicated the show’s mythology would be.

On The Event we quickly find that things are very complicated–and the conspiracy is far more elaborate than that on AMC’s more cerebral conspiracy show, Rubicon. It appears that a group is being held in a number of prisons for knowing a secret which most of the show’s characters seem to know about but the viewer does not. A new president threatens to reveal the information to the public and set the prisoners free, leading to a possible assassination attempt. The narrative is confused by constantly jumping around in time making Lost’s use of two time periods in many episodes seem easy to follow by comparison.

The other big event of the episode involved Sean Walker going on a cruise with his girl friend, who disappeared without any sign that the two were ever passengers. (It shows that when traveling with one’s girl friend it is unsafe to go scuba diving with an even hotter girl.)  This is interspersed with scenes of Sean trying to get into the cabin of a plane being piloted by the girl friend’s father, who we are led to believe is being forced to fly the plane into a presidential compound in Florida because of having his two daughter’s kidnapped. It also appears his wife was killed, but the scene left open the possibility she survived. We also don’t know for certain that Sean’s girl friend was really taken against her will. She might even be in on the conspiracy for all we know.

All the jumping around in time was to build up to the conclusion where the plane disappeared from the sky, setting up a big mystery which will hopefully be answered this week.  Theories being discussed include alien technology and jumping to another dimension. If we are really dealing with another dimension, this even leaves open the possibility that Sean somehow was moved to an almost identical cruise ship in another dimension where he was never a passenger traveling with his girl friend.

If this is a matter of two alternative earths it would risk being too much like Fringe, which returned on Thursday. Last season ended with a great cliff-hanger as Olivia was imprisoned on the alternative earth while their Olivia had infiltrated the Fringe squad. Word had leaked over the summer that Olivia would escape during the first episode, but they had a great twist in having the alternative Olivia’s memories be implanted into Olivia.

Besides the return of Fringe, Thursday demonstrated why DVR’s are necessary. CBS decided to take on NBC’s comedy line up by putting Big Bang Theory and William Shatner’s new show, $#*! My Dad Says (based upon this Twitter feed) on Thursday. Besides this battle of two of the best comedies on television at 8:00, ABC’s drama My Generation also looks like it is worth watching.

While both shows are worth watching regularly, this week Big Bang Theory started the season with a better episode than Community. Big Bang Theory had two strong plot lines. Sheldon, played by Emmy Award winner Jim Parsons, had his first date with Amy, played by Mayim Bialic, with Penny along to drive and try to stimulate conversation. Sheldon even managed to work in an attack on community college degrees. I wonder if this was a shot meant for the new competition. Meanwhile Wolowitz brought home a robotic arm being developed for NASA and wound up using it in a way Christine O’Donnell would not approve of.

I thought the season premiere of Community was below the quality of many of last season’s episodes because of trying to do too much in one episode. Betty White was fantastic, but her use was limited by trying to resolve last season’s cliff hanger far too quickly. The responses by Jeff and Britta to the situation could easily have been spread out over a few episodes rather than trying to reset the show in the first episode.

If Jeff wasn’t going to wind up with Britta or Professor Slater, there’s that matter of the kiss with Annie at the end of the episode–along with the obvious chemistry between them earlier in the season. Jeff acts as if Annie is a child and the episode suggests their relationship isn’t going anywhere. Annie is played by Alison Brie (who also plays Trudy Campbell on Mad Men) and as can be seen in the picture of her above is clearly no child. I bet that we see more of Jeff and Annie this season.

Chang, now a student instead of Spanish teacher, looked like Golum with his thoughts of revenge against the study group. It was an amusing scene but again it felt like too much was being thrown into one episode. It would probably work better if there were only occasional episodes devoted to Chang but the manner in which network sit-coms are done means that a regular character will be used pretty much every week.

Later this season Hilary Duff will guest star in an episode which shows a Mean Girls type clique going up against the Greendale students.

Having moved on to sit-coms, I can’t help but note what we learned on How I Met Your Mother. After going out with Ted, Cindy (Rachel Bilson) has given up on men and wound up kissing the girl who we were led to believe just might turn out to be Ted’s future wife (played by Kaylee Defer).  With Cindy no longer mad at him, the chances might be better for Ted to meet her room mate, but we learn that he is fated to meet her while best man at a wedding. (Could it be Barney’s?)

If The Event does turn out to involve contact with extraterrestrials, as some theorize, readers should be relieved to know that the United Nations is prepared should such an event actually occur:

The United Nations was set today to appoint an obscure Malaysian astrophysicist to act as Earth’s first contact for any aliens that may come visiting.

She is scheduled to tell delegates that the recent discovery of hundreds of planets around other stars has made the detection of extraterrestrial life more likely than ever before – and that means the UN must be ready to coordinate humanity’s response to any “first contact”.

Mazlan Othman, the head of the UN’s little-known Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa), is to describe her potential new role next week at a scientific conference at the Royal Society’s Kavli conference centre in Buckinghamshire.

But what if the aliens demand to be taken to our leader? (Or maybe they did come and request this following the 2000 election and left in confusion).

Christine O’Donnell’s Ignorance of Science

Last week’s clip from Bill Maher showing how Christine O’Donnell dabbled in witchcraft was amusing but not of much consequence. This week’s clip should be sufficient to demonstrate that Christine O’Donnell is not qualified to be in being in the Senate. Unfortunately her ignorance about evolution is shared by far too many Republicans.

Here’s a portion of the exchange:

O’DONNELL: You know what, evolution is a myth. And even Darwin himself –

MAHER: Evolution is a myth?!? Have you ever looked at a monkey!

O’DONNELL: Well then, why they — why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?

Evolution, of course, rather than being a myth has been proven to be true and has become the basis of modern biology.

Bill Maher, while far ahead of Christine O’Donnell, has never been the greatest on scientific issues. He knew enough to realize the O’Donnell was wrong, but his response also is not entirely correct. Yes, as he said, evolution is slow, and we could not expect observe this in monkeys.  He missed the point that evolution is not about monkeys evolving into humans. Monkeys and humans have common ancestors. Monkeys and humans are continuing to evolve (at too slow a rate to observe), but modern monkeys are evolving into something totally different from humans.

It also appears that O’Donnell was going to repeat a claim made by some creationists that Darwin ultimately decided against evolution. This claim, as with pretty much all claims made by creationists, is false.

Christine O’Donnell’s Crusade To Stop The Whole Country From Having Sex

Christine O’Donnell “going to stop the whole country from having sex.” Actually from the context it looks like she is primarily speaking of abstinence education, but even getting that to work universally is an unrealistic goal. There will always be those, such as Bristol Palin, who can’t just say no.

Here’s a partial transcript:

NIES: I tell them to be careful. You have to wear a condom. You have to protect yourself when you’re going to have sex, because they’re having it anyway.

NIES: There’s nothing that you or me can do about it.

O’DONNELL: The sad reality is — yes, there is something you can do about it. And the sad reality, to tell them slap on a condom is not —

NIES: You’re going to stop the whole country from having sex?

O’DONNELL: Yeah. Yeah!

NIES: You’re living on a prayer if you think that’s going to happen.

O’DONNELL: That’s not true. I’m a young woman in my thirties and I remain chaste.

Quote of the Day

“I have never been in a tanning bed or used a tanning product.” — House Minority Leader John Boehner

I believe him. Vampires do tend to avoid the sun.

Facebook is Down

Facebook is down. Worldwide communications are stopped. I believe this is what led to the fall of the Roman Empire.