Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission relaxed rules preventing TV stations and newspapers from owning each other in local markets. This was a very bad thing. Tonight, the Senate passed by a near universal voice vote a resolution of disapproval that would nullify this rule. It's in the House as well, and while the President will veto it, the next President will not.
If I were a media executive at a big outlet, I'd be getting very nervous about what a Democratic administration and a new progressive Congress will bring. The Pentagon Pundits scandal is the smoking gun, with the WGA strike big media lost its labor allies, and it's clear that the media executives don't get how much legitimacy they have lost. It's as if they have rerun the Quiz Show scandal, only this time with bullets and trillions of dollar.
Republican Kevin Martin, the current head of the FCC and a presumptive North Carolina politician, was shown as politically incompetent tonight. Less than 1% of the public comments supported his move to allow more media consolidation, and now the Senate is mad. A rule of thumb, Kevin, in case you're reading. You shouldn't make the Senate angry. You won't like them when they're angry.
Today, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting 'present'. They are trying to hand off the war to the Democrats, but even Democrats were able to increase their 'no' vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed. In a separate bill, Republicans also voted against timelines, for torture, and accountability for military contractors, including various elements of a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. This bill passed with 227 votes; last year, it passed with only 218 votes, for a gain of 9.
Finally the GI bill passed with overwhelming margin of 256 votes in the House, including 32 Republicans. It included a war surtax of one half of one percent on people making over $500k a year to pay for the GI bill, at the behest of Blue Dogs. This might actually be the most remarkable piece of the votes today; conservative Democrats agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for educational benefits for veterans. Bill Foster and Don Cazayoux both voted well on the new GI Bill and on the Responsible Plan bill with timelines, but were 'yes' votes on war funding. So yes, they are conservative, and I expect Childers to be conservative as well. Still, the MS-01, the IL-14 special election result, and the LA-06 special election result - all red seats picked off by Democrats - are devastating Republican discipline in the House.
This war is going to end because it is politically unsustainable. The Senate is going to add the funding back in and the House will make sure the money goes to the war, but recognize how big a deal this is. The Republicans in the House and the Senate are going to utterly collapse this fall, and Democrats will have a mandate to end the war. It's something Obama has promised to do, and now the political logic there is undeniable. The question is whether there will be residual troops in the country, and that is where we can have an impact.
An end to this war means no more troops in Iraq. The Republicans are going to face, as Tom Matzzie said, extinction, because they kept the war going.
For some time now, Chris has been arguing for notion of picking a Vice-Presidential candidate based on reinforcing the Presidential candidate's message, rather than balancing their politics with another candidate who can helpe consolidate the diversity of a broad coaltion. Taking off from my earlier diary about Edwards as a possible running mate--"A Different Dream Team? Obama/Edwards"--I want to focus on what I see as a logical extension of Chris's thinking, which might at first appear contradictory to some.
Basically, I'm arguing that by choosing Edwards as his running mate--and thus balancing his ticket with someone who can appeal to the core white working-class demographic that has been Clinton's base of support--Obama can in fact reinforce what he is all about. Let me be clear. He will be filling a defecit, there are no two ways about it. But many of his supporters will claim that this is only a perceived deficit.
This is at least an arguable proposition, and the choice of Edwards, over the course of the campaign, gives Obama--and Edwards--a chance to prove them right. That's the trick that could allows Edwards to be both a "balancing" and a "reinforcing" candidate, and the end result would be a much more robust model of just what it is that Obama stands for--which is why it would be such a potent, powerful move on Obama's part.
The House just had three separate votes on Iraq today, with some surprising results.
The first vote was on the funding for the war, which seems to have failed due to a lot of Democratic opposition and wave of "present" votes from Republicans.
The second vote was on a timeline for withdrawal, which narrowly passed with Democratic defections and eight Republican defections. From what I can tell, Kucinich was the only lefty dissenter on this bill, and the other twelve were Bush Dogs. Not sure what Kucinich's objections were, as even Pete Stark voted in favor.
The third vote was on an extension of the unemployment benefits and fun the new GI Bill. It passed pretty easily, with thirty-two Republican crossovers and seven Bush Dogs in opposition.
Not sure where we go from here, but it is really interesting that the war funding was defeated. One 132 Republicans voted "present," while 147 Democrats voted "nay." The net result was a bizarre final tally of 149-141, and a defeat of war funding. Looks like this was a scheme cooked up by Republicans to get Democrats to defeat war funding. Of course, since the Republicans themselves didn't vote for it, I'm not sure what their genius plan is here. I'm sure it will probably about as effective as their recent electoral efforts.
Update 2--Fallon Flips Boswell On War Funding: In yet another confirmation of the general rule that primaries are just about the only way to influence Democratic behavior, Leonard Boswell, facing a progressive primary challenge from Ed Fallon, was one of the only Democrats to flip and vote against war funding. Last year, House Democrats voted 86 in favor, 140 opposed to Iraq war funding. This year, they voted 85 in favor, 147 opposed. Very few gains, but Boswell was one of the only gains. Primaries make a difference.
This post was written by Harry Moroz and cross-posted from the DMI blog.
"We need to imagine just what a clean, safe, efficient, dynamic, stimulating, just city would look like concretely - we need those images to confront critically our masters with what they should be doing - and just this critical imagination of the city is weak."
Campaign websites - like town hall speeches, candidate adverts, and whisky drinking - are fair game when analyzing the presidential candidates. Indeed, when a few big picture issues like health care or the Iraq War dominate campaign conversation, these websites can be the curious voter's only entrée into a candidate's views on niche issues. Likewise, when the ravenous punditocracy belabors the collective consciousness with stories of vitriolic pastors and gas tax holidays, the campaign websites can be the honest voter's only escape to meaningful policy, disassociated from reality as it may be.
That is why I feel so comfortable applauding Senator Obama's recent addition of an "Urban Policy" tab to the dropdown menu in the upper-left-hand section of the horizontal toolbar labeled "Issues" on his campaign website. In fact, Obama had several months ago released an initial urban plan that called for a White House Office of Urban Policy, "promise neighborhoods" to combat concentrated poverty, increased money for reverse commuters, and an affordable housing trust fund. Senator Clinton, too, had released a plan for "revitalizing our cities" that called for increased funding for early education, green buildings and green jobs, and infrastructure. Both candidates' plans would revive helpful programs that have been left, as Mayor Shirley Franklin of Atlanta might put it, to shrivel up and die. Fair enough.
Just wanted to let regular readers in on a project I've been toiling away at for some time that's now coming to fruition. I am scheduled to have a piece in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine that deals with some interesting issues boiling up in key swing states. I'll have more to say about the article when it comes out, but that's all I'll say for now. Be sure to check it out when it comes out and send me your feedback.
My curiosity got the better of me today and I went over to DemConWatch and counted up how many superdelegates have endorsed from each state or territory. A moving target, of course; the map already needs an update!
Here's the map:
Click to enlarge.
The color of the state shows the margin among declared superdelegates only. The size of the circles is proportional to the superdelegate lead in a given state.
Below, a comparison to the pledged delegate map, some trivia and an update to the county-by-county results map.
"Progressive Media will not be running an independent ad campaign this year," David Brock, the head of the organization, confirmed in a statement obtained by The Fix this morning.
"Progressive Media was established to be an independent on-going progressive issue advocacy organization," Brock added. "We were not established for one issue, one candidate or one election cycle. But donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality."
Independent outside advertising groups will not play a role this cycle. If you're wearing your Democrat hat, don't worry. Here's Paul Krugman comparing the economy to electoral outcomes using a model from Alan Abramowitz.
Right now, GDP is flat (falling in the monthly estimates); Bush has a negative net approval of 30 percent or more; and people are tired of Republicans. So it ought to be a smashing Democratic victory. When I plug current numbers into the Abramowitz model (making a guess about 1st-half GDP and assuming that Bush approval in June will be about where it is today), it says 57-43 Democrats.
Democrats are going to romp. On the other hand, Obama is calling himself a 'former liberal', so progressives have work to do to make this a progressive victory not just a Democratic one. Remember, for all his caution, Obama has also said the following.
"I didn't' say I liked Ronald Reagan's policies," Obama explained. "What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward."
UPDATE: The 'former liberal' comment was apparently a slip-up.
The Polling News is part of a new series on Open Left that I will publish every day between roughly noon and 1 p.m. eastern. It will provide a quick summary of the national polling picture, followed by analysis of that picture--Chris
Sixteen polling firms have released national popular preferences polls over the last month, and the most recent poll from fourteen of those polling firms shows Barack Obama ahead of John McCain. In polls conducted this month, Gallup, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, ABC News / WaPo, NPR / GQR, LA Times / Bloomberg, AP-Ipsos, CBS / NYT, Hotline / FD, CNN, NBC / WSJ, Pew and Cook / RT Strategies all show Obama ahead in their most recent public polls. Only two holdouts, Fox News and The Economist, show McCain ahead.
Given these numbers, I was more than a little surprised to see that 538 was still projecting McCain ahead in the popular vote. If 14 polling firms are showing Obama ahead, and only 2 polling firms are showing McCain ahead, what methodology could possibly conclude that McCain actually holds a narrow lead. The answer is found in 538's FAQ:
Are polls weighted by the number of respondents? Yes, although the methodology is a little involved. For a fuller explanation, see here.
How do you adjust for the recentness of a poll? Polls are treated as having a half-life of 30 days.
Poblano weighs polls based on the size of their polling sample, and also includes older polls in his averages on a declining, half-life basis. He reached this formula by doing an analysis of state polls over three elections: 2000, 2004 and 2006 (not sure why 2002 was excluded). The problem with this methodology when applied to the national popular vote in the current presidential election is that it will create an average that is overwhelmingly slanted toward the two daily tracking polls: Gallup and Rasmussen. Basically, the 538 national average is a glass of Gallup and Rasmussen, with all other polling firms serving as little more than the umbrella in the drink.
This is for two reasons. First, since Gallup and Rasmussen will each release 30 polls over the course of 30 days, together their 60 polls over the last 30 days will always compose the vast majority of all polls currently given weight in the 538 average. Second, the massive sample sizes of these two polls will further skew the 538 averages in favor of Gallup and Rasmussen. While most media pollsters publish polls with between 900 and 1200 voters in their samples, Gallup averages around 4,400 voters in its daily tracking poll, and Rasmussen averages around 1,600. It is a Gallup and Rasmussen domination. All other national polls in the 538 average are simply garnish.
This is how 538 can show McCain narrowly ahead even though 14 of 16 polling firms currently show Obama ahead. From April 10-24, and again from April 30-May 5th, Rasmussen defied virtually all other pollsters by consistently showing McCain with a dominating lead over Obama. Gallup did the same thing from April 28-May 5, again defying virtually all other polls. Along with the Fox News and The Economist polls, these older Gallup and Rasmussen polls are given enough weight to cancel out not just the twelve other pollsters, but also the current Gallup and Rasmussen results.
Much the same can be said about Survey USA and Rasmussen in current state polling. A quick glance down the right hand column of 538, or over the electoral map at Electoral-Vote.com, shows that Survey USA and Rasmussen make up more than half of all state polls for every single state. The difference between the state polls and the national polls, however, is that data options from other polling firms at the sate level are not numerous enough to create a viable alternative state polling picture to the one provided by the two dominant firms. On the state level, until other firms start releasing more data in September, we don't really have any other choice but to go with whatever Rasmussen and Survey USA put in front of us. By contrast, on the national level, we have more than a dozen other firms that should probably be given equal weight to Gallup and Rasmussen.
Just because Gallup, Rasmussen and Survey USA are far more numerous does not make them better. Right now, my personal favorite on the national polling front is Pollster.com, which weights for "house effects" across all polling firms through its regression line method. Essentially, it provides you with the median result for all polling firms, and prevents any single outlying poll or polling firm from overly influencing the current average.
Finally, while some might object that the presidential general election is actually fifty-one separate contests in the fifty state plus D.C., rather than a national contest, I content that state level results are closely tied to national results. That is, if one candidate is rising nationally, that candidate is probably rising in virtually all states as well. Since we won't have enough state-level polling information until about September to make assessments of each state independent of national polls, for now it is reasonable to assume that the candidate with a 3% or greater lead nationally is also ahead in the electoral vote. That may not be the case the entire campaign, but for now, in order to avoid polling averages dominated by only two polling firms, and in order to avoid the problems caused by a general lack of information at the state level, it is as good an assumption as any.
Update: It appears that 538 does not derive its national numbers from national polls, and the above quote was only refering to state polls. So, most of this piece is bunk, because I don't really have a problem with 538's state by state analysis. I guess maybe it could all be seen as a warning against a possible poll averaging method that wouldn't work.
The New America Foundation brands itself as a vaguely progressive organization that exists to "bring exceptionally promising new voices and new ideas to the fore of our nation's public discourse." The organization raises funds from progressive donors - funds that could go to all sorts of progressive causes. As a progressive you may be fine with that, except when you read this invitation:
Grover Norquist on the Next Republicanism
Sign up to Attend this New America Event
Of the two competing coalitions in American politics -- the "leave us alone" coalition and the "takings" coalition -- Grover Norquist argues that the "leave us alone" coalition is growing in both power and size and will continue to do so with the next generation. The debate stretches beyond the role of taxation and government to the heart of U.S. foreign policy and its role in the world.
Please join us for this provocative discussion, which will be moderated by American Strategy Program Director Steven Clemons.
Copies of Norquist's book, Leave Us Alone, will be sold at the event.
Start: 05/15/2008 - 12:15pm
End: 05/15/2008 - 1:45pm
Look, it's one thing for precious progressive resources to go to fund fellowships for elitist commentators like Michael Lind who deny that racism plays a major role in American politics. But it's a whole new level of craziness for progressive resources to go to promote Grover Norquist - a shady operative who has been pushing some of the most pernicious right-wing policies out there.
And let's be clear - New America isn't hosting a debate. They are hosting a promotional event, that not only helps Norquist sell books, but helps reestablish his credibility and whitewash his history as the close confidante of convicted criminal Jack Abramoff. Additionally, Norquist isn't a "new voice" and he's not promoting "new ideas" - last I checked, he's been a Washington insider for more than two decades, pushing the same "leave me alone" crap for his entire career.
New America has some solid individuals working there like Steve Clemons. But this example highlights a much bigger - and almost completely taboo - problem on the Left. Lots of progressive money is going into organizations that seem happy to promote right-wing frames - whether it's Third Way or New America or other Washington-based organizations of that ilk. This is money that could be spent on real progressive organizing and work. Just remember, when you are out there toiling away trying to make progressive change in your community and scratching and clawing to raise resources, progressive cash is going to organizations that hold events designed to help Grover Norquist sell books and rehabilitate his image.
Yesterday, endorsing Barack Obama, John Edwards gave one of the best speeches of the campaign (transcript) in which he seamlessly blended the themes of his campaign with that of Obamas:
Here is how he began the section where he blends the two themes, and introduces his key motif of the walls that divide us, the walls we will tear down:
Now, what brought all of us here is the profound belief that we can change this country. That there are service men and women in Iraq who can come home starting today. That our kids deserve to go to better schools than we went to. That we can run our cars on something other than oil. That we can have good jobs that can fill these empty factories. And that the anxiety that all of our people face every day can change when we finally make two Americas one America for every single one of us.
This is why you are here. You are here because of the hope that you carry in your heart that will make this country better. And we have so much work to do in America, because all across America there are walls. There are walls dividing the way things are and the one America we want to see.
This blending of their two themes is, I would argue, a clear winning formula for the Democrats in November, and while Edwards has previously ruled out running for Vice President, that was then, and this is now. Right now, the greatest weakness that Obama has is precisely the demographic that Edwards speaks most forcefully for and too. And the greatest opportunity for Edwards to further the cause he passionately believes in is to see Obama elected, with a new pledge to join in that commitment (see transcript text below the fold). In turn, running as Obama's VP could be the most effective way to ensure that Obama is elected.
Lately, Republicans have been losing close statewide races in Missouri. But they have a solution. Better policies? Better candidates? Nah. If you're losing close elections all you need to do is find a way to keep some Democrats from voting.
Digby has the ugly details. Basically, Republican state lawmakers are trying to advance, before the session ends tomorrow, a state constitutional amendment to require photo IDs at the polls (a la Indiana). Why a constitutional amendment and not a law? Because they tried the same thing two years ago and the courts struck it down.
Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan claimed Republicans were chasing "mythical problems" with a solution that would make it more difficult for people to vote.
No one besides Republican lawmakers spoke in favor of the photo ID measure. By contrast, a long line of people were still standing to oppose it when the Senate panel cut off testimony after less than an hour and voted. The committee had to quit, because the Senate was going into session.
As is often noted, the winning Presidential candidate almost always carries Missouri. Imagine if Republicans manage to pass a law that excludes thousands of Democratic-leaning voters and Barack Obama loses the state by a thin margin.
