B and B

The Lackey Administration

So Bush has appointed a new Secretary of Education:

President Bush today nominated Margaret Spellings,his top domestic policy adviser, to be the next secretary of education,turning to another close White House aide to fill a vacancy created bythe resignation of a Cabinet member.

Spellings, 46, was named to the post opened by the departure of Roderick R. Paige, 71, whose resignation as education secretary was announced Monday.

Now Bush's previous cabinet wasn't exactly filled with shining stars, but at least it was populated by many people who had built their career independently of the Bush clan.  In the new cabinet, anyone not tied at the hip to the Bushies appears out the door.  And the replacements are Bush lackeys:  Alberto Gonzalez, Condoleeza Rice, and now Margaret Spellings.  The White House is extending its echo chamber out to encompass the entire executive branch.  The reality-based community is no doubt going to take even bigger hits in the future than it has taken in the recent past.  I dread what future horrors could lead to.

Exit poll fishyness. Release the data!

Kevin Drum shows us a helpful chart, from Steven Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, that illustrates how the exit polls in the battleground states were way off base, and all in the same direction.

The worst cases:

New Hampsire, where Bush did 9.5% better than predicted.
Ohio, where Bush did 6.7% better than predicted.
Pennsylvania, where Bush did 6.5% better than predicted.
Minnesota, where Bush did 5.5% better than predicted.
Florida, where Bush did 4.9% better than predicted.

Kerry won three of these five states anyway.  But, of course, if Ohio had gone his way, as the exit polls suggested, he would be President-elect now.

In ony one of the battleground states did Bush fail to do better than the exit polls suggested.  That state was Wisconsin, and the final result was right in line with the exit polls showing Kerry winning by a very small margin.

Now there are many reason why the exit polls could be off so systematically.  Reasons ranging from errors in the poll methodology to outright voter fraud.  Certainly these results have been the inspiration for the extensive talk about voter fraud on the internet since election night, even if errors in poll methodology appear at first to be a more likely scenario.

Unfortunately, the exit polling companies are not helping the process of discovering what went wrong here.  As the normally extra-calm and overly-rational Drum writes:

I'm getting progressively more pissed off about the exit polls with every passing day.  The folks who ran them have actually encouraged rumor mongering by refusing to publicly explain what happened to us benighted masses. So far, all they've done is write a confidential report that apparently didn't even acknowledge the systemic errors in the final results and instead laid the blame on those irresponsible bloggers who got everyone riled up by posting early results. Meanwhile, their defenders in the media were practically apoplectic about the gall of non-experts using data they can't possibly understand in order to advance their own bizarre conspiracy theories.  Which would be fair enough if they'd step up to the plate and give us the benefit of their expertise.

But they haven't. They've declined to talk to reporters, they've released no serious findings of their own, and they haven't made their raw data available even to qualified researchers. Freeman's numbers might well be wrong, but there's no way for him to find out. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the experts are the ones who have created the vacuum in which rumors thrive.

So that's why I'm posting this: because I want to put some pressure on them to come out from their caves and tell us what they think — and to debunk guys like Freeman if they can. After all, there's probably a perfectly plausible explanation for all this. In fact, I'm sure there is. But until they tell us what it is, the conspiracy theories aren't going to go away.

Way to tell it, Kevin!   I also don't see any dramatic evidence for widescale fraud, at least so far, but the talk is not going anywhere until everything is laid out in the open for a full examination. 

Abolish the Electoral College

Joshua Marshall reveals that he is coming to believe that the Electoral College should be abolished.  Welcome to the fold, Joshua!

My problem with it isn't that it's undemocratic, at least not in the sense that the winner of the popular vote can lose the election. That's a very big problem, certainly; but I think it will continue to be a relatively rare occurrence. The problem is that it makes the votes of too many Americans into an irrelevancy or a mere exercise in symbolism.

I feel so strongly about this myself, that I was compelled to write to him.  Here is what I wrote:

Dear Joshua,

I am glad to see you advocating for the abolition of the Electoral College.  I find it a travesty of democracy that the votes of those in swing states are magnified totally out of proportion to the votes of those in "safe" states. Why should moving a mile across the border from western Texas into eastern New Mexico magnify your vote's importance so much?  Similarly, why should moving a mile across the Ohio River from Kentucky into Ohio do the same?

The only states favored by the EC are the few swing states.  The other 40 or more states are completely left out in the cold.  That should be plenty of states to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing the EC, if we can get rid of the misconception that "small states" are the ones favored by the EC. 

In recent history, we have had one occasion where the loser actually won the election (2000), but we have had several close calls, of which last week's election is the most recent.  The other recent close calls are 1960, 1968, and 1976.  That's 5 elections out of the last 12!

This should be a priority.  But perhaps even more dangerous to our current democracy is the practice of partisan gerrymandering.  Voters no longer choose their legislators; instead, legislators choose their voters.  This needs to be fixed as soon as we possibly can.

Thanks for bringing attention to these issues.

Time to ban gerrymandering

Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly, via KC Johnson, brings our attention a sad fact:

[T]he permanent calcification of the House of Representatives is now nearly complete: out of 435 seats, only six changed parties this year.

And it gets worse:

95% of all House seats were won by margins of more than 10 points. And this is in the half of the legislature that the founding fathers intended to be most responsive to changes in national mood.

Drum then proposes that Dems should get behind a constitutional amendment to ban gerrymandering.  Such a constitutional amendment is a great idea in principle.  Partisan gerrymandering has made a mockery of the democratic process, as evidenced by the results in this and other recent congressional elections.

It doesn't just have to be fought at the national level, as Drum suggests, but it can also be fought on a state-by-state level.  Some states (e.g., Iowa) already have effectively banned partisan gerrymandering, by instituting a bi-partisan committee that draws congressional districts, rather than have very partisan state legislatures do the job.

This fight should be a top priority for all Democrats and Republicans who are in favor of a true representative democracy in this country.

Elizabeth Edwards

Elizabeth Edwards, at the end of one public battle and at the beginning of a new personal battle, joins the online community at Democratic Underground (and according to the moderators, it is really her).  Here is what she wrote:

You know that I read DU and have for quite some time, long before any of you knew my name. I really appreciate the support you have given me on this latest hurdle and before. It means a lot to me and to John.

Now that I have more time, I will post some, too. But today I want to share something inspiring, part of a letter from Thomas Jefferson. This is from the new Bernstein biography of Jefferson. Jefferson sent the letter in 1798 after the passage of the Sedition Act:

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."

Round two starts now

Via Democratic Underground, a message from Al Franken:

MESSAGE FROM AL

Anytime you lose like this, there’s a certain amount of Wednesday-morning quarterbacking and woulda-coulda-shoulda. I have no regrets myself, but as I look back at Kerry’s campaign, there are a couple of points where, if he had it all to do over again, I think he should have done it differently.

For example, in the first debate, Kerry announced that he would put our national security decisions in the hands of France. He said very explicitly that we would have to pass a global test before using force. I think a lot of us watching at the time thought that that was a mistake.

Also, of course, the flip-flops, especially those about Iraq. Voting, as you know, for the war, then against it, for it, then against it-having, as Sean Hannity said, literally 80 different positions. I wish he could have chosen one position and stuck with it.

Kerry’s decision to ban the Bible. That was a huge mistake, especially in very Christian areas. That might have gone over fine in atheist communities, but it cost him big everywhere else.

And then proposing a health care system that would impose an enormous federal bureaucracy and give medical decisions to paper-pushers in Washington, and in France.

And going back to Vietnam, the way he lied about what happened, inflicted those wounds on himself to get those medals, and then threw them out-I think that was a mistake. Of course, that was a mistake that he made back then, decades ago. But he could have been more honest about it now.

A lot of people talk about Bush’s record, and what he might do in the next term, but what this really comes down to is character. And ceding your doctor’s authority to France, and the flip-flops, and shooting himself in the leg to win a medal-I guess those things just overcame the awful, failed presidency of George W. Bush.

***

You know I wouldn’t mind losing an election if it were an honest disagreement, based on facts, over values and policy. But that’s not what happened. A large majority of Bush supporters went to the polls believing things that were false. For example, any of the above. They believed lies about Kerry, and they believed lies about Iraq, and they believed lies about Bush.

We’re not going to heal this country as long as we have a president who won’t be accountable, who won’t tell the truth, who is willing to campaign with a vicious dishonesty that is unprecedented.

After Barry Goldwater was crushed by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, the right decided to take a long view. They poured literally billions of dollars into creating the right-wing infrastructure that dominates our politics today. They built up the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Media Research Center, and now Fox News Channel-and many other organizations, above and below the radar. Though they won the White House in 1968, it took them thirty years to reach their ascendancy in 1964.

Our side just started. Air America went on the air seven months ago. Normally, incumbent presidents either win by a landslide or lose by a landslide, and a year or two ago, people thought it would be an overwhelming Bush victory. It wasn’t. For an incumbent wartime president, this was a close race. And we’ve created a movement to take this country back. Even though we didn’t do it this time, I believe that we will still do it.

The other side wants us to get demoralized, but we are going to fight. We are going to fight every step of the way.

Round two starts now.

Al Franken

The end of a dream

And the beginning of another. One that, will, unfortunately, take a lot longer to come true.

John Edwards, today:

In this campaign, we worked hard and we hoped that the results would be different. And I want to talk to the tens of millions of people who worked alongside us, who believed in our cause and who stood with us. You can be disappointed, but you cannot walk away. This fight has just begun. (APPLAUSE) Together we will carry on and we will be with you every step of the way. You stood in line for 10 hours because you want your government to stand up for you. You stood in the rain to vote because you want to build one America. You missed classes, field hockey, soccer practices.

You stood for hours and hours to let your voices be heard. Well, we heard you. And I want you to hear me. This campaign may end today. But the battle for you and the hark-working Americans who built this country rages on. The battle rages for the factory worker and the mill worker who says, I want to work. I just want a job. The battle rages on for the mother who sits in the emergency room with her daughter and wonders how she is going to pay the bill. The battle rages on for the young person who's worked hard and wants to go to collect but doesn't have the money to pay for it. It goes on for the young child who doesn't understand why they are treated differently just because of the color of their skin. And it rages on for the mother who wants to know why her son was sent over there and will not come home. This fight will continue in our homes and in our union halls, in our churches, and in our schools, in our offices and over the Internet.

We will keep marching toward that one America and we're not going to stop until we get there. (APPLAUSE) You know, I've learned a lot of lessons in my life. Two of the most important are first, there will always be heartache and struggle. You can't make it go away. But the other is that people of good and strong will can make a difference. And we can make a difference. Rest assured, we will make a difference. One lesson is a sad lesson, but the other lesson is inspiring. And we are Americans, and so we choose to be inspired. We choose to be inspired because we know we can do better, because this is America, where everything is still possible.

John Kerry, today:

I think of the brigades of students and people, young and old, who took time to travel, time off from work, their own vacation time, to work in states far and wide. They braved the hot days of summer and the cold days of the fall and the winter to knock on door because they were determined to open the doors of opportunity to all Americans. They worked their hearts out. And I wish, you don't know how much, that I could have brought this race home for you, for them. And I say to them now: Don't lose faith. What you did made a difference.

And building on itself, we go on to make a difference another day. I promise you, that time will come, the time will come, the election will come, when your work and your ballots will change the world.

...

We worked hard and we fought hard, and I wish that things had turned out a little differently. But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans. That is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on Earth.

With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country. In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort, without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.

...

I believe that what we started in this campaign will not end here. Our fight goes on to put America back to work and to make our economy a great engine of job growth. Our fight goes on to make affordable health care an accessible right for all Americans, not privilege. Our fight goes on to protect the environment, to achieve equality, to push the frontiers of science and discovery and to restore America's reputation in the world. I believe that all of this will happen, and sooner than we may think, because we're America, and America always moves forward.

...

When we began, no one thought it was possible to even make this a close race.

But we stood for real change, change that would make a real difference in the life of our nation and the lives of our families. And we defined that choice to America. I'll never forget the wonderful people who came to our rallies, who stood in our rope lines, who put their hopes in our hands, who invested in each and every one of us. I saw in them the truth that America is not only great, but it is good. So with a grateful heart, I leave this campaign with a prayer that has even greater meaning to me now that I've come to know our vast country so much better thanks to all of you and what a privilege it has been to do so. And that prayer is very simple: God bless America. Thank you.

Ohio

The situation looks far more miserable than I ever believed it would, but it ain't over yet. We aren't going to let the GOP steal it in Ohio like they stole it in Florida last time.

But I am incredibly depressed that so many people voted for the brutish incumbent. And, best I can tell, "moral issues" (read: fear of gays) is what led them to do it. Disgusting.

GOP's strategy in Ohio changes

Good news from Ohio, regarding the GOP's earlier intention to challenge large numbers of new voters. Not only did the GOP decide not to go ahead with active challenges (they will save that for the litigation after the election, apparently), but there are plenty of Democratic observers in place to make sure nothing untoward happens.

From the New York Times: Fears of G.O.P. Challenges in Ohio Are Not Realized

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 2 - If Ohio Democrats went to the polls today believing that they would have to push their way through a wave of challenges from Republican monitors questioning their right to vote, their fears were not realized.

Republicans had been planning to make major use of the challengers in what they called an effort to combat voter fraud; Democrats accused the G.O.P. of planning to use the challengers to try to intimidate voters.

On Monday, in a blow to the Republicans, two federal district judges in Ohio ruled that challenges could not be made, but those decisions were overturned early this morning by an appeals court and later affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, leaving Democrats expecting the worst.

But Mark R. Weaver, the legal counsel for the Ohio Republican Party, said today that party officials had instructed the challengers to lie low at the polls and act more as observers than contestants.

"Given the Democrats' clear strategy of trying to turn each challenge into a ruckus," Mr. Weaver said, "we wanted to make to sure to preserve the right to keep our observers in the polling places."

He added, "If there's litigation later, these will be contemporaneous notes about what happened at these polling places."

In a similar vein, the governor of Ohio, Bob Taft, a Republican, said his party would not actively challenge voters at the polls today but would rather serve mainly as witnesses.

"My understanding is that the challengers, at least the Republican challengers, will only be witnessing," he said in a CNN interview. "They will not be directly asking the election officials to challenge voters, but they will be witnessing the process and then reporting any concerns thereafter to election officials."

In Cincinnati, a challenger for the Hamilton County Democratic Party, Brett Goodson, showed up at a high school polling site and found he was the only challenger there.

"My understanding is that the Republicans would put a challenger in every minority voting location, so I'm surprised I'm not seeing them," said Mr. Goodson, a Cincinnati lawyer who is among 250 local attorneys hired by the Democrats to monitor the election.

"We were told that Republicans would try to disenfranchise voters," he added. "My role here is to help voters exercise their right to vote."

An official of the Election Protection Coalition, Debra Hirschberg, said as she stood outside a polling station at the Fairhill Center for the Aging, on the city line between Cleveland and Cleveland Heights: "The polls are short-staffed, and they're overwhelmed. There are challengers, but no Republicans. They're Democrats, and they say they're facilitating, not challenging."

Slate (doesn't) cop out on their prediction

I've been watching Slate magazine's state-by-state analysis of the polls for a few days, if only to get a feeling for what the "conventional wisdom" is saying. (Slate unfortunately has become a good indicator of political punditry conventional wisdom over the last few years.) The analysis is put together by Will Saletan, who I've mentioned before.

Anyway, they call each state for one candidate of the other, and until the last couple days, were very conservative in switching a state projection to a different candidate. My criticism of Slate's method at that time was that it relied to heavily on state tracking polls, particularly the Zogby state tracking polls, which do not have a great track record. Then over the last couple days, they went bonkers switching states back and forth. All of a sudden they were being far too quick to switch states back and forth on the basis of single polls. Their projection went from Bush up slightly in EV, to Kerry up to practically 300 EV, then to Bush up to practically 300, then, in the end, down to a 269-269 tie. Yes, their final prediction is an electoral vote tie.

(UPDATE: They've added an extra analysis to their prediction, and no longer call it a tie. See below.)

They give Florida to Kerry, but Ohio and Wisconsin and New Mexico to Bush. (I think those latter three are the only places where they disagree with my prediction.) Fortunately, looking at their own compilation of poll data, I don't see why they put Wisconsin and New Mexico in Bush's column. Ohio looks pretty good for Bush based on their list of polls, which is disturbing to me, but then again, Bush over-polled in Ohio four years ago, and a few days ago, Ohio looked pretty good for Kerry, so this could all be statistical noise. Turnout will make the difference. Unless the GOP voter intimidation drive makes the difference.

The good news for us is that Kerry likely only has to take one of Ohio and Florida. Bush almost certainly has to take both to win.

UPDATE: Slate now is predicting a Kerry victory. Here is an excerpt from their extra analysis:

Given the decline in support for Nader, we doubt that Bush's vote shares in Florida and Iowa will suffice this year. There's a good chance that his vote shares in Wisconsin and New Mexico won't suffice, either. So while our comparison of the candidates' poll standings yields an Electoral College tie, we predict separately, based on the incumbent's vote share, that Kerry will win between 276 and 291 electoral votes.