Just a fun prediction for today's Iowa caucus. I predict that Rick Santorum will win the caucus (25%), with Mitt Romney a close second (24%) and Ron Paul not too far behind in third (21%). Gingrich will finish around 12% in fourth and Perry and Bachaman will be in single digits.
I used real numbers, but what I see happening is Santorum and Romney overperforming the polls - picking up some extra votes - Ron Paul getting about what we expect (thanks to Santorum's surge and some bad press) and the rest losing support as voters either move to Romney or Santorum.
I say this because I have been convinced by what Nate Silver has said about conservative candidates overperforming the polls in Iowa. And Santorum seems in a good position to do that (and not enough time to bring him down with negative adds). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Santorum is closer to 30% and maybe Romney loses a bit (closer to 20%).
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Book Report: Gail Collins - When Everything Changed
This is Gail Collins' second book on the history of feminism. I didn't read the first one because at the moment I am much more interested in the post-suffrage movement - the movement for fair pay and equal roles in the workforce.
The book relies heavily on anecdotes, though it has statistics where they exist and are relevant. This approach makes the book move fast, but makes it a little less trustworthy as a book explaining a vast movement. It still works, but at times it does make me wonder if the one story we are being told is representative.
What is great about the book is how it shows people trying to create new systems and new customs. Over the course of the book, women are trying to figure out where they fit in society. They know they don't like the current set-up, but no one knows exactly what the set-up should be. So throughout the movement, everyone is debating and trying alternate systems to see which is ideal.
The starting point is what they know they don't like. They know that they shouldn't be denied jobs or paid less than men just because they are women. And they know they shouldn't have to stay in the home and raise the family if they don't want to. But how should the system really be? It wasn't clear at the time, and I think we take that for granted.
For example, if some women found being a house wife constraining, should we encourage all women away from that? Or if women are sometimes chosen just on their sexuality / attractiveness and not for their skills, should all women avoid showing sexuality? If family life is unfulfilling, does that mean women shouldn't be in families? Are men and families unnecessary? Are communes or multiple couples raising one child together better?
I would argue that we have mostly concluded that women should have the opportunity to work in all jobs and to receive pay equal to what men earn (which we still haven't fully achieved). And that women shouldn't have to stay at home but should be free to a professional career. However, women should also not feel ashamed to stay at home - and nor should men. I would argue that we basically know where we want to be, but we still have some work to do. As I said, women still don't make as much as men, and women are still underrepresented in many jobs - sometimes due to discrimination.
Where I think we have failed to make progress is for low income women. They still face significant barriers because they cannot afford to stay home if they want to but child care funding is insufficient, where it exists.What is heartbreaking, and was surprising to me, was how close we came to having national childcare support. A bill was passed but Richard Nixon vetoed it. We haven't seen or heard that issue again. Truly sad.
The book relies heavily on anecdotes, though it has statistics where they exist and are relevant. This approach makes the book move fast, but makes it a little less trustworthy as a book explaining a vast movement. It still works, but at times it does make me wonder if the one story we are being told is representative.
What is great about the book is how it shows people trying to create new systems and new customs. Over the course of the book, women are trying to figure out where they fit in society. They know they don't like the current set-up, but no one knows exactly what the set-up should be. So throughout the movement, everyone is debating and trying alternate systems to see which is ideal.
The starting point is what they know they don't like. They know that they shouldn't be denied jobs or paid less than men just because they are women. And they know they shouldn't have to stay in the home and raise the family if they don't want to. But how should the system really be? It wasn't clear at the time, and I think we take that for granted.
For example, if some women found being a house wife constraining, should we encourage all women away from that? Or if women are sometimes chosen just on their sexuality / attractiveness and not for their skills, should all women avoid showing sexuality? If family life is unfulfilling, does that mean women shouldn't be in families? Are men and families unnecessary? Are communes or multiple couples raising one child together better?
I would argue that we have mostly concluded that women should have the opportunity to work in all jobs and to receive pay equal to what men earn (which we still haven't fully achieved). And that women shouldn't have to stay at home but should be free to a professional career. However, women should also not feel ashamed to stay at home - and nor should men. I would argue that we basically know where we want to be, but we still have some work to do. As I said, women still don't make as much as men, and women are still underrepresented in many jobs - sometimes due to discrimination.
Where I think we have failed to make progress is for low income women. They still face significant barriers because they cannot afford to stay home if they want to but child care funding is insufficient, where it exists.What is heartbreaking, and was surprising to me, was how close we came to having national childcare support. A bill was passed but Richard Nixon vetoed it. We haven't seen or heard that issue again. Truly sad.
Wrong Clinton Lessons
I firmly believe that knowing history is important because there are lessons to be learned. But I am also starting to believe that spending too much time looking to history can be a mistake. It can make you take your eyes off the present and all of the nuances that exist. I feel very strongly about this when it comes to Obama's presidency and the lessons his administration tried to learn from Clinton's presidency.
First, Obama looked to Clinton's failure on healthcare and overlearned the lessons there. Since Clinton handed Congress a finished document and expected them to pass as is - and that failed - Obama decided to let Congress create healthcare. This lead to a one year process that made the final product very unpopular.
Second, and far worse, Obama decided after the 2010 midterm losses to emulate Clinton's move the middle following the 1994 Republican revolution. Unfortunately, this didn't lead to moderate compromises and popularity for Obama. It has lead to an ugly and worthless budget compromise and nothing else. And low approval ratings for President Obama.
I believe that if Obama hadn't been so fixated on the Clinton model, he might have taken the process more slowly. Instead of declaring from the beginning that he was moving to the right, he could have said that the elections change who his partners are but don't change who he is. He could have said that he will see what Republicans bring to him and will go with an open mind. He would compromise on anything that will help the American people.
He went way too far, and he did it because he wanted to get re-elected. He saw how Clinton did it, and blindly followed his example. That was a mistake.
First, Obama looked to Clinton's failure on healthcare and overlearned the lessons there. Since Clinton handed Congress a finished document and expected them to pass as is - and that failed - Obama decided to let Congress create healthcare. This lead to a one year process that made the final product very unpopular.
Second, and far worse, Obama decided after the 2010 midterm losses to emulate Clinton's move the middle following the 1994 Republican revolution. Unfortunately, this didn't lead to moderate compromises and popularity for Obama. It has lead to an ugly and worthless budget compromise and nothing else. And low approval ratings for President Obama.
I believe that if Obama hadn't been so fixated on the Clinton model, he might have taken the process more slowly. Instead of declaring from the beginning that he was moving to the right, he could have said that the elections change who his partners are but don't change who he is. He could have said that he will see what Republicans bring to him and will go with an open mind. He would compromise on anything that will help the American people.
He went way too far, and he did it because he wanted to get re-elected. He saw how Clinton did it, and blindly followed his example. That was a mistake.
Republican Surges
I had a few posts in draft on each of the recent GOP candidates that were surging. Instead, I'll just give more concise thoughts here in one post.
Rick Perry: I was worried about him for a while. But his poor debate performances seem to have sunk his campaign (though I felt some sympathy - I think the "oops" moment was less about a lack of intelligence and more about stage pressure). And now he is flailing and looking worse. His crazy anti-DADT commercial, among other things have shown his desperation.
Newt Gingrich: First, let me say that while I do think he is pretty smart and creative, he is erratic. I would prefer a more calm, careful, and thoughtful president (also a more modest one). On domestic policy, I am a little torn. He is less anti-government than the Tea Party-type candidates like Perry, Cain and Bachmann. However, his understanding of why people are poor is stupid and scary. On foreign policy, he is downright terrifying. He believes in the culture clash nonsense (the West versus Islam) and seems way too eager to bomb Iran. His call for Bolton to be his Secretary of State is horrifying - Bolton being probably the worst member of the Bush team.
Ron Paul: I agree with Andrew Sullivan that Paul seems like a decent person - at least in the political sense. He is not prone to changing his views just to get elected (unlike Romney and Gingrich, for example) and less likely to sell out to become a lobbyist (unlike Gingrich). And I like his opposition to the war on drugs, though we come at it from very different angles. I like that he isn't a hawk on foreign policy, but I hate his isolationism. And I really hate his view about the optimal size of government (I'll have another post libertarianism someday soon).
His two most troubling positions though are around economics and race. On economics, he is to the right of Milton Friedman - and not for political reasons (like Boehner and company) but for ideological reasons. Whereas under a Republican president I am sure the GOP would support more monetary expansion, Paul still would not. In fact, he wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. Pure craziness and very dangerous for the economy.
On race issues, a lot has been written about the racist articles in the newsletter that went out under this name. Maybe he didn't know about it and didn't agree with it, but whoever was editing thought it would be something Paul would support. And that is troubling. More troubling though is his view that civil rights legislation should have not been used against private businesses. This shows either a gross indifference to racism or an extreme naivete around how effectively the free market would get rid of segregation on its own. Or both.
Rick Santorum: I don't understand why he is a candidate. I certainly don't understand why he is having his moment. Actually, on a certain level I get it. In this anyone-but-Romney campaign, I guess everyone has their moment. And Santorum seems to be working hard in Iowa. And for the evangelicals, he might be the best bet at the moment. But to my mind, he is about one thing, and one thing only: opposing LGBT rights.
And with the economy and the size of government being the biggest issues right now, why elect someone who merely wants to restart the culture wars. Especially since views are moving steadily away from his position. Not to mention, this is someone who was voted out of office six years ago. I find his whole campaign baffling. He is getting some momentum now in Iowa, but I really hope it falls flat. At least I can console myself that his chances outside of Iowa are very slim (since he has spent so much time in Iowa).
Bottom Line: Everyone's surge has faltered. Santorum though might be surging at the right moment - in other words, me might be able to win Iowa before crashing. Nate Silver has Romney with a 62 percent chance of winning Iowa, though recognizing how unpredictable the caucus can be. I have a feeling Santorum will win. But from there on, it will be smooth sailing for Romney. And thank goodness for that.
Rick Perry: I was worried about him for a while. But his poor debate performances seem to have sunk his campaign (though I felt some sympathy - I think the "oops" moment was less about a lack of intelligence and more about stage pressure). And now he is flailing and looking worse. His crazy anti-DADT commercial, among other things have shown his desperation.
Newt Gingrich: First, let me say that while I do think he is pretty smart and creative, he is erratic. I would prefer a more calm, careful, and thoughtful president (also a more modest one). On domestic policy, I am a little torn. He is less anti-government than the Tea Party-type candidates like Perry, Cain and Bachmann. However, his understanding of why people are poor is stupid and scary. On foreign policy, he is downright terrifying. He believes in the culture clash nonsense (the West versus Islam) and seems way too eager to bomb Iran. His call for Bolton to be his Secretary of State is horrifying - Bolton being probably the worst member of the Bush team.
Ron Paul: I agree with Andrew Sullivan that Paul seems like a decent person - at least in the political sense. He is not prone to changing his views just to get elected (unlike Romney and Gingrich, for example) and less likely to sell out to become a lobbyist (unlike Gingrich). And I like his opposition to the war on drugs, though we come at it from very different angles. I like that he isn't a hawk on foreign policy, but I hate his isolationism. And I really hate his view about the optimal size of government (I'll have another post libertarianism someday soon).
His two most troubling positions though are around economics and race. On economics, he is to the right of Milton Friedman - and not for political reasons (like Boehner and company) but for ideological reasons. Whereas under a Republican president I am sure the GOP would support more monetary expansion, Paul still would not. In fact, he wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. Pure craziness and very dangerous for the economy.
On race issues, a lot has been written about the racist articles in the newsletter that went out under this name. Maybe he didn't know about it and didn't agree with it, but whoever was editing thought it would be something Paul would support. And that is troubling. More troubling though is his view that civil rights legislation should have not been used against private businesses. This shows either a gross indifference to racism or an extreme naivete around how effectively the free market would get rid of segregation on its own. Or both.
Rick Santorum: I don't understand why he is a candidate. I certainly don't understand why he is having his moment. Actually, on a certain level I get it. In this anyone-but-Romney campaign, I guess everyone has their moment. And Santorum seems to be working hard in Iowa. And for the evangelicals, he might be the best bet at the moment. But to my mind, he is about one thing, and one thing only: opposing LGBT rights.
And with the economy and the size of government being the biggest issues right now, why elect someone who merely wants to restart the culture wars. Especially since views are moving steadily away from his position. Not to mention, this is someone who was voted out of office six years ago. I find his whole campaign baffling. He is getting some momentum now in Iowa, but I really hope it falls flat. At least I can console myself that his chances outside of Iowa are very slim (since he has spent so much time in Iowa).
Bottom Line: Everyone's surge has faltered. Santorum though might be surging at the right moment - in other words, me might be able to win Iowa before crashing. Nate Silver has Romney with a 62 percent chance of winning Iowa, though recognizing how unpredictable the caucus can be. I have a feeling Santorum will win. But from there on, it will be smooth sailing for Romney. And thank goodness for that.
A Vote for Huntsman
At a family event recently, I suggested that if the presidential general election were between John Huntsman and Barack Obama, I might vote for Huntsman. To be honest, I am sure I would still vote for Obama. But here is the reason I would even consider voting for Huntsman.
First, let me say that I don't think Hunstman would be a better president nor is he closer to my ideology than Obama. I would consider Huntsman though because President Obama has done such a terrible job on the economy.
I'll explain why I think so, but let me first say that since he has done such a bad job, it is only right that I show my displeasure. If he hasn't been successful, I shouldn't return him to office. Unfortunately, as I have said before, the alternatives will do a worse job. So I am stuck supporting Obama - probably.
Here is why I blame him for the economy. First, he passed a stimulus that was too small even considering what we knew about the economy in 2009 (we now know the decrease in GDP was far worse). And when he passed the stimulus, he said that it would be enough and that we won't need more.
All of this was done for purely political reasons. He calculated that Congress wouldn't give him more stimulus so he pretended it would be enough. But now that it is clear the stimulus wasn't enough, he can't ask for more - except as he did on a small scale that even at that size won't get passed.
Second, he took his eye off the ball. He spent a year working on healthcare reform and a year on balancing the budget, all while unemployment was at 9 percent. I can forgive him for healthcare; he felt that the moment was right and if it didn't happen, it might be another two decades before we get another chance. But his time on fiscal matters was a huge mistake and he didn't start talking about jobs again until this past fall.
Presidents often face a major crisis, one they weren't prepared for and it can consume their presidency and ruin their well-laid plans. When that happens, presidents should put everything else aside and fix that problem. President Obama did not do that. He and everyone else referred to it as the worst recession since the Great Depression. And yet he thought a half-measure stimulus would do the trick and that he could work on other things.
Finally, Obama has been ineffective on monetary policy as well. This is where the Republicans are the most vulnerable and Obama has been the most silent. If we assume that Obama cannot get further stimulus through, he could at least make the case that without stimulus we need aggressive monetary expansion. And he could say that even far-right economists like Milton Friedman would support that.
Instead, he lets Republicans like Perry, Boehner, Cantor, et al say that monetary expansion in a recession is now bad policy without paying a political price. This party opposes everything - mostly because they want the president to lose - and they don't pay a political price. Only recently over the small but popular payroll tax cut have Republicans paid a price. But they should be branded as extremists or obstructionists for their opposition to monetary expansion.
The bottom line is that President Obama has many options to try to improve the economy and when / if those options don't work, make Republicans look crazy. I wish there was an alternative, someone who would be stronger. But there isn't. I probably won't vote for Huntsman. But I kind of want to.
First, let me say that I don't think Hunstman would be a better president nor is he closer to my ideology than Obama. I would consider Huntsman though because President Obama has done such a terrible job on the economy.
I'll explain why I think so, but let me first say that since he has done such a bad job, it is only right that I show my displeasure. If he hasn't been successful, I shouldn't return him to office. Unfortunately, as I have said before, the alternatives will do a worse job. So I am stuck supporting Obama - probably.
Here is why I blame him for the economy. First, he passed a stimulus that was too small even considering what we knew about the economy in 2009 (we now know the decrease in GDP was far worse). And when he passed the stimulus, he said that it would be enough and that we won't need more.
All of this was done for purely political reasons. He calculated that Congress wouldn't give him more stimulus so he pretended it would be enough. But now that it is clear the stimulus wasn't enough, he can't ask for more - except as he did on a small scale that even at that size won't get passed.
Second, he took his eye off the ball. He spent a year working on healthcare reform and a year on balancing the budget, all while unemployment was at 9 percent. I can forgive him for healthcare; he felt that the moment was right and if it didn't happen, it might be another two decades before we get another chance. But his time on fiscal matters was a huge mistake and he didn't start talking about jobs again until this past fall.
Presidents often face a major crisis, one they weren't prepared for and it can consume their presidency and ruin their well-laid plans. When that happens, presidents should put everything else aside and fix that problem. President Obama did not do that. He and everyone else referred to it as the worst recession since the Great Depression. And yet he thought a half-measure stimulus would do the trick and that he could work on other things.
Finally, Obama has been ineffective on monetary policy as well. This is where the Republicans are the most vulnerable and Obama has been the most silent. If we assume that Obama cannot get further stimulus through, he could at least make the case that without stimulus we need aggressive monetary expansion. And he could say that even far-right economists like Milton Friedman would support that.
Instead, he lets Republicans like Perry, Boehner, Cantor, et al say that monetary expansion in a recession is now bad policy without paying a political price. This party opposes everything - mostly because they want the president to lose - and they don't pay a political price. Only recently over the small but popular payroll tax cut have Republicans paid a price. But they should be branded as extremists or obstructionists for their opposition to monetary expansion.
The bottom line is that President Obama has many options to try to improve the economy and when / if those options don't work, make Republicans look crazy. I wish there was an alternative, someone who would be stronger. But there isn't. I probably won't vote for Huntsman. But I kind of want to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)