There are two things that you are better off not knowing how they were made: laws and sausages. This famous quote cannot be attributed to any one person, but goes back centuries. There is some great wisdom behind it, but sometimes its better to know about what types of underhanded activities actually go into passing controversial laws.
There is one prime example that comes to mind, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. This law prohibits financial organizations such as banks from processing transactions to internet gambling organizations, the effect of which blocks credit card and wire transfers from the gamblers to the casinos. Naturally, this type of law is somewhat controversial. Internet gamblers and poker players were angered, but additional resistance came from Banks who claim they do not have the ability to enforce this act and from oversees countries such as Antigua and England where some of these internet gambling corporations are based.
Yet despite the notoriously strong banking lobby, the UIGEA passed by unanimous vote in the senate and suffered only 2 votes against it in the house. Those numbers by themselves should raise some eyebrows, and it begs the question, how?
The UIGEA was attached as an amendment to the Safe Port Act of 2006. The Safe Port Act was designed to help improve security and customs protections in US ports, a measure that had extremely strong support in both houses of congress. It passed quickly in the House and Senate and went to a conference committee to iron out the small differences between the two versions of the bill. At this point, no one had heard any mention of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. That’s because it was added during the conference committee meetings.
After the conference committee, the act was sent back to congress for approval. The vote was rushed, knowing that many of the congressmen would not have time to review all 33,000 words of the Safe Port Act and might miss the UIGEA now attached. Also, there was not very much chance of debate or attempt to remove the amendment, and no one really wants to vote against the “Safe Port Act.”
Thus, the law was passed and congress effectively made most forms of internet gambling illegal (with exceptions for off-track horse race betting and fantasy sports leagues). The internet gambling community was stunned, the publicly traded stock of some internet casinos fell as much as 60%, and the American public remained for the most part unaware that any of this had happened.
This is probably my favorite example of a law being passed in some sort of underhanded or deceptive way. Whether or not this law should be passed, it at least deserves proper debate. What we really need from our government is openness. We can pretend that laws are like sausages and look the other way, or we can demand that our government stops these disingenuous practices. Is it any wonder why the vast majority of our country believes congress is doing a poor job, or that we do not trust our leaders?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
The West Wing parallels the real world in the 2008 elections
If a nuclear power plant starts melting down in the continental US, I am going to be really freaked out.
A few years ago, one of my favorite shows on TV was the West Wing. I own the first 4 seasons on DVD, but I stopped watching after the 5th season. I guess I sort of lost interest in the writing. Then in 2006, after 7 seasons, the show was cancelled. Just last year I went back and watched the 7th season and was shocked about the parallels that can be drawn to this upcoming presidential election.
In the West Wing TV series, Republican Senator Arnold Vinick is running against the Democratic Congressman Matt Santos. But this fictional matchup is remarkably similar to the real life contest between Obama and McCain. Obama is a relatively young politician without as much experience in federal government as opposed to someone like McCain, who has been around for a very long time. Whereas the fictional Santos is also relatively young, having served very few terms in congress, facing Vinick, who is a spry for his age senator who has been around for decades. Oh, Santos is not black, he’s Hispanic.
Just on the superficial aspect along there are many similarities between the fictional election of the West Wing and the real life contest going on right now. But that’s not all. Vinick has trouble with the republican base because he is more of a moderate. Vinick also takes steps toward immigration reform that includes a guest worker program (much like the bill McCain took a lot of flack for last summer). The Santos campaign is historic because he is the first Hispanic to run for president, but Santos has trouble keeping the black vote. This is almost a mirror image of Obama who is historic for being black but has some trouble with the Hispanic vote.
Both Obama and Santos gave speeches about race and unity in the wake of controversy. For Obama it was Reverend Wright and for Santos it was a brown on black police shooting. The content of the speeches was different but the message was the same, that unity is achieved through perseverance, and that we still have many racial issues in this country left unresolved.
The more I watched of the 7th Season of West Wing the more I was amazed at the parallels between the show and real life. Obviously there were differences as well, especially with the policies of McCain and Vinick, but there were so many connections and similarities that it is hard to believe that the show ended years before Obama even declared that he was running for president.
In the end, Santos won the election because of a near catastrophe at a nuclear power plant that Vinick helped get approved. And since both Vinick and McCain are strong proponents of nuclear energy, should there be a nuclear power issue within months of this election, you will find me staring at whatever news source I was looking at with my mouth agape and my eyes wide.
None the less, all these connections are more curiosity than conspiracy, a couple of small coincidences mixed in with a few intelligent guesses. One thing is true, the writers of The West Wing, either by luck or skilled reasoning, pretty accurately predicted the republican and democratic candidates for this year’s election. But I think that is one of the reasons why I always liked that show; its ability to connect the world of fiction to the real world.
A few years ago, one of my favorite shows on TV was the West Wing. I own the first 4 seasons on DVD, but I stopped watching after the 5th season. I guess I sort of lost interest in the writing. Then in 2006, after 7 seasons, the show was cancelled. Just last year I went back and watched the 7th season and was shocked about the parallels that can be drawn to this upcoming presidential election.
In the West Wing TV series, Republican Senator Arnold Vinick is running against the Democratic Congressman Matt Santos. But this fictional matchup is remarkably similar to the real life contest between Obama and McCain. Obama is a relatively young politician without as much experience in federal government as opposed to someone like McCain, who has been around for a very long time. Whereas the fictional Santos is also relatively young, having served very few terms in congress, facing Vinick, who is a spry for his age senator who has been around for decades. Oh, Santos is not black, he’s Hispanic.
Just on the superficial aspect along there are many similarities between the fictional election of the West Wing and the real life contest going on right now. But that’s not all. Vinick has trouble with the republican base because he is more of a moderate. Vinick also takes steps toward immigration reform that includes a guest worker program (much like the bill McCain took a lot of flack for last summer). The Santos campaign is historic because he is the first Hispanic to run for president, but Santos has trouble keeping the black vote. This is almost a mirror image of Obama who is historic for being black but has some trouble with the Hispanic vote.
Both Obama and Santos gave speeches about race and unity in the wake of controversy. For Obama it was Reverend Wright and for Santos it was a brown on black police shooting. The content of the speeches was different but the message was the same, that unity is achieved through perseverance, and that we still have many racial issues in this country left unresolved.
The more I watched of the 7th Season of West Wing the more I was amazed at the parallels between the show and real life. Obviously there were differences as well, especially with the policies of McCain and Vinick, but there were so many connections and similarities that it is hard to believe that the show ended years before Obama even declared that he was running for president.
In the end, Santos won the election because of a near catastrophe at a nuclear power plant that Vinick helped get approved. And since both Vinick and McCain are strong proponents of nuclear energy, should there be a nuclear power issue within months of this election, you will find me staring at whatever news source I was looking at with my mouth agape and my eyes wide.
None the less, all these connections are more curiosity than conspiracy, a couple of small coincidences mixed in with a few intelligent guesses. One thing is true, the writers of The West Wing, either by luck or skilled reasoning, pretty accurately predicted the republican and democratic candidates for this year’s election. But I think that is one of the reasons why I always liked that show; its ability to connect the world of fiction to the real world.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Clinton's Strategy: the inevitable loss prolonged
There are only 2 contests left and 31 delegates up for grabs in the democratic primary saga. At this point, here are the running estimated total delegate counts:
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
Note: even if Obama were to take 100% of the vote in Montana and South Dakota, he would still not have enough to completely lock down the nomination without more super delegates. This total also comes from the Michigan/Florida compromise, both of which allowed Clinton to take more delegates then Obama (despite the fact that Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan).
Obama now only needs 48 more delegates while Clinton needs 204. Obama leads Clinton in both pledged and super delegates. But the last two primaries are not enough to give Obama the win, so the race will be decided by super delegates. Clinton, now far behind, must convince not only the remaining 202 unpledged super delegates, to vote for her, but she also needs to flip at least 2 who already pledged support for Obama. This looks like a tall tale to me, especially considering the large lead Obama has, but Clinton is not ready to give up.
In order to convince all these delegates to flip to her camp, she makes the argument that she is more electable than Obama in the general election and that she is actually leading in the popular vote. If these statements are true, it certainly would convince some super delegates that perhaps Clinton is a better choice after all. But are they true?
Clinton claims she will do better than Obama in the general election. But look at the most recent polls located at real clear politics. In a match up between McCain and Clinton, some show McCain ahead by 2 while others show Clinton ahead by 2-4. The average is a 2 point advantage to Clinton. In a match up between Obama and McCain, most polls show a tie, while one poll shows Obama winning. The average comes to +0.7 points to Obama. As any statistician will tell you, the data is all within the statistical margin for error and there is no way to predict the results of either scenario. Thus, Clinton and Obama are both in statistical ties with McCain.
Ok, so Clinton does not really have a significantly better chance at defeating McCain in the general election, at least that recent polls can tell. But remember, all those polls measure is popular vote, and the election is not decided on popular vote. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll comparing McCain to Obama: “On Monday, Democrats continue to lead in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. States with 111 Votes are “leaners,” and states with 38 Votes are Toss-Ups. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240.” (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update)
The general election race is also a toss up, but slightly favoring Obama. Unfortunately for Clinton, she really no longer has the argument that she can do better than Obama. While she makes good progress with the working middle class, Obama makes other states more competitive by reaching out to African Americans and young voters age 18-24.
Clintons other claim is that she is winning the popular vote in primary states. The “in primary states” is important because she is not counting states that hold caucuses. She is also counting the popular vote in Michigan where Obama’s name was not on the ballot. So sure, if she discounts 1/5 of the voting Americans and stack an entire state so that they must for her, then yes she has a popular vote advantage. But most maths would count caucus states, not count states like Michigan etc. Here is a good breakdown of how the popular vote really pans out (click to enlarge). (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/hillary-clinton.html)
So really, the claim Hillary is making about popular vote, is not only pointless, but it does not measure up to scrutiny. So Clinton is trying to convince the super delegates to vote for her because she would do better than Obama vs. McCain, and because she is winning the popular vote. Both of these statements are disputable or downright false.
Of course, Clinton could continue to fight for delegates all the way until the convention in August. But can she really win? Clinton now faces a unique problem, a no win scenario. Should she somehow manage to win all the remaining super delegates and somehow get the Democratic nomination, the entire deal would feel like something concocted in a smoke filled room. There would be allegations of corruption from both democrats and republicans and Clinton would lose a large number of democratic votes this November.
In reality, Clinton has no chance of becoming president because even if she can get the nomination, it would only be under circumstances that would prohibit her from being competitive in the general election. She is doomed to failure and does not appear to know it. Sorry Hillary, you were a strong candidate and set a record for the number of people voting for you in a primary (defeated only by Obama). It is really exciting to see such an intense match up of primary candidates, but it’s over now. It’s time to bow out, thank your supporters and move on.
| Obama | Clinton | ||
| Total(2,118 Needed to Win) | 2070 | 1914 | |
| Super Delegates | 823 | 331 | 290 |
| Pledged Delegates * | 3410 | 1739 | 1624 |
Note: even if Obama were to take 100% of the vote in Montana and South Dakota, he would still not have enough to completely lock down the nomination without more super delegates. This total also comes from the Michigan/Florida compromise, both of which allowed Clinton to take more delegates then Obama (despite the fact that Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan).
Obama now only needs 48 more delegates while Clinton needs 204. Obama leads Clinton in both pledged and super delegates. But the last two primaries are not enough to give Obama the win, so the race will be decided by super delegates. Clinton, now far behind, must convince not only the remaining 202 unpledged super delegates, to vote for her, but she also needs to flip at least 2 who already pledged support for Obama. This looks like a tall tale to me, especially considering the large lead Obama has, but Clinton is not ready to give up.
In order to convince all these delegates to flip to her camp, she makes the argument that she is more electable than Obama in the general election and that she is actually leading in the popular vote. If these statements are true, it certainly would convince some super delegates that perhaps Clinton is a better choice after all. But are they true?
Clinton claims she will do better than Obama in the general election. But look at the most recent polls located at real clear politics. In a match up between McCain and Clinton, some show McCain ahead by 2 while others show Clinton ahead by 2-4. The average is a 2 point advantage to Clinton. In a match up between Obama and McCain, most polls show a tie, while one poll shows Obama winning. The average comes to +0.7 points to Obama. As any statistician will tell you, the data is all within the statistical margin for error and there is no way to predict the results of either scenario. Thus, Clinton and Obama are both in statistical ties with McCain.
Ok, so Clinton does not really have a significantly better chance at defeating McCain in the general election, at least that recent polls can tell. But remember, all those polls measure is popular vote, and the election is not decided on popular vote. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll comparing McCain to Obama: “On Monday, Democrats continue to lead in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. States with 111 Votes are “leaners,” and states with 38 Votes are Toss-Ups. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240.” (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update)
The general election race is also a toss up, but slightly favoring Obama. Unfortunately for Clinton, she really no longer has the argument that she can do better than Obama. While she makes good progress with the working middle class, Obama makes other states more competitive by reaching out to African Americans and young voters age 18-24.
Clintons other claim is that she is winning the popular vote in primary states. The “in primary states” is important because she is not counting states that hold caucuses. She is also counting the popular vote in Michigan where Obama’s name was not on the ballot. So sure, if she discounts 1/5 of the voting Americans and stack an entire state so that they must for her, then yes she has a popular vote advantage. But most maths would count caucus states, not count states like Michigan etc. Here is a good breakdown of how the popular vote really pans out (click to enlarge). (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/hillary-clinton.html)
So really, the claim Hillary is making about popular vote, is not only pointless, but it does not measure up to scrutiny. So Clinton is trying to convince the super delegates to vote for her because she would do better than Obama vs. McCain, and because she is winning the popular vote. Both of these statements are disputable or downright false.
Of course, Clinton could continue to fight for delegates all the way until the convention in August. But can she really win? Clinton now faces a unique problem, a no win scenario. Should she somehow manage to win all the remaining super delegates and somehow get the Democratic nomination, the entire deal would feel like something concocted in a smoke filled room. There would be allegations of corruption from both democrats and republicans and Clinton would lose a large number of democratic votes this November.
In reality, Clinton has no chance of becoming president because even if she can get the nomination, it would only be under circumstances that would prohibit her from being competitive in the general election. She is doomed to failure and does not appear to know it. Sorry Hillary, you were a strong candidate and set a record for the number of people voting for you in a primary (defeated only by Obama). It is really exciting to see such an intense match up of primary candidates, but it’s over now. It’s time to bow out, thank your supporters and move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)