New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

We had mentioned last week that we attended rallies for presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. Video footage and our impressions will be along shortly, but we’ve just uploaded a batch of photos from the events. They’re embedded below.

Popularity: 33% [?]

Speaking at the Janesville General Motors Assembly Plant, Barack Obama finally laid a concrete and comprehensive plan for economic development during an Obama presidency.  The location of the speech is somewhat symbolic given the announcement by GM yesterday of huge losses and issues with the unions.  The Page has full coverage of his plan, but we’ll outline it below.  Commentary and opinions on the plan will be posted shortly.

We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control. The fallout from the housing crisis that’s cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington – the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it’s produced….

I don’t know about a time-out, but I do know this – when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I’ll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I’ve been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate – we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America….

My energy plan will invest $150 billion over ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs over the next two decades – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced….

In the end, this economic agenda won’t just require new money. It will require a new spirit of cooperation and innovation on behalf of the American people. We will have to learn more, and study more, and work harder. We’ll be called upon to take part in shared sacrifice and shared prosperity. And we’ll have to remind ourselves that we rise and fall as one nation; that a country in which only a few prosper is antithetical to our ideals and our democracy; and that those of us who have benefited greatly from the blessings of this country have a solemn obligation to open the doors of opportunity, not just for our children, but to all of America’s children.

Those who claim that Mr. Obama has been all style and all substance should finally have something to chew on today, whether they like his plan or not.  We’ll soon see how the public reacts.  February’s primaries are supposed to be skewed heavily in Obama’s favor, and results like yesterday’s in upcoming primaries could help seal the nomination for a candidate who was once thought of as a long shot.

Popularity: 41% [?]

By 10 pm EST most news outlets called DC, Maryland, and Virginia for John McCain on the Republican side, and Barack Obama on the Democratic one. Obama won by greater margins in all three with at least 60% of the vote. McCain won by decisive margins except in Virginia which, at an 8% margin, was at least contested.

As McCain continues his march to the nomination, Obama appears to be pulling out in front of Clinton on the other side of the process. He has now won eight contests in a row (WA, NE, LA, ME, DC, ME, VA, and the Virgin Islands) and has taken the lead in total delegates (exact numbers often vary; here are the numbers from CNN and the AP; on the right side of your screen you can see NBC’s estimates).

Here are CNN exit polls (MSNBC has not published theirs for some reason) which show Obama eating into Clinton stalwarts (i.e. in Virginia he won 45% of white women and actually won hispanic voters with 54% of their vote). This is big news going into the big Texas primary on March 4th in which 50% of Dem voters could be hispanic. I do not think that Obama could possibly win such a large block of Hispanic voters (VA’s was only 5% of the electorate) as the pattern so far is that heavier hispanic communities (such as in California and New Mexico) are much more apt to vote big for Clinton.

And so the campaign goes on with McCain poised to become the GOP nominee and needing less than 400 more delegates to clinch, while Clinton and Obama are neck and neck. Here’s what’s ahead in terms of significant delegate distribution and primaries for the tightly contested Dem nomination:

February 19: Wisconsin - 70 Delegates

March 4: Texas - 193 Delegates

Ohio - 141 Delegates

April 22: Pennsylvania - 158 Delegates

May 6: North Carolina - 115 Delegates

Indiana - 72 Delegates

May 20: Oregon - 52 Delegates

Kentucky - 51 Delegates

June 7: Puerto Rico - 55 Delegates

August 25-28: Democratic National Convention - 796 Superdelegates (currently 398 have tentatively endorsed: 242 for Clinton and 156 for Obama)

Wisconsin is likely to land in the Obama column; then come the big states. Key traits however give Clinton an initial advantage: Texas Dems are about half hispanic; Ohio and Pennsylvania both have a large amount of lower/middle class blue collar whites; on top of that, the governors of both PA and OH have endorsed Clinton. Nevertheless, Obama’s “big mo’” could be enough to nullify those factors, at least in OH and PA.

A bit further down the road, North Carolina would probably go to Obama because of the large southern black vote. Indiana has a lot of factors at play (For Hillary: its rural, and she has the endorsement of popular Sen. and ex-Gov. Evan Bayh; For Barack: its right next to his home state) so I’ll call it a tossup for now. Oregon is liberal and in the northwest so its advantage Obama. And I would gander that Kentucky and PR are advantage Hillary because of rural whites and hispanics, respectively.

Most importantly though are the Superdelegates (which Frank explains well here; also here is a link to all of the 796 Dem Superdelegates) who make up 20% of all Dem delegates. Only half so far have announced their intentions (which are subject to change), a disproportionate amount of which are higher ranking Dem Officials (Governors and Senators, for instance). There are two things important to remember about what influences unpledged Superdelegates in their decisions: (1) they are party institutionalists, which gives Clinton an obvious boost and (2) they are politicians, aka opportunists, who will wait to see which way the wind blows before they commit.

Of course those are just rough handicaps and do not take into account externalities like future momentum and events yet to be seen. Currently, Obama is the one with all the momentum in the world and is, by most measures, more likely to win the nomination. Nevertheless, unless one of the two sweeps the next three or four big states, the process could very well go all the way to the convention, where the New School will have the privilege of bringing you coverage of the first undecided national convention since 1952.

Popularity: 26% [?]

I have posted three videos which are of significance to the presidential race since last week.

First, is Ann Coulter speaking at CPAC. She has recently made news for announcing that she would support Hillary Clinton over John McCain in a general election. While there are many laughs to around at the prospect of this, it does raise a serious point: whether a general election whooping can discipline and improve the party in the long run; and moreover, whether a party member should vote against their nominee if the nominee shies from their views.

This is likely to be the key question for conservatives this election cycle. My own thoughts are yes; and yes. But in this case I, personally, am still inclined to vote for McCain because I do not think that his taste for reducing (or not) the size of government differs significantly from any other viable candidates who ran for the nomination (save the great Ron Paul). A scenario where I would have voted against the Republican candidate is if Huckabee was nominated for the sake of castigating Republicans for getting too religious.

Anyways, the video is entertaining. Much of it is quite funny, some is not all that “appropriate,” but you should judge for yourself. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 30% [?]

For any entry-level liberal, say an angsty young 13-14 year old reaching out for the arms of Papa Bono and Mama Greenday to lift them up into the simplistic world of catchy revolutionary slogans, publications like Rolling Stone often provide kindling for the fires of righteous adolescent fury. But once you grow up a little and do your homework, you find out that the Rolling Stone reporters, the Nader freaks, anarchists, and yes, even the opinionated pamphleteers-turned-bloggers(thanks to the advent of technology to quicken the pace of kvetching worldwide), have always been in the losing corner of the losing side, flanking the port on the half of the boat that is first to sink. One such recent article, entitled “The Chicken Doves,” offers some lopsided reporting in the way of first-hand accounts of

anti-establishment fringe elements, paired with a healthy helping of expletives to balance it out, and finally coming to this conclusion: Democrins or Republicrats, the establishment is out to get us. The establishment will always lie to you, and every time Nancy Pelosi blinks (that’s 103 times since you’ve started reading this post), an angel loses its wings. My point? My point is to ask columnist Matt Taibbi, or any cynical nihilistic young gun running his mouth off, what his point is. What is the point of cyclical logic and endless bitching about blockades in progress. That’s democracy, constant back and forth until you arrive at a compromise. The Reid and Pelosi team may have stopped fighting to end the war prematurely, but it does seem logical to focus energies on installing a Democratic president for four years, then ending the war in the next 8 months, and it does not constitute a betrayal of the American people as Mr. Taibbi suggests. Ok, Taibbi isn’t the worst example, as a writer for Rolling Stone, being cynical and foul-mouthed is practically in his job description, but this particular column is a step down from his coverage of the 2004 campaigns.

This is what’s so great about Barack Obama. Though he’s seen much of the world, much of the misfortunes of working class people all over the world, he’s come out relatively free of cynicism. He has the audacity to hope. He’s a mensch in every sensch. But if and when he gets into office, the American people can expect the same kind of political stagnation they can expect from any new leader, and even with a majority in the house and senate, progress will be slow. And it should be, because hasty moves are for dicatorships and autocrats, and that kind of governance-by-mandate has an efficiency that is always short lived. What we can hope for in the leaders of tomorrow is competence. Not inspiration, not a new dawn, but competence and an understanding of the issues that stems from the New School of Politics. The idealism of Free Love and social revolution turned out to be a failure, but our generation, with its overexposure to information and media and suffering in the world is as prepared as any to deal with the oncoming crisis of terrorism and an economy so interconnected that on ripple can send global shockwaves in days. Just because we didn’t live through the poverty of the Great Depression or the fear of Nuclear Holocaust doesn’t mean we’re uneducated and unprepared for dealing with the issues of the rise and fall of the market, and nuclear nonproliferation. We’ve had experiences of our own. We know fear, we saw the towers fall. We know failure, we invaded Iraq on false pretenses, alienating our friends and allies of the world. And we know that far flung idealism and a huge government organ that mandates what it thinks is best for the people will never get far. We’re pragmatists. We’re the New School of Politics. So shutup, dig in your heels, stop dreaming, and start working.

I recommend reading all of Matt Taibbi’s article here.

Popularity: 21% [?]

Tonight, the Senate passed a slightly moderated version of the compromise stimulus bill settled on by the White House and the House of Representatives 81-16. The bill was immediately rushed back to the House, where Speaker Pelosi got it passed rapidly. Senate Democrats’ version of a stimulus bill fell flat earlier after being fillibustered by Republicans and coming one vote short of qualifying for an up-or-down vote on the floor.

The Senate passed the House’s $150 billion bill, and tacked on an additional $18 billion in spending for those not paying income taxes but earning at least $3,000, as well as Social Security recipients and wounded veterans. Harry Reid alas’ decided to accept the original bill–which primarily features rebates for those earning less than $150,000/year and business tax credits–after vowing to stand for his bill whose price tag stood around $204 billion. The failed Democrat’s bill included bolstered unemployment insurance, heating subsidies for the poor, and incentives for investment in renewable energies, coal, and home building (because higher prices and more demand for energy, not to mention more home construction, are exactly what our economy needs right now).

All of the 16 who voted against the bill in the Senate were Republicans. They included such spending hawks as Tom Coburn (OK), Jim DeMint (SC), and Bob Corker (TN), the last of whom opined that Congress had just done the equivolent of throw $150 billion “into a mud puddle.” Wise words from the junior Senator from Tennessee. Unfortunately, John McCain apparently was never graced with Corker’s bout of wisdom, as the presumptive GOP nominee returned to the Hill on Thursday to vote for the muddled spending. Of course this is disappointing to see from the AZ Senator who has lauded himself as a great deficit hawk and budget cutter. On top of that, I have never–in any speech or debate–heard him explain what he believed on stimulus, nor even enumerate what his opinion was up until this point.

Hillary Clinton (in addition to Barack Obama) flew back just for the first vote. On the trail, Clinton has offered her own stimulus plan which has baffled me for its economic irrationality for some time now. It includes a provision to freeze rates on adjustable rate mortgages (of which there are currently 11 million in America) for the next five years. Here is a solid article from two prominent economists demonstrating the would-be consequences of such price fixing.

Despite the Federal Reserve cutting its federal funds rate substantially in recent months (from 5.25% all the way to 3% already), European central banks have been resolved in keeping their rates generally steady to combat inflation and avoid reinflating any credit bubble. Just today the Bank of England cut its rate by .25% but indicated that is unlikely to trim it any more, while the European Central Bank has yet to ease rates at all (announcing tonight that it would continue to keep them steady). Jean-Claue Trichet, the President of the ECB, made the case that the fundamentals of the European economy are strong and that inflation, which is currently above 3% and will probably remain above 2% for some time, is a more daunting worry.

More importantly, he noted that M3 growth remained fervent, as did borrowing by non-financial businesses, reaching highs in December 2007. The scary thing is that Europe is not having the same credit problems as we do, as Trichet noted, yet we are the ones debasing interest rates to the potential end of reinflating existing financial imbalances. The current mess we are witnessing is little more than the consequence of the Fed doing the exact same thing that it is doing now, when it lowered the federal funds rate all the way to 1% in 2003 in order to respond to the same type of economic slowdown. Even worse, the downturn in ‘01/’02 was less related to credit woes, so this time by loosening credit we are putting fire to even more flamable substances. Nevertheless, Trichet was wise to note that there is only so much we know–only so much data available to paint a realistic picture of the economy–and that “further data and analysis will be required in order to obtain a more complete picture of the impact of the financial market developments on banks’ balance sheets, financing conditions and money and credit growth.”

The ECB President’s speech also brings me back to the topic of fiscal stimulus, as he used some of his time to rebuke the idea of government spending to boost the economy saying:

With respect to fiscal policies, a discretionary fiscal loosening in EU countries should be avoided. There is ample evidence that activist fiscal policies were not effective in stabilising European economies but rather led to sustained increases in the ratios of government expenditure and debt to GDP. Allowing the free operation of automatic stabilisers in countries with strong fiscal positions and safeguarding the long-term sustainability of public finances are the best contributions that fiscal policy can make to macroeconomic stability.

It looks like American officials from Bush to Bernake could take use some advice from the Frenchman, who is right on the money when it comes to warning about intervention to encourage more economic spending. Add him to the coalition against fiscal stimulus.

Also of interest is NYU Prof of Econ, Will Easterly’s critique of Bill Gates’ concept of “creative capitalism,” which the Microsoft founder spoke in favor of in his speech at the World Economic forum in Davos. In response to Gates, who argued that self-interest and the profit motive do nothing for the poor and that foreign aid and a sense of social responsibility are necessary to improve the plight of the world’s poor, Easterly makes the case that charity does little to lift poor peoples out of perpetual poverty. His rebuttal is in line with his book, The White Man’s Burden, as he argues that indeed self-interest and unfettered capitalism makes the whole world better off in the long run because it is most productive and creates the best incentives for third-world nations to build an economic system through a sense of individualism and self-reliance.

Finally, on a happier note, the writer’s strike appears to be over. A deal has been reached between corporate media and the writer’s guild, according to ex-Disney CEO Michael Eisner.

Popularity: 67% [?]

With Mitt Romney out of the picture (giving McCain a virtual lock on the Republican nomination), Obama and Clinton are left to duke it out in a prolonged struggle for the Democratic nomination that might very well end in a skirmish on the floor of the convention. Although both candidates are very intelligent and appealing, exit polls suggest that most young voters are leaning towards Senator Obama. But before we, the proud Democratic youth of America, get behind the charismatic, well-groomed superstar senator, it is imperative that we stop and consider the consequences of putting this guy behind the big desk.

As someone who voted for Barack Obama in the Connecticut Super Tuesday primary, it’s my duty, and the duty of my fellow Obama supporters, to remind ourselves what we’re getting into. “Change We Can Believe In,” and “Spread Hope” are taglines, not policies. And although these messages may sound positive, the ideas of Change and Hope are really negative campaigning and attack advertising at its finest. Obama isn’t here to talk about what change he is bringing to the White House, he’s talking about what we as a nation are looking to get away from: the Bush administration’s failed policies. Running against the backdrop of Bush’s presidency is a lot easier than running against the experience and hardened policies of either Hilary Clinton or, down the road, John McCain. But let’s face it, for a junior senator, this method is the smartest method, and perhaps the only way to win this political competition.

Obama’s got some good policies: his ideas about healthcare are more fiscally sound and realistic than Clinton’s, his populist tendencies and promises of a transparent government give the impression of a man with nothing to hide; his position on the war, while perhaps a little naive, still stands to be very appealing to Americans who have never felt that turning the Middle East into a love-fest of Western Thinking is possible, or even a good idea, and his background as a community leader gives him a strong moral high ground.

But regardless of his policies, any newly minted American president as inexperienced as Obama has a good chance of being put under the microscope, especially in the area of foreign policy. Nations who have not been so fond of American neo-imperialism, such as Russia and France, will undoubtedly issue litmus tests in one form or another. Outright hostile nations such as Iran and North Korea might test the new administration’s diplomatic skills through aggressive acts of escalation. Senator Obama’s calls for diplomacy, and offers to sit down with Iran and others, may well come back to haunt him, paralyzing the beginning of his presidency while he fends off one challenge after another. George Bush was tested a year into his presidency, and that test defined his two terms in office, which are now widely viewed as a failure. As Obama supporters, we must ask ourselves if his offers of diplomacy are so very different from Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s ideas that appeasement might achieve “peace for our time,” an irony that has echoed throughout history. Is the young Senator from Illinois too young and too naive to hear those echoes?

I believe he is not. Barack Obama is an “A” student, and despite a having a few sadsacks from the Carter administration hanging around his advisory room, I have confidence in his ability to stock the new ExComm with smart people to help him out with foreign policy. And though the proponents of radical Islam may issue a lot of ultimatums, in the end, I have to believe that there are people in Middle Eastern nations who are looking for a U.S. leader who will reach out to them, rather than cast them into the same lot with Al Qaeda, and chase them to the “gates of hell,” as John McCain has promised to do.

That’s putting a lot of “hope” into “change,” and if you don’t have that kind of faith to spare in Senator Obama’s abilities, then you should be voting for Senator Clinton, whose chances at winning a general election are slimmer, but whose foreign policy is well worn, and whose husband showed a good deal of competence concerning foreign affairs while in office.

This is Ben’s first post at New School Politics. To find out more about him, please visit the about page.

Popularity: 45% [?]

As politically incorrect, perhaps, as it may sound, the Democrats voting is mainly breaking down according to race and sex. I would not be a good blogger if I did not notice it and report it. The GOP on the other hand seems to be sparring over ideology. Here is what Super Tuesday has shown:

Democrats:

You know you’re a Obama supporter if you are: 1) black  2) young  3) wealthy and educated.

You know you’re a Clinton supporter if you are: 1) a woman  2) hispanic  3) old  4) lower-middle class.

National numbers and state exit polls demonstrate the validity of my general claims.

This is not to say that there are no ideological patterns among Democratic voters as more self-proclaimed “very liberal” voters tend to support Obama, while moderately “liberal” ones find themselves with Clinton. But at the same time Obama has received a consistent rush of independent (including moderates and conservatives) voters throughout the process. Additionally, Clinton was victorious by 10 points in the American fountainhead of liberalism, Massachusetts, despite the fact that Obama had the active support of both of its famous senators. Hence, while there are some philosophical trends, they are often contradicted. The fact remains that most of the candidates platforms are very similar (compare here and here), and thus, political ideology is marginalized in voters’ minds.

Another notable trend is that of racial “tension” or “divide” among the Democratic electorate. What I find from exit polling is that if there is a large minority voting block in any given state, white Dems will tend to vote in the other direction. For example, if there are a large number of hispanics (pro-Clinton) in a state, the whites will vote disproportionately for Obama, while if there are large amount of blacks (pro-Obama), the whites will vote for Clinton. This comes in addition to the fact that Hispanics and Blacks (who otherwise share many demographic characteristics) are voting in clearly opposite directions in part because cultural tensions are still apparent (additional evidence) between the two racial groups. Overall Clinton got about 60% of the hispanic vote, while Obama procured more than 80% of the black vote.

The two largest hispanic states on Super Tuesday were California and New Mexico, where hispanics were 30% and 35% of the electorate, respectively. Among those hispanics, Clinton won 67% and 62% of the vote, respectively. However, Obama tied her among white voters in CA (winning white men by 20 pts) and actually won the white vote in NM 55-43. Nationally Obama carried just over 40% of the total white vote last night.In Alabama and Georgia, the Super Tuesday states with the most black voters (51% of each electorate), Obama received 84% and 88% of the vote and won a commanding victory in the state. However, he lost the white vote significantly in both cases, with only 43% in GA and 25% in AL.

The irony of it all is that the party which lauds itself as a vehicle for racial and gender progress, is by no means above voting on such superficial factors.

Popularity: 42% [?]

After the single biggest day of voting in primary history here is how the race stands:

Total Democratic Delegate Count:

Clinton: 1012

Obama: 933

Total GOP Delegate Count:

McCain: 697

Romney: 244

Huckabee: 187

At the end of voting last night Obama won 13 states and Clinton won 8. Obama tended to win deep southern states with large black populations as well as Midwestern states, while Clinton won heavily populated states states, especially ones in the Northeast, as well as states with large hispanic populations. (Exit polls here will give you an indication of these trends.)

For the other side, McCain won 9, Romney won 7, and Huckabee won 5. Put simply, Romney won midwestern states, Huck won southern states, while McCain won the most states and the biggest states.

The Democratic nominee needs 2025 delegates to take the nomination, while the GOP nominee requires 1191. As you can see things are very close on the Democratic side after the big night with Clinton holding on to a 68 delegate lead by virtue of nothing more than 83 more super-delegates (Frank wrote an lucid post explaining the Democratic super-delegates here) she has than Obama. This race is anything but over as there are many more delegates to be had.

The Repulican race is not nearly as close. To the contrary, with Huckabee winning some southern states and Romney performing below what was needed of him, John McCain continues to pull way out in front in the race for the nomination.

In the next week look to big primaries including Washington and Louisiana on Saturday and Virginia and Maryland on Tuesday.

UPDATE: My sources for the above delegate projections are CBS, AP, Washington Post, and RealClearPolitics. Note that numbers are constantly changing and that projections differ according to source. For instance, NBC News has Obama out in front of the delegate count by a very small margin as of Wednesday night. Hence, we dont really know the exact counts at this point. All that we do know is that the Dem race is effectively tied at this point.

Popularity: 26% [?]

To cap off an eventful night, sources have called California for Hillary Clinton and John McCain pretty early on. The state is not winner take all for either party, but it still has the most delegates for both. The state was really a big swing primary for both as polls had it as a tossup going into tonight. Hence, it is a really big swing in momentum for the Clinton and McCain campaigns. At this point in time California and Super Tuesday as a whole leads me to conclude that McCain is pulling way out in front for the GOP, while Clinton retains a slight edge for the Dems.

In hind sight I do not think that we should have been so surprised at Clinton or McCain winning. First of all, CA has a huge hispanic population (around 30% of Dem electorate), two-thirds of which voted for Clinton. This was more than enough to overcome white and black voters–the majority of both voted for Obama in CA. (Exit polls here). On the GOP side, Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger’s endorsement in the past week may very well have put McCain over the top in what was thought to be a close race.

Additionally, sources have just called Missouri for John McCain with more than 97% reporting. This primary is winner take all, and has the fourth most delegates of the night for the GOP. It was up until now a tossup between the Senator and Gov. Huckabee who has done extremely well in the south tonight. McCain beat Huckabee by just 1% there.

MO has yet to be called for the Dems. With 97% reporting, about one half percent separates the two candidates.

UPDATE: Missouri is called for Obama with 98% reporting. He is ahead by about .6% as of now.

Popularity: 24% [?]