Who does PresO think he is. He comes to StateFair the SecretService shut down all small business vendors depriving them of income wo compsat
— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) August 14, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
Obama derangement
This is an actual tweet from Iowa's GOP Senator Chuck Grassley, apoplectic that Obama stopped by to speak at the Iowa State Fair today:
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Well, shit, it wasn't Portman
I'm genuinely surprised. Portman was the obvious "don't rock the boat" pick with a potential marginal upside in Ohio. But that choice is appropriate for a campaign that's more or less in a dead heat with its opponent.
Apparently Romney concluded that thus far he's been on track to lose. Granted, he hasn't had a good week since the first half of June, he's the first candidate in recent memory to have a higher unfavorable rating than favorable, and three polls that came out at the end of last week showed him down between 7 and 9 points.
But I still wasn't expecting a risky choice like Paul Ryan, the GOP Budget Chairman best known for his draconian budget that would replace Medicare with a voucher for private health insurance. This strikes me a sign of mild panic (or at least resignation) in the Romney camp. Which surprises me.
Sorry Rob, maybe next time.
The Loneliest Probe in the Universe
Thirty-five years ago (the anniversary is on September 5), Voyager 1 began a historic journey across the universe. During the 1970s, a rare alignment of all the Solar System's outer planets--Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and then-planet Pluto--offered a once-in-several-lifetimes opportunity to get tremendous bang for one's space exploration buck. NASA scientists, long on ambition and imagination but short on budgetary politics sense, envisioned a Planetary Grand Tour of a fleet of space probes continuously hopping from one of those distant worlds to the next. Fiscal reality reduced that fleet to a duo, the Voyagers, intended to study Jupiter and Saturn.
It was at Saturn that the twins' destinies diverged. Voyager 2 was given the go-ahead for an extended mission following its successful flyby of the planet: it was to salvage the majestic concept of the Planetary Grand Tour. It would go on to give us our first (and to date, only) close-up looks at Uranus and Neptune. It then continued on into deep space.
Meanwhile, mission scientists made a different decision about Voyager 1's post-Saturn destination. A proposal to send it on a Pluto flyby was rejected (Pluto remains unvisited; the arrival of the New Horizons probe in 2015 will mark mankind's first exploration of that world). Instead, it was diverted to take a closer look at Saturn's enigmatic moon, Titan. The probe's instruments had difficulty penetrating Titan's thick, hazy atmosphere but produced tantalizing hints that conditions on the moon might allow for the existence of seas--this was confirmed in 2006, when the Cassini-Huygens mission found lakes of ethane and methane, the only standing liquid known to exist in the universe off of the Earth.
Voyager 1's flyby of Titan was the end of its own planetary tour, as the process jettisoned it out of the plane of the planets' orbits. It now headed off to deep space. Aided by its interactions with Saturn and Titan, Voyager 1 was receding from the Sun faster than any other probe. Today, Voyager 1 is the farthest piece of humanity in the universe, a whopping 11.1 billion miles from home. Wiki has a sobering simulation of what its view would be were it gazing homeward:
I bring up this remarkable spacecraft not just because it's as far as anything's ever been, but because it's back in the news this week for yet another first (and yet another reminder of its remoteness):
Evidence suggesting that NASA's venerable Voyager 1 probe is about to leave the solar system is piling up, scientists say. Researchers are eyeing three key parameters for signs that Voyager 1, which launched in 1977, has escaped into interstellar space. The spacecraft's measurements show that two of these three parameters are now changing faster than at any other time in the last seven years, scientists said.If it hasn't already, it's on the verge of leaving our solar system and marking mankind's first venture into interstellar space. So begins its last great adventure, one that presumably will never end (though by 2025 we will probably lose contact with it as its power sources die). A drink to the universe, to our amazing little emissary, and to the men who built her!
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Senate Seat Not For Sale
Sherrod is in trouble.
It's not time to panic. But it is time to wake up.
I'll admit, I've been complacent. With his early double digit lead, his skill at connecting with Ohio families, and his long history of service to the state, I didn't imagine he could be unseated. Certainly not by an opponent as lacking in substance, political experience, and integrity as Ohio's 34-year-old State Treasurer.
But I've ignored the new reality: thanks to recent rulings from the nine robed demigods who channel the Spirit of the Founders, this year's election isn't like those held even just four or six years ago. Our public offices are now for sale in a way they've never been before.
Andrew Romano, writing in Newsweek, has proclaimed Sherrod "The Hunted Democrat" in an eye-opening piece. Please read it.
Still, Ohio is the starkest example of the dystopian havoc that outside groups can now wreak on a race. In theory, the contest shouldn’t be close. Brown has outraised Mandel by $5.1 million. His approval and disapproval ratings are roughly equal; Mandel’s unfavorables outstrip his favorables by a perilous 15 percentage points. This is part of the reason why Brown was drubbing Mandel by an average of more than 13 points as recently as January—even though the populist, pro-Obama senator is far more progressive than the swing state he represents. But then the super PACs and 501(c)(4)s began to spend on Mandel’s behalf: nearly $12 million so far, or more than Brown dropped on his entire 2006 campaign, with another $7 million reserved for the fall. The number on Brown’s side of the ledger is much smaller: about $3 million from unions, liberal interest groups, and Democratic super PACs. All told, Mandel’s third-party allies have outspent and outreserved Brown’s 6 to 1, and nearly twice as much money has been spent and set aside by or for Mandel than Brown. No other competitive Senate race is this lopsided. In response, the polling gap between Mandel and Brown has shrunk to 7.7 percent, and strategists are beginning to talk of the race as a possible tossup.Sherrod has become Public Enemy Number One to the outside billionaires who are now free to try and buy a Senate seat. Our Senate seat. It was 100 years ago this year that a Constitutional amendment went to the states after receiving the requisite 2/3 vote in each chamber of Congress. The writers of this amendment, mindful of the corruption and Senate seat-selling that had come to mar Congress's upper chamber, sought to return ownership of Senate seats directly to the people. And here we are again, with the well-connected and the wealthy seeking to write a check for a shiny new Senate seat. But it's not their seat to buy. It's ours. I stand with Sherrod.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Gentlemen of the Road
The concert is just one of four "Gentlemen of the Road Stopover" festivals that Mumford & Sons has planned for this summer (in addition to a regular tour). This has drawn national attention to Portland -- not only is the event expected to bring in fans from all over the country, band members have praised the city's art scene and historic, creative vibe in explaining why they picked it as a venue. "It's got the ocean, a lively music scene, and it's an old town. We're very interested in history," said Mumford multi-instrumentalist and vocalist Winston Marshall, 24, in a phone interview. "It's exactly the vibe and character we were looking for in picking these sites." Marshall will get to see more of Portland than just the Eastern Promenade -- after the show, he's scheduled to be at one of the five after-parties, at The Big Easy in Portland's Old Port.But it's their philosophy that I dig:
The band's other "Stopover" festival events this summer are all in relatively small places: Bristol, Va.; Dixon, Ill.; and Monterey, Calif. Portland is the first city on the U.S. leg of the tour. (The festival debuted in June with one show each in the U.K. and Ireland.) Marshall said the idea of the "Stopovers" was to have a daylong festival that celebrates an entire community. "We want to be learning about the towns we're in, going into the bars and pubs," said Marshall. "We're not particularly well-informed or well-educated, so this is good for us."
Thursday, August 2, 2012
OH-14
I can't vote there anymore but I'm fascinated by the political earthquake that took place in the district this week. After not only serving 9 terms in the House, but actually winning this year's primary and being a shoo-in for yet another term, Steve Latourette announced this week he's going to retire after this term. It's hard out there for a moderate. Apparently if you're not completely insane, your future in the Republican party isn't very bright these days.
Both parties scrambled Tuesday to assess their prospects in the 14th district in the wake of Rep. Steven LaTourette’s surprise retirement. With the GOP Congressman’s decision to delay his retirement long enough to avoid a special primary, Republicans were confident that they could choose a successor capable of holding the moderately GOP-leaning district in November. But Ohio Democrats are moving to replace their nominee, Dale Blanchard, with a top-tier contender, and whether they’re successful could determine their ability to put this winnable seat in play. [...] “These are some of our best organized counties,” Ohio Republican consultant Barry Bennett said. “These guys fight for their lives, so they get it.” Neither the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor the Ohio Democratic Party could comment specifically on any effort to persuade Blanchard to drop his candidacy so that he could be replaced in similar fashion with a viable candidate. If Blanchard does drop out, expect Democrats to invest in this seat, which is considered a perfect fit for the moderate LaTourette but highly competitive without him.Why replace perennial candidate Dale Blanchard? Well, the guy isn't a pro, he's a sacrificial lamb. Take a look at his campaign website: it's horrific. But despite Democratic hopes that he can be replaced, he doesn't appear to be going anywhere:
Solon Democrat Dale Virgil Blanchard said Thursday morning that he has no intention of dropping out as the Democratic Party’s nominee for Ohio’s 14th Congressional District. Blanchard, an accountant, who has run for the position every two years since 2000, has felt energized since U.S. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, R-Bainbridge Township, announced he would not seek re-election. “Under no circumstances am I going to drop out,” Blanchard said. “I have no reason to do it. I’m the one who wants it.” [...]A shame; that would've been a nice pickup.
I Predict Portman
Making predictions about politics is usually a dumb idea. And in a week or two when Mitt Romney announces his VP pick, I'll probably have egg on my face.
But I'm going to make a prediction anyway: Romney's vice presidential pick will be Ohio's very own senator, Rob Portman.
This isn't a particularly novel prediction, as it's well-known that he is on Romney's short list and the folks over at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball are also betting that it'll be Portman. I've leaned in this direction for some time now--through the Marco Rubio and Chris Christie fads--but in recent weeks this pick has started to seem more likely.
Despite Portman being from the uber-swing state, it's generally accepted that candidates generally don't choose a running mate with the intent of swinging a specific state, though they may seek some sort of regional "balance" to avoid the perception of having only sectional appeal. Off the top of my head, the last election I can think of where the ability of a VP candidate to swing a state or region played an important role in his selection was in 1960.
However, there's something peculiar happening in the polling right now: the curious phenomenon that Obama is outperforming his national numbers in key swing states, most noticeably in Ohio. As Nate Silver noted at the end of last week: Ohio Polls Show Trouble for Romney.
Nowhere was this more apparent than in Ohio, where there were two new polls out on Friday. One of them, from the firm We Ask America, gave Mr. Obama an eight-point lead there. Another, from Magellan Strategies, put Mr. Obama up by two points. Our model “thinks” the Magellan Strategies poll is a more realistic estimate of the state of play in Ohio. The model now forecasts a three-point victory for Mr. Obama there, which it translates to about a two-in-three chance of his winning the state given the uncertainty in the forecast. Mr. Obama’s projected three-point lead in Ohio is important for the following reason, however: it’s slightly larger than the 2.4-point advantage that the model now gives Mr. Obama in the national popular vote. In other words, based on the data so far this year, Ohio has been slightly Democratic-leaning relative to the country as a whole. That reflects a reversal from the usual circumstances. Normally, Ohio — though very close to the national averages — leans Republican by two points or so.That was followed up by another new Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll of three battleground states this week:
A snapshot of the race, taken during a burst of summer campaigning, found that Mr. Obama holds an advantage of 6 percentage points over Mr. Romney in Florida and Ohio. The president is stronger in Pennsylvania, leading by 11 percentage points. The margin of sampling of error is plus or minus three percentage points in each state.As of this moment, the RealClearPolitics average of state polls of Ohio has Obama up 4.8 points in Ohio. Republicans do not win the presidency without winning Ohio. I invite you to play with 270towin and find realistic winning scenarios for Mitt Romney that don't involve Ohio. It's very, very tough. And while it's still overwhelmingly likely that whoever wins the popular vote will also win the electoral vote and become President, there is a small chance that Obama will lose the popular vote but win the electoral college (Nate Silver's models currently show that outcome 5.4% of the time, vs. only 0.8% for the reverse scenario). If that occurs, Ohio will likely be the reason. Of course, the candidate winning the popular vote has only lost the election three times in races where two candidates earned all the electoral votes (in the election of 1824, electoral votes were split between four different candidates). In the late 19th century, during a period of intense polarization this happened twice in 12 years: in the election of 1876 (the only time a candidate won an outright majority, not plurality, of the popular vote and still lost the election) and the election of 1888. In our own time, of course, the relevant example is the election of 2000. Which happens to have been 12 years ago.* Yes, the polls in Ohio may well tighten up (maybe even reverse themselves) over the next three months. But Romney needs to make his choice now, not after waiting a few months to watch how Ohio plays out. Hoping that Ohio will swing his way requires making a number of assumptions: that Romney's opposition to the auto bailout ultimately won't have much impact, that Obama's characterizations of Romney in his latest ad blitzes won't stick, that the lower unemployment rate in Ohio will be trumped by continued tepid national numbers, and so on. One thing that held me back a bit regarding Portman, however, was that his lengthy record of public service includes a stint as George W. Bush's budget director. George W. Bush's fiscal credentials, you may recall, are suspect among a base that's rhetorically devoted to fiscal discipline. And memories of his dismal economic record are unlikely to have faded among the broader public. Indeed, we've seen lately that the Obama campaign is framing the election as something of a matchup of the policies of Bill Clinton vs. the policies of George W. Bush. A Portman pick would seemingly play into that narrative. In addition to the recent announcement that Bill Clinton will be getting a primetime speaking slot at the Democratic convention next month (taking the slot that normally would go to Joe Biden, who gets bumped to performing as Obama's warmup act the following night), Obama has used some lines on the campaign trail that compare Romney's Bush-esque agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation with his own Clintonesque tax agenda:
I'm running because I believe you can’t reduce the deficit -- which is a serious problem, we’ve got to deal with it -- but we can’t reduce it without asking folks like me who have been incredibly blessed to give up the tax cuts that we’ve been getting for a decade. (Applause.) I'll cut out government spending that’s not working, that we can’t afford, but I’m also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs -- (applause) -- the biggest budget surplus in history and everybody did well. Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan -- and it worked. That’s the difference. (Applause.) That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.(Perhaps predictably, Mitt Romney's campaign has continued its habit of using out-of-context quotes to make attack ads. They have at least one of Obama saying "we tried our plan--and it worked" to imply he's speaking about the stimulus which, Trunk's excellent post aside, is much easier to demonize among average Americans than is Clinton's economic policy). But Portman is trying this week to get out in front of attempts to link him to the Bush administration's failures. See this article out of The Hill today: Possible VP pick Rob Portman was ‘frustrated’ at Bush budget office .
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who served as former President George W. Bush’s budget director, sought this week to distance himself from his former boss by saying he was “frustrated” in the high-profile post.Self-serving attempt to overcome his greatest weakness as Romney closes in on a final VP decision? Or perhaps the word has come down to start the messaging process because he's very likely to be the VP nominee? I have no idea, of course, but it's interesting. Perhaps Romney will ultimately choose a different incredibly boring white guy as his Number Two (e.g. Tim Pawlenty) but right now Portman has to be the favorite. Fun fact: this ticket would be the reverse of the winning ticket in 1920. In that election, a Republican Senator from Ohio (Harding) topped the ticket, pulling along a Massachusetts Governor (Coolidge) as his VP. Now we'd have a Massachusetts Governor enlisting an Ohio Senator. * This is just a bit of political numerology. Presidential elections in the 1880s were more polarized than those today: the two intervening elections between the 1876/88 popular-plurality-loser elections were decided in the popular vote by 0.1% and 0.3%. Meanwhile, in our time the 2004 and 2008 elections were decided by 2.4% and 7.2%, respectively (though the latter had some shades of 1932 to it, which disrupted what otherwise looked like a potentially close election).
Pressed on his record with Bush, Portman — a leading GOP vice presidential contender — agreed to an exclusive interview with The Hill in his Senate office. Portman was careful to not criticize Bush while detailing the challenges he faced from other administration officials, whom he declined to name. The comments indicate that Portman is seeking to keep Bush at arm’s length while also not appearing to be disloyal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)