Candidates Count On Us

The election is still some weeks away, but our twenty-four hour a day mainstream media seems intent on asking us how we're going to vote; when of course they're not trying to subliminally tell us how we're going to vote. They're apparently able to gain such knowledge through a rather arcane and twisted form of telemarketing known as polling. Don't get me wrong here.  There’s nothing actually new in using such a process, and there have been reputable firms like Rasmussen who have been doing it for many years; but these once reputable families have spawned a host of illegitimate offspring.

You see, with the increase in the number of network news organizations, the need to fill twenty-four hours of programming, and the desperate desire of daily newspapers to feel at least somewhat relevant in today’s world; it seems that everybody and their illiterate brother now wants to stick their name on this process of suffrage soothsaying. In fact, I don't believe I've seen this much attention paid to polls by the media since the year that the national newspaper conference and the stripper's convention were going on at the same time in Las Vegas. (I believe that's the year they came up with the slogan, "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas".)

These pollsters will tell you that they've become quite sophisticated over the years in what they call 'leveraging' their polls to compensate for the number of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans expected to participate in the voting process. Voters in turn will tell you that they've become quite sophisticated themselves in conniving pollsters of into specious target identification (lying about the information counted on by pollsters for accuracy). Having briefly studied this often confusing form of mathematics while in college, I was always curious as to how in their methodical application probability and statistics, pollsters could also factor in that the only people analyzed were those willing to stay on the phone long enough 'to answer a few simple questions'.  Such a bias in data gathering hardly seemed to form a true sample. This would seem to become especially problematic when pollsters are attempting to gather numbers on 'likely voters' as opposed to 'likely poll takers'. 

 

Of course once their results are published we see one of their real purposes, as they become endless fodder used by media moderators and pundits alike. Those whose candidate is ahead can talk about the reputable nature of the polling organizations, while those behind can berate such organizations for media bias, improper skewing, and inconsistency with other polls. After they've decided that the information that they've just spent 30 minutes tearing apart and putting back together is of no value, they can go on to tell you how it will skew the polls on voting day for the final 30 minutes of their respective programs. Those ahead complain that leading in the polls causes voters not to vote for a candidate who already appears to be winning. Those behind in turn can complain that such numbers dissuade those supporting their candidate for bothering to vote in what these numbers say is a foregone conclusion against them. 

 

There are organizations that attempt further accuracy to such information by analysis of the output of the various polling organizations, believing that by averaging the inclinations of those averaging the inclinations, they can improve the odds of success. They may be right in method of course, but you certainly don't see anyone using such a methods at the crap table.

For myself, I find the entire process more than a little annoying under most circumstances, but perhaps that's because I am constantly beleaguered for my opinion from pollsters who think I still live in a battleground state. Oh sure, I can occasionally amuse myself by convincing the person on the other end of the line that I'm of a different race, income bracket, or political persuasion. After a while however, even randomly manipulating the careful conjectures of these statistical sadists loses its appeal.

Inevitably, I can't help but remember what polling has done to governance, and to be appalled that political campaigns have come to be run by these daily interrogations of the people in order to decide what the candidate believes from day to day. Such misuse of mathematics insults those who show the personal responsibility required to work for candidates, let alone those who show up on election day. All deserve better than to be constantly cross-examined to discover if they are as fickle in their core beliefs as the candidates that they invariably support.

 

I am proud to say however, that there has been one exception to this rule lately. It was a time when polling was far from required to divine the beliefs and the mood of the nation. For one brief and shining moment during this recent week of the campaign, the nation finally stood united. Partisan political bickering was set aside, if only for a time, and there was bi-partisan support across the nation crying out to the world with one voice on a Tuesday morning, 

 “We gotta get the regular refs back to work in the NFL.”

The Lessons of Scott Walker

Having said it likely that I would wait until the weekend to post, here I am again (which I suppose  means that I am as untrustworthy as some of the politicians I write about).   I  simply found that the more I listened to the talking heads on both sides of the political spectrum discuss the Wisconsin vote, the angrier I got.  I am therefore going to weigh while the ink is still drying on the Wisconsin tallies.

One of the few things more amusing than seeing the mainstream media handed their collective butts in an election is watching the Olympic back-pedaling of the losers and the massive overreaching of the winners when the final results of such an election are finally tallied.

After Ohio's Governor Kasich took a drubbing for the failed effort in his state to gain the restrictions of public sector workers, the left was all but convinced that Governor Walker would receive a similar shellacking, especially with the numbers of signatures on the recall petitions.  In spite of the fact that Walker seemed to be consistently ahead in the polls, we were told to expect his demise.  

Well the results are in now and the reports Scott Walker's demise were apparently greatly exaggerated.  He will remain the governor of Wisconsin, by what appears to be a lead of 53% to 46% over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  And even as Badgers were going to the polls, the pundits were lining up with excuses and prophecies.

I for one was amazed at the amount of whine produced in Wisconsin, as those on the left quickly pointed out that Barrett, after all, was not the Union supported candidate in the Democratic primary (refusing to acknowledge that the fact that his beating of that union candidate should have been saying something).  Lest Union power and dignity suffer unduly, they were also quick to point out that outside money being spent on the left was being significantly outspent by outside money from the right. (I was curious that no mention was made about the impact of the opposite having happened in Ohio last year).  

Before the dust had settled, we were likewise reminded that Ohio and Wisconsin were different situations, since the Ohio proposal included safety workers and Walker's in Wisconsin didn't.  According to this form of spin we're supposed to believe that voters, who often have trouble distinguishing the candidate's political parties, understood the subtle shading of these arguments seven months later.  I suppose it's equally possible that we should instead believe that safety workers, having no dog in this hunt, simply threw their Union brethren under the bus; but I heard no one mention this potential.

Last but not least, we were told that in spite of the Walker win, Barack Obama was still polling better than Mitt Romney.  (This is known as the, "Oh yeah, your family has a better car, well mine has a better house.  Nyeh!" response; and is usually limited to the playground in kindergarten.)  By the time they were done, all I cold hear was John Belushi crying out to Carrie Fisher in 'The Blues Brothers', "It's not my fault!"

For their part and much like with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts a few years back, those on the Right were busy announcing the second coming of the Republican Party to the tune of "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead".  They were equally vocal (and close to being as poor a sport in winning as the left was doing in losing) in predicting that the results of this election was a mere foretelling of Republicans increasing their lead in the House, taking over the majority in the Senate, and ultimately winning the Presidency.  They were not only as excited as a new puppy, I think that in a couple cases they actually peed on the rug.

In all of this, they like their opponents were also wrong (at least in my opinion).  

Scott Walker did not become the first governor to beat a recall election because he was a Republican.  He did so because he's one of the few elected officials out there (along with members of the Wisconsin legislature) to understand what needed to be done and when, in order to balance the budget of the state in his charge.  For this, those who originally voted for him did so again. 

He knew that raising taxes was an unacceptable option, and that cutting spending was the only answer.  He knew that public sector employee health and retirement benefit programs were only going to become worse if nothing was done about them.  He likewise knew that laying off public sector employees and reducing services had to remain a last resort.  In this, he was in some ways like his counterpart in Ohio, and their contemporary Chris Christie in New Jersey.  Regardless of the path taken, all have managed to achieved a balanced budget for States under their care (unlike their ridiculous counterpart in Illinois). Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an example of Republican values when viewed on a grander scale.  

Oh don't get me wrong, Republicans will certainly talk about small government and fiscal responsibility when on the political stump, but talk is usually all you get.  (Remember the budget discussions of last year, and the 'Incredible Shrinking Budget Cuts' that resulted.)  Upon achieving national office, they mostly seem to revert to a kind with their brethren on the left.  Republicans have never had any problem spending, their difference was little more than the rate at which they did it.  We were still spending more than we were taking in when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House.  We just hadn't loosed the deficit dogs, running up debt like a country that never expected to pay it back except by inflating a portion of it into non-existence.  (Wait, that's exactly what we we're doing ... oh, never mind.)

Social Security and Medicare were both still going broke, and the Republican answer was to add a prescription drug program to make it happen quicker.   Regulatory agency budgets at the EPA, HHS, and the Security agencies were increased annually; and added to as required when the Department of Homeland Security was formed.  As for Defense spending; of course it had to go up.  There were two wars to be fought after all.  Oh sure there was talk about shutting down the NEA, but it never amounted to anything.  There was also talk of streamlining the tax code, and with it the IRS; but nothing ever came of it but empty rhetoric.

If all of this is the case, what then can we learn from Governor Walker maintaining his office?  Perhaps it's simply that even in a state as progressive Wisconsin, sometimes people will overlook political theory and keep someone in office who's getting the job done.  It might be that people are getting tired of the way things have always been, and want real change (not hope and change).   They're sick of what has largely become an over-priced and dysfunctional form of governance and want one that understands its limited power and even more limited finances.  On the other hand, maybe this is just the acorn that the blind squirrel finds once in a while.

As for what this taught (or at least should have taught) the two major political parties, I expect neither learned anything.  They've become too bloated, too power-hungry, and too set in their ways to learn from a simple lesson right in front of their eyes in Wisconsin.  Elections are not necessarily won by greater spending, more effective bullying, or more masterful rhetoric and spin.  Ultimately they are won by those who show up to vote; and increasingly, that group is made up of people who are really pissed at both of you.


So endeth the lesson ....



  

2012 Primaries: Let The Games Begin

The new year has begun and after an endless number of debates, the seemingly endless process of actual voting begins. Iowa got to go first in what they appear to deem a reward for being known for damned near nothing else; except perhaps their ability to produce pork on a scale that only the federal government can compete with.  (In the spirit of full disclosure, I should point out that my father's family came from Iowa, and many of them still reside there.)

Using an arcane caucus process whose rules are so convoluted that no one knows or cares whether they are followed and so ridiculous that even the IRS laughs at them, they managed to produce a virtual tie between the Republican front runner and a guy that a week before was tied for last. Casting aside a 'favorite daughter' in Michele Bachmann that only months before won their straw poll (an equally enigmatic and incomprehensible practice), they gave their blessing (a prediction that has had much the same accuracy as a coin flip) to former Governor Mitt Romney and former Senator Rick Santorum before passing them off to the next stop on the rodeo circuit, New Hampshire.

New Hampshire of course is known for three things: its rebellious "Live Free or Die" state motto, not being Iowa, and getting to vote after them. They were granted this favored #2 spot because they suffer from New England's equivalent of Iowa's dreariness. Unlike their Midwestern counterpart however, they recognized that the odd shape of their state and its pugnacious slogan were enough eccentricity for any one place, and chose instead to use a more normal primary election format to make their own selection. (Pity they didn't show a bit of New England austerity as well, and bill the entire process to the parties involved.) 

As any who follows the primary process knows (very few, except for politicians and political pundits), these selections then move south to South Carolina and Florida before January ends, then scatter like the fall leaves amongst the winter snows in February; with the entire process completed in June.  And in spite of the fact that only one primary has been held, most of those 'in the know' are once again predicting that the entire process will be all but over after just four of the some fifty odd contests (pun intended) are completed. 

I am not counting as part of the fifty, the primaries which are held in Guam, Puerto, or any of the other US possessions, as they are meaningless in terms of sending delegates to the Republican Convention.  Of course the same might be said of the Missouri primary held on February 7th, as delegates to the convention in this state are sent based on a caucus held a month later.  Missourians however, are known to be a stubborn lot, unwilling to surrender their right to choose regardless of how superfluous it proves.  

Primaries in my last three states of residence are strangely enough, grouped together in March; with Georgia on 3/3, Kansas on 3/6, and Ohio on 3/10.  All three share dates with other states across the nation, and curiously two of them share a date with Wyoming (3/6 thru 3/10).  Apparently citizens in Wyoming enjoy the caucus process so much (or things are so boring in Wyoming) that they participate in it for five days, though their ultimate decision gains no more credit than if they had done so in one.  (Maine also has an extended state caucus, one which runs even longer [4/4 thru 4/10], but their eccentricity might easily be explained by similar boredom, and sharing more border with Canada than the rest of the US.)   In perhaps some twisted form of egotism, Utah's primary is the last one held that actually gets to send delegates to the convention.  Though not able to send any great number of delegates, they do have the dubious honor of having their choice be usually and largely irrelevant.

And while the Republican candidate needs the votes of some 1144 of these party representatives, let us not forget that there are 132 'superdelegates' who will also cast votes at the convention.  These delegates are long-time party members in good standing who become a kind of Republican 'Hall of Fame', rewarded with a trip to the Convention held in Tampa, Florida this year in August (not what many would consider much of a reward).  These delegates are not obligated to vote based on the results of the primary held in their state of residence, but can instead simply vote their conscience (assuming after years of party politics, they still have one).  At the very least, they might hope to be courted by a number of candidates and get their names and pictures in the news one last time before sinking back into political irrelevancy and relative obscurity.

According to most of the pundits this whole thing is inconsequential anyway, as Mitt Romney will achieve the nomination because they say he will, because it's his turn after his prior attempt in 2008, or perhaps because he pulled a sword from a stone.  Apparently the only reason that we continue to go through the motions at all is to give the 24-hour news networks something to talk about for the next six months and to provide temporary boons to the economies of each state brought on by campaign events and media buys.  Besides, there is always the off chance that at least one of the candidates (or as in this year, all of them) will say something really stupid at a time when someone is there to record it (which is pretty much guaranteed) and provide sufficient fodder for the media to criticize them now, having previously built up their effort to seek high office.

But what the heck, the media circus involved seems to be providing sufficient distraction for the president to circumvent the spirit and the letter of the Constitution with recess appointments, allows Congress to demonize trading practices as illegal on Wall Street that they legally commit themselves, and have both doing nothing to halt a Federal Reserve increasingly taking control of the economy and a federal bureaucracy intent on expanding its own legislative / regulatory power while the two elected arms of government that are supposed to be in charge seem perfectly willing to cede them such responsibility.

So by all means, let's have more 'bread and circuses' for the masses.  Let these ridiculous, irrelevant, and inappropriately taxpayer funded internal party games begin. 

. 

Sleeping Late On Sunday

I used to love getting up early on a Sunday morning. I could make a pot of coffee, spend some quiet time with the Sunday newspaper, and wait for the news and punditry on the networks. One day a week at least, there would be a morning news show that was more concerned about Supreme Court judges than it was about the judges on American Idol. Better still, for the last half hour of these shows there would be well considered and polite discussion by those whose long experience in the machinations of politics could help those of us who were not so blessed understand what was going on in the separate reality known as Washington DC. Then cable news networks happened. 


CNN was first able to show us everything important going on in the world as it was happening. They were likewise able to interpret it for we who were not immersed in the cultural events of the Middle East or Eastern Europe. Media corporations, never the most most innovative or imaginative of people, eventually caught on and soon there were more (and spin-offs of the existing). 


Unfortunately, while there were now more networks giving us the news 24 hours a day, there was not more news to give. This left these networks endlessly repeating the same 15-30 minute news show more often than the average "Seinfeld" or "Friends" episode in syndication; and soon leaving the audience just as numb. And as the ratings began to fall (and the advertising revenues with them), some brilliant executive realized that while there couldn't be more news, there could be more interpretation; and a whole new genre of cable pundit shows were born. 


These new shows were a boon to newspaper journalists that were having a tougher time finding work, and likewise to retiring broadcast journalists were looking for a lighter work load. What's more, these programs actually did a pretty good job of filling the void with a combination of interviews and punditry. Occasionally there was something new or exciting that came out of this new venue and those who wanted to delve deeper into what is often the cesspool of politics had somewhere to do so. 


As the number of shows grew however, the constant practice allowed the interviewees grow in their ability to stay on talking points rather than answer questions, and these show became less interesting. Again borrowing from other sources however, producers of these shows began to follow Jerry Springer guideline instead of the Jerry Seinfeld. If the news couldn't be more interesting, perhaps the sources and pundits could. If the story couldn't generate the excitement, perhaps a good on-screen battle of political pundits could add some spice. 


This media philosophy eventually led us to where we are today. While there are still a few voices of calm and reason out there (like George Will, Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer, and even Juan Williams occasionally) most of the punditry out there is blatant partisanship. This would be OK if the partisan discussion were about political philosophy, but instead it has become yet another example of bolstering the talking points of the two major political parties in this country and abandoning any other attempt at reasoned thought. 


Abandoned as well is the concept of discussion or debate where there is a give and take of ideas. Instead what we have is one side or the other attempting to monopolize the limited time available, rudely interrupting or denigrating their fellow pundits while they are trying to make a point, or ignoring the question and attempting to steer the conversation to a subject that allows them to return to their party talking points. 


These not only fail as reasoned debates, they aren't even debates. They cast no glowing light on the contestants, but instead a shadow of shame on the process. I would go so far as to say that these ungracious and pugnacious pundits can accept a great deal of the responsibility for the sometimes deplorable level of political discussion going on in this country today. How can they expect better behavior from we who are simple "hard-working Americans" (sorry, I couldn't resist that one) than we get from they who are the "best and brightest of a well-educated society"? 


And so I find myself sleeping later and later on Sunday mornings these days, for there is little reason to do otherwise. The Sunday paper gets smaller each week and contains less news in the pages that remain. The Sunday news shows rarely step beyond journalists interviewing professional politicians reading off of their talking point cue cards. The Sunday punditry has become little more than unreasoning disdain for the right by the left and vice versa. On the other hand, getting up so much later does relieve me of the desire to make a pot of coffee, which they tell me is not good for me anyway.