Tonight, Democrat Bill Foster defeated Republican Jim Oberweis for control of Hastert's former seat. The Beacon News has called the race for Foster with ten precincts (of 568) left to go (they'll probably all be in once you read this), and we can now welcome another Democrat to the House of Representatives.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Tonight, Democrat Bill Foster defeated Republican Jim Oberweis for control of Hastert's former seat. The Beacon News has called the race for Foster with ten precincts (of 568) left to go (they'll probably all be in once you read this), and we can now welcome another Democrat to the House of Representatives.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Today, two professional political pundits, Taegan Goddard and Craig Crawford, warn us about believing "the math." Politics is far more important because at the end of the day there is just too much uncertainty.
Goddard poses these questions:
* What do the superdelegates do?
* What about the add-on delegates that haven't even been picked yet?
* What about Florida and Michigan?
* What about John Edwards' delegates?
* Will Al Gore play the role of impartial party elder?
Crawford discusses the dirty little secrets of primary politics, like the fact that delegates from caucus states still haven't been chosen, "pledged" delegates aren't really obligated to support one candidate or another, rough allocation estimates until the vote totals are certified, and again the 75% of superdelegates who remain undecided.
But slowly, the "math" is becoming clearer and it doesn't look good for Hillary Clinton. First, Florida and Michigan. Michigan seems likely to hold caucuses which is good news for Obama because he almost always wins them. The only one he lost was in Nevada, and he still won one more delegate than HRC. Even though he lost Texas by 100,000 votes, he looks set to beat her by a net gain of about 3 delegates in the state due to his 12 point lead in caucus participants.
Florida seems a little more complicated. Senator Bill Nelson, a Hillary supporter, has sent a letter to the DNC Chairman Howard Dean demanding they pay for a new primary. “If they go to the Democratic Convention and stiff-arm the Florida delegations, how in the world do you think Floridians are going to support the Democratic nominee on Nov. 4?” he says. But a new election would cost in the area of $20 million and the DNC clearly does not have the money for that. But FL Governor Crist was the one who insisted on moving the primary up in the first place, which the FL legislature ratified. Shouldn't Nelson be sending letters to Crist instead of Dean? Florida is thus a big unknown, and Clinton's 300,000 popular vote lead there would clearly cut into Obama's overall popular vote margin if Dean caves and seats the Florida delegates. But it's anything but legitimate because all the candidates agreed not to campaign there, as in Michigan, where Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot. The fairest solution would be a new primary or caucus, but the question remains, who would pay for it?
Finally, an interesting analysis from Kos this morning. If every super delegate voted with the popular vote in their state (which isn't going to happen but it might average out to come close to that), considering just the states that have voted so far it would give Clinton about a 5 super delegate lead. If this is extrapolated to the states that haven't voted yet, assuming each state bows to the CW about which candidate is going to win, Clinton obtains a 13 super delegate lead. Thus, no where near enough to wipe out Obama's 130 lead in pledged delegates and low likelihood of closing the pledged delegate gap itself without massive blowout victories because there are only about 600 outstanding.
So as unclear as "the math" is in a way, it's also crystal clear in another way, and Sen. Clinton has very little chance of winning in a way that will be seen by the majority of the party as legitimate. It may come down to a decision for Hillary herself. Does she want to keep implying that McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama? Does she want to fight all the way to the convention and have a repeat of 1968? Is she going to continue demagoguing the Michigan and Florida primaries, insisting they count when she herself agreed not to campaign there? Does she want to alienate all her supporters from Obama and make it less likely for him to win? Would she rather McCain win so she can run again in 2012 rather than have to wait till 2016 to run when she'll be pushing 70? I hate posing the last questions, but sometimes I really do wonder.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Washington, D.C. - Congresswoman Kathy Castor (D-FL) yesterday led off the congressional debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007 that will provide critical access to mental health treatment for Americans. The Act passed the House by a vote of 268-148, with 47 Republicans joining 221 Democrats in support.The Act provides for fairness and equity in health insurance coverage for mental health and substance-related disorders by ensuring that insurance companies do not charge higher co-payments, deductibles and erect other barriers to mental treatment.
...
More than 50 million adults, at least 22 percent of the U.S. population, suffer from mental disorders or substance abuse disorders. One out of every 10 children or adolescents has a serious mental health problem, and another 10 percent have mild to moderate problems. Mental disorders are the leading cause of disability for individuals ages 15 to 44 in the United States. “Untreated mental illness harms our families and children emotionally and financially. Untreated mental illness results in higher costs for businesses and lost productivity. Untreated mental illness often leads to criminal activity,” noted Castor.
Mental disorders are treatable, but unfortunately, less than one-third of people who seek treatment receive adequate care. Insurers often increase patients’ costs for mental health treatment by limiting inpatient days, capping outpatient visits, and requiring higher co-payments than for physical illnesses. Over 90 percent of workers with employer-sponsored health insurance are enrolled in plans that impose higher costs in at least one of these ways. Furthermore, 48 percent are enrolled in plans that impose all three limitations.
...
Mental and addictive disorders cost more than $300 billion annually, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. That includes productivity losses of $150 billion, healthcare costs of $70 billion, and $80 billion from other costs such as criminal justice. “Treatment for mental illness is a proven money saver,” said Castor.
...
Labels: healthcare
Both candidates beat McCain, Clinton 276-262 and Obama 280-260.
Clinton's victories are in line with the past two elections. She wins all of Kerry's states except for New Hampshire but adds on Arkansas, West Virginia, and New Mexico.
Obama's coalition of states is bizarre. So bizarre that I don't buy it. He is supposed to win Virginia but lose WVA, win New Hampshire, win Colorodo and Nevada, win Ohio, and this is the best part: have a chance at winning Nebraska.
I think that Obama has a better chance at winning a state like Mississippi, where there is a high black population and many of the white conservatives might stay home instead of voting for McCain. Nebraska..come on.
Says Clay: “She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers. This race is over.”
Wow. And we all thought it was Hillary who was going to bank on superdelegates.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
It does appear the Limbaugh effect played out to some degree. Independents were 25% of the electorate with Republicans about 10%. Independents split right down the middle, while Republicans only went for Obama by about 10 points. Again, a huge change from last week. This change easily made the difference for Clinton here, although in Ohio Clinton's unexpected 10 point margin might have held up on the votes of Democrats alone. Clinton, as in Ohio, also won HUGE (20 points) among late deciders indicating her red telephone ad probably played a pretty significant role. Although this ad was hard hitting, it's nothing compared to what the Republicans are gonna throw at Obama in the general and he HAS to learn to hit back effectively (although I will say, putting Obama in "black face" is pretty dirty).
Another interesting statistic: A quarter of the primary voters said they are going to be dissatisfied whether or Obama or Clinton ends up as the nominee (different quarters, obviously) while half the party would be okay with either one. This sounds like a perfect recipe for a dream team, where one is the vice-president of the other. This would be fine except I can't see either of them being satisfied as the vice-presidential nominee but I REALLY can't see Clinton being okay with that. Yet it seems like at this point, for the good of the party, they might have to put aside all the bad blood and join forces.
So overall results after last night? Clinton won by about 250,000 popular votes in the 4 states, but she only cut his delegate total by at most a dozen delegates (the Texas Caucus results still haven't come in yet). Obama still leads by 600,000 popular votes overall and almost 100 delegates (pledged and super). His leads would be wiped out if MI and FL somehow counted but they probably won't without a revote.
So whats up next? There's Wyoming and Mississippi in the next week which Obama is almost sure to win easily. Then nothing until Pennsylvania on April 22. This state is if anything demographically more advantageous for Clinton. It's older with even more Catholics and also economically lagging. Obama will probably mostly try to get big margins in Philly and its suburbs, but hopefully make appearances everywhere. If Clinton wins PA, the race will almost certainly continue through May and June until the Convention. Is this good because the media attention stays on the Dems and they continue to build organization, or bad because they'll be ripping each other to shreads? Who knows? The last big states to vote include North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, and Indiana. It's hard to say who'd win those but probably more likely Obama in NC and OR and Clinton in KY and IN.
Whew, I'm done.
P.S. Polling was pretty close for all 4 races, which is good. It showed New Hampshire was really an exception, not the rule. Just thought I'd point it out since people tend to only notice polls when they're way off, not when they're accurate.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
But hardly inevitable. The math is still terrible for her, and I don't think she wants the nomination without a majority of pledged delegates, that's a recipe for dismal Dem turnout in November. Now if Florida and Michigan can revote...who knows?
I'll write more tomorrow but yeah, time to actually do homework. But elections are like crack for me!
Question: Is there any way Hillary would be content as the vice-presidential nominee?
This is starting to remind me of when the pope died. "This guy is perfect, he can do no wrong! Why can't he grace us with his presence for one more year!? I'll just die if he doesn't change his mind!" For someone who isn't a native Wisconsinite, I guess it's an obsession I'll never understand.
The only question now is how much bigger the headlines will be tomorrow in the state newspapers than the one for tonight's election results.
Yeah, Brett Favre will be retiring,and Oliver Kiefer is in mourning (and apparently every 5th person on campus was compelled to wear the #4 jersey).
How is Wisconsin reacting?
Well, for one, Governor Doyle is in the same boat as his once-opponent Republican Milwaukee County Exec Scott Walker. And Sen. Feingold and Rep. Kind. Politicians felt the urge to issue statements praising their loyalty to GOD aka Brett Favre.
I particularly enjoyed this one from the State Senate Democratic Committee. It's a joke, laugh it up (much like the legitimacy of this post...).
And Jack Nicholson (and the Joker and Colonel Jessup and some others of his characters, as it would seem) is a Hillary supporter.
Enjoy your break from midterms, courtesy of my procrastination.
**EDIT 11:54 pm** Hillary wins the Texas primary with 51% (76% reporting, called by CNN). Who knows about those odd caucuses?
Obama actually lost the white male vote by 11 points. This is HUGELY different from Wisconsin's results where he won white men overwhelmingly. Unlike that poll I sited, he won young voters 17-29 by 35 points. Clinton slaughtered Obama among Interesting, and I really have no explanation. Clinton wins white women overwhelmingly as expected (about 32 points). Does it bode badly for Obama in the fall in Ohio? Well I dunno, these are overwhelmingly Democratic voters and Obama might still do better than Clinton can among Independents overall, but it does seem to show some weakness among white Democrats in this state. The Politico reported last week that Obama almost always does much more poorly among Catholics. But again, that wouldn't explain Wisconsin which also has a huge Catholic population, and Obama did equally poorly among Protestants and Catholics here, according to the exit poll.
Obama wins black voters with almost 90% and actually does better among black women than black men. Overall they made up about 18% of the vote. There also seems to be almost no income gap in the state, which seems to run contrary to my assumption that Clinton does much better among voters facing economic difficulties/uncertainty. And Clinton only won by about 5 points among those voters (a big majority) who said the economy is the most important issue. There was however a big education gap, with those with less than a college education overwhelmingly favoring Clinton, and the college educated slightly favoring Obama. Less than 40% of voters were college graduates.
In a sign that the late negative ads had a real effect, Clinton won late deciders (last 3 days) by 11 points.
Other worrisome sign, Obama is much weaker than expected among Independents and Republicans. They made up about 10 and 20% of the vote respectively, and he only won them each by 10 points. MUCH weaker than polls were saying last week. The Limbaugh effect could have played out for both of these groups (unfortunately not only rabid Republicans listen to him).
UPDATE: Uh, so I was watching MSNBC and Norah O'Donnell just reported that a relatively whopping 1/5 voters said race was important to their vote. Were these black voters voting for Obama because he's also black? Actually, these voters voted 80% for Clinton. What could this mean? Is this thinly coded racism? You often hear speculation about white voters resistance to vote for African Americans, especially in Southern states, but rarely does it show up in polls like this. Could this be the missing piece separating Wisconsin from Ohio? Racism? Scary to think about, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. I'll go back to earlier exit polls and see what the results were in past states. Fascinating stuff.
UPDATE 2: This is odd. So I looked back at the Ohio exit poll and now it says only 60% of the voters to whom race is an important issue voted for Clinton. No where near as alarming as 80% but still interesting. I dug up the WI exit poll and only 13% of us said race was important, and those voters only voted for Clinton slightly more than the state-wide total. So, still a mystery. I know they update exit polls by weighting them to fit with the actual results retroactively, but that was quite a change. I'd certainly hope they don't change statistics to make them less alarming.
Matt Yglesias picked up on the story too.
I thought Clinton's last debate performance was terrible but the media spun it as a draw (I think they'd love the race to go on for ratings purposes so whenever it seemed like one was ahead in the race, they'd start tacitly boosting the other). Obama had momentum from winning 11 races straight. He's leading in national polling significantly. Clinton probably can't catch up in the pledged delegate count before the convention. So why isn't Obama running away with it?
I've speculated previously a lot on the demographics of the states. Texas has a huge Latino population and we could be in for a huge Clinton popular vote blow out if they turn out in numbers greater than expected like they did in California. Why is Obama getting crushed in Ohio? Well economic hardship seems to play to Clinton's advantage as the white working class usually tilts heavily toward her. You'd think that would have made Wisconsin more competitive (we actually have a smaller African American population than Ohio does) but I guess we're not quite as economically devastated by manufacturing job losses as Ohio has been. Still a huge mystery to me. Then again, maybe this winter storm will affect turnout.
Another thing that has been going through my head is Rush Limbaugh's call last week for Republicans to vote for Hillary in the primaries, clearly hoping the race will continue on and for months, with infighting between Hillary and Obama weakening them both before one of them takes on McCain in the general. This is clearly another reason for closed primaries, but Republicans voting in the Democratic primary were supposed to be a good thing for Obama. They simply cannot stand the thought of another Clinton in the White House, right?
So that's why this poll released yesterday interested me, not only because it shows Clinton up by 9 in Ohio and over 50%, not only that Obama is only winning 18-29 year-olds in Ohio by only 3 points, but that Republicans planning to vote in the Democratic Primary are now EXACTLY evenly divided between Clinton and Obama. I remember Republicans were voting for Obama by more than 30 points last week. So maybe there has been a Limbaugh effect. It would be interesting to see similar cross-tabs for polling in Texas to see if that has played a role in why Obama's recent lead has evaporated. Again, very sad if a d-bag like Limbaugh ends up being the deciding factor tonight. I look forward to seeing if this theory plays out in the exit polling tonight.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Joe Lents hasn't made a payment on his $1.5 million mortgage since 2002.
That's when Washington Mutual Inc. first tried to foreclose on his home in Boca Raton, Florida. The Seattle-based lender failed to prove that it owned Lents's mortgage note and dropped attempts to take his house. Subsequent efforts to foreclose have stalled because no one has produced the paperwork...
Lost-Note Affidavits
When the mortgage servicers and securitizing banks that act as trustees of the securities fail to present proof that they own a mortgage, they sometimes file what's called a lost-note affidavit, said April Charney, a lawyer at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Florida.
Nobody knows how widespread the use of lost-note affidavits are, Charney said. She's had foreclosure proceedings for 300 clients dismissed or postponed in the past year, with about 80 percent of them involving lost-note affidavits, she said.
``They raise the issue of whether the trusts own the loans at all,'' Charney said. ``Lost-note affidavits are pattern and practice in the industry. They are not exceptions. They are the rule.''
The way things look, there are three likely outcomes of tomorrow's contests.
1. Best Case Clinton, Worst Case Obama: The best case scenario for Clinton is actually beginning to look like the most likely scenario for tomorrow: a respectable win in Ohio by 4-8 pts, a slim victory in Texas by 1-5, a comfortable win in Rhode Island by double digits, and a fairly unimportant loss in Vermont by double digits. We're already getting previews of what such a scenario would mean for the campaigns: new talking points for Clinton highlighting "buyer's remorse" in voter support for Obama, and a new mandate for Sen. Clinton to stay in through Pennsylvania, some 7 weeks off.
2. Best Case Obama, Worst Case Clinton: Obama wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island (and predictably in Vermont) due to the unpolled, cell phone welding demographics that tend to favor his candidacy. These will not be the 15-30 pt wins his campaign has become accustomed to of late. They will be skin of your teeth white knuckle affairs that will crown him the presumptive nominee. Expect big endorsements like Richardson and Edwards to follow were this to happen, and Huckabee like status for Sen. Clinton.
This could happen as the polls tend to underestimate Obama's numbers. However, usually those numbers just underestimate an Obama win. I am unaware of a post Feb 5. poll that indicated a Clinton win immediately prior to a primary, but Obama actually winning the primary. In short, I'm not sure the hidden Obama demographic bump applies when polls show him consistently behind, as in Ohio. However, a lot of the polls out of Ohio tend to have samples that favor Clinton's demographics. And key Obama demographics tend to prefer cell phones to the land lines that polling outfits like SurveyUSA and Quinnipac call when conducting their polls. Also, many polls tend to underestimate turnout in African Americans and college students, demographics that fall decidedly within the Obama camp.
3. Tie: Sen. Clinton wins Ohio, Rhode Island, while Sen. Obama takes Texas and Vermont. In this case, I think it's safe to say that Sen. Clinton would stick around, though it would be hard for her to grab the mo from Sen. Obama. However, if she wins the aggregate popular vote (all four states combined), I don't see why this isn't a win for her, with the same applying to Sen. Obama. Let's just hope this one doesn't happen, as the ensuing ambiguity and spin can't be good for the party.
Let me stress that, despite what either campaign would like you to believe, tomorrow is not about delegates. It's about winning, losing, and the momentum and spin that it will produce for the campaigns. As I have said before, it's not about the skewed delegate proportion systems so aptly displayed in Texas, it's about the people's votes. If either Senator wins the system in Texas or Ohio, but not the people in Texas or Ohio, they lose in Texas or Ohio. Contrary to what people are beginning to suggest, an Obama delegate win in Texas but a popular vote loss would not help him.
Win the people, not the system.
Either way you look at it, no one really knows what will happen tomorrow. So whose hosting the results party?
Also, the Clinton campaign is saying that even if Texas' arcane delegate allotment system does not come out in her favor, she will continue the campaign as long as she wins the popular vote in both states.
My point is not to suggest that Obama is a secretly weak candidate. He's a brilliant candidate who has surpassed all my expectations. And he can beat John McCain. But we need to be realistic about how formidable the race is. We need to be honest about how many ways we could screw this up. If we try to run against George W. Bush again -- or try to paint McCain as Bush 2.0 -- we lose. If we continue to ignore the necessity of innovating a coherent, comprehensive foreign policy platform -- relying instead on anti-Bush talking points -- we lose. And if we appear aloof regarding developments in Iraq, we lose in a landslide. Sorry to break it to the comrades, but this will be our most difficult election since 1988.
To get an idea of the Catch-22 we find ourselves in, check this out from the New York Times:
The parts of McCain’s story, even with one or two twists and turns, fit nicely into a coherent narrative that brings credit to him in every chapter. I was resolute in the beginning, I demurred for a while but for good reasons, and now I am resolute again, and you can trust me because, in this area especially, I know what I’m doing. He can rehearse this narrative without apologizing for anything and then turn around to Obama and (borrowing from Clinton’s attacks on him), declare: You, on the other hand, don’t know what you’re doing, as everything you say, not only about the war, but about the conduct of foreign policy, proves. (He and President Bush are already pushing this line in anticipation of Obama’s nomination.)
Indeed, every criticism Clinton has made of Obama – he lacks experience, he is all flourish and no substance, he gives shoot-from-the-hip answers to serious questions – falls into McCain’s lap, ready for instant use in the general election.
But, unfortunately for Obama, the reverse is not true. The criticisms of McCain made by his primary opponents – he twice voted against Bush’s tax cuts, he cooperated with Ted Kennedy on immigration reform and with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform, he said that waterboarding was torture and should not be used, he scorned fundamentalist Christian leaders, he supported stem cell research, he opposed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, he expressed doubts about Samuel Alito – cannot be appropriated by Obama because these are his positions, too.
The views and opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the UW-Madison College Democrats. They are the views of their authors. Postings by individual board members to not necessarily represent a consensus opinion of the board or organization.


