And They Vote with Their Feet

The states are often referred to as the "laboratories of democracy."  Well, I think it is quite apparent which experiments have worked;

• The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8 percent.
• The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew just 6 percent.
• The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew 7 percent.

Read the whole article from Michael Barone here

You're Not Allowed to Do This in Science

AEI's chief editor, Nick Schulz, shared a great video discussing what the climategate's "tricks" actually means in terms of raw data

Wisconsin Polls Prove Wording Matters

The summer reading assignment for my introductory statistics class was a short little book entitled How to Lie with Statistics. Before we ever took our first random sample or ran our first regression line, we learned how questions and numbers can be used to affirm any position (and yet for some reason the professor docked us points if we tried to do such on exams).

In the recent Wisconsin budget saga, pundits and politicos on both sides of the debate have attempted to reinforce their positions with public opinion numbers and statistics. Rachael Maddow has led off numerous shows in the past couple weeks with the latest poll from Wisconsin, and Nate Silver has critiqued Rasmussen’s early poll on Walker and unions. This week, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute added another statewide poll to the mix. Partisans may and have cherry picked numbers out of it like “65 percent think Governor Walker should compromise” or that a majority disapprove of Senate Democrats’ leaving the state. Fortunately, there is more information within the poll release than partisan positioning.

Two aspects of WPRI’s release make it notable over previous polls on the subject; they included two questions in an “experiment to examine responses to different ways of framing a key element of the budget repair bill, specifically collective bargaining, and they released the full crosstabs of their data, revealing the beliefs of different demographic groups. Question framing and wording are often cited as reasons to dismiss poll results when they are unagreeable, though rarely is there a direct comparative sample to see if such dismissals are correct.

The first question in the experiment asked if respondents strongly or somewhat favor or somewhat or strongly oppose the following Walker-friendly statement (let’s call it statement A); “Limiting most public employees' ability to negotiate over non-wage issues in order to prevent local union affiliates from obstructing the budgeting process for local governments.” The results found a statistical tie: 47 percent were strongly or somewhat in favor of the statement, while 50 percent somewhat or strongly oppose the statement.

And yet, when the other half of the sample is asked about favoring or opposing the second union friendly statement (statement B), “Stripping most public employees of their right to collectively bargain over benefits and working conditions as part of a ploy to eliminate public employee unions altogether,” there is a 25-point swing in the favor/oppose margin! Only 32 percent favor the second statement while 58 percent oppose it.






An interesting demographic aspect is the shift in opinion among the college educated between the two statements. 40 percent of those with an undergraduate or higher degree favor the first statement, statement A. When we turn to statement B, where overall favorability fell by 15 points, the favorability of those with college or graduate degrees marginally increased (42 percent). The best educated were more inclined to favor a statement of “stripping … rights to collective bargaining” that is supposed to be engender sympathy for the unions than the Walker-friendly statement. These results suggest that the college educated are more impervious to the phraseology of poll questions.

Gallup discovered a similar occurrence regarding the wording and results in their union questions. On February 21st, they found that only 33 percent of Americans favored the Wisconsin bill “that would take away some of the collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers’ union,” and 61 percent opposed it. Less than two weeks later (March 3-6), a question on the same subject found 49 percent favored “changing state laws to limit the bargaining power of state employee unions,” and 45 percent opposed. The 34-point swing between the two Gallup questions is even larger than the swing between the two WPRI experiment questions.

The essential difference in both sets of questions is the wording “collective bargaining rights”; statements with those words in some order suggest clear support for unions, where as questions omitting the words “collectively” or “right” show mixed opinion. Gallup observes that their “differing results likely reflect Americans' sensitivity to nuances in how the debate can be framed. They may also indicate the high and low boundaries of support for setting new limits on collective bargaining.”

Question wording matters, not just the percentages that follow them. So, too, does looking beyond the state level responses to see how different groups react. The certain take away from these polls reaffirms the old adage popularized by Mark Twain; there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Japan: The Aftermath

An amazing series of photos of the Tsunami aftermath is compiled at by the UK's Daily Mail.  The images are incredible.  The complete destruction is simply humbling.  Nature has the final say.

My Man Mitch

Even if he hasn't decided, I know it's true; Mitch Daniels will run for President.

After a second appearance on a Sunday morning show in as many weeks, keynoting a night at CPAC and the Gridiron Club dinner, and writing Op-Eds appearing in the likes of The Wall Street Journal, Daniels is intentionally gaining national exposure your typical Governor never seeks.  Unlike most other candidates, there isn't another possible candidate in the mix that competes for Daniels' natural base of support.  Romney and Huntsman overlap.  Palin, Huckabee, and the run of other social conservatives overlap.  I contend that Gingrich, Barbour, and Pawlenty overlap a core constituency as well.

I also think Daniels has a gift that will allow voters to connect with him in the early primary states.  He is humble, not larger than life.  At CPAC, he took time to speak to about 50 students when he arrived, free from any media or big donors.  He was frank and honest.  His speech was serious and steady.  He has a unique message, not an anti-Obama drivel that falls from the lips of others.  Most importantly, he will not run simply because he want's to be the President, but because he has something to offer.

Lastly, some jokes from his recent Gridiron Club address;

Daniels, who gave the Republican response, invoked the sling he wore thanks to recent rotator-cuff surgery. He mentioned Obama’s comment during the 2008 campaign about conservatives seeking religion and guns as touchstones.

“Mr. President, until I get this thing off, I can cling to my gun or my Bible but not both,” Daniels quipped.

The Indiana governor, who is considering a run for the White House, also joked about the president’s widely-reported use of written texts at big events, saying, “Mr. President you’re not laughing, who forgot to put ha-ha-ha on the teleprompter?”

But Daniels saved some of his harshest jabs for his potential Republican primary rivals.

Daniels poked both Palin and Mike Huckabee with a single punch, raising the former Arkansas governor’s gaffe in which he claimed inaccurately more than once that the president grew up in Kenya.

“Sarah Palin pounces and says, ‘Wrong, Mike — he’s never been to Europe,”

Daniels/Christie 2010

 

As the Seas Shift, so Does the News Cycle

Any news junkie recognizes near monthly shifts in news cycles.  Midterm elections, TSA scanners, Wikileaks, Lame duck Congress, Mid-East turmoil, Union protests, and now a Japanese Earthquake.  Each new event, which comes to dominate coverage and punditry, is the death knell of its predecessor.  If an event is not resolved before its overshadowed, it's history.

So let this count as an Obituary for the Union Protests.

The Japanese earthquake, coupled with the weekend, has ended the union narrative.  Any large protests planned for this weekend will get zero coverage.  There are no friendly commentators over at MSNBC on over the weekend to force coverage.  The ongoing (and unfortunate) nuclear threat in Japan promises to to perpetuate news dominance.  Talks of a general strike have no traction.

But, there are 3 things we can takeaway in our postmortem examination.

1) The Tea Party now has universal legitimacy
After the crass actions of many union protesters, there is no standing to marginalize the tea party movement.  They can't be cast aside as crazy, a minority, dangerous, or racists, because there is demonstrable equivalence on the left which is upheld as noble, heroic, etc.

2)  The bill will stand, and be repeated in other states
Threats of recall and general strike are muted without national coverage.  Elections in Wisconsin are two years out, and voters's memories are short.  Besides, the national election will define the narrative, not a two year old debate.  The media microscope is no longer on other governors pushing similar laws.

3)  New media has changed the narrative
15 years ago, the only knowledge of the event in Wisconsin would be from nightly news coverage.  Now, the internet creates nuance to any story.  People actually read bills.  Videos emerge which objectively amplify events.  The narrative is no longer defined by media suits.

"Tens of thousands of people ... would not exist?"

Politico highlights yet another cringe worthy foot-in-mouth moment for the Senate Majority leader today;

“The mean-spirited bill, H.R. 1 … eliminates the National Endowment of the Humanities, National Endowment of the Arts,” said Reid. “These programs create jobs. The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist.”

I am intrigued how such a festival creates tens of thousands of people!   Undoubtedly through the same Democratic math that uses Obamacare to remain budget neutral.  I wonder if NYC's Naked Cowboy makes the trip out to Nevada every year.

What we do know is that the Democrats are very unserious about the budget deficits.

Obama shifts on Gitmo, joins public opinion

Yesterday, the Obama administration reversed course and announced they would restart trials at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  While not surprising, it is one of the administration's clearest admissions of err thus far.  Remember, this is the same President whose first executive order (just hours after being inaugurated) was to fully close the Gitmo prison in a year, signed two years ago.

The situation is an apt time to quote the late Irving Kristol, who noted a neoconservative is "a liberal mugged by reality."  Obama clearly took an ideological stance on Gitmo while in the Senate and during his campaign.  When he took on governing realities for the first time, reality quickly educated him on the phrase "necessary evils."  His terrorism policies are not all to different than his much maligned predecessor.

As for the public, majorities generally favor keeping Gitmo open.  While a slim majority (51%) favored closely the facility in January 2009 (during the publicity of Obama ordering its closure), 60 percent thought it should continue operations a little over a year later in March 2010 (CNN).  The latest poll on the subject was a Fox/OD poll in January, finding 53 percent of people "would you like Obama to change his position and keep the prison at Guantanamo open" where as only 31 percent "want Obama to keep his promise and close Guantanamo."

Gitmo is a necessary reality that finally forced Obama to surrender his ideological pretensions.

China's Soft Imperialism

Libya is in the news for obvious reasons.  The country has fallen into civil war and is emblematic of strife across the whole region, the modern "Arab Spring."  A subplot of the Libyan story revolved around the evacuation of foreigners who were caught in conflict.  Each country sought to remove their citizens as fast as possible; Americans were stranded at port until a ferry was secured to carry them across the Mediterranean to safety.  The Dutch had a few of their marines detained on a mission to rescue nationals

Yet, the Chinese evacuated over 30,000 nationals flawlessly, without a problem.  Which begs the question, why were there over 30,000 Chinese in Libya of all places?

The answer is natural resources.  Mainly oil, but also ores and other earthly metals.

It's the world's newest imperialism, but of a softer, blunter variety.  Over the last decade, China's trade with Africa has exploded - it's estimated to reach $300 billion by 2015.  The key to Chinese trade and investment is that there are no strings attached.  Investment and trade dollars are not conditional on human or civil rights, like the dollars from the West via the IMF or WTO.  Somalia gets money, and China gets oil.  Simple.  (Kinda follows China's internal model).

With a million people in Africa, China is not looking to slow down their soft imperialism anytime soon.  Africa is the last undeveloped (and unexploited) region in the world.  As the globe's rising power, it is natural for China to expand into the continent that is most underdeveloped.  The question is will their economic control of the region mitigate Western efforts to promote human rights.

Will Eastern economics or Western morals win out?

Primary Rundown: Before the Storm

With Newt Gingrich's awkward, non-announcement this week, political junkies are jumping at the bit for the campaigning to get started.  Many "contender" lists have come out, separating whose hot from the hopefully nots.  Most candidates had announced their intentions by this point in 2007, so a lot of us are still waiting for our first campaign "fix".  There won't even be a story after the first quarter FEC filing date, because no one can legally raise money with out a campaign entity.  Barack and Hillary already raised near $50 million at that point. The candidates are jockeying for position in every save actual campaigning - this is where they stack up

Nate Silver took a critical look at Gingrich's odds a couple days ago.  Nate notes that Gingrich has the lowest favorable margins amongst Republicans and all voters.  As a candidate, he doesn't have a natural demographic base of support like other to-be candidates do.  Newt is a policy wonk, but not in a "fixer" sort of way as one might classify Daniels or Pawlenty.  The former speaker is more of a futurist, tacking towards big ideas that are off the beaten path.  This will not help him as he seeks a reliable constituency.  The one area is unique wonkishness will be an asset are the litany of debates upcoming in the primary; the first one is in two months!  Maybe Gingrich is already running for VP - he is a bulldog.

Huckabee is the big enigma as of now.  He netted the second most delegates last go around and has arguably the strongest natural constituency, but thus far shows no interest in running.  Punditry and writing have earned him more than he could ever imagine, plus he despises campaigning.  Reading the tea leaves, I find it hard not to read between the lines of Fox New's recent announcement.  Gingrich and Santorum's contracts as "political contributor" have been suspended until they decide whether they're running for president, while Palin and Huckabee (and Bolton) still have a job.  Palin and Huckabee split a constituency, so it's almost an either-or situation as to their candidacies.

Romney, the presumed front runner, made his first public speech in New Hampshire at the end of this week.  He has the money, the base, and the hair to go all the way, yet lots of conservatives are nervous about him.  Ann Coulter quipped at CPAC this year that "he'll lose in the fall" if he gets the nomination.  He's a little too stepford for some people.  I personally supported him last cycle, but this time around it seems as if he is trying to force himself into the role a little too much.

Barbour, Palin, Santorum, Huntsman, Trump, and Cain all will not win the nomination.  Simple as that.  They'll present interesting antidotes over the next year, but eventually be footnotes and maybe a VP.

Tim Pawlenty (affectionately called T-Paw by his supporters) comes off as a middle schooler wearing his Dad's suit to the school dance.  While I loved his movie preview, but it comes off as a couple of teenagers having fun making a video over a long weekend and posting it online.  He doesn't have the pizazz as most candidates or the studied seriousness of other candidates.  His path to the ticket is being everyone's second pick.

Last but not least is My Man Mitch.  Daniels is fighting through state legislative battles at the moment, and has suggested the recent speed bumps might hamper a presidential bid.  He contrasts Obama in every way, from stature to philosophy.  His CPAC speech is yet unmatched, and he is my favored possible candidate in the current pre-primary.

While historically it's absurd we're talking about announcing candidacies at this point (Clinton entered the race the October before the primaries) the 2008 cycle had made it the new normal.

You Know You're a Megalomaniac When...

A lot has come out about Hosny Mubarak in the last month. He had billions of dollars to his name, his wife was lugging around gold bars, etc. But this latest photo pushes it to the limit...

That's right, the pinstripe of his suit is really his name stitched repeatedly in the fabric. I would dare say he is bi-win.

I can't wait to see Charlie Sheen adopt the new trend.

What's the Matter with Mississippi?

That’s the question many commentators were asking last week, when Gallup released their 2010 averages of Obama’s presidential approval ratings, broken down by state. Nate Silver over at Five Thirty Eight found that President Obama’s approval rating has only increased (when compared to his 2008 vote share) in states that voted for McCain. Most surprisingly, Mississippi was at the top of this list. Obama’s 2010 approval rating is more than 4 points higher than the votes he received there in 2008, 47.1 percent to 43 percent.

Continuing with this analysis, last year New Hampshire gave Obama the lowest approval rating of any state that voted for him in 2008 (41.3 percent) and experienced the second largest drop from Obama’s 2008 vote totals (Vermont experienced the largest drop). Conversely, Mississippi gave Obama the highest approval of all the states that voted for McCain in 2008. The article is summarily titled “Is Mississippi the new New Hampshire?”

Yet, two days later, Gallup released another set of polling numbers, examining the average number of self-identified conservatives, moderates, and liberals in each state in 2010. Mississippi is again at the top of the list, this time for being home to the highest percent of conservatives (50.5 percent). Conservatives have a numbers advantage over liberals in all fifty states, ranging from a 36.7 point gap in Mississippi to a 0.2 point gap in Vermont. So if over 50 percent of Mississippians identify as conservative, and over 47 percent approve of Obama, what’s the matter with Mississippi?

Examining the ideological spectrum nationally, Pew found 38 percent of people identify as conservative or very conservative, 33 percent as moderate, and 24 percent as liberal or very liberal in August and September of 2010. Despite the common perception that identifying as conservative equates to being or voting Republican, this is not an absolute. Though only 6 percent of Republicans identify themselves as liberal or very liberal, 24 percent of Democrats identify as conservative or very conservative nationally according to the same Pew poll. Furthermore, moderates are more likely to identify as a Democrat over a Republican by a 3 to 2 ratio (33 to 22 percent). So, despite conservatives boasting pluralities in every state, those pluralities do not translate to a unified Republican voting bloc across the map. Even with his increased popularity in the state, Obama shouldn’t be pegging his reelection hopes on Mississippi any time soon.

Noodles is a Dictatorship

Don't let Noodles keep you down, fight the man!



The best part is when he sells a magazine to the cameraman at the end. What a crummy socialist.