Tale of Two Special Elections: One Shifts Right, The Other Left

posted by John Nichols on 11/02/2009 @ 6:40pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (63)

Subscribe Now

The Washington Post positions itself as a "must-read" daily almanac of the political class – a reliable source of information and insight regarding all things electoral.

That goes double for congressional elections, since the Post is the "hometown paper" of the federal government's company town.

As such, the Post can be expected to follow congressional contests with a rigor and clarity that exceeds that of talk-radio and talk-TV, right? Wrong.

On Sunday, in a report on the certainly significant decision of Republican Dede Scozzafava to suspend her campaign for the open congressional seat in New York's 23rd district, the Post reported: "With this New York district holding the only congressional election in an off-year cycle, much of the nation's political attention has gravitated here to the state's remote crown, an area so close to the Canadian border that highway signs are in English and French."

That's some fine writing by the Post's political team.

Unfortunately, it's wrong.

The special election in upstate New York is not the only congressional contest that will be decided Tuesday. In fact, it may not even be the most important special election that will be decided on Tuesday.

On the same day that New York 23 votes, a parallel special election will fill an open seat representing California's 10th district.

We all understand that newspapers make mistakes.

But this one by the Post is particularly unsettling – both for what it says about the degeneration of political journalism in the United States and because of the false impression it creates reflects a broader disconnect in the discussion of the November 3 election cycle.

The New York State race has gained outsized coverage for two reasons:

1. Local Republican leaders nominated a moderate candidate to replace Republican congressman John McHugh, who jumped party lines to serve as the Obama administration's Secretary of the Army. That sparked a revolt by conservatives in New York state and nationally, which ultimately forced Scozzafava out of the running. Republican leaders who backed her have now rallied behind Doug Hoffman, a Republican who is running on the Conservative Reporters love insider-the-party fights, and this has been a good one.

2. The Republican infighting might – the key word here is might – tip the 23rd into the Democratic column, which would be remarkable considering that the district has been reliably Republican since the 1870s. Such a result would further erode GOP strength in the northeast, where the party has suffered its most serious decline in recent years. That's also a good story.

But none of this justifies the neglect of the contest for the California seat that came open when moderate Democrat Ellen Tauscher quit to take a top job in the State Department.

In fact, California 10 has seen internal party battling – on the Democratic side – and has a much richer history of political competitiveness than New York 23.

Let's compare:

1. New York 23 has not elected a Democrat in more than a century. If it elects a Republican Tuesday – and, though Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party line, he is now backed by local, state and national GOP leaders and organizations – the district will hold to the pattern it has been on since Ulysses Grant was president. On the other hand, California 10 was represented by a Republican until Tauscher beat him in 1996 – and in the past century, Republicans have represented the core counties of the district more frequently than Democrats. In other words, California 10 is the more historically competitive turf.

2. New York 23 and California 10 both voted for Barack Obama in 2008. New York's McHugh and California's Tauscher both won reelection with the same portion of the vote – 65 percent. But California 10 actually has deeper patterns of partisan shifting and ballot-splitting. Indeed, California 10 voted for Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor in that state's 2003 recall election and backed Schwarzenegger for reelection by a 56-38 margin in the generally Democratic year of 2006.

3. While Republicans wrangled in New York 23, Democrats saw a bitter battle between high-profile elected officials in California 10 – with Tauscher's choice to succeed her losing to Lt. Governor John Garamendi. An old-school progressive with an activist bent, Garamendi has been portrayed by some as being too liberal for the suburban district. But Garamendi has not pulled his punches; he has based his populist campaign on his enthusiasm for health care reform and promised to fight for a robust public option in any federal reform measure. And the former California insurance commissioner says he wants to go to Washington to take on the big banks and insurers.

4. Just as Democrats have talked up their prospects for taking New York 23, Republicans have endeavored to create a buzz about California 10. The GOP nominee in the California district, attorney David Harmer, is a solid contender who was a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and whose book on education reform was published by the Cato Institute. Harmer's ties to local and national conservative leaders and donors have allowed him to raise enough money to fund television commercials that attack Garamendi's support of the public option and other liberal positions.

5. Conservative publications, especially The National Review, have in recent days been talking up the California 10 vote as one where the party could make a breakthrough. A National Review Online headline recently declared: "David Harmer Might Be Making the Right Race at the Right Time." While the writer did not say that a Harmer win was in the offering, he wrote that "it feels like the ingredients for one are starting to come together."

Having followed both the New York 23 and California 10 races closely, I am inclined to believe that voting in each district will follow pattern on Tuesday. That argues for a Hoffman win in New York and a Garamendi win in California – and no change to the partisan division in the House. Certainly, New York Democrat Bill Owens is the more likely upset winner. But California Republican Harmer has run an credible campaign that merits at least as much attention as that of fellow conservative Hoffman in New York.

I'm impressed with the National Review's analysis. We may disagree ideologically, but the conservative publication's writers recognize that not all California congressional districts are the same.

They also recognize that voters in one California district will elect a congressman on Tuesday – something the Washington Post and most television commentators seem to have forgotten.

Both of Tuesday's House races matter, especially at this volatile political moment nationally. Both should be analyzed with an eye for signals and trends – as should Tuesday's New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial contests and various mayor races and referendums around the country. There is nothing wrong with trying to draw conclusions from off-year election results. But those conclusions should be based on realities and results – not just those that are cherry-picked by party operatives and pundits who don't get out of Washington much.

And if John Garamendi wins the California 10 contest, I can guarantee that he will stir things up in Washington far more aggressively than whoever is elected to represent New York 23.

Comments (63)

NICHOLS: "I'm impressed with the National Review's analysis. We may disagree ideologically, but the conservative publication's writers recognize that not all California congressional districts are the same. "

Well done, Mr. Nichols! In my few years here, you appear to be maturing......at times, a credible stand-in for Corn!

Posted by Happy at 11/02/2009 @ 5:59pm
Conservatives in CA keep hoping Garamendi will just go away. He is a joke. It would really speak poorly of the people in the 10th if they elect Garamendi. But then again, they also elected Tauscher.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 6:00pm
1. New York 23 has not elected a Democrat in more than a century. If it elects a Republican Tuesday – even one running on the Conservative Party line – the district will hold to the pattern it has been on since Ulysses Grant was president.

Amazing, leftist want it both ways, first he isn't a Republican, now he is! How do you keep track of all the lies at the nation?

Posted by BigPasture at 11/02/2009 @ 7:00pm
coke!

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 8:50pm
pepsi!

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 8:51pm
I have an opinion that's shared by the majority of Americans, which is that the choice between Democrat or Republican has become so small that it isn't worth reading any of the mainstream (corporate) analysis, and that includes every one from any online zine supported by advertising, including The Nation's. Which isn't to say that it isn't some fine writing, I just don't believe that's enough.

Posted by kevinparcell at 11/02/2009 @ 9:40pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 8:51pm |

RC Cola!

Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 9:53pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 8:51pm |

Vernor's Ginger Ale!

(Save Flint!)

Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 9:56pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 8:51pm |

RC Cola!

Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 9:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 8:51pm |

Vernor's Ginger Ale!

(Save Flint!)

Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 9:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Indeed.

BTW, around here, it's called POP! Ask for "soda" and you'll likely get a glass of club soda or perhaps something with ice cream in it.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/02/2009 @ 10:09pm
Long live regionalism and all its lovable quirkiness.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/02/2009 @ 10:11pm
THE ONE race that's really seriously interesting, not either of the "Special Elections", is the NJ Governor's race!

I look at it as a precursor of California and Michigan.....all are deep blue states with not-small BLUE problems.

IF Christi wins, all hell will break loose on the Left! And, even if Corzine beats Christi by less than a handful of points, look out Dems!

Back to the Special NY-23 Election, my call is a HAPPY one!

Posted by Happy at 11/02/2009 @ 10:37pm
Fearing a potentially devastating Democratic loss, the highly controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) group and its affiliated organizations are gearing up to tip the scales and re-elect embattled incumbent in the hard-fought New Jersey gubernatorial race, sources tell Newsmax.

"Acorn is heavily involved in Gov. Jon Corzine's get-out-the-vote operation, but is maintaining a low profile at the insistence of the Corzine campaign," Matthew Vadum, senior editor of the conservative Capitol Research Center think tank, tells Newsmax. "If Corzine manages to win reelection, he doesn't want the victory tainted by his close association with Acorn."

Wall Street Journal columnist and author John Fund wrote Tuesday that "Plenty of reasons exist for suspecting absentee fraud may play a significant role in tomorrow's Garden State contests."

According to Fund, Acorn-linked groups from neighboring Pennsylvania and New York "appear to have moved into the state."

Fund also reports that the state's Democratic Party is pressuring county clerks around the Garden State to downplay signature checks on absentee ballots. Without such checking, it is very difficult to detect absentee vote fraud.

Left bruised and battered by the recent undercover videos depicting workers at various Acorn offices giving advice on tax evasion to a reputed child-prostitution ring, Acorn remains a potent political force in many regions. It has been the focus of vote-registration fraud investigations in more than a dozen states.

A search of the Acorn.org Web site shows that the organization has a heavy presence in New Jersey. It maintains offices in Jersey City, Trenton, Paterson, and Newark.

The group could play an important role in voter turnout, which ma

Posted by BigPasture at 11/02/2009 @ 11:49pm
"On some 3,000 forms the signature doesn't match the one on file with county clerks," Fund adds. "Yet citing concerns that voters would be disenfranchised, Democratic Party lawyer Paul Josephson wrote New Jersey's secretary of state asking her 'to instruct County Clerks not to deny applications on the basis of signature comparison alone.'"

Fund reports voter-fraud allegations have marred several New Jersey elections in recent years.

In September, New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram announced the indictments of Atlantic City Councilman Marty Small and 13 campaign workers, charging they solicited absentee ballots on behalf of individuals not qualified to receive them, then opened the sealed ballots, and destroyed any that were not cast for Small.

In the current election, Fund reports that supporters of Roberto Feliz, an Independent candidate for Mayor of Camden, are sounding alarms over suspicious ballot activity. One Feliz backer says that absentee ballots -- which are thought to be more vulnerable to voter fraud – have increased by a factor of 15 compared to prior elections.

"In the 2005, when the city's voters voted for both governor and mayor on the same day, only 200 absentee ballots were cast," Fund writes. "This year, some 3,700 have already been received."

Fund adds that the Feliz campaign has received complaints from voters regarding absentee irregularities.

Hmmmm....seems the SEIU and ACORN stand ready to hand Demoncrats another victory in New Jersey reguardless of voter laws. Great job!

Posted by BigPasture at 11/02/2009 @ 11:51pm
Gov. Corzine in June signed a new "Vote by Mail" law that some believe may make it harder to detect fraudulent ballots.

That law allows voters to opt to automatically receive mail-in ballots for all state elections, which eliminates the need to ever show up at a polling place and submit identification.

Demoncrats always plan ahead for "fair" elections it seems!

Posted by BigPasture at 11/02/2009 @ 11:52pm
The impact of a Harmer victory would ripple through California state government as well. When the Lieutenant Governor cannot win a special election in a Democrat-gerrymandered district, then Democrats statewide begin to look very vulnerable when confronted with genuine ideological opposition. The RNC, then, has an opportunity to help Republicans in Congress and also Republicans trying to gain more control of California state government. If Harmer wins, it is a body blow to the Democrat Party nationally and in the country's biggest state. He ought to be getting every spare nickel Republican organizations can spare. A Harmer victory would be huge.

Demoncrats better "sweat" this one if any since even with "gerrymandering" giving a 20% edge their candidate whos stepping down could still only manage 65% in the last election and 5 out of 6 of Garimendis Democrat measures were voted down by that district!

Posted by BigPasture at 11/03/2009 @ 01:03am
RC Cola!

Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 9:53pm

careful what you wish for:

"In October 2000, Royal Crown was acquired by Cadbury Schweppes plc through its acquisition of Snapple. Royal Crown operations were folded into Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., a former subsidiary of Cadbury Schweppes. In 2001, all international RC-branded business were sold to Cott Beverages of Mississauga, Ontario and is operated as Royal Crown Cola International. "

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 01:45am
snowy, ever seen this?

http://www.wowway.com/~vernors/Vernor's%20sign%20art%20print.JPG

••

oh lord...

"Vernor opened a drug store of his own on Woodward Avenue, and sold his ginger ale at its soda fountain. According to the 1911 trademark application on "Vernor's" as a name for ginger ale and extract, Vernors entered commerce in 1880. City by city, Vernor sold bottling franchises, with operators of those franchises required to strictly adhere to the recipe. In 1896, Vernor closed his drugstore to concentrate on the ginger ale business alone. Initially, Vernors was only sold via soda fountain franchises, but later Vernors was bottled for home consumption.[3] James Vernor died Oct. 29, 1927 and was succeeded by his son, James Vernor Jr. Expansion continued throughout Prohibition. In 1962, Vernors introduced Vernors 1-Calorie, now called Diet Vernors. In 1966, the Vernor family sold out to the first of a succession of owners.[4] The company was next acquired by American Consumer Products and then by United Brands before being purchased by A&W Beverages in 1987. A&W WAS LATER PURCHASED BY CADBURY SCHWEPPES."

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 01:56am
Long live regionalism and all its lovable quirkiness.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/02/2009 @ 10:11pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 02:03am
I have an opinion that's shared by the majority of Americans, which is that the choice between Democrat or Republican has become so small

Posted by kevinparcell at 11/02/2009 @ 9:40pm

in a blind taste test, 52% preferred cokesipep.

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 02:05am
BigPasture -

You seem like a perfect specimen of Americano, to wit, a bovine apple-polisher with the intelligence of a screwdriver. Why is it that every clod-hopper like BigPasture believes that refurbishing some pundit's talking points or disgorging something gleaned from selective snatchings of subjective media grants him some sort of expertise in a wide variety of complicated areas? And pray tell why anyone with even the smallest dollop of decency would give credence to anything that spills from the wide mouth of one of these braying idiots who can't even manage to keep his waistline under 40?

This prodigy sounds awfully close to that superb moron from Texas who used to rail against indocumentados and liberals from his weed-choked Valhalla where women buy everthing from groceries to lingerie at WalMart and every corn-fed idiot owns a pair of boots, Wranglers and a ridiculous ten-gallon hat. Add in their refined taste for guns, pick-up trucks, asinine music and the occasional lynching and you see quickly why even Mexico wouldn't want Texas if the US offered it as a gift.

Jeff Gordon is more famous than Davy Crockett in Texas (and most other backwoods wastelands in the US south), and this is yet another reason why America is doomed: morons who drive in circles are venerated while men with real balls and true talent go to the dustbin of history. But I needn't get involved in this queer duel, for that would make me a hypocrite. The ills of Texas and its peasantry need be lamented but not singled out, for they are no different than those of two dozen other states in this brilliant commonwealth. What is important, and absolutely clear, is this: arguing in sober earnestness here in this fashion is about as meaningful as two bald men fighting over a comb.

Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 02:41am
I want everybody to know!

That's my sweet booty bouncing that US Canteen, and every time you pinch it I get another coke!

Posted by kevinparcell at 11/03/2009 @ 05:22am
This just in:

In a blind taste test, 54% preferred Obama!

...no wait...that's not quite it...here it is:

In a blind taste test, 94% couldn't tell which one was Obama!

Posted by kevinparcell at 11/03/2009 @ 05:50am
Conservatives in CA keep hoping Garamendi will just go away. He is a joke.

Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 6:00pm

Larry nailed this one. I don't know about CA Conservatives, but obviously I know of John Garamendi from working in the insurance industry.

Garamendi is an abosolute joke. Now there have been many Representatives who are an absolute joke. (Cynthia McKinney comes to mind.) But consider that Garamendi was preparing for, and I think tried, a run for the governor's mansion. Ask yourself: A governor's candidate running to be one of 54 representatives? That would be like someone who was intervied to be managing parnter of Goldman Sachs being demoted to director of the mail room.

That would be like Jerry Brown running for mayor of Oakland. Sure, he won. But he's still a joke.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 05:55am
Garamendi's fall came from the Executive Life bailout. Executive Life was a huge life insurance company. They made some outsized returns investing in high yeild bonds that benefited both policyholders and investors. Unfortunately, they didn't fully understand the risks of the high yeild bond market and when the market moved against them, they went insolvent.

Each of the 50 states have a state guarantee association. These are government committees that form an insurance network. They charge in-state life insurance companies a premium tax and when there is an insolvency, the guaratee associations make sure policyholders get most of their money.

Rather than letting the state guarant associations deal with this, Garamendi decided he was going to ride in on his white horse and save the day as a populist measure to boost his bid for governor.

Like a typical liberal, he refused to listen to the people who do this for a living, instead believing he knew best. The guarantee association begged him to let them keep the bonds but he insisted on a very large public sale that would create a lot of free publicity for his bid for governor.

Long story short he sold the bonds to a French consortium. The bonds recovered and garamundi gave away $3 - $4 billon dollars that should have gone to policy holders.

The US sued the French consortium because they illegally did not dislose the involvement of banks. An internation court awarded the bonds back to the US, but not before the lawyers ate up $100s of millions of fee. And the French government was even more pissed off at the US because of the international embarassment.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 06:07am
So Garamendi is a typical liberal: He rides in with too much power. He throws his weight around and refuses to listen to the people who know what they are doing.

He justifies it all because he has good intentions.

Everything goes to shit. He loudly professes how he is doing the work of "the people" but the people he is tried to helped are worse off after his help. Other people have to come in and work twice as hard to clean the the mess he created by trying to be a hero.

He slinks off in shame and a few years later runs for a lower office.

Typical liberal.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 06:10am
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 01:45am

"snowy, ever seen this?"

Bien sur...my geography is fuzzy since I was teeny when I lived in the Detroit area...was that over by Wayne State perchance?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 07:35am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 06:07am |

Try hip-deep (90% of their portfolio) in Milken JUNK bonds. This was beyond stupid, Darin.

Now I know why CA late night TV is filled with ads about converting your "structured settlement" into (significantly less) cash today.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 07:44am
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 02:03am |

"The Gullah word guber for peanut derives from the KiKongo word N'guba."

And you thought Happy wasn't open to other cultures. Shame on you.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 07:54am
Anybody doubt that the guys at Fox News have already written their post-election stories, 24 hours in advance. First line?

"In a stunning rebuke of the Obama Administration...."

Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 08:02am
Now I know why CA late night TV is filled with ads about converting your "structured settlement" into (significantly less) cash today.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 07:44am

Completely unrelated.

The guarantee associations fulfilled their promises: $100,000 in life cash value and $300,000 in annuity and life insurance death proceeds (or something like that).

Structured settlements are ususally the result of a successful tort action. A person is injured and can no longer work because of another party's negligence. The judge in the case will approve a settlement that provides lifetime income for the injured party. Usually, it is because the judge deems the injured person not financially savvy enough to manage a large cash settlement.

Are you familiar with the marshmallow test? The put a marshmallow in front of a kid and tell him that he can eat it, but if he waits until the tester get back, he can have two marshmallows. It tests one's ability to defer gratification. Some people can do it and some people can't.

People who can't defer gratification are the types of people who will sell their stream of payments at a 20% discount instead of a 4% discount.

Anyway, I touched on this yesterday: These are the people who need liberals to take care of them. I am not being facitious.

I said yesterday that some people can defer gratification and some can't. The one's who can't are easy marks to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous dealers.

The problem with liberals is they think 98% of the population need their help, rather than the 30% who really need it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 08:24am
There is NO TEACHING IN CHRISTIANITY FOR GOVT WELFARE OR CHARITY. Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 1:30pm

Seemed pretty clear to me. You were responding to Darla, but my response was directly to that statement that you made. I was more directly responding to the 'No teaching in christianity for charity'. I didn't miss a damn thing. You said it. Then seemed to deny that you said it.

Posted by ficheye at 11/02/2009 @ 6:54pm

Hey, earlier in the day, Larry posted to something written a long time ago mocking people like you. The punch line was that if I opposes the government raising grain you will claim that I oppose eating.

Larry has been perfectly clear and consistent. Opposing GOVERNMENT charity is not opposing charity. Opposing GOVERNMENT welfare is not opposing welfare.

I suppose if I said I oppose a plan where the government confiscates all children at birth and raises them in orphanages, you'll claim I oppose providing food and shelter for children. I don't oppose doing it: I oppose diffusing responsibility to see that it gets done.

The Bible does not say that people should delegate the responsibility for the poor to the government. The Bible says that individuals must accept responsibility for the poor personally and not act as if they are someone else's problem.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 08:42am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 08:24am |

<Credit Lyonnais will pay a $100 million criminal fine, as well as an additional $100 million civil penalty imposed by the Federal Reserve. An additional $375 million will be paid by CDR‑E into a SETTLEMENT FUND available to the California Insurance Commissioner for distribution to former Executive Life policyholders to compensate them for lost benefits. >

And I pointed you to the TED talk about the kids with marshmallows (cute, if you ignore what'll happen to them when they try the same experiment with crystal meth 20 years up the road).

"The problem with liberals is they think 98% of the population need their help, rather than the 30% who really need it."

What portion of US adults do you feel can properly explain and perform compound interest calculations, as a percentage?

I'm going to (cynically) open the bidding at less than 40%.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:45am
If the government official responsible to make sure you wipe your ass after you take a shit is on vacation, does your ass not get wiped?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 08:47am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 08:42am |

Same questions I put to Larry:

Why should we trust you to help the needy rather than those you merely prefer?

Why are you more trustworthy with that choice than the government?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:47am
What portion of US adults do you feel can properly explain and perform compound interest calculations, as a percentage?

I'm going to (cynically) open the bidding at less than 40%.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:45am

If you are talking about coding up the amortization schedule for their own mortage in a spreadsheet, I'd guess the percentage is between 20% and 30%.

If you are talking about being able to evaluate whether a proposed refinance is beneficial or harmful, I'd say that percentage is between 65% and 75%.

How many adults can administer a vaccination? How many can assess whether they should get the vaccination?

I don't have to be able to do it in order to know whether it is economically beneficial to me.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 08:55am
Why should we trust you to help the needy rather than those you merely prefer?

Why are you more trustworthy with that choice than the government?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:47am

I'll stipulate one point: Only an idiot would trust me to help the needy (unless I was related to them.)

The question isn't whether the needy are better off if I'm responsible for them or President Obama is. The question is which is a better society?

There are two extremes. In the one extreme there are no private charities, only government programs. In the other extreme, there are no government welfare programs, only private charity.

(Neither extreme is possible, mind you. It only illuminates the focus on responsibility.)

I think in the private model, a larger chunk of the poor get better treatment. When the only way the poor are helped is through local, private people and family helping, I think the quality of contact is better.

In the government model, a check is sent from Washington. Fewer people fall through the cracks, but the majority of the poor get no personal involvement from actual human beings.

That's why I favor the prior, while conceding the latter is necessary for the people who fall through the cracks.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 09:03am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 08:55am |

How many can evaluate US monetary policy and make a determination as to whether their variable rate mort is a smart move?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 09:03am
Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:47am

These guys seem to think we have no "historic precedence" for their "eliminate all government charity" plan....we do.

It was called the 19th Century. Dickens even spoke of it-

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 09:07am
So are we going to run an election pool?

Hear are my predictions:

VA Gov: Republican

NY Gov: Democrat (but only because of ACORN voter fraud)

NY 23: Republican

CA 10: Democrat

Maine Gay marriage: No (meaning same sex marriage is NOT repealed.)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 09:10am
How many can evaluate US monetary policy and make a determination as to whether their variable rate mort is a smart move?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 09:03am

How do you define, "smart"?

Economics is the study of human motivation; not money. different people are motivated by different things. Some value financial security (fixed rate) and some value maximizing expected economic value (floating rate that captures positive expected liquidity premium over a 30-year period).

Is your floating rate mortgage causing you sleepless nights over worry? If yes, that is not smart.

Does living in a house you can only afford because of lower short-term floating rate interest cause you to believe other people judge you to be more successful than you are. Has it actually created business contacts that allowed you to sell more in a high economic demographic, which earned more commission, which allowed you to afford the house you bought? If yes, than that is smart.

You life your life by your values and fully accept the rewards and risks of your actions. That's smart to me.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 09:19am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 09:19am |

Smart...as in more likely than not to result in foreclosure.

I've never been a fan of the affectation of wealth...I won't even use variable rate plastic.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 09:25am
If the government official responsible to make sure you wipe your ass after you take a shit is on vacation, does your ass not get wiped?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 08:47am

Nice wake up WIPE!

Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 09:30am
Posted by Happy at 11/03/2009 @ 09:30am |

Crap yourself in your sleep often, Happy? That booze will kill ya.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 09:35am
In the government model, a check is sent from Washington. Fewer people fall through the cracks, but the majority of the poor get no personal involvement from actual human beings.

That's why I favor the prior, while conceding the latter is necessary for the people who fall through the cracks.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009

I'm surprised that you favor private charity because of the personal involvement from actual human beings, since I thought most conservatives and libertarians were in favor of people making their own way and not having outsiders interfere in their decision-making.

I personally think that the best social program we could have would be good, living wages for everyone who wanted to work, plus health care for all. Limit the social work to the few folks who really need that level of support.

And Mask has a good point about the history of private charity. Public social welfare largely arose from the failure of private charity to make enough of an impact on enough people. Medicare, in particular, has been especially successful in reducing the poverty rate among the elderly. I have no problem with private efforts as a supplement to or spur for the public provision of services or resources, but I have no illusions that the private sector can carry the full load.

Posted by cka2nd at 11/03/2009 @ 10:07am
As a native upstate New Yorker, I have been both amused and appalled at the way this region has been represented in the national media. Yes, it's rural. Yes, it's a long way from Manhattan. Yes, it's been a Republican stronghold for an embarrassingly long time--although Democrats who pay attention to the region and make an attempt to understand it have made significant inroads. I'm still hoping for an Owens victory; I don't think it's impossible. But I feel the need to correct the Post on one point: the road signs in the North Country--unless you are in the immediate vicinity of an international bridge--are in English. Just English. If you cross the river to Ontario, that's not the case. But there are no French road signs in upstate New York. Perhaps some journalists should actually GO there one of these days?

Posted by mmitchel at 11/03/2009 @ 10:09am
I've never been a fan of the affectation of wealth...I won't even use variable rate plastic.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 09:25am

I have a business friend from Wall Street. He's never had a fixed rate mortgage. He has shopped the price and then bought a float, but he was diciplined enough to always pay the amount that the 30-year fixed would have required. In 12 years, he had one or two months were the rate was higher than the original 30-year rate, but the greater principle reduction means he's paid down the balance so far that he has never paid more dollars of interest irrespective of the rate.

My house before my last house I knew I would be in long-term. I had a 5/1 ARM and was in it for three years, but it caused me to worry and some money fights at home. I paid less interest, but am not sure it was smart.

My point is you can't judge smart without understanding the individual's risk tolerance.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 10:18am
Posted by cka2nd at 11/03/2009 @ 10:07am

Analyze the sub-text...even the overt-text of what the New Hard Right is saying and it's well beyond Eisenhower Republicanism, even Reagan Republicanism and are approaching "John C. Calhoun" levels of conservatism.

Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 10:25am
Public social welfare largely arose from the failure of private charity to make enough of an impact on enough people. Medicare, in particular, has been especially successful in reducing the poverty rate among the elderly.

Posted by cka2nd at 11/03/2009 @ 10:07am

SS is the most wildly successful anti-poverty program in the history of the universe. Medicare doesn't even come close.

One of the reasons that private charities have been ineffective in the past has been fierce pride by individuals refusing to accept charity. That was one of the reasons that back in 1935 SS was made universal. That is, to remove the stigma of accepting charity it was made universal: everyone gets it whether they need it or not.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 10:25am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 10:25am |

Stigma....or that's the only way that shared risk pools have a chance in hell of working?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 10:53am
So are we going to run an election pool?

Hear are my predictions:

VA Gov: Republican

NY Gov: Democrat (but only because of ACORN voter fraud)

NY 23: Republican

CA 10: Democrat

Maine Gay marriage: No (meaning same sex marriage is NOT repealed.)

By Darin-t-BFT

*****

For one -- there is no race for governor in New York. I'll agree, you might have just done a typo... and by the way - technically, there is no Republican running in NY23...

My predictions: VA Gov - R NJ Gov - D (in an honest election) NY23 - D CA10 - D

Maine Gay Marriage -- No repeal, same sex marriage will continue to be allowed

WA Civil rights for same sex couples - Yes

____

If this goes as I predict -- the Republicans will MAYBE get the correct idea and move back into the middle, thus setting up a stronger two-party system.

But -- the Conservatives (R or Third Party) probably will find a way to spin this as a win for them, regardless of what happens.

Posted by AloeVera at 11/03/2009 @ 10:53am
Man had to log in just so I could ship the BS spewing from bp and happy's keyboards. The candidate in New York does not even live in the district. More than 90% of his funding comes from out of district and out of state ( sorry too lazy to get the links). If he wins who does he represent? Won't a victory here just encourage the GOP to field even more wing nut candidates thus further alienating them in the general Elections? A GOP win here sends the message moderates need not apply. Considering the changing demographics of the electorate This will keep the GOP in the wilderness a little longer. This is a no win situation for them A loss means losing a seat they have held "since Grant was president. Winning means they keep a seat they have had for that long but it also empowers the neo-cons to keep fielding the kind of candidates that lost them 2006-2008. Screwed ether way.

Posted by bascaville at 11/03/2009 @ 10:59am
"One of the reasons that private charities have been ineffective in the past has been fierce pride by individuals refusing to accept charity"

evidence? (probably not)

"I think in the private model, a larger chunk of the poor get better treatment"

evidence? (probably not)

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:12am
chimichenga,

Regarding your post above, some points.

1. You are a Yankee snob.

2. You referred to our country as a "commonwealth". Only 4 states in the U.S. are commonwealths - Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

3. You use the term "morons" to refer to those that you, as a Yankee snob, disdain. --- but the term Morons refers to one thing, and one thing only - it is the collective term for an NFL team that shares a stadium with the New York Jets in New Jersey, a team that is currently on a 3 game losing streak that hopefully will continue for the rest of the season, and who others refer to as "New York Giants".

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2009 @ 11:16am
"Economics is the study of human motivation; not money"

false. psychology or psychoanalysis is the study of human motivation. economics is a social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

now, political economy overlaps the study of economics with the study of human behavior (social science).

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:19am
mmitchel,

I am glad you posted in about the road signs in the North Country. I didn't think that there were any bilingual signs either, but I have never been up around Plattsburgh or Lake Champlain so I wasn't sure.

I knew there were none north of Watertown and around Alex Bay.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/03/2009 @ 11:20am
"...for that would make me a hypocrite."

Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 02:41am

You?!

A Hypocrite, Chimi?

Naaaawwwww.....

you fuzzy little foreigner.

Posted by Benchrest at 11/03/2009 @ 11:47am
"One of the reasons that private charities have been ineffective in the past has been fierce pride by individuals refusing to accept charity"

evidence? (probably not)

Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 11:12am

This is what was taught in the actuarial exam on social insurance programs when I passed it in the early '90s.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 12:04pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 10:25am

I've read exactly the opposite - it might have even been here at The Nation - that while the elderly still had the highest poverty rate among any age group in the country at the start of the 60's, 25 or so years after Social Security started, they flipped to having the lowest poverty rate of any age cohort after the introduction of Medicare. But if you've got sources that contradict this, I'm more than willing to bend to the facts.

Posted by cka2nd at 11/03/2009 @ 1:21pm
#

The company was next acquired by American Consumer Products and then by United Brands before being purchased by A&W Beverages in 1987. A&W WAS LATER PURCHASED BY CADBURY SCHWEPPES."

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 01:56am #

Long live regionalism and all its lovable quirkiness.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/02/2009 @ 10:11pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 02:03am

Didn't know about the Gullah folks...interesting.

At this moment, I am on the site of the old Vernors plant, at Woodward betw. Canfield and Hancock, here in Day-twa.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/03/2009 @ 1:27pm
My point is you can't judge smart without understanding the individual's risk tolerance. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 10:18am |

Fair enough, but the folks I'm talking about don't know what "risk tolerance" means.

And the days when it was up to you whether or not you left your option ARM behind are long gone.

I read an interesting article this morning about Wells Fargo attempting to convert all the garbage they bought at 80 cents on the dollar with WaMu into fixed-rate, interest-only loans instead of just taking the write-downs like men when the next wave crests.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 1:38pm
Posted by cka2nd at 11/03/2009 @ 1:21pm

I saw a statistic that had 50% of seniors below the poverty level before SS and it was something like 7% after payments going up to 10% after income taxes. SS payments remove 40% of the elderly population from poverty. I don't know what the figure is for Medicare but it doesn't seem possible to me that it is 40%.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 1:39pm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 1:38pm |

Make that Wachovia, not WaMu (so many failed banks...so little time).

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:18pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/03/2009 @ 1:39pm |

<Social Security benefits have a powerful poverty-preventing effect among the elderly. An analysis of Census data shows that nationwide, Social Security benefits lift nearly 13 million seniors age 65 and older above the poverty line. These figures reflect a three-year average for the period from 2000 through 2002. The data indicate: Leaving aside Social Security income, nearly one of every two elderly people -- 46.8 percent -- has income below the poverty line.[1] Once Social Security benefits are taken into account, just one in twelve -- 8.7 percent -- is poor.>

<Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over have much higher out-of-pocket health care costs than the non-elderly. So substantial are these costs, in fact, that if the federal government's official poverty measure were to start taking them into account -- as a National Academy of Sciences expert panel recommended -- the number of elderly Americans who are poor would jump by 2.4 million and the poverty rate for the elderly would rival that for children. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Congress's official, expert advisory body on Medicare payment policy, has recommended a series of improvements in the Medicare Savings Programs that would help low-income seniors pay their out-of-pocket health costs.>

Don't forget to account for the fact that a good portion of their SS benefits are shoveled into their medical costs (including their Medicare premiums).

Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 2:24pm