Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Procrastinating Senate Majority Leader Is Bailed Out by Ted Cruz

Conventional wisdom over the last two days has coalesced around the idea that bumbling arch-conservative Ted Cruz misfired when he requested additional time for the Senate to be in session, because it allowed a bunch of liberal Obama judicial nominees to get confirmed.

Here are the headlines about this gambit:


  • Ted Cruz does it again (Politico)
  • Ted Cruz Just Did Obama a Big Favor (Slate)
  • Ted Cruz Gave Obama An Early Christmas Gift Over The Weekend (Business Insider)
  • Republicans blame Cruz for year-end confirmations (AP)
  • Did Ted Cruz Give Harry Reid One Last Victory? (Weekly Standard)
  • Ted Cruz just did a huge favor for Democrats (Vox)

This is from the AP:

Under the Senate's rules, Cruz's maneuver allowed Reid to begin the time-consuming process of confirming nominations on Saturday at noon - when lawmakers had been scheduled to be home for the weekend. 
Had Cruz not made his move when he did, according to officials in both parties, Reid would have had to wait until Monday night - more than 48 hours later. Disgruntled Republicans said they felt confident that Reid's rank and file would not have been willing to remain in Washington in that case, and only four or five nominees would be confirmed instead of 23.
Man, what a putz that guy Cruz is! Does he even know how to do politics?

But this view ignores the question of why Harry Reid waited until the very last days of the very last session of the 113th U.S. Congress to get the ball rolling on all these nominations.  It seems a little bit like maybe he was foot-dragging a bit.  Everyone's piling on Ted Cruz, but why did it take a knuckleheaded political move on Cruz's part for these nominations to come to the full Senate?

Too many Democrats seem to be happy to mock Ted Cruz for this, but are unwilling to direct ire at Harry Reid for cutting it so close in the first place.

Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Survey: Republicans Believe False Things

The title of this post is in reference to a Selzer poll conducted for Bloomberg Politics, described by Al Hunt.

Bloomberg Politics poll shows that on two controversial issues, the budget deficit and deporting illegal immigrants, the public believes Obama's critics–even though reality favors the president.
By 73 percent to 21 percent, the public says the federal budget deficit has gotten bigger during the Obama presidency.
It hasn't.
By 53 percent to 29 percent, Americans believe that Obama has sent fewer undocumented immigrants home than were deported a decade earlier.
He has sent more.

On the surface, this is a sad statement about the knowledge the American public has about news.  But digging a little deeper, one finds that one party in particular is driving the results here.

Republicans by an 8-to-1 ratio say the budget deficit has grown over the last six years; a smaller majority of independents and Democrats say that. Likewise, 66 percent of Republicans say there have been fewer deportations versus only 45 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents.

There are subjective questions polling firms ask about how politicians are handling economic crises, or if one approves of a politician, and I basically ignore them, because there is no right answer. It's just an opinion. But then there are questions about basic facts, which are like examinations of poll respondents.  It is no longer "what do you think of this?", it's "what do you know about this?".  And this survey shows that being a Republican is strongly correlated with not knowing about both the budget and current immigration policy.


Monday, November 03, 2014

Last Senate Update

These are my final guesses for the U.S. Senate elections tomorrow.



If Orman wins and caucuses with the majority, he'll likely choose to team up with Republicans, since he's probably not foolish enough to base his decision on a result that happens before potential runoffs in Louisiana and Georgia determine control of the senate for sure.  This is of course assuming he wins, which, let's face it, would be really weird, despite the polling on the Kansas senate race saying Orman has a narrow lead.    Still, an algorithm is an algorithm, and mine shows Orman up a percentage point on Pat Roberts.


Thursday, October 30, 2014

Senate predictions: October 30, 2014

Democrats will probably not be winning this Senate election in 2014. There are too many blue lines below the x-axis (8) and too few above (1). Even if I were to be wrong about this prediction (extremely likely), the next two closest races are Georgia and Alaska. In Georgia, a win in November's election for Michelle Nunn just delays the likely runoff win in January's runoff by David Perdue. And polls in Alaska have a history of overstating Democrats' strength. It wouldn't be too surprising if the median poll spread next Tuesday shows Democratic senator Mark Begich with a small lead, but since 2000, Alaska's polls have shown a 7.2 percentage point bias towards Democrats.

As this is supposed to be an Oklahoma blog, I should say something about the elections for both U.S. Senators and all the state offices in Oklahoma: Republicans will win everything by huge margins. Lankford, Inhofe and Fallin will cruise by huge margins, and the Oklahoma Democratic Party will continue to wallow in obscurity and penury for the foreseeable future.  That is all.



 
Here are today's median poll numbers.

Saturday, February 02, 2013

No One Sits on a Scoop Anymore: an Impression from Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

So I'm reading the Hunter S. Thompson book Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, which is Thompson's book about the presidential race that year between George McGovern and sitting president Richard Nixon.  It is interesting to me because it is my first introduction to the Hunter S. Thompson writing style, but it's also interesting to me to compare and contrast that campaign with modern presidential campaigns.  Thompson's descriptions of campaign events, the horse-race primary coverage, and the campaign narratives established by journalists are highly relatable to campaigns of today.  In part this is because Thompson's writing style remains fresh today in ways that wouldn't be possible for many other establishment figures of the time.  But despite the many similarities I have found in the book so far, I just read one passage that could never possibly happen in today's media world.

Ed Muskie, U.S. senator from Maine at the time, was considered the Democratic front-runner because he polled the best out of a crowded field, and at least one poll had shown him leading Nixon. But he wasn't that popular with the left of the party, and there were a couple of political behemoths to the right of him (Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace).  Muskie won Iowa and New Hampshire, but his margin of victory was unimpressive in both, which set up a devastating Florida primary where he spent loads of money but finished a disastrous fourth with only 9% of the vote (Alabama governor George Wallace won big by courting the NASCAR vote).

After Florida Muskie was devastated.  And this is where the crazy impossibility happens.  Thompson writes:
"...Muskie called a meeting the day after the primary to announce that he was quitting the race. [Muskie's staffers] had managed to talk him out of it, agreeing to work without pay until after Wisconsin, but when word of the candidate's aborted withdrawal leaked out to the press ... well, that was that. Nobody published it, nobody mentioned it on TV or radio -- but from that point on, the only thing that kept the Muskie campaign alive was a grim political version of the old vaudeville idea that 'the show must go on.'"

Muskie went on to win Illinois a couple of weeks later, and at one time he polled even with Hubert Humphrey for the lead in the crucial Wisconsin primary that year, but George McGovern pulled off a surprise win in that Wisconsin primary and went on to take the nomination.  The fact that Muskie survived for another month before dropping out would not have been possible today.  There is no way that in today's media environment someone would get word of that meeting where the former frontrunner announced he was quitting and just sit on it.  Let alone a whole traveling pack of campaign trail journalists sitting on what would be a candidate-killing story. It was the first campaign trail anecdote I read that basically reached out and slapped me in the face with its shocking foreignness.  It surprised me so much I had to write about it here.

Monday, December 24, 2012

Liberal Media Bias - A Blog Post About Losing a Bet With My Wife

This post comes from a challenge given to me by my wife.  We had a discussion about the reputations of certain websites for being too partisan to be taken as serious news sources (Huffington Post), and during the course of our discussion I said that NPR and the New York Times exhibited a sort of liberal bias through the selection and emphasis of stories that would reaffirm a liberal worldview.  She called me on it though, and so now I have to see if what I said was actually true (this look-before-you-leap assertion philosophy of mine is also a primary reason why she usually wins all our arguments).

I took snapshots of news websites' front pages at the same time on Thursday afternoon to see which stories were being emphasized by particular news organizations and which stories were being ignored.  Thursday night was the night of John Boehner's big fail of an attempt to pass a partisan symbolic "fiscal cliff" solution that involved raising taxes on millionaires, the so-called "Plan B".  It was also 6 days after the tragic Newtown elementary school shooting, so lots of stories relate to this.  For scoring purposes, any Newtown policy story critical of guns will be scored as D +1, while any policy story that talks about any other theory will be scored as R +1.

I have decided to analyze the headline (and only the headline) of everything I can see in these snapshots, which only include the top part of the front page of these websites.  This includes both news articles and opinion pieces.  I summed up all the Republican sounding headlines and all the Democrat sounding headlines and came up with a total score of partisanship.  I start with a few right-wing websites just to show what bias really looks like.


Daily Caller
























Daily Caller is basically your number one source for trolling.  They show a story right there at the top of the page; the headline is "Teachers Union chief: Teach for America helps kill children in classroom".  It is also repeated in the "Popular Articles" column on the right. As are the words "ANN COULTER", so, you know.

Plan B stories: Obama belittles a GOP plan (Neil Munro) (+1 R); Congressional hypocrisy (Alex Pappas) (a fair both-sides-are-hypocrites headline and sub-headline) (neutral); a Boehner talking point (Nicholas Ballasy) (+1 R). None of these headlines scream "tax hike!"

Newtown/gun stories: Ann Coulter (+1 R), teachers unions kill kids (+1 R), "My AR 15 Is Not An Assault Rifle" (+1 R), "Guns for dummies" (+1 R), Morning Joe says GOP needs to not block gun reform (neutral).  The NRA is not mentioned.

Other: Miss Venezuela (neutral), The 10 Hottest moments from the Miss Universe pageant (not news), a reporter gets paid to check Craigslist for end-of-the-world sex (neutral).

Total: +6 R


Newsmax
























Newsmax, which markets to conservative voices, definitely foretold of Boehner's eventual failure due to conservative voices.  They repeatedly emphasize the "tax hike" part of Plan B, which echos a conservative worldview on taxes.

Plan B/fiscal cliff stories: GOP about to vote on "Tax Hikes" (though it's anti-Boehner, it presents Plan B as only a tax hike, so +1 R): AP says the tax averages $100,000 (but doesn't give percentage of income) (+1 R), Rick Scott presented in a good light (+1 R), Boehner says Obama will eat the blame (+1 R), Wall Street Journal hates the Boehner deal (as if we should care what the Wall Street Journal thinks) (+1 R), Boehner "pushes" Plan B "tax hike" (+1 R).

Newtown stories: Hmm, where are the Newtown/gun control stories? Oh, I see one, way down there, just above Newt Gingrich's head! Chris Christie says we should talk about guns (D +1). On the opinion side, just one story about guns from Michael Reagan's perspective (R +1).  The NRA is mentioned nowhere.

Other: Main story #3 is Hillary Clinton being at the "Center of Benghazi Debate", though she wasn't at the hearing, an actual news event (this framing suggests R +1), and a neutral sounding Susan Rice article.  Then there's Gingrich evolving on "marriage equality" (D +1, also the fact that the Newsmax headline says "marriage equality" and not "gay marriage" is a great sign for the movement). Hunger and homelessness are featured in Newsmax only to make Obama look bad (R +1).  On the opinion side, neutral yuletide statements, farewell to Clinton, something something energy policy, and one thing about Chuck Hagel's possible nomination to defense secretary. From the headlines these seem neutral, though I doubt the pieces actually are neutral. 

Total: R +7

Fox News




 
















Fox News was harping on this one story that I hadn't heard anything about apparently on their cable news network as on their website. It involves both a government's legal action against a gun owner and a vehicle in which Mexicans are viewed negatively, so it is a natural fit as a Republican story.  It gets five clickable links, all five are R +1. 

Plan B/fiscal cliff stories: Nothing stands out. In the "Latest News" section of the front page, lawmakers are on a "collision course" and Grover Norquist's absolution is mentioned, but nothing notes the plan as a "tax hike" like on Newsmax.  The fact that Plan B news got buried probably means something, but it's not on an obvious partisan axis.

Newtown/gun stories: Story #2 is Newtown, but the stories focus on, in order, mentally ill (rather than guns (R +1), a teacher's memorial (neutral), mental health (rather than guns (R +1)), and the overreaction of police to a piece of wood with "rifle" written on it (R +1).  The NRA is mentioned nowhere.

Other: The weird anti-Mexico story aside, there aren't many other partisan stories, except for the video link that begins "Top government regulations Santa will ..." (R +1)

Total: R +9

Washington Times























Plan B/fiscal cliff stories: The Washington Times was a little bit more trusting of Eric Cantor's statement that the GOP had the votes for Plan B, and so their coverage assumes that the story will be that it passed.  Thus the Cantor talking point (R +1), Jay Carney saying that it's an exercise in futility (neutral), and the fact that their main story characterizes rules for debate as "House Republicans won an early test" (R +1).  The demonic picture of Obama on a fiscal cliff story is hilarious (R +1), and the fact that they are presenting the fiscal cliff through the eyes of "franchise businesses" is a Republican way of looking at things (R +1).      

Newtown/gun stories: Literally none.  This was the NRA's tactic at the time as well.

Other: Not one, not two, but three obits for Robert Bork, two of which sound glowing ("an original" and the one where Scalia remembers Bork) (R +2).  I would say nothing else is partisan, except for maybe the "Christmas skirmishes as old as Puritans", which sounds a little (D +1) if it is debunking the "war on Christmas".

Total: R +5


Overall, conservative news sites took different tacks regarding Plan B: Washington Times and Daily Caller went with an establishment Republican viewpoint, Newsmax went with a conservative tea party viewpoint, and Fox News either didn't know what to do or they saw a defeat and humiliation likely to come for Boehner, so they just buried all fiscal cliff/Plan B stuff.  Most of the conservative news sites ignored guns as part of the Newtown coverage, with the notable exception of the troll-bait articles praising guns by the Daily Caller.

So if conservative sites ignored guns, you can bet Huffington Post took the opposite tack.

Huffington Post


  




















Plan B/fiscal cliff stories:  Plan B gets one sad looking Boehner picture along with the line "appears likely to pass the house", which in retrospect, ha.  I don't understand the gist of that Boehner quote, and since I'm only judging by headlines and what I can see on the front page, I can't assess the partisan slant in showing it.  Overall it seems HuffPo was expecting Plan B to pass too, and they were getting right to the business of ignoring it because it is irrelevant (and because this is what Democrats would have wanted to do).  Robert Reich's blog post (D +1) and story #5 (D +1) appear to attack centrist Democrats from the left, as Newsmax was attacking from the right about "tax hikes!" in Plan B. 

Newtown/gun stories: Unlike the conservative media, HuffPo hits Newtown and guns hard.  Story #1 (D +1) and #4 are about the NRA and victim funerals respectively.  The bottom one includes words about guns, so it is a D +1.  There are also two blog posts about gun control (D +2).

Other: Cory Booker runs for a senate seat two (two!) years from now (neutral). There are some other words under the Cory Booker picture that I guess I have to count as separate links: "Boehner on the Brink" (neutral?), "Stewart Blame" (neutral?), "Coward GOPer" (D +1), "Palin mocks O" (Oprah? Anyways, nobody but partisans talks about Sarah Palin anymore (D +1)), "Coulter Slam" (D +1), "'Bigot' Scalia" (D +1).

Total: D +10



New York Times























Plan B/fiscal cliff news: The Jonathan Weisman-story headline writer provides a very accurate summary of what was going on with Plan B at the time, though one could make the argument that describing it as "a plan to cancel tax increases for all but the wealthiest" is a Democratic way of saying "raising taxes on the wealthiest"  There is nothing else on Plan B.

Newtown/gun news: the op-ed columnists are talking guns: The NRA's Blockade (D +1), On Guns, America Stands Out (D +1), and Looking for Lessons in Newtown (neutral).

Other: NY Times has a wide ranging front page of their website, which is neat, including the first bit of world news seen on front pages so far (Benghazi hearing doesn't count).  Very neutral about the Benghazi hearing.  There doesn't appear to be anything partisan about the non-Opinion Page stuff.  This is what a professional non-partisan news site should look like, I must admit.

Total: D +2

NPR






















Plan B/fiscal cliff pieces: Plan B barely gets a mention, making it only to the "More News" section, where we get an extension of a dumb metaphor ("a push over fiscal cliff") that I don't even understand. 

Newtown/gun pieces: Story #1 is about an opinion poll on gun control (not mental health or 12-year-old husky boys, D +1).  Other stories on the site center around Newtown-inspired acts of kindness.

Other: The phrase "Big Food" is definitely D +1.  This is a much more diverse bunch of stories than one would find on other news websites, including NYT.  The malaria-fighting "French aperitif" story, the Mount Everest thing, the Mayan apocalypse thing, the Black Arts thing, the photo blog, the existence of something called a "cosmos and culture blog".  Though no other piece is overtly partisan, I would suggest that a panoply of ideas is associated with liberal values.

Total: D+2

Like the NY Times page, NPR seems to be mostly non partisan (except for "Big Food And The Big, Silent Salt Experiment" - making it sound like a big nefarious conspiracy from agribusiness).

So, once again, I'm forced to concede that my wife was right and I was wrong.  NPR and NY Times don't seem at first blush to be partisan towards Democrats, only that they lack a Republican bias. 





Monday, December 03, 2012

Dark Smudge All That Remains of Sandy Island

I was intrigued by the saga of Sandy Island, an island that never did exist in the south Pacific between Australia and New Caledonia. To summarize this article from the Telegraph (U.K.), some scientists took a ship to this island and discovered when they got there that it wasn't there.  But the island appears on Google Maps.  Or it did until it was apparently erased, according to the article.  Curiousity sent me looking for the island on Google Maps and found that it hadn't yet been entirely erased.

From a zoomed out level, you can still see it pretty clearly, though it is unlabeled so you have to know what you're looking for.




















But as you zoom in on it, the island mysteriously disappears.




















But switching to satellite view reveals something interesting.




















 This inky black smudge is all that remains of Google's satellite data around the former Sandy Island. It resembles something that was hastily erased in Microsoft Paint or something.




















The eye of Sauron pierces all shadows!