Neolibertarian - Elections (US)

Contact

theorangeevil

Blogroll

Random Trip Through Election History

by neolibertarian

Since the Republican and Democratic parties have run against each other (either 1856 or 1860, depending on your reckoning), there have only been four Democrats to get over half the popular votes for President, and only three who also won office. The four exceeding 50% are Tilden in 1876, FDR all four times (1932, '36, '40, and '44), Johnson in 1964 and Carter in 1976.

Of these four, Tilden edged out Hayes in the popular vote with under 51% but through negotiations lost the Electoral College vote (Hayes had to promise to wrap up Reconstruction in exchange). This was also a long time ago, when national Democrats were still very forward about appeals to racism against nonwhites.

Johnson went to a smash victory in 1964 against Goldwater, who was easily caricatured as erratic and has since been often (wrongly) classified as a racist. So Johnson did really well in 1964, but by 1968 he couldn't even win party-orchestrated primaries for reelection and bowed out.

Carter looked like he had an enormous lead in the summer 1976, following the Republican scandal of Watergate, until he shed almost all of that lead and barely managed to beat the uncharismatic Ford. Ford had been appointed by a crook (Nixon) to replace a crook (Agnew), alarmingly asserted that the Soviets did not control Eastern Europe, and was caught tripping in public (despite being a star athlete in his younger days). Carter managed to beat him by a scant two points in the popular vote, but went on to a clear-cut loss to Reagan, even as Reagan was competing for moderate votes with Anderson.

So really the only electoral hero, the only sustainable success the Democrats have, is FDR. He won four straight elections, never by less than a seven-point margin, and remains a folk hero and inspiration to lazy Democrats (who keep trying to take the same tired New Deal programs and repackage them to focus funding at different issues).

It would also be reasonable to provisionally add Clinton to the list with an asterisk, since it's not entirely clear what Perot's effect was in 1992 and 1996. Perot's presence in 1992 is usually seen as a boon for Clinton, and even in 1996 Clinton was not quite able to muster up enough votes to break the majority. Clinton is arguably the most electorally successful Democratic President since FDR, having been reelected twice and avoiding major embarrassments that tanked the popularity of the other elected Democrats (Truman and Korea/steel industry fiasco, LBJ and Vietnam, Carter and Iran/inflation). It would be interesting to have seen more from Kennedy, who certainly showed potential to reach a majority vote in 1964, had he lived.

The Republicans, meanwhile, have a string of popular vote winners and generally a good record of bringing the majority in presidential races. There are six GOP presidents who didn't break 50% of the popular vote. The first three are Hayes, Garfield, and B. Harrison, in 1876, 1880, and 1888 respectively. This was a while ago (like Tilden, see above), so it bears not all that strongly on today, but it's interesting nonetheless. It was also a time of small issues (mostly debating a then-useless tariff, followed by Northern accusations of treason and Southern accusations of race-mixing). Hayes was a weak-ish candidate running after four straight GOP-won elections (although Johnson had been president, he was elected Lincoln's VP). Garfield was a better candidate, but he was following the much-hated Hayes and running against General Hancock - a man who had been one of the Union's most accomplished generals, preventing Republicans from running against the pro-Southern tendencies of the Democrats. And Benjamin Harrison probably only won due to the British ambassador's assertion that Cleveland was more pro-British, thereby alienating the Irish to vote Republican, and moving the decisive New York to the GOP.

The other three GOP presidents to fail the 50% mark were two-termers Lincoln in 1860, Nixon in 1968, and Bush in 2000. The first two were still popular-vote plurality winners, where Bush was beaten by half a point. Lincoln ran in a four-way national race without being on the ballot in any Southern state. Nixon ran in a three-way race (he was probably helped by Wallace splitting Southern votes away from Humphrey) and Bush ran against Gore with a small showing from Nader (who probably took enough Gore votes in FL and NH to prevent Gore's victory). As a sidenote, Nixon also ran in 1960, and then he also failed to break fifty percent, and was a tiny fraction away from Kennedy's plurality.

All three of these Republicans, however, followed their under-50% elections with over-50% elections. Lincoln's 1864 victory was a more than 15-point improvement (most of the South did not cast popular votes, but the main issue was that the war had recently become an apparently-impending Union victory). Nixon improved by over 17 points, and won all but one state (it helped with his percentage that McGovern was easily cast as an ultra-leftist and Wallace could not run after being shot). And Bush improved his record by a mere 3 points, but in a tight race amidst losing a war.

As for the other GOP popular-majority winners, the list is long if not always exciting: Grant (1868 and 1872), McKinley (1896 and 1900), T. Roosevelt (1904 but not in 1912), Taft (1908 but not in 1912), Harding (1920), Coolidge (1924), Hoover (a smash 17-point victory in 1928 followed by a dreadful 17-point loss in 1932 to FDR), Eisenhower (1952 and 1956), Reagan (1980 and 1984), and Bush-41 (1988, followed by a loss partly due to Perot in 1992). The 1912 election needs a little comment, if only to point out that the combined-Taft-TR vote was muscular, and Wilson got a majority of votes nowhere outside the South

This is not to say that these or all Republicans are impervious or perfect, that they didn't have dumb luck or the support of corrupt fixers, nor that Republicans are anointed to be more popular in all but the worst years. It does seem to suggest, however, that maybe the Republican choices tend to be a better fit to the country than the Democratic choices.

It also means, especially coupled with modern history, that Democrats need to be somewhat more modest about their chances in elections, including this one. McCain is not going to give Obama the chance to make another 1964 moment, and although Bush has been profoundly unpopular of late, McCain can't be tied to him the way Ford was easily tied to Nixon. Given that the best model Obama has for a successful Democrat is Clinton (with Perot's help, twice), it's interesting that he isn't running any sort of moderate, swing-focused campaign. Instead, he's fusing Mondalesque pledges to make dramatic tax increases with nonpartisan, high-minded rhetoric.

Republicans should get their caution from more recent history: from 1992 to 2004, Republicans have had fairly capped performances, with three popular-vote losses and one minor (if solid) win. So the country, even if it loves Republicans over the last 150 years, has certainly not been giving them a blank check for the last two decades.

Posted on September 11, 2008 at 9:00pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Hacked Voting

by neolibertarian

California's Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, prohibited electronic voting machines from being used in this state's elections, absent some changes to security. She ran more or less on a platform of opposing Diebold and other voting-machine producers. The machines were banned from being used by the counties because they could be 'hacked' and altered. Of course, this is true of a lot of voting methods, but I digress.

This scenario - which will cost time and energy for the counties to scramble to find reliable, tested and countable voting methods in six months for the ridiculously-early CA primary coming up - got me thinking about the best way to vote.

1. People should use computers to make their selection on issues. Touch-screens would probably be the simplest for people to use. In this way, they could clearly make selections, review their votes before finalizing, and then print out the ballots.

2. Security protocol would be important, requiring you to put in a voter ID number, ensuring that somebody is registered and that one voter can't vote more than once. The voter ID number would not be reflected on your ballot. The voting machine would assign a random number to your ballot, protecting your identity.

3. After voting, two copies would print out. You could review your ballot, and it would clearly say how you voted on every race and issue. After either folding the ballot or putting it into a sleeve (for privacy), take the ballots over to the election officials.

4. They'll scan one of the copies by bar code, automatically tallying it. Then that copy would get put into a ballot box and be available as a hard copy for future counting. At this point, they will also electronically enter your voter ID number in a different database, showing that you already voted.

5. You sign the other ballot copy and the election official witnesses (maybe even notarizes, the specifics are flexible). This shows that you cast that ballot. This part will become relevant later, potentially.

6. The voting would be tallied by the time polls close (which, to my mind, should be from very early am to very late pm, maybe lasting two days or even a week, but that's another issue) because it would've been scanned right when you voted. This would eliminate a lot of the waiting and confusion that surrounds the election.

7. Your vote would be viewable online, but not connected to your name. That random number assigned to each person's ballot would be the way to find how your vote was counted. Your privacy would be intact, keeping it a secret ballot, but you'd be able to see that your vote was counted accurately. If your vote doesn't show up or shows up with the wrong votes, then you'd be able to go through some steps to report the error and correct it. The signed and witnessed ballot receipt would allow you to correct how your vote was counted. You wouldn't be able to retroactively change your vote, but you could make sure it was correctly counted.

The biggest flaw with vote counting is that you can't know if your vote counted. Except in open-ballot or very small secret-ballot elections, you don't know that your vote was counted accurately. A mistake in filling it out can be fixed with computer-printed ballots. A mistake in counting can be fixed with online double-check systems.

Or we could somehow pretend that only electronic votes can be hacked by subterfuge. I guess Debra Bowen has never heard of Chicago or Richard Daley.

Posted on August 11, 2007 at 3:39pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Four CA Propositions

by neolibertarian

There are four propositions in California up for a vote in 2005. Barone covered several interesting elections this November. I agree with him that these Props are the most interesting of the upcoming. Here's hopw he explains the provisions:

Proposition 74, which would increase the time required for teacher tenure; Proposition 75, which would require public-sector unions to get approval to use members' dues for politics; Proposition 76, which would impose limits on state spending; and Proposition 77, which would take the power to redistrict legislative and congressional seats away from the (heavily Democratic) Legislature and give it to a panel of retired judges.

I'd vote for all four of these Propositions and I'm glad that they're all polling between 55 and 60 percent support. I hope they hold that high support, because the effect could spill over into other states and the national debate.

The opposition website is ridiculous. They have stupid negative-spin names for most of the props, and even manage to oppose Prop 77 on the grounds that it would take power away from the Democrats. Actually, their stated reason is that the retired judges are "unelected and unaccountable," a phrase they reiterate several times without apparently understanding that being apolitical and objective is the point.

But they're especially fallacious in their criticism of Prop 75, with a website Millionaires for Prop 75. I wonder if they had a website in 2004 called Billionaires for Kerry. Somehow I doubt their concern for the influence of the wealthy extends to policies and candidates they like.

The unions are whining and fighting hard, but ultimately they lack something that Schwarzenegger's Props have: vision. The union ways, especially government unions, represent the past and a proven inefficient method of doing things. They're fighting to maintain irrational privilege and ill-gotten power against pretty basic reforms. Teachers should be held accountable when they're bad and shouldn't be given lifetime employment passes. Government unions shouldn't be able to use membership fees for political causes without permission; the cyclical relationship of public unions backing Democrats and Democrats repeatedly giving sweetheart deals and greater funds to wasteful public sector agencies has to stop. California spends way more than it takes in, and because of budget formulas even a tax increase would simply result in a mandatory spending increase. And districting and redistricting shouldn't be in the hands of the people that have to run for office from those districts.

It's pretty simple stuff but very important. This is more about good government than anything else, and I'm really rooting for this stuff to pass. Here's hoping Schwarzenegger has the capital to get it done.

Posted on October 10, 2005 at 9:03pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

The Libertarian Movement

by neolibertarian

With spending looking to rise further and further into the sky, tax cuts being possibly delayed or canceled, tax hikes coming into sight, and bloated programs like the Medicare drug benefit, highway bill and Katrina relief sailing through the legislative process, libertarians aren't feeling happy at all about this administration - even pro-war, pro-life ones like myself. Jon Henke at QandO has a good roundup on the recent complaints by the capitalist right over these developments and the fact that President Bush is far more enemy than ally on most of them. Henke ends with these three thoughtful paragraphs (except for the bit about Center for American Progress, which if I recall is basically a Clintonite group set up in 2003) :

I'd like to do something about that. I'd like to turn our efforts toward political activism—toward aggregating the tendency to liberty in the US public and leveraging it on the electoral, political stage. I'd like to work with CATO, with the Heritage Foundation, with the Center for American Progress, with the Reason Foundation/Reason Magazine...with whomever...to provide a political home for those "small government, fiscal restraint, a strong national defense and a hands-off attitude on social issues" voters who don't know where to turn.

I'd like to create that organization that can represent practical, political libertarianism on the national stage. The Moveon.org of the libertarian movement, as it were. But that's a tall order. The Porkbusters effort being spearheaded by Glenn Reynolds and NZ Bear is a good example of ad hoc libertarian organization. But real change requires more than just occassional agitation. The Social Conservatives have organization....they get Supreme Court appointments and legislative policy. Libertarians have ad hoc rabble-rousing...and we might get a few hundred million cut out of one budget.

So, the question: How can the libertarian entropy be reversed, and an effective libertarian political organization created? What is our business model? I'd like your ideas.

I have an idea here.

The policy process is incredibly long, multifaceted and open-ended. There are a lot of shortcuts and a lot of ways to bulk up. In general, you need to have:

the philosophy, the moral reasons to do it
the research and evidence to show a harm, a cause and a solution
the crafted policy proposals to make into legislation
the support of the public to move it
the support of decision-makers to pass it
and the bureaucratic structure (however limited) to bring it about

We clearly have the philosophy - if anything we're burdened by an overemphasis on philosophy, which divides us into irrelevant and counterproductive opponents.

CATO and to a lesser degree Heritage and others have the research, evidence and policy proposal angles down and any improvements to be made here are more in scale than type.

The last three, I believe, can be accomplished by getting public officials into office to persuade the public, to move legislative and executive opinion, and to hold the bureaucracy's feet to the fire. We need libertarian-friendly lawmakers in enough numbers and with enough drive to make this stuff happen. That means Jeff Flake can go into a press conference and say he has the vigorous support of X number of Congressmen when he bashes Sarbanes-Oxley or rampant pork spending. It means that similar attempts could be met with immediate opposition from more elected officials, rather than waiting for Republicans to be convinced down the road (often in retrospect) that these are bad ideas.

My suggestion is to create a new libertarian group in the GOP, call it whatever you like, with two express purposes: 1) recruit candidates for office, both by finding good libertarians to run for first office, and by helping elected libertarians move up in office, 2) provide a rallying point for discussion of various freedom-related issues and priorities through such means as annual conventions (based on the ACU's CPAC), mail and e-mail lists, as well as blogs and discussion boards. Candidate blogs run through the group's website or linked from there would also be a great way to communicate the campaign's progress to the blogosphere.

We need to focus on getting libertarians, especially charismatic, energetic people, into office. There was far less of a think-tank world twenty-five years ago, but that didn't stop Reagan from being perhaps the most fiscally libertarian (or least fiscally anti-libertarian) President of the last century. He was charismatic, he was a good politician, and he generally pushed most things in the libertarian (or even neo-libertarian) direction. He obviously satisfies the foreign policy requirements, as well.

It's clear to me that a group of good politicians to draw on for office and run in GOP primaries would help us. We should be looking at the Club For Growth especially, which arguably focuses on the GOP primaries more than general elections. If we can get libertarians to win GOP primaries then we've got a platform from which to convince Republicans to stick to their small-government guns more often than they currently do.

Given how many districts these days aren't competitive, a lot of the relevant Congressional election battles will be for the Senate and the primaries. Primaries are the difference oftentimes between a decent Republican and a bad one. By putting our weight into the primaries and then working to promote and improve the candidates in our organization, we can gain a lot of influence over the policy-making process. This is especially relevant since, as Henke noted, libertarians are between one-tenth and on-sixth the political population; that percentage goes up when you limit it to Republicans, and it goes way up when you limit it to GOP primary voters.

Building our own party is wasteful and doesn't work well unless you're working off of one issue or off of a neglected group (like the West in the Gilded Age), so we shouldn't keep trying to make the LP work. Our system allows for far more subtle and varied factions within each of the two big parties; the Republicans and Democrats have all sorts of factions and sub-groups. We need to be a far better organized and more articulate sub-group within the GOP, rather than banging on the doors of the two-party system from the outside.

The Republican Liberty Caucus just doesn't seem to do very much on this front. Rather than trying to reform the RLC to this purpose, we can ally with them but make a new group with a distinct, yet completmentary purpose to the RLC (thus allowing people to be in both groups easily). It's also good to have a new organization to go along with a new idea.

The biggest problem is finding a pool of people that could be recruited as libertarian candidates. They'd need to be articulate, proven libertarians, somewhat learned in the ways of elections, and they'd have to be at least marginally photogenic, without a lot of controversial statements as baggage. Except for the last bit, bloggers would be the best and easiest place to start. This is probably the most important and most difficult part of the process, since finding charismatic, electable libertarians is both challenging and rewarding.

If we want to get our ideas respected and remembered when it comes time to write the budget or make laws in Washington, then it's a matter of getting the candidates in there to forcefully support our views, working to get them elected to higher and higher offices (you can't build most Senators out of nothing), and keeping a focus on an achievable libertarian agenda (hammered out by group discussions online and in conventions).

Otherwise, we've got a lot of amazing ideas without enough elected people to present them to the country.

Update: And on a sidenote, the Club For Growth's strategy of challenging big-spending Republicans in primaries is a sound one. It would be great to send Republicans a message that big spending gets you kicked out of office.

Posted on September 28, 2005 at 7:44pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Elections of 1884 and 1892

by neolibertarian

The Prohibition Party's most notable contributions to US political history, aside from a national ban on various alcohol-related activities, were made in 1884 and 1892. Those were the only two elections between the Civil War and Woodrow Wilson where a Democrat won office.

In 1884, Cleveland edged out Blaine for the White House. James G. Blaine of Maine, who had been a Representative, Speaker of the House, Senator and twice Secretary of State, was a tremendously influential figure considering he was never President.

His most lasting achievement still persists to this day in the form of Blaine Amendments. This amendment, intended to further the separation of church and state, would have prevented money intended for public schooling from being controlled by a religious sect or organization. This wasn't taken to mean religious instruction was banned in public schools, however, so long as it was not controlled a particular sect or organization. The amendment passed overwhelmingly in the House and narrowly failed in the Senate.

No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.

The amendment was at the time primarily a vehicle for protestants to try and hold back the influence of the Roman Catholic Church; Irish and Catholic immigration had been high in the previous decades and would continue to rise, and the Blaine Amendment was seen as a way to prevent publicly-funded Catholic schools. Most state constitutions have Blaine amendments or clauses in them, or passed as statutes.

Blaine had many other views and achievements, of course, but he failed to win the Presidency. This was because of the Prohibition Party. In 1884, Cleveland took 48.5% of the vote to Blaine's 48.25% and the Electoral College was 219 to 182. John St. John, the Prohibition Party candidate, was fourth place in the popular vote with 1.47% but he probably pushed Connecticut, New Jersey and New York into Cleveland's column.

There were six states where the winner took less than half the votes - Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Blaine won Massachusetts, Cleveland won the rest. St. John's votes exceeded the margin of Blaine's loss in CT, NJ and NY for a total of 51 electoral votes. That would have been easily enough to give Blaine the electoral college.

There's an argument to be made that the Greenback candidate Benjamin Butler took votes from Cleveland, but the only state where that could have made a difference in the victory, Massachusetts, would not have been enough to undo the hypothetical Blaine victory. It's also worth noting that Butler was Governor of Massachusetts when he ran for President.

So in this way Blaine of Maine, an interesting character in his own right, was prevented from winning the White House.

The 1888 election saw Benjamin Harrison (grandson of president William Henry Harrison) win the electoral college but lose the popular vote to Cleveland. Cleveland won 48.62% to Harrison's 47.82% with Prohibition candidate Clinton Fisk taking 2.2%.

In 1892 Cleveland ran a third time for president. He won 46.02% to Harrison's 43.01%, while Populist James Weaver won 8.51% and Prohibitionist John Bidwell won 2.24%. In the electoral college, the score was 277 to 145 to 22 for Weaver. The Populists clearly threatened Harrison more than Cleveland; states that went GOP in 1888 like Nevada, kansas and Colorado, went to Weaver in 1892. Other states were lost by Harrison where Weaver took more votes than the margin of the loss. There's a very strong likelihood that the Populists gave this election to Cleveland.

However, the states of California, Indiana and Wisconsin saw Cleveland win by fewer votes than Bidwell took. Although the extra 35 electoral votes wouldn't have won the election for Harrison, the Prohibitionists affected the Republican outcome.

By consistently siphoning Republican voters from the GOP candidate for President, the Prohibition Party exerted more influence than its votes alone would warrant. They threatened the Republicans and thus forced the GOP to advance the cause of Prohibition. It was a strongly Republican Congress that passed the Volstead Act over Wilson's veto.

Even though the Prohibition Party never elected a President, they transmitted their signature issue to the main parties by making them lose elections until they paid attention.

Posted on September 26, 2005 at 3:57pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Ferrer Wins NYC Primary

by neolibertarian

Fernando Ferrer has won the Democratic primary for NYC mayor. He's generally regarded as the leftmost candidate in the primary, or leftmost of the main ones. Technically he fell 0.05% short of the necessary 40% to avoid a runoff, but the next closest candidate conceded to him and so Ferrer will advance to the election.

According to Michael Barone, Mayor Bloomberg is currently leading all Democratic challengers even among Democrats in NYC. There's a good chance at this point that Bloomberg will be reelected. I have trouble rooting for Bloomberg considering the only real policy I know him for is banning smoking in restaurants.

Posted on September 17, 2005 at 5:46pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

What FEC?

by neolibertarian

I wrote a polite letter to the FEC a couple weeks ago during their comment period. I stressed my opinion on the issue of campaign finance restrictions and web logs. I tried to keep the argument simple, though in my writing style that still ended up being twelve short paragraphs. My stance was that blogs are conversations, people are free to listen and free to leave, so it's no more valid to restrict blogs than the average citizen's right to have a political discussion. After all, blogs just provide a different format, getting over the physical difficulties of the physical world.

I hope someone reads the e-mail, though it will no doubt be one among many thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands. I'm sure the letters from big name people like Kos will get a good deal of attention. Hopefully the responses, which through e-mail will probably be lopsidedly against restricting blogs, will persuade the FEC to leave private citizens having public discussions well enough alone.

If the FEC does decide to intervene in a broad sense, I doubt it would apply to me and my blog. I don't use ads for my website or my blog (Blogger is free; you get what you pay for) and I doubt any campaign will hire me to do anything. My traffic rating is decidedly on the lower end of blogs. I really don't see why my blog would be targeted for much restriction, and if it were, it wouldn't be worth much to enforce it against me.

However, my reaction to any potential regulation of blogs by the FEC - informed by my admittedly over-active sense of rebellion - is civil disobedience. In most cases it's a pretty straight up and down free speech right, even if the Supreme Court doesn't quite see it. There's nothing wrong with expressing opinions, which is in fact arguably the most strongly protected right in the USA. How could expressing an opinion, perfectly legitimate and indisputedly our right, become less than a right when it's expressed my computer over the Internet, or when it's expressed to 100,000 net-surfers instead of ten people at a dinner party? It's free speech.

I don't know what form any particular regulation may take, and my guess is that the FEC will largely avoid regulating blogs (except perhaps when they receive funds from campaigns, like Kos), but if something devious does come out of this deliberative process, my inclination is for the affected bloggers to ignore it. If the FEC enforcement mechanisms start sending letters, then get representation - I'm sure the Institute of Justice would be interested, and you might get the ACLU on board as well. Obviously nobody should take such a move lightly, and you should all realize I'm not a lawyer and hence not giving legal advice, but from a political and ethical point of view, this thing needs to be fought.

Of course, it very likely won't materialize at all, but if it does then we need some big-name bloggers to stand fast for their rights to speech.

Posted on June 4, 2005 at 2:28pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Richardson Pushes Western Primary

by neolibertarian

This is a wonderful idea: band together the Western states to hold their presidential primaries the same day, early in the 2008 season. Gov. Richardson of New Mexico suggested it, but I wish I'd thought of it. It's a great way to bring the issues of the West to the forefront, including property, taxes and so forth.

Remember, the estate tax (last I heard) is scheduled to come back full-force in 2011. The next President will be in office when that happens, and if it hasn't been fixed by 2007 then this will be an issue in the presidential race. The Western take on it is especially against the estate tax, since ranchers and small businesses in the West might have on-paper enormous assets but actually see quite mild profits from year to year. A cattle rancher might own a couple million dollars of land and cows but only turn a $50,000 annual profit (purely a hypothetical). That makes the estate tax onerous and tyrannical, because our hypothetical hard-working rancher is forced to sell off a portion of the ranch, his livelihood, in order to pay the tax.

An east coast conception of wealth, which excludes the Western rancher or Midwestern small businessman, is a cruel way to implement the estate tax. So if it's not eliminated before the 2008 season, you'd see a Western primary having a big opinion on the subject.

Other issues could also be of importance, like energy, environmentalism, private property, sensible government, general tax cuts, etc. It would also serve to counterbalance the South, which functions to bring more socially conservative campaigns. A Western influence would bring more fiscally libertarian campaigns, and that's a great thing.

The Western Governors' Association includes all of the Western US, if you draw a line from North Dakota to Texas and then exclude Oklahoma. It includes California, Hawaii, Alaska, NMIs, American Samoa and Guam. The other states are of course Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Arizona. California and Texas might unhinge the whole idea, since those two states are the two largest in the union.

Getting together all the other states for a big primary some time in early March or even late February would be a boon to their issues. I really hope it comes to pass, because we need to hear more on Western-oriented issues.

Posted on March 4, 2005 at 5:17pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Yet More CFR Foolishness

by neolibertarian

link (tip to MM)

The craze to regulate and restrict political speech has far from died out. The insane BCRA put all sorts of immoral and unconstitutional restrictions on free speech if it even mentions a candidate's name. When a loophole to this was discovered last year - namely advertising for Fahrenheit 9/11 - we started hearing about restricting non-PAC ads (in a fit of intellectual consistency).

Now it looks like blogs are next on the block, a sacrifice to insane, uneducated, idiotic notions of 'reform.' What's so ironic is that blogs are free to register and use, so any fool can start one (and many fools have, e.g. this blog). The point of BCRA was supposed to be that average people should have more of a say in politics and that special interests should be kept out. Personally, I think that special interests are nothing more than 'average people' clustered together behind one or a few common goals. However, my perspective aside, it's obvious that limiting the ability of blogs to comment on politics or to link to candidate sites is ludicrous.

As individual voters, blogs are the absolutely closest one can get to an average person. Even when a paper or magazine does Man On The Street you still get editorial bias and selection of comments - some viewpoints are underrepresented. A blog is the opinions of one person (or a few people) and that's supposed to be what the BCRA business was all about. Obviously it's not if blogs are going to lose their free speech.

Personally, I don't expect it to work. I am incredibly hostile to the idea of limiting my free speech on this venue. If someone can say that putting a link on this blog is a campaign contribution then one might as well say that a widely-circulated e-mail is as well - or even just writing down the address for some friends to check out. Free speech is free speech. If they tried to take down blogs it would be insanely ill-advised, legally inapprorpiate and constitutionally scandalous. Still, even the idea that it could happen is pretty creepy. It's way past time we got rid of BCRA and the rest of the unconstitutional mumbo jumbo limiting free speech.

Posted on March 3, 2005 at 4:47pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Historical Party Breakdown - US House

by neolibertarian

I create charts and graphs for fun, and have done so for some time. I just use MS Paint, but they still come out okay in the end. Here is my latest one, on the breakdown of the US House from 1856 to 2004. For the full statistics, see an earlier chart of mine here. I'll be doing the Senate version the next few days (I do every dot on the chart by hand, pixel-by-pixel, because I am pathetically OCD - it takes a while to complete). I chose 1856 because it's the first year the GOP elected people to Congress - thus the origin of the two parties, Democratic and Republican. I also like to compare the Democrats of 2004 to the Democrats of 1856 and 1860, because I am an unrepentant Yankee.

The chart depicts the margin of majority control. What it shows us is that the recent GOP 'domination' is actually quite tame compared to our history - even compared to Democrat majorities just a few decades earlier. What that REALLY means is that the Democrats are a bunch of sissy whiners who think that a dozen seats in the House is the end of the world.

You'll also notice the minor parties underneath the first chart. This is always interesting to me because it shows how active third parties were at one point. If you check the second chart I linked, you'll see that the young Republic had quite a bit of third party activity prior to 1856. I have theories on why and how the two-party system continues in place, but that's for another time.

Now, I do think the Democrats are in real trouble due to a serious lack of ideas and a horrible case of buying their own bologna. But I also think that the Republicans are still in the early stages of a long-term, large-scale comeback, and the Democrats are already whining about it. Just imagine what they would have done were they in the GOP's position from 1959 to 1995 - a period where the Republicans never did better than 192 seats and the Democrats never did worse than 242 seats. In other words, for forty years ('55-'95) the Democrats controlled the House uninterrupted, and for thirty-six years ('59-'95) the Democrats never had a majority of fewer than fifty seats. Even the slimmest margins for those forty years of control were 29 and 33 seats, respectively ('55 and '57).

It's just pathetic that the Democrats are whining so horribly now. I do think it's time for concern when the party's newest ideas come from Clinton's '92 campaign, but this is hardly a fascist takeover, a one-party state or anything else for the GOP. Cripes, get a life. This is part of their problem - they have this mentality of the underdog.

They seem to believe that all their victories in legislation and the welfare state were torn from the jaws of defeat by heroic activists that barely overcame the terrifically evil forces of conservatism and the GOP. The reality is that the Democrats aren't the underdog; for forty years they WERE the status quo,a nd to a large extent they still are today. Most of their current arguments are based on defending the status quo - defending the tax code in place, defending current gun control laws, defending the institution of abortion, defending Social Security unchanged, etc. They ARE the status quo, but they have themselves convinced that they're underdogs. This is what I mean by buying their own BS.

This graph ought to slap some sense into them. Wake up - you had the Congress for forty years. You were not the underdogs. The New Deal and Great Society are still entrenched into the budget. The worst part is that you guys KNOW you're the status quo - on abortion, on guns, on taxes, on welfare. That's exactly why the Democrats are freaking out. They know they're the status quo and they think the GOP seeks to threaten it. So remember, if you're looking for conservative political opinion, seek out your local Democratic Party branch office. The Democrats represent an unchanging status quo resistant to reform, reduction or reason.

Posted on February 13, 2005 at 5:35am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

State IQ Stats A Hoax

by neolibertarian

The state charts showing that Kerry states supposedly have higher IQs than Bush states (113 for CT, 85 for MS, etc.) is a hoax. It was proven a hoax when it first appeared in May. Here's the real breakdown. Notice how the top state, New Hampshire, which was already clearly the best state before looking at this breakdown, was decided this year by only a few percentage points for Kerry and in 2000 by only a few percentage points for Bush.

Notice also that the single most heavily Democratic 'state' (well, not a state at all, but rather DC with electoral votes) is almost at the bottom nationally, with 95 keeping it just above MS and SC. Overall, since it only varies by 10 points, there's not a lot to draw from this about whether one side or the other is conclusively smarter, better, faster, stronger or prettier.

Of course, that ten point margin isn't even very reliable, for a number of reasons: 1) the entire population of a state doesn't vote the same way, 2) there's no such thing as an entire state population (even just the adults) taking the same scale IQ test, 3) these are based on ACT and SAT scores, which are both self-selected (so states with broad participation in SATs are going to appear dumber, which is true to experience) and not directly comparable to intelligence. Overall, there's not a lot to be gleaned from this other than the fact that a couple of people who wanted Kerry to win are experiencing the political version of teenage angst: "we're just too smart to be loved in our own time" syndrome.

The old ranking chart, it's worth noting, fell almost as heavily on state average income lines as it did on supposed IQ lines. In fact, whoever made up the scores back in May appears to have based it on his, her or their opinion of the financial situation of each state. At $26,979 CT was the richest state and made the top of the list, while MS, the poorest state at $14,088, was placed at the bottom. The hoax was little more than an indirect dig at poor people (though not entirely incorrect, as MS actually is at the bottom in the correct chart).

The hoax is reminiscent of the Lovenstein Institute hoax, wherein some wishful thinking Democrat elevated the IQs of Clinton, JFK and Carter to god-like scores of 182, 174 and 175, respectively. Those scores are above and beyond the likes of even Albert Einstein (160) and rival Galileo and Marilyn Vos-Savant at the heights of pure genius. Reagan was given a 105, GHW Bush the piddly 98 and GW Bush a clearly-stupid 91. The numbers are bogus, since the average MBA (Bush has one from Harvard) has an IQ of 125, and Bush scored safely above average on his SAT.

Of course, there's no such thing as the Lovenstein Institute (besides a phony website erected afterwards to give the hoax an air of credibility), and the IQ scale it was based on - the Swanson-Crain - doesn't exist except in the fevered imagination of some net-bound Bush-prankster. The original hoax was clearly a joke, that's why it doesn't match up to reality; the doctor supposedly behind the test reported from his trailer home in Scranton. As it made its way around the e-mail circuit somebody dropped the self-mocking parts and tailored it to just mock Bush.

So who really is smarter, Democratic or Republican voters? Well, that's easier asked than answered. People don't vote based on education alone, and there's no rule saying the smartest and dumbest can't vote together - which is in fact one noticeable trend. From FDR through Clinton, the least educated voters (high school and below) voted reliably Democratic except for 1972 (a landslide where the GOP performed well in the South) and 1988 (a year Republicans did well in the South, too). But until the 2002 mid-term elections, the Democrats took a larger share most years of the postgraduate vote than Republicans (which obviously changed for that election to favor the GOP). So somehow the least and most educated voters were both favoring Democrats. Of course, in 2000 Bush successfully won over the high school or less voters for the GOP's third time ever since before FDR.

Steve Sailer of the American Conservative (effectively a Buchanan mouthpiece with no love for Bush) gives some excellent statistics here. The 2000 election is a good example of the most and least educated combining, when those who had attempted postgraduate work went for Gore along with high school dropouts. Bush won those in between - and he also won a statistically negligible amount overall of more educated voters. This plays into a larger theory of mine (clearly won out by historical political contributions) where the richest and poorest vote Democrat and the middle class votes Republican.

This historical trend dates back to the founding of the GOP (a political faction that many modern Democrats like to claim as their own), where one especially blunt statesman, Charles Francis Adams, remarked that the Republican Party comprised "the industrious farmers and mechanics, the independent men in comfortable circumstances in all the various walks of life" while the Democrats drew support from the very rich and "the most degraded or the least intelligent of the population of the cities." While obviously he's overplaying the situation and mocking the Democrats since he's a member of the Republican Party, the overall trend is strikingly similar.

There is a way we can approximate the educational trend for 2004 without simply using the tripartite theory (least educated-D, middle-R, most-educated-D). We can tally it up and average it overall. Bringing back Sailer, we'll remember that Bush voters had a more or less insignificant edge in education in 2000.

"In 2004, Bush’s majority was more downscale. If you assume that high-school dropouts averaged 10 years of schooling, high-school grads 12 years, those who attended college but didn’t graduate 14 years, college grads 16, and postgrads 18, then Kerry voters claimed 14.64 years of education and Bush voters 14.48 years or only about six weeks less schooling."

Sailer also estimates, based on educational comparisons, that Bush is actually smarter than Kerry. Most superficially, Bush got his MBA from Harvard and Kerry got his JD from Boston College. That's awfully vague, even though there's probably a very clear difference in average IQs between Harvard and BC postgraduates, but they both went to Yale so we'll discount this one as unforgivably vague. More concretely, Kerry posted online his test score for OCS he took in 1966, on which Kerry achieved an average score, Sailer tells us. Bush too the USAF Officer Qualifying Test and scored rather above average. The tests are not the same and we shouldn't asume they are, but in relatively comparable tests, Bush scored better than Kerry. Both men took these tests before doing postgraduate work.

What's most interesting is also from Sailer's approximation of why Bush, who by any fair account is well-educated and of above-average intelligence, would shy away from his Ivy League roots. After all, Yale and Harvard are the best schools around, right?

"In the president’s lone losing race, his 1978 run for Congress from West Texas, the victor stressed Bush’s two Ivy League degrees. Bush resolved never to allow himself to be outdumbed again. And the Democrats haven’t outsmarted him since."

As is obvious when you hear Bush in interviews and radio addresses, he is a better speaker than his debate performances and various public speeches suggest. One expert, who sadly I cannot find online right now, suggested that it was intentional and that Bush dumbs himself down both to be the underdog and because it makes him more approachable. Rather than coming off as arrogant or as the New England, upper-crust blueblood that he is, Bush tailors himself to seem more Western, more populist, and more average.

Of course, the trained observer notices he's still VERY New England blueblood. He calls his mother "Mother" instead of mom or "my mother." This is immediately obvious to almost anyone outside New England and most in it. Second, his penchant for nicknaming everyone is not a Texas thing, it's rich New England - Buffy, Muffy and Chip are just the easiest stereotypes. Third, he has several ways to wave at others, and one of them might be described as foppish or dandy; it looks a little whimsical and at-ease, not wimpy though certainly not what people would call masculine. And most apparently is the War On "Terra." That is not a Texas thing; that is New England, which is why his father says it almost the exact same way. Of course, he also has more tailored waves to look masculine and cowboy, but every so often the blueblood stereotype slips back in.

Why would he hide from it? His family traces back to royalty, to the Puritans, to a number of early US Presidents, and to a history of colonial and revolutionary America. He has businessmen, professors, merchants, Kings, Governors, Senators and a President in his family line. He was born in New Haven, CT, spent many years of his life in Kennebunkport, ME, was educated in Andover, NH, went to college at Yale in CT, business school at Harvard in MA, and his family is Episcopalian, a dominant Protestant denomination for New England. That's why he hides from it.

The stigma of being from New England - a place I personally love and root for - hurt him elsewhere. He's smart about being dumb. The election is not about who's smartest, and neither are the debates. The debates are about whom you want to vote for, not who's going to become your study buddy. He realized that he could come across as too New England, too disconnected from the average person. Most people don't want to vote for a New Englander any more than a New Englander wants to vote for a Texan.

So the evidence overall suggests a few things. First, there is no substantial difference in the intelligence or education of the two parties, especially with the GOP winning postgraduate voters in 2002. There's a trend that the top and bottom voted D while the rest all voted R, but that can be easily overplayed. Second, Bush himself isn't an idiot, as exemplified by his SAT, OQT, bachelor's degree and MBA.

Posted on November 15, 2004 at 4:57pm. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Bush Elected By Urban And Secular Voters

by neolibertarian

Religious Turnout Stayed Level From 2000 to 2004

From Nov. 7 Union Leader
editorial:

Looking at CNN exit poll data for both the 2000 and 2004 elections, one sees that Bush won almost identical percentages of the vote from those who attend church more than once a week (63 percent in 2000, 64 percent in 2004) and from those who attended weekly (57 percent in 2000, 58 percent in 2004). His support rose not among the highly religious, but among the secular: those who attended church monthly (46 percent in 2000 to 50 percent in 2004), seldom (42 percent to 45 percent) and never (32 percent to 36 percent).

Bush also dramatically increased his backing in urban areas, while it fell in rural America. Support for Bush rose by 13 percentage points among self-described urban voters (he won 39 percent of them), and 3 percentage points among those who live in suburbs (he won 52 percent of them). His support among self-described rural voters fell by 2 percentage points to 57 percent. So much for the idea that only hicks and rednecks voted Bush.

His religious supporters stayed constant. Rove did not "find those four million evangelicals" that didn't turn out in 2000, as many people say. Bush made gains in the non-religious fields, the people less likely to say they attend church often, and suburbanites. But by far the biggest gain appears to be urban voters - a 13 point jump is nothing to sneeze at. Most likely these people realized cities are by far the most at-risk places from terrorist attacks and they trusted Bush to protect the country - not Kerry.

The problem with the Democrats has nothing to do with the fact that they might be latte-slurping, organic food-chomping, GM-protesting, limo-riding, SUV-bashing, $7 espresso-loving, New York Times-reading, Michael Moore-adoring, trendy bistro-patronizing, flyover state-scoffing elitists. It's the fact that they offered no coherent or credible foreign policy alternative. They rejected Dean, who at least offered a clear one: get out quick, it was a mistake. They rejected Lieberman, who offered a very aggressive one: fight terror, fight Iraq, establish a Middle East Marshall Plan.

They picked Kerry, who was called nuanced - which must be claimed either with barely hidden shame or clearly visible arrogance - but in reality would be better described as "trying to have his cake and eat it, too." Kerry's foreign policy was a shambles, half-hearted applications of Bush policy ideas, half-sneering denunciations of alleged unilateralism, and half-assed backpedaling on the issue of caving in to international pressure.

It was the issue of the whole campaign. Kerry kept it on Iraq when he stressed Al Qaqaa and the lost weapons. Osama Bin Laden came in with his video and threatened the Bush states with retaliation if they voted for him. The war on terror and the war in Iraq were issues right up to the end - and received three times as much press as any other single issue, probably more press time than all other issues together. Especially since Bush's last big move on gay marriage was what? Coming out for civil unions, to the left of the GOP platform. Not exactly rounding up the evangelicals with that.

So whose fault was it that such a big honkin' loser-candidate was the nominee? Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats? Not really. There weren't a lot of other options. Lieberman looks and sounds a little funny. His ideas are good but his appearance of conservatism turns off Democrats. We all also thought Nader might have a chance in hell at the time of spoiling the whole thing and Lieberman would be the most at risk of that. Plus, what would Lieberman run on, abortion? Tax hikes? He didn't have a whole lot of obvious distinctions from Bush at the time, at least it appeared that way to most.

Dean was just crazy-looking after yelling down an old man (a GOP plant, but still an old guy) in Iowa, and then of course The Scream. Edwards seemed to young, too inexperienced. In retrospect of the VP debate, he probably was too much of a lightweight.

So you can't blame the primary voters. It was the candidates. They sucked. Kerry won because he seemed electable. We know now that it wasn't his liberalism, his New England roots, his arrogance, or his failure to distance himself from Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg. It was his lack of a credible foreign policy. People were open to a change and open to replacing Bush, but Kerry just didn't sell them on anything because he wanted them to buy everything. He said everything to shore up the pro-war Democrats (anywhere from 22 to 34 percent of his voters, depending on polls) and the anti-war conspiracy nuts ("Halliburton this blah blah blah Halliburton that blah blah Halliburton is evil) - and everyone in between.

Kerry offered no theme to his campaign that people accepted. A Stronger America just sounded stupid and was too easily mocked when the Democrats stupidly put the word strong as every second adjective in their convention literature. Idiotic, bumbling, failed attempt to condescend.

Kerry didn't sell enough people on the economy, although he gained greatly on that issue on Ohio if only because the incumbent loses - especially if he's spiritedly pro-free trade like Bush. The fact that he could have such a great advantage on economy but still lose Ohio shows what a chump of a candidate Kerry was.

He didn't offer a benefit on security. Who wanted his lack of a vision? The anti-Bush people. He didn't offer a real vision, just an amalgamation of all the opposition arguments. He took all the positions and threw them together. He wanted to stay out, he wanted to listen to the UN, he'd never listen to the UN, he wanted Saddam gone, he wanted to focus on Osama, he wouldn't waste all the money there, he would spend much more money there. It was absurd. It had zero credibility, it only sold the people who didn't pay attention or just hated Bush's specific policy more than Kerry self-serving lack of a policy.

And that of course leads to character and personality. Flip-flopping was just too easy to call him on. So many positions, so little time.

Bush saw no significant gain among churchies, lost slightly with rural voters, and made his gains with the less-religious and urban/suburban voters. That's not a mandate for stopping gay marriage, that's a mandate from people concerned about security.

Sure, it's probably other stuff as well, like tax cuts, free trade, gun control, whatever other GOP staple issues. But security was the eclipsing issue of the presidential race. The election overall tells us that gay marriage is unpopular. The presidential election tells us that Bush's policy won more supporters than Kerry lack of a policy.

Posted on November 7, 2004 at 7:37am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Tradesports Worked Better Than Polls

by neolibertarian

Tradesports, an Irish inline trading site, lets you buy and sell shares to bet ont he outcome of various events. Sports and games are the most popular, but people will bet on anything - including politics. It's Irish, by the way, because the US test site for determining the predictive abilities of gambling was limited to small buys only. The Irish don't regulate it as much, so the gambling is much bigger.

The way it works, is the price of each share, from $.01 to $1 , is how confident the person is that the outcome will occur. It's more complex than that, but in essence it means that whenever the price is over $.50, the betters predict it will happen. If it's under $.50 then it will not come to pass.

In other words, it's gambling odds to predict a winner of elections. And it works.

These facts are poached from the Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid, as linked here. At the end of September, tradesports betting:
correctly predicted all 50 states except three (NH, WI, NM);
correctly predicted all 34 senate races except four (AK, FL, NC, SD -- in all cases the GOP won);
correctly predicted the GOP would keep Senate control; and
correctly predicted the GOP would keep House control. .

That's not bad, considering it was over a month away.

As of the Friday before the election, tradesports betting:
correctly predicted Bush would win;
correctly predicted all 50 states except one (WI);
correctly predicted all 34 senate races except one (AK);
correctly predicted the GOP would keep Senate control;
correctly predicted the GOP would keep House control.

Not bad, four days away and only wrong on one state. All it did was overstate the Bush electoral victory and understate the GOP Senate victory.

How does it match up to exit polls? It's light years better. According to Drudge, E-Day returns predicted Kerry would win Ohio by four points - he lost by two or three. Kerry was to win Florida by three points - he lost by five. Kerry was supposedl up a whopping eighteen points in New Mexico - where he lost by one point. The exit polls worked in some states passably well, such as Iowa where it was only a point off (it said tie, Bush won by one).

It was horrible on some states Kerry did win, but sucked on the margin. It said New Hampshire was sixteen points into Kerry country where he ended up with a one-point margin of victory. It said Kerry had eighteen point leads in Minnesota, which gave him a three point margin. And it said he was ahead 60-40 in Pennsylvania for a 20 point lead, but in reality it was a two-point win.

Exit polls sucked this year. Tradesports was much more accurate on the ultimate winner. Hopefully we'll listen to the pollsters when they say that exit polls are rough. Hopefully we'll pay more attention to tradesports-style betting next election, because it has better-proven results than exit polls.

Posted on November 7, 2004 at 4:54am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Tradesports Worked Better Than Polls

by neolibertarian

Posted on November 7, 2004 at 4:54am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Bush's Win Was About Terror, Not Religion

by neolibertarian

Everyone is now spinning the Bush win on Tuesday into a win for evangelicals and anti-gay marriage advocates. We're hearing the media outlets parade - rather awkwardly - words like values and faith, almost as if hearing them for the first time or remembering them after a long absence. Others play this off as a ploy to the GOP base. Unfortunately, they're wrong on both counts.

Religion was not the main factor of this victory. Link.

First, the anti-marriage sentiments extend WELL beyond the Bush base into the blue collar, Catholic, black and rural Democrats. That's why every initiative pre-empting gay marriage won by very safe margins, even in Oregon. While we had to wait a half day for Kerry to concede Ohio due to its relative proximity, the initiative to ban same-sex marriage (and, unlike all the other propositions this Tuesday, to also ban same-sex civil unions) trounced to victory: 62-38. All told, over 5.25 million people voted on the prop, which is only slightly less than voted in the presidential race for Ohio (down-ballot issues and props see smaller turnout usually).

So what, right? Well, that's a big deal. More than 10% of Ohio's voters voted for a very strongly conservative anti-gay marriage amendment and for Kerry to be President. Seems strange, but it's true. These voters didn't think Kerry needed to have more rural, provincial or faith-laden values. They voted for the strongest prop of its type in the country and for the Democrat who didn't support it. The reason is because nobody was talking about it very often in the media. People care about it, but Bush was not stressing same-sex marriage in the campaign, certainly not before the last week or two.

We were hearing about Iraq, terror, jobs, outsourcing, Al Qaqaa's lost 380 tons of HE, and all the rest. Education and Mary Cheney were getting more press than the candidates' views on homosexuality.

That's the President's mandate: the war on terror, where polls show people trusted him by 15 and 16 point margins over Kerry. That was what the campaign truly turned on, that's what the media played up, that is what we were all hearing, that's how Bush was ahead. Terror and Iraq were the signature issues, and Kerry at the end decided to forgo a turn to domestic issues and stress the failures in Iraq and the lost weapons. The campaign was dominated by it.

Bush won because Americans were upset with Iraq but wanted to hold Bush to the fire to fix it and wanted to keep Bush around for terror protection. Bush to win it, Kerry to end it - they wanted to win it and get out. But more critically, they wanted Bush for the wider war on terror. That's the mandate, that's the crux. Ignore gay marriage, the country wants terrorists stopped.

Now, for those of you who clicked the link at the top, you'll see a map (unfortunately undated, sorry, I found it at religioustolerance.org for those who care) of the US with religious statistics of the ARIS for each when clicked. You'll notice some interesting statistics. What four states are reliably Republican for the last three decades or so, including the 2004 election? Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska. They are the major Republican strongholds, the major states. Not the South, not Texas, but those four Western states have been huge, reliable margins for the Republican for a long time. What are their religious affiliations?

Wyoming - 20% no religion, 18% Catholic
Idaho - 19% no religion, 15% Catholic, 14% Mormon

Utah - 57% Mormon, 17% no religion
Nebraska - 27% Catholic, 15% Lutheran, 9% no religion

All four went for Bush at levels of 68-72 percent. In two, no religion at all was the plurality, and in none do the Baptists outnumber those without religion. The super-Mormon state of Utah and the abstention-dominated Idaho and Wyoming were Bush's three best states. They and Nebraska went for Bush at almost the exact same levels in 2000, when there was no Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act seemed to have settled the issue.

Now the best Kerry states from 2004 are DC, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York.

DC - 27% Catholic, 19% Baptist, 13% no religion
Massachusetts - 44% Catholic, 16% no religion
Rhode Island - 51% Catholic, 15% no religion
Vermont - 28% Catholic, 22% no religion
New York - 38% Catholic, 13% no religion

So the five top Kerry states are much more religious - notably Catholic - than Wyoming, Idaho and Nebraska, three of Bush's best states. This would suggest that the religiosity of Utah is a poor explanation for the result of the election.

What about the swing states? New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania?

New Mexico - 40% Catholic, 18% no religion, 10% Baptist
Iowa - 23% Catholic, 16% Lutheran, 13% no religion, 13% Methodist
Wisconsin - 28% Catholic, 22% Lutheran, 14% no religion
Ohio - 19% Catholic, 15% no religion, 14% Baptist, 10% Methodist
Nevada - 24% Catholic, 20% no religion, 15% Baptist
Pennsylvania - 27% Catholic, 12% no religion

Not a very clear picture, except that religion is not a major determinant of the state's voting behavior. Catholics seem to be the biggest factor in going left or right, but then Catholics are the very same people we would expect to go against gay marriage. It doesn't make sense overall. Religiosity is not the factor here.

Granted, this is a rough statistical analysis and I'm no sociologist. Granted, there was a clear mandate against gay marriage in every state that had it on the ballot this year. But that was not the main issue this year, and neither was religion.

If people saw Bush as against same-sex marriage and Kerry as for it, then Bush would have won by much bigger margins. This election was not about faith or gays, and it was not about guns or abortion - we barely heard anything specific on any of these. The only real distinction that we heard much about was a little bit of stem cell - which polls show clearly favors Kerry - and some abortion-related issues that were largely unaddressed. They were not central the campaign, and if anything the last thing we heard about gay marriage was what: Bush is pro-civil union. Not exactly your Buchananite seasoned culture warrior.

It was about the character and personality of the candidates - Bush as resolute and strong, Kerry as sniveling and indecisive. It was about the foreign policy of the candidates - Bush with a clear vision to spread freedom and take the fight to the terrorists, Kerry with a vacillating foreign policy and a clear preference to impress Europe. It was about Iraq - do you want to win it or end it. It was about the economy and trade - do you want tax cuts and increased trade or tax hikes and more trade obstacles.

This election was not about gays and faith. It was not guns and abortion. It was security, terror, Iraq, and economy, taxes and trade. Those are the issues that decided it, and Americans wanted Bush on those issues.

Posted on November 6, 2004 at 3:03am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Spin The Vote! 2004: New Hampshire Edition

by neolibertarian

---Lynch over Benson, Damn---

Lynch beat Benson. I wanted Benson to win, I really liked him despite the scandals around him. Lynch is a Democrat, but at least he has pledged to veto a sales tax or an income tax. Hopefully he'll show similar restraint against other nex taxes or plain ol' tax hikes. His plans will probably necessitate a spending cut or a tax hike. I hope he picks spending cut.

Everybody, there's a new guy in the corner office. We'll see what he does, because maybe he's got some good ideas and really means his anti-tax pledges. He comes from a business background, let's hope he understands how stupid the government can be and how obstructive taxes are. I don't know that I'd bet money he'll run a great libertarian administration, but let's hope he holds his anti-tax pledge. If he breaks it, I'll cover it here as soon as I can - and see if the legislature follows him.

---Republican Congress, Ho Hum---

Yada yada, all four Congressmen for New Hampshire are Republicans. No surprise, new Hampshirites like conservative-, independent- and libertarian-leaners in general, and hate taxes, stupid government and gun control. That's more traditionally compatible with the GOP.

The elections were overwhelming, truly landslides by most definitions. Bradley in CD1: 63-37. Good ol' Charlie Bass in CD2: 59-38-3. Judd Gregg in the Senate: 66-34. Libertarian Kahn challenged Bass and got that 3% (with unrequested, unrequited Democratic assistance).

This is why I find it especially hilarious when I meet someone who hates the Free State Project but has a Nadeau (CD1) sticker or a Hodes (CD2) button. They sometimes claim to speak for the majority or the entirety of New Hampshire, but then their political choices are overwhelmingly out of step with the congressional winners of the Granite State. Maybe Democrats are using it as a tactic to feel more like they belong in a state that they disagree with so strongly.

A lot of them are REALLY into the DUMP GREGG and anti-GOP campaigns, too. Seems like they're more different from Granite Staters than the FSP crowd, many of whom would very plausibly vote Republican in Congressional races.

---Bigger Dem Minorities In State Senate, Executive Council---

The Democrats thought they could make gains in the State Senate, moving it from 18-6 (a 3 to 1 margin, notice) to a GOP lead of 14-10. As of right now, several races are close and undecided. Clearly, though, the Democrats will gain 2 or 3 seats, leaving the Republicans in charge. Nothing too big here, though obviously a little troublesome regarding a new tax.

On the Executive Council, Pignatelli, a Democrat from the State Senate, unseated incumbent Republican Wheeler in district five. Republican Wieczorek held his seat in district four. District 2 is close, but Spaulding will likely hold his spot for the GOP. The Executive Council was previously held by five Republicans, but now it's 4 to 1. Two seats were not up for election, districts 1 and 3.

---Court Amendment [Passes]---

[Edit: this was mis-reported. Thanks a lot, AP. Assholes. It passed, hooray.]

According to AP, it failed. The constitutional amendment granting administrative power over the Supreme Court of New Hampshire to both the legislature and the SCNH. This includes rules of evidence. In cases where they conflict, the legislature's version is supreme. The Court Justices e-mailed their employees about opposing this and got into trouble for it. Although the ban on justice's campaigning doesn't apply to issues of improving the administration of the law, they're never allowed to solicit their employees or people under them. The amendment was supposed to increase accountability of the Court and balance powers. I think it's a good idea, since the rules of evidence involves the difference between a conviction or acquittal. This amendment failed last time it came up, in 2002.

---The Trend?---

The Granite State loves to confuse you. They rejected the Democrats for Congress by wide margins, approaching 2 to 1. They increased the number of Democrats in the State Senate and even added a token Democrat to the Executive Council. In any other state, you'd guess that they hate national Democrats but their local Democrats fit the state's politics. Nope.

They voted, albeit by a thin, 10k vote margin, for Kerry. Is that simply a quirk, or a reflection of Kerry's new England roots? No, Kerry is a Masshole, and he did get a primary victory in New Hampshire, but the state was close to going for Gore in 2000 and went for Clinton in 1996 - while maintaining similar trends for the other races.

The fact is, new Hampshire is not overly ideological. All things being equal, most of New Hampshire prefers Republicans. All things are not equal, though, and New Hampshirites will go based on personality or specific issues to get what they want or approve of what they like from candidates in question. At once, they can be predicted (Republicans will hold a dominant place in state politics) without being restricted. That's why it's such a great state, Yankee independence and unabashed anti-tax sympathies are the major trends.

Posted on November 3, 2004 at 3:05am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Spin The Vote! 2004

by neolibertarian

---Bush With A Mandate?---

Feet-dragging of a couple networks and CNN aside, Bush appears to have won the election tonight. Unless the provisional ballots change things, Bush will win Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa. Kerry has won New Hampshire and will win Wisconsin. The total will be 286 - 252. Kerry and Edwards are trying to drag out Ohio, most likely to try and get revenge now for Florida 2000.

It looks like turnout will be in the area of 115-120 million voters, clearly the highest absolute number of US voters ever. There were 105 million voters in 2000. Bush, sitting at 51% now, will be elected with the highest number of raw voters ever, likely more than 58 million. But if he gets 51% it would be the first since Bush '88 to do so, as the previous three elections have been decided by less than a majority of the popular vote.

Bush has legitimacy now, he can't be derided as selected - he won at least a plurality and likely a majority. That's a fairly powerful statement and really hurts Kerry. Gore in 2000 had the popular vote to fuel him, as though he deserved it. Kerry lost the country, the vote is against him, and trying to challenge OH while losing the country is much harder than the 2000 debacle. So Bush now has clear electoral legitimacy and a modest mandate for the war on terror.

I have to say, Bush does a lot of things I dislike, but I am glad he will stay on as President. Kerry offered no vision on foreign policy and no backbone except when his career as a politician was at stake. Kerry is a loser, hence he deserved to lose - it's only too bad he keeps his Senate seat. The Democrats are retarded for picking a guy because he seemed like he could win for a reason nobody could even pinpoint. *whap* Bad Democrats, bad. No more pork for you!

I hope Bush balances the budget and seeks to fix Social Security - I want out of it, personally, because Congress has no idea how to make money, only spend it. Mostly, I hope he takes his clearest mandate to heart: win the war on terror, Mr. President. It's your issue. Many people are really against gay marriage, but they voted for gay marriage bans in greater numbers than they voted for you. Your job is not to get a Federal Marriage Amendment passed. What aligns perfectly with the result is the polls showing that people trust YOU to run the war on terror, whatever they think of Iraq. I know you have my support here even if you didn't have my vote; democratize Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, liberalize trade, and shed the light of freedom wherever the shadows of tyranny and hate remain.

Please win the war against Islamists that seek to harm us and kill innocent people of every nationality, faith and race. That's what the election really means; Americans trust you with their lives and the lives of our soldiers. Don't let us down.

---No More Daschle?!---

Well, in a fit of predictable weirdness, the Senate Minority Leader, Tom Daschle, has lost his seat in South Dakota. As a Democrat, it was hard to run in a state that went 60% for Bush in 2000 and 61% for him in 2004. Daschle ran touting Bush policies, the war, the tax cuts, and saying that it was "South Dakota's turn" and he could bring back plenty of money and prestige as their leader. Daschle was in charge during the disastrous 2002 mid-term along with Gephardt. He's gone, John Thune replaces him.

So who will succeed Daschle?

- Lieberman? Probably not, too widely seen as conservative - though he is in a safe seat.
- Biden? He was angling for an administration spot, maybe he'll go this route instead - he could help reassert the foreign policy street cred of the Democrats.
- Feingold? Not in a safe seat and often votes very independently.
- Reid? Swing state but easily re-elected there, but he's pro-life and won't rise above whip.
- Leahy? Maybe, kind of old and slow, but from a safe seat.
- Hillary? Big name recognition, fairly safe seat, but this is only her first term - maybe use it to set up for 2008 White House run?
- Schumer? He only just won his second term, but maybe - has a safe seat.

The next few weeks will be interesting with the Senate Democrats. Watch to see whom they pick and whether: 1) that state is swing, Bush or Kerry; 2) that Senator is moderate, big-spender or social liberal; 3) whether the posture is aggressive, threatening fillibuster, or partisan yet open to working together. Who knows just what they'll do, the Democrats suck at picking their leaders (Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry; Bob Byrd, Daschle, etc.).

---Pot---

Marijuana was on the ballot on three states. Oregon and Montana had medical marijuana initiatives. Alaska had a decriminalization initiative to legalize the cultivation, use and sale of marijuana for those 21 and older, legalize doctors prescribing it even to children, and allow the state or localities to regulate it like tobacco and alcohol - including public use restriction. The Alaska amendment failed, unfortunately. As of right now, it's 57-43 with 82% reporting. The Oregon initiative failed as well, by almost the exact same margin that the gay marriage ban in the state passed. The Montana one passed, however! So hip hip hooray for those lucky soon-to-be-stiffs that can use pot.

The law lets patients and caregivers cultivate, possess and use limited amounts of marijuana by prescription for treatment of conditions causing chronic pain, seizures, severe muscle spasms. The specifically included conditions are cancer, glaucoma and HIV/AIDS, but others can be considered. This passed 62-38 with 87% reporting.

---The Clear Winner---

The real winner on Tuesday? Anti-gay marriage advocates. Every single state with a prohibition on gay marriage on the ballot passed it, often by strong supermajorities. Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio (this one banned civil unions, which the others did not do), Ohlahoma, Oregon and Utah. Clearly a lot of people don't like the idea of gay people getting married, at least using the name of the term, marriage. So where is it legal? Massachusetts and Vermont, both New England. Maybe it falls to New England to let gay people live their lives without social statements targeted against them being entered into constitutional documents.

Before the Civil War, only five states had black suffrage, all of them in New England. I think, as in the Revolution and in the Civil War, it falls to New England to lead the cause for freedom, democracy, and human dignity. Probably most people outside New England would disagree with me. So be it, I'm content for now to let them pass their social-statement amendments, however misguided I might consider it.

Maybe in ten or twelve years states will start adopting a New Hampshire-modeled marriage deregulation scheme, or a Maine-inspired marriage de-recognition policy (neither of which exists now). If we eliminate marriage as a government-sanctioned affair, then we end government abuse or discrimination on the issue. Circumcision, baptism and bar mitvahs aren't government-licensed, but in the Christian religion baptism is far more important to get into Heaven (in some denominations) and yet it's more or less entirely private and unlicensed. I don't need to see missionary proselytizing or something, I don't want to force them to accept my take on marriage (which isn't that it's okay to be gay, but rather that sex and love aren't the tasks of the state), but I do think New England seems to have better policies on the issue - for whatever reason.

---The Election's Role History---

What does this election mean historically? The GOP expanded its control of the Senate, likely to 55 seats, and made gains in the House. It held the White House in a heavily contested election. Taken in conjunction with other key facts, the GOP is in place as the much more powerful party in America - and not just because it won an election. The most popular politicians in America, int he eyes of moderates and independents, are Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Arnold Schwarzenegger - all Republicans. They are more moderate and more socially inclusive. They show that it's perfectly acceptable to be a Republican without being religious right.

They have the uber-popular Governor of California, the've had three terms of mayors of New York, they won a massive historical precedent by advancing their seats in 2002 (that happened once before, for the Democrats in 1934 after FDR). The Republicans have expanded their hold on the electorate, made their power known. They're not dramatically in charge like the Democrats during the New Deal or even post-new Deal, but they are clearly the preferred party for both the White House and the Congress. This goes against the traditional American logic of divided government.

Why did it happen? Because Americans HATE taxes (trust me, tax cuts are the lifeblood of the GOP) and because Americans trust Republicans to protect the country. Look at it from a long-view perspective. Cold War in 1979? Time to win it: Reagan 1980, Reagan 1984, Reagan 1988 (otherwise known as George H W Bush, thanks to that pesky 22nd Amendment). Cold War ends in 1989? Now it's the economy, stupid: Clinton 1992, Clinton 1996, and had Gore run more effectively as Clinton's successor then he might have gotten more than a slim popular victory. The public was split in 2000: both parties kinda suck, but Bush is a change and Clinton was tiresome. Then violence and conflict returns, the country is under attack. War on terror? Get the batards: GOP in 2002 and Bush in 2004.

It's not a rock-solid hypothesis, but clearly people want the Republicans to run foreign policy. That's why they break a maxim of politics that the President's party loses seats its first mid-term election (2002) and why it has little interest in divided government, so Bush has coattails in 2004 and bring in 6 GOP pickups (net of 4 pickups) to help him enact his policies. THe war on terror is Bush's issue and the GOP's issue. They can also have the economy if they do well and always tax cuts are fun, maybe some more work and politicking could reclaim education for the Republicans. But right now, in a time of conflict and danger, the country wants a Republican in there to go win.

When we zoom out, we see that, with Reagan in the 1980s and the 1994 GOP takeover, the 2002 and 2004 elections are part of a historic power shift between the parties. The GOP has the initiative for now, they have the power, they have the new ideas, they have the credibility to lead in foreign policy, and they offer all the most popular leaders. The GOP has held both chambers of Congress since 1994 (save a brief period after Jeffords' switch and a widespread punitive effect for the impeachment). But the margin of victory suggests that either they have a lot more to go or they have a short leash from voters. Ten or twenty years from now the trend will be easier to pass verdict on, but for now it's obvious: the GOP is on the ups right now, and they've been gaining ground since Reagan.

Where they go from here - more vibrant majority or punished minority - only the next few years will tell.

Posted on November 3, 2004 at 1:20am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

MEMRI: Bin Laden Threatened Bush States

by neolibertarian

A new translation of Bin Laden's terror tape is threatening the states that vote for Bush. Any state that casts its electoral votes will be targeted, while the Kerry states will be passed over.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security." - Bin Laden, translated by MEMRI

This is a rather bald attempt to affect the election and manipulate the country into unseating Bush. It would also suggest that Bin Laden sees defeating either the incumbent generally or Bush specifically as a critical part of the jihad efforts.

This is a clear move to do to the US what he did in Spain: use the fear and dissent of terror attacks to affect the election. Consdering the fact that even France has run afoul of Islamist threats after so flatly opposing the war in Iraq, there is no point short of total surrender where Osama would be satisfied, and even that one is dubious at best.

I don't expect everyone to vote for Bush because of it, but certainly I hope that Democrats and lefties will restrain themselves from making smart aleck comments or actually enjoying Osama's threat against free elections.

A new translation of Bin Laden's terror tape is threatening the states that vote for Bush. Any state that casts its electoral votes will be targeted, while the Kerry states will be passed over.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security." - Bin Laden, translated by MEMRI

This is a rather bald attempt to affect the election and manipulate the country into unseating Bush. It would also suggest that Bin Laden sees defeating either the incumbent generally or Bush specifically as a critical part of the jihad efforts.

This is a clear move to do to the US what he did in Spain: use the fear and dissent of terror attacks to affect the election. Consdering the fact that even France has run afoul of Islamist threats after so flatly opposing the war in Iraq, there is no point short of total surrender where Osama would be satisfied, and even that one is dubious at best.

I don't expect everyone to vote for Bush because of it, but certainly I hope that anti-war nutcase righties and wannabe-peacenik lefties will restrain themselves from making smart aleck comments or actually enjoying Osama's threat against free elections.

As discovered by the Volokh Conspiracy, this is quite similar to Michael's Moore's comments from September 12, 2001:

In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again. He withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban conference on racism, insists on restarting the arms race — you name it, and Baby Bush has blown it all. . . . .

Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush! Why kill them? Why kill anyone? Such insanity...Let's mourn, let's grieve, and when it's appropriate let's examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.

- Michael Moore;

Winner: World's Worst Sense of Timing Award;

Grand Champion: Worst Eulogy Ever

So aside from Michael Moore, widely acknowledged as a worse representation of the Democrats than Kim Jung Il is of short people with poofy hair, hopefully most folks will recognize that being punished for your vote undermines the entire concept of a free, secret-ballot election. And note to the idiotic stereotypes: due to low voter turnout and the fact that no state was unanimous, and the simple occurrence of interstate travel, simply using airplanes flying from or to a Bush or Gore state is a relatively poor indication of how -or whether- one even voted. That's assuming, of course, we jumped off the Michael Moore deep end to feel that Bush voters are somehow guiltier than Gore voters.

Obviously Moore represents only the really loony people left and right that the mainstream Democrats like to appease and flirt with but overall disagree with. Thankfully most people have the sense to see how horrible this is.

Posted on November 1, 2004 at 4:12am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Understanding New Hampshire Elections: Structural

by neolibertarian

New Hampshire State House districts are often multi-member (MMD) so all you have to do is NOT lose. Some districts have only one elected Rep (SMD).

In Belknap County, the Reps with the fewest votes who still won were elected in 2002 with as few as 1769 votes and as many as 5076 votes.

In Carroll County, the Reps with the fewest votes who still won were elected with as few as 721 votes and as many as 4009 votes.

In Cheshire County, the Reps with the fewest votes who still won were elected with as few as 1573 votes and as many as 3175 votes.

In Coos County, the Reps with the fewest votes who still won were elected with as few as 1290 votes and as many as 2404 votes.

In Grafton County, the Reps with the fewest votes who still won were elected with as few as 1247 votes and as many as 4321 votes.

In Hillsborough County, the Reps with the fewest votes who still won were elected with as few as 780 votes and as many as 5399 votes.

In Merrimack County, the Reps with the fewest votes who still won were elected with as few as 1303 votes and as many as 3831 votes.

In Rockingham County, the Reps with the fewest votes who still won were elected with as few as 938 votes and as many as 6441 votes.

In Strafford County, the Reps with the fewest votes who still won were elected with as few 1268 as votes and as many as 5237 votes.

In Sullivan County, the Reps with the fewest votes who still won were elected with as few as 1132 votes and as many as 1485 votes.

So overall the minimum needed in the last election to win a seat was 721 votes. In the toughest race the last-place winner needed 6441 votes to take a seat. The way you do well is to get on the ticket. You can get on a ticket if you are written into another party's ballot line. In a party's primary, there are as many winners as there are seats in the district. If there are fewer people contesting the seat for the party than there are seats available, it's easy to get their primary endorsement. In such a case, you'd only need one primary voter's vote to get that line.

So if you ran as a Libertarian in a 6-seat constituency, and only 5 Republicans are running in the primary, you need only convince a few voters to vote you on their Republican primary ballot to be a nominee of the Republicans. If you get on, then in the general election you are a Libertarian-Republican. There are a lot of D-Rs and R-Ds and there's no reason there couldn't be L-Rs or L-Ds or L-R-Ds. If you are on the party's ticket, you get the best part - besides showing off your multipartisanship, you receive all of the straight-ticket votes. Anybody who votes straight-Republican automatically votes for all L-Rs and D-Rs. That's why it's valuable to do this.

Get enough straight-ticket votes, as well as enough community support, and you could win. That's one thing you have to do, though: make sure to compete in the other primaries by asking friends and neighbors in those parties to consider writing you in.

Posted on October 27, 2004 at 9:20am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

First 2004 Presidential Debate Transcript

by neolibertarian

From the
debate:

"I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, 'Here, let me show you the photos.' And DeGaulle waved them off and said, 'No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.'" - John Kerry

Not exactly correct on two points, wildly misleading on a third.

1) He didn't send the Secretary of State, he sent Dean Acheson, former Secretary of State. That's a simple enough mistake, but it in fact changes the story. Acheson was a well-respected elder statesman, served as Secretary of State for Truman, had been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and was widely held in esteem in western leadership circles. Taking a guy like that off the bench is very different from sending a political appointee to do your work. It would be a different thing to ask an Acheson to go lie to De Gaulle than to ask a current SecState to power-tag some facts. It's an understandable error, but it affects the story.

2) De Gaulle said that, but then [b]he looked at the photos anyway[/b]. He was being courteous, De Gaulle was big into pomp, circumstance, honor, all that old-France kind of stuff. He said it as a matter of courtesy, like asking if anybody else wants the last bread roll when really you just want it yourself. He looked at the photos and Acheson went over them.

3) The misleading point: while Bush and Blair were trying to sway people to support a cause and join a coalition, JFK was not. He had already gotten the OAS to back him up with unanimous vote (1 abstention) after much cajolery. He didn't need allies or a coalition. The decision was already made, Acheson was not asking for De Gaulle's help, his permission or his approval. It was a friendly notification, not a request.

It's somewhat misleading to let people make the obvious assumption that JFK asked for help and got it with a snap of the fingers. JFK had made the decision and he wasn't asking for help.

Anyway, I doubt anybody votes on this issue at all, but it's aggravating because it's incorrect. I don't even know that Kerry was lying about it, it's easy to be mistaken. It's important to be clear, though: De Gaulle apparently did need to look at the evidence and the US was acting unilaterally without allies or UN approval. The US did have the support of a group of nations that no doubt Kerry would've mocked if he were running in 1964.

Posted on October 23, 2004 at 5:06am. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Website Features

Categories

Blogroll

Links

Quizzes

Charities

Archives

Subscribe

Contact

Categories

Subscribe

Archives

Blogroll