Tuesday, November 4 is the date of the midterm elections. Unless you have tuned out and are unaware (like the majority of Americans), this vote is primarily about which political party will control the upper chamber of Congress. There are battleground states with close races. Come Tuesday we will know whether Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid is the senate majority leader.
Pundits, operatives, and politicians themselves have voiced their opinions about the importance of this election. Americans are not buying it, or at least they are not enthused. With record numbers of dissatisfaction, voters seem apathetic. Most cite gridlock and polarization for the cause of the discontent. They ask: does it really matter who wins control of the Senate?
The election will go on, however, and polls point to a Republican victory. "It is a good environment for the Republicans." The President is too unpopular to help the Democrats, it has been said. The wizards of statistics have generally agreed with these sentiments. Both FiveThirtyEight and the Princeton Election Consortium have given the advantage to Republican candidates in the battleground states, which are overwhelming located in the South and Midwest.
So more likely than not, we will have a Congress controlled by the Republicans, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
What will they do with a majority? I am curious as to whether Republicans will be able to change their message and tone so quickly. Let us not forget that for years now they have been the opposition party. Instead of having to push forward legislation (which could make it to the floor for a vote), the dissenters have been able to criticize, and object. It's been the case that Republicans have been more focused on pointing out President Obama's "failures" than offering policy changes.
Indeed, even this election reflects the "attitudes" of the political atmosphere, rather than any substantive legislative proposals. "President Obama has been weak on Ebola." Even though there have been only a handful of confirmed cases of Ebola. "President Obama has failed on the economy." Despite the fact that their has been 56 months of job creation, and corporate earnings have been astronomical. "President Obama is weak on national security." Though there has been no outright terrorist attacks on our homeland."ObamaCare needs to be replaced!" By what, who knows.
Optics are important, yet it should not be the main concern of voters. Can Republicans govern, and put aside the rhetoric? With their likely new found majority, will they pass bills for the President to sign?
The statisticians should do some numbers on that question. Republicans favor less regulation (specifics?), low taxation on top rates (didn't work so well in Kansas), and less government spending (deficit to GDP ratio is historically low). It's unlikely that these goals will be signed off by the President. Not only on political grounds, but on the fact that these policies do not have a great track record.
Socially, Republicans are also going to face public opposition. On marriage equality, a woman's right to choose, and other "moral" issues, they advocate a position in conflict with a majority of Americans.
The Republicans will likely win on Tuesday, but they may not be ready for the win. Accustomed to their method of disapproval, legislators will have to change course: offer ideas, pass laws, and govern. It will be interesting to see what they will do once in the driver's seat. For the rest of us, let's remember to put on our seat belts. It could be a bumpy ride.
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Friday, October 31, 2014
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Vote Your Interest
The election is not too far off now. Thank goodness. There will be less emails I am sure, or hope. Candidates will stop vying for attention, so we will see less gaffes. And our country will finally be done with political theatre -- at least until January, when the 2016 presidential campaigns will start.
Midterms, as I previously wrote about, are more of a headache than chance to voice our opinions about the best way forward for the country. Yes, it sounds apathetic. Indifference may be the only defense mechanism left for dealing with the political realities of today.
Take a look at the facts. Policies are not shaped by the will of the people. They are shaped by those affluent companies who can spend and lobby. Princeton and Harvard professors Gilens and Page stated in their study that: "[t]he estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level..." Near zero? So you're saying that we (average citizens) have a chance!
Well, who cares about policy anyway. As long as we have the ability to earn and live our lives in peace.
As it turns out though, incomes are stagnant and even dropping. Economic growth is not widely shared as it once was. In fact, the numbers are bleak. Goldman Sachs' CEO even opined that income inequality is "destabilizing."
Americans should be aware of this phenomenon but it does not appear that they understand the depth of the problem. A recent survey showed that Americans think that the pay ratio between worker and CEO in the United States is 30:1. In reality, the ratio is 354:1 -- the highest of any country. Denmark's ratio: 48:1; and Japan's pay ratio is 67:1.
The CEO has much responsibility, and should be fairly compensated, but it is difficult to find a rational argument that 354:1 bears any resemblance of true marginal utility.
There has been a recent campaign to raise the minimum wage, but those pesky firms with deep pockets have lobbied against it. Share buybacks and dividend increases to shareholders are much more important than a wage increase.
But, Chris... you are not focusing on the aspect of opportunity some will counter. Instead of playing the politics of envy, should you not focus on making sure every person has a chance. Stop attacking those that have done well for themselves.
I am happy that you brought that up hypothetical devil's advocate, so I can engage in a dialectic. The truth of the matter is that average citizens are also losing opportunity. One has a better chance of moving up the income ladder in a monarchy (United Kingdom) than they do in the United States. Now more than ever, if you are born low-income, you will stay low-income.
All the gloom mentioned above is for a point. Despite these economic truths, we should fight apathy and indifference. The midterms do mean something, because it is our constitution coming alive. We, average citizens, can try to change the country with our vote.
One request though. Before you vote, ask yourself the question: who shares my true interests? Is it the candidate who is backed by one or two wealthy donors.
If we truly want the American Dream to be available for those in the future, we need to put aside our feelings of languor. Make your vote count and let your voice be heard.
Midterms, as I previously wrote about, are more of a headache than chance to voice our opinions about the best way forward for the country. Yes, it sounds apathetic. Indifference may be the only defense mechanism left for dealing with the political realities of today.
Take a look at the facts. Policies are not shaped by the will of the people. They are shaped by those affluent companies who can spend and lobby. Princeton and Harvard professors Gilens and Page stated in their study that: "[t]he estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level..." Near zero? So you're saying that we (average citizens) have a chance!
Well, who cares about policy anyway. As long as we have the ability to earn and live our lives in peace.
As it turns out though, incomes are stagnant and even dropping. Economic growth is not widely shared as it once was. In fact, the numbers are bleak. Goldman Sachs' CEO even opined that income inequality is "destabilizing."
Americans should be aware of this phenomenon but it does not appear that they understand the depth of the problem. A recent survey showed that Americans think that the pay ratio between worker and CEO in the United States is 30:1. In reality, the ratio is 354:1 -- the highest of any country. Denmark's ratio: 48:1; and Japan's pay ratio is 67:1.
The CEO has much responsibility, and should be fairly compensated, but it is difficult to find a rational argument that 354:1 bears any resemblance of true marginal utility.
There has been a recent campaign to raise the minimum wage, but those pesky firms with deep pockets have lobbied against it. Share buybacks and dividend increases to shareholders are much more important than a wage increase.
But, Chris... you are not focusing on the aspect of opportunity some will counter. Instead of playing the politics of envy, should you not focus on making sure every person has a chance. Stop attacking those that have done well for themselves.
I am happy that you brought that up hypothetical devil's advocate, so I can engage in a dialectic. The truth of the matter is that average citizens are also losing opportunity. One has a better chance of moving up the income ladder in a monarchy (United Kingdom) than they do in the United States. Now more than ever, if you are born low-income, you will stay low-income.
All the gloom mentioned above is for a point. Despite these economic truths, we should fight apathy and indifference. The midterms do mean something, because it is our constitution coming alive. We, average citizens, can try to change the country with our vote.
One request though. Before you vote, ask yourself the question: who shares my true interests? Is it the candidate who is backed by one or two wealthy donors.
If we truly want the American Dream to be available for those in the future, we need to put aside our feelings of languor. Make your vote count and let your voice be heard.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Midterm Musings
President Obama sent me an email today. The short message had a personal touch -- Barack addressed me by my first name: Chris. I know that some of my readers must be jealous. I mean, it's not everyday that the most powerful man in the world takes the time to write to a regular citizen like me. Even if it's about raising money for the midterm elections...
Now that I reflect upon the email, it looks oddly familiar to the other 487289358 emails that I have received in the past thirty-five minutes; like the email Vice-President Joe sent me. Something seems fishy. I wonder if the two of them had shopped at Target recently.
All kidding aside, us political enthusiasts can expect dozens of similar emails in the next few months. As an individual who donated money in the past to Democratic campaigns, my personal information is ripe for solicitation. The midterm elections are right around the corner.
Most people must agree with President Obama about the midterms, however. They are not sexy. It doesn't even come close to the Presidential elections. That's the real sexy stuff -- remember when Mitt Romney opined about his sleeping wear. Indeed, most people do not even know if their candidate is on the ballot this year.
But for me and other liberals, there is something uniquely troublesome about the elections this November. Midterms are historically a bad time for Democrats. We tend to fall asleep. In other words, voter turnout during non-presidential election years are proven to be horrid. This year will be even more of a hurdle because of the unprecedented congressional redistricting, or "gerrymandering," by Republicans in 2010.
As stated before in a previous post, the Congressional maps heavily favor Republicans. In 2012, there were 1.4 million more votes for Democrats, but the Republicans maintained a 33-seat majority in the House of Representatives. That was the second time since the 1940's that a party receiving more of the votes ended up losing the majority.
That's not all. Democrats can expect more obstacles to overcome. I know: it is not fair. The 2010 wave of Republicans, and Tea Party candidates, also stormed the state legislatures. Conservative states obtained Republican super-majorities, meaning that those states were relatively free to pass whatever "freedom-loving" bills that it wanted. On the agenda: strict voter ID laws.
Voter ID laws -- passed under the guise of fraud-prevention -- mandate that voters possess a valid identification card while casting a vote. Some states require a birth certificate or passport. The GOP has also taken steps to limit early voting, online voting, weekend voting, and same-day registration. Evidence shows that these type of laws have a negative disparate impact on low-income and minority populations -- traditional Democratic voters. The Republicans have been busy in the state legislatures -- as opposed to the House of Representatives.
So, while you may hear or see the occasional pundit pontificating about the political ramifications of ObamaCare on the midterms, it's actually more about structural advantages set into motion in 2010. Not that ObamaCare is necessarily politically bad for the Democrats. There is evidence to suggest that over 7 million will sign up by the deadline today. But it is undeniable that millions of dollars in TV advertising are being poured into the false ObamaCare narratives. Fact-checkers will be busy for some time.
We have a choice. The red or blue pill. Democrats can accept the traditional midterm blues or we can do everything in our power to help with the turnout. If we simply concede to the slick strategies implemented by the GOP, I question our resolve. The simple "reality" is that we may have to do more than read emails. Let's pick up the phones too -- we may find ourselves in a "better world."
Now that I reflect upon the email, it looks oddly familiar to the other 487289358 emails that I have received in the past thirty-five minutes; like the email Vice-President Joe sent me. Something seems fishy. I wonder if the two of them had shopped at Target recently.
All kidding aside, us political enthusiasts can expect dozens of similar emails in the next few months. As an individual who donated money in the past to Democratic campaigns, my personal information is ripe for solicitation. The midterm elections are right around the corner.
Most people must agree with President Obama about the midterms, however. They are not sexy. It doesn't even come close to the Presidential elections. That's the real sexy stuff -- remember when Mitt Romney opined about his sleeping wear. Indeed, most people do not even know if their candidate is on the ballot this year.
But for me and other liberals, there is something uniquely troublesome about the elections this November. Midterms are historically a bad time for Democrats. We tend to fall asleep. In other words, voter turnout during non-presidential election years are proven to be horrid. This year will be even more of a hurdle because of the unprecedented congressional redistricting, or "gerrymandering," by Republicans in 2010.
As stated before in a previous post, the Congressional maps heavily favor Republicans. In 2012, there were 1.4 million more votes for Democrats, but the Republicans maintained a 33-seat majority in the House of Representatives. That was the second time since the 1940's that a party receiving more of the votes ended up losing the majority.
That's not all. Democrats can expect more obstacles to overcome. I know: it is not fair. The 2010 wave of Republicans, and Tea Party candidates, also stormed the state legislatures. Conservative states obtained Republican super-majorities, meaning that those states were relatively free to pass whatever "freedom-loving" bills that it wanted. On the agenda: strict voter ID laws.
Voter ID laws -- passed under the guise of fraud-prevention -- mandate that voters possess a valid identification card while casting a vote. Some states require a birth certificate or passport. The GOP has also taken steps to limit early voting, online voting, weekend voting, and same-day registration. Evidence shows that these type of laws have a negative disparate impact on low-income and minority populations -- traditional Democratic voters. The Republicans have been busy in the state legislatures -- as opposed to the House of Representatives.
So, while you may hear or see the occasional pundit pontificating about the political ramifications of ObamaCare on the midterms, it's actually more about structural advantages set into motion in 2010. Not that ObamaCare is necessarily politically bad for the Democrats. There is evidence to suggest that over 7 million will sign up by the deadline today. But it is undeniable that millions of dollars in TV advertising are being poured into the false ObamaCare narratives. Fact-checkers will be busy for some time.
We have a choice. The red or blue pill. Democrats can accept the traditional midterm blues or we can do everything in our power to help with the turnout. If we simply concede to the slick strategies implemented by the GOP, I question our resolve. The simple "reality" is that we may have to do more than read emails. Let's pick up the phones too -- we may find ourselves in a "better world."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)