January 2008

The Wire Weeks 2 & 3

First up, Mo Ryan hits us with the fact via Jeremy Manier (one of the better mainstream science reporters out there), that Obama’s favorite character is Omar on the Wire.  It’s hard to argue with that. Omar is a gay Robin Hood in the ghetto and has so many different layers it’s hard not to be fascinated with him.
Clinton likes Gray’s Anatomy.

I refuse to go all Maureen Dowd on this, but that’s telling.

Previously I said the first episode was a bit uneven as it set-up the new context.  That’s not true in Weeks 2 or 3 where we see David Simon make multiple story lines fit together seamlessly.  The Wire again takes up the mantle of the BDSOT (Best Damn Show on Television) that Homicide: Life on the Streets originally held amongst fans (based on a book by David Simon).
More after the jump, but spoiler alert:

Read More

Netroots Activate–5000 for Pera

Being late to the game today, there’s a push on for Mark Pera to get 5,000 new donors from the netroots!

Donate Here!

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/N-rJIEdP9Ho" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

This is the most important primary race for progressives this cycle. Lipinski is a conservative hack, but more than that, he only has his seat from nepotism, has a bunch of crooked patronage hacks running his machine, and his father continues to use his business to profit off of the office. End it now–donate small or large, just donate.

More Present Votes:

More from Clinton’s most recent mailer:

Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote ‘present’ on a bill that sought to protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims, and the only state senator to not support the bill. [HB854, Passed 58-0-1, 05/11/99]

 

Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote ‘present’ on an adoption bill that imposed stricter requirements for parental fitness, and the only State Senator to not support the bill. [HB1298, Passed 57-0-1, 5/6/1999]

 

Sen. Obama voted ‘present’ on a bill that would increase penalties for the use of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The bill called for the mandatory adult persecution of a minor at least 15 years of age being tried for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. [SB759, Passed 52-1-5, 3/25/1999]

 

             Sen. Obama voted ‘present’ on a bill to prohibit the presence of adult             sex shops near schools, places of worship, and day care facilities;                bill allows local governments to regulate the presence of adult sex                 shops. [SB609,  Passed 33-15-5,  3/29/2001]

Each one of these are bills which Obama had Constitutional problems with and there is a strategy to the votes.  By drawing attention to the Constitutionality of the bills, he was able to demonstrate a general support of the type of bill, but pointing out problems with the bill.  And sometimes it worked–one one juvenile justice bill him and Ricky Hendon voted present and Edgar paid attention.  Edgar then issued an amendatory veto that raised the age of being tried as an adult.  The vote above for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school wasn’t about using a firearm near a school being a problem, it was prosecuting a 15 year old as an adult.

Given he talked to the press about the votes and made the case about the above in each case, it’s hard to tell why this is a concern.  As President he could veto the bills and send them back for changes. In Illinois, as a Governor, he could have issued an amendatory veto.  However, as a Legislator, voting present was an effective strategy to draw attention to generally good bills with problematic sections.

Illinois NOW, the Essence of Hypocrisy

How cute, Clinton’s campaign keeps up on the present votes including the most hypocritical pile of shit in a campaign:

Illinois Now on Obama’s Present Votes On Choice:

During Sen. Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation.As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on ‘partial birth abortion,’ two parental notification laws and three ‘born alive’ bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Sen. Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions. “When we needed someone to take a stand, Sen. Obama took a pass,” said Grabenhofer. “He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.”

Yet, Lisa Madigan did the same thing. What did Illinois Now do about her refusal to take a stand?

Yep, they endorsed her:

Who else voted Present?Lisa Madigan on at least one vote:

ENDORSED BY IL NOW PAC

Statewide

Rod Blagojevich D-Governor

Alexi Giannoulias D-Treasurer

Dan Hynes D-State Comptroller

Lisa Madigan – Attorney General

Illinois NOW also stood by Blair Hull when information came out about domestic violence in his divorce dispute.

Doings Western Spring Endorsement for Pera

Quite nice

Pera, who is president of the Lyons Township High School District 204 Board, provides needed vision for the district. While all four candidates say they oppose the war in Iraq, Pera is prepared to use congressional funding authority to force a change. While all four pledge to get transportation dollars to the district, Pera acknowledges the inevitability of funding in such a busy transportation hub, and sees support of larger ideas such as the 2016 Olympics in Chicago as a way to spark new projects for the region.

He believes in securing the borders and requiring illegal immigrants to go through a process in order to stay, but recognizes reform can’t come by making 12 million people felons or keeping them as a permanent underclass.

Pera’s school governance background provides needed reality for federal mandates on education, notably the No Child Left Behind Act, which he rightly notes puts too many penalties on high-performing schools. The federal government helps funds local schools and should offer some standards, but Pera sees heavy-handed government intervention in local schools as a detriment to success.

Lipinski was elected in 2004, inheriting his father’s seat through political maneuvering. He suggests too much was expected of the Democratic majority this past year, going up against an incumbent president and commander-in-chief. But he acknowledges not enough was done by Democratic leadership to push the party’s agenda.

Mark Pera is the type of candidate who will spur party leadership, and eventually move to the top tier himself. He deserves the Democratic nomination on Feb. 5.

Just Kidding

One of my daughters likes to ask to do something and when told no, say “Just Kidding!”  This is usually something like have a bowl of ice cream before dinner.  She isn’t kidding, of course, and for a five year old it’s kind of a cute habit.

Not so cute when it’s a guy running for Congress:

Less than a week later, Schock retracted, saying he “went too far.”

On Tuesday, he told the editorial board of the Peoria Journal Star, “When I made the statement, the tone in which I made it was more in jest.”

“Well, if the Chinese want to sit on their hands and allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, then perhaps we should sell nuclear weapons to Taiwan,” Schock told the board in explaining why he said what he did and the tone in which it was made. “That’s why reporters in Peoria, Jacksonville and Springfield, television, radio and print media, nobody thought two seconds about what I said. But when you read it in black and white and take it as a serious proposal, then obviously it puts it in a different perspective.”

In a phone interview with the Journal-Register’s political writer, Bernard Schoenburg, the day Schock retracted the statement, his campaign manager, Steve Shearer, said Schock’s proposal was “not just something that he pulled out of his pocket. … It’s a deeply thought-out policy.”

“It’s irresponsible, it’s reckless and it’s downright frightening to discuss nuclear warfare in jest,” said Matt Bisbee, spokesman for Jim McConoughey, one of Schock’s opponents to replace U.S. Rep Ray LaHood, R-Peoria, for the 18th Congressional District seat. “It’s unbelievable to me that you can discuss something with such severe consequences in a campaign for U.S. Congress in jest. It just doesn’t make any sense and screams irresponsibility.”

Schock went on to tell the editorial board that he penned the initial comments himself, he “overstated the case,” and that he doesn’t want to sell nuclear weapons to Taiwan.

Oops…

Clyburn in the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he was rethinking his neutral stance in his state’s presidential primary out of disappointment at comments by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton that he saw as diminishing the historic role of civil rights activists.

Mr. Clyburn, a veteran of the civil rights movement and a power in state Democratic politics, put himself on the sidelines more than a year ago to help secure an early primary for South Carolina, saying he wanted to encourage all candidates to take part. But he said recent remarks by the Clintons that he saw as distorting civil rights history could change his mind.

“We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics,” said Mr. Clyburn, who was shaped by his searing experiences as a youth in the segregated South and his own activism in those days. “It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal.”

I haven’t been listening to black talk radio–has the Clinton line been getting much play?

The Way To Analyze the Polling

Is to analyze the polling—Charles Franklin has long called for more transparency in polling and uses this is an excellent example of where it could be positive.

If the polls were systematically flawed methodologically, then we’d expect similar errors with both parties. Almost all the pollsters did simultaneous Democratic and Republican polls, with the same interviewers using the same questions with the only difference being screening for which primary a voter would participate in. So if the turnout model was bad for the Democrats, why wasn’t it also bad for the Republicans? If the demographics were “off” for the Dems, why not for the Reps?

This is the best reason to think that the failure of polling in New Hampshire was tied to swiftly changing politics rather than to failures of methodology. However, we can’t know until much more analysis is done, and more data about the polls themselves become available.

A good starting point would be for each New Hampshire pollster to release their demographic and cross tab data. This would allow sample composition to be compared and for voter preferences within demographic groups to be compared. Another valuable bit of information would be voter preference by day of interview.

In 1948 the polling industry suffered its worst failure when confidently predicting Truman’s defeat. In the wake of that polling disaster, the profession responded positively by appointing a review committee which produced a book-length report on what went wrong, how it could have been avoided and what “best practices” should be adopted. The polling profession was much the better for that examination and report.

I won’t contradict Charles because he has forgotten more about public opinion than I’ve ever known, but one thing to keep in mind is that polls don’t necessarily fail when the results are different from the latest polling. If there is an intervening event between the final poll and the election, polling may have been right on the money, but an event caused public opinion to change. Charles says this is some sense above, but the notion that polling is wrong in this case is far from certain to me.
The problem is more how we interpret the polling. Polling is a snapshot in time and as such when the context changes, the underlying phenomenon is changing, not the earlier measure of it.

Whether this is exactly what happened in New Hampshire is rightfully an empirical question and the steps Charles is recommending are exactly the best way to address it. However, it isn’t just about addressing the methodology, but how people interpret polls in the first place.