Dem debate: Townhall questions

November 15, 2007 – 11:11 pm

An Iraq veteran family asks about "the rush to war in Iran." Of course, Drudge links to a story on Iran:

The way to do that is to not ratchet up the winds to war here. A lot of people voted for that … a serious, serious mistake. It convinced the rest of the Muslim war that this is a war against Islam, not a war against Iran.

Clinton:

I oppose a rush to war. Started speaking about it back in February.

Obama:

We should not take steps towards increasing troop presence in Iraq.

Richardson:

End military contractors. Reform our military.

Edwards:

This administration has done more than abuse the Patriot Act. … We are going to take the steps to restore the profiling. Stop the illegal spying in America. … Closing Gitmo. No more secret prisons. No more renditions. … No torture will be tolerated in the United States.

Richardson:

I’m the only one who has addressed immigration directly. … I am the first governor to declare a border emergency because the federal government wasn’t doing its job stopping drugs and illegal immigrants.

Social Security.

Clinton:

I am for getting back to fiscal responsibility. We have long-term challenges with social security. Now we have a crisis in Medicare. … I want to move back towards fiscal responsibility. … We have to have a bipartisan commission.  … If you lift the cap completely, it is a $1t tax increase.

Obama:

Only 6% of Americans make above the cap. … This is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. … This is the top 6%, not the middle class.

What qualities must the appointees to SCOTUS have. Dodd:

A balanced sense of justice. Not just there as academics. Have a clear record. … Demonstrated that ability to be fair. I don’t necessarily believe in applying litmus tests. … I would not want justices to be appointed who would overturn Roe v Wade.

All would implement a pro-choice litmus, which various emphases.

Then I got bored with the questions.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Dems debate notes: Journalist questions

November 15, 2007 – 10:16 pm

They ask Clinton about illegal immigration. The question cites other candidates saying that she doesn’t answer questions.

The American people know what I have been fighting for 35 years…. Fighting for issues for women and minorities, workers and families.

They ask Obama to whip Clinton:

Senator Clinton is a great politician. … Politics of parsing. … Straight answers to touch questions. Not what we have seen from Senator Clinton: drivers licences. Two weeks to get a clear answer. … Need a different kind of politics. … They don’t feel that Washington is listening to them…. Listening to the American people to get things done.

Clinton responds:

Taking strong positions. Obama’s plan would leave 15m people out of health care. Fighting this battle against the special interests for more than 15 years… We can have more a different kin of politics, but the special interests aren’t going away. The Republicans aren’t going to stop fighting.

Obama responds:

The only difference between Senator Clinton’s plan and mine is that no one has mandated. … People would love to have health care, … but they can’t afford it. … That’s what they are looking for. That’s what they deserve.

Clinton responds:

Senator Obama’s health care plan doesn’t come everyone … children’s health care plan. … He does not mandate the kind of coverage that I do. … There’s a big difference between Senator Obama and me.

They ask Edwards to way in:

The issue is whether we have a president who can restore trust in the American people. … Senator Clinton says she will end the war. She also says that she will keep combat troops in Iraq. … On Iran, she voted with Bush and the neo-cons. … …. …. She says that she will bring change to Washington, when she will not speak against a system that is corrupt….

Clinton responds:

I respect all of my colleagues on this stage. We are all Democrats. … What I believe is important is that we put forth what we stand for. I have been active for 35 years. … When Senator Edwards ran in 2004, he wasn’t for universal heatlh care. … We need to put forth a positive agenda for America. …

They ask Biden. Not an impressive dude:

The American people don’t give a darn about what we are talking about here tonight. They worry about their children are going to run into a drug dealer tomorrow. …. mortgages, Iraq… Who among us understands how to deal with Pakistan, … Georgia, … Passing the Violence Against Women Act, Passing the crime bill.,

Next question to John Edwards about changing positions:

It is different to say two contrary things at the same time to different people. In Washington, she said she would vote for the Peruvian trade deal. In Iowa, she told a bunch of union workers that she wanted a moratorium against trade deals. …

Dodd. Surprised at just how angry Edwards is:

There is a shrillness to this debate. The American people want results… They wonder if anyone in Washington is paying attention. … If we waste time on the shrillness of this debate we lose teh American people.

I am Bill Richardson, I am the governor of New Mexico. It seems that John wants to start a class war. Barack wants to start a generational war. It seems that Senator Clinton doesn’t want to stop the Iraq war. I just want to give peace a chance …. end the war … energy independence … Let’s stop going after each other on character and trust.

Support Dem nominee. Everyone is for that? Not that loon Kucinich. Now immigration. They ask Obama:

They are justified in feeling frustrated. … The reason that Americans are feeling concerned is that they feel like their jobs are slipping away. … Will make sure that we the kind of border security we need. … Employers have more of a chance of getting hit by lightening than being investigated. … Once again be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

"On the issue that apparently tripped up Senator Clinton … You apparently support illegal aliens getting drivers licenses." Who supports drivers licenses for illegals? "This is the kind of question that is available for a yes or no question." The question assumes comprehensive immigration reform is not possible. Obama ducks. Edwards: No. Dodd: No. Obama: Yes. Clinton: No. Richardson: Yes and I did it. Biden: No

Education. Performance pay in education. What’s wrong with that. Dodd:

Every other question depends on having the best educated generation ever.

Richardson wants a chicken in every pot. Clinton supports "school based merit pay."

They ask Biden about Pakistan:

I do not think that we should maintain the same aid we are giving. … Move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy. … Significantly increase our economic aid. …

Richardson:

I would condition the assistance to Musharraf. … Unless you restore the constitution, have elections in January, end the state of emergency, allow Bhutto to run, reinstate the supreme court, … fight the terrorists.. It is not about what Halliburton wants in Iraq. .. Our strength as a nation is about our values. …

Edwards says nothing (except nukes)

Human rights more important than national security. Richardson says yes. Obama says not incompatible. Dodd says national security. Clinton does too.

Kucinich is crazy. "Hello. Hello."

Is General Patreaus correct in talking about more security in Iraq: Richardson:

The surge is not working.  …  [can Richardson say the world "mental"]

Obama pledges to get combat troops out in 16 months.  [but 100k troops forever]

John Edwards:

We got something we don’t need. We got NAFTA. … replace corporate republicans with corporate democrats. …

Clinton:

NAFTA did not do what many had hoped. … NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver what was promised. That’s why I have called for trade time out.

Dodd:

We are in a global trade environment

Obama supports Peru. Opposes CAFTA and South Korea. "Why hasn’t the United States supported the same rules as Japan." "

If you are not behaving properly … If you are not looking out for American workers.

China is supposed to look out for American workers? That is their problem?

Richardson on energy:

The future is renewable. … Turn Yucca Mountain into a national laboratory. … 30% of our electricity renewable. … American people sacrificing a little bit. [applause line]

Clinton. Piling on line.

I am not playing the gender card. I am playing the winning card. … They are not attacking me because I am a women. They are attacking me because I am ahead. … It is clear from women’s experiences that from time to time there are impediments.

Edwards:

Senator Clinton defends the system, takes money from lobbyists, etc. … But every one of us should be held to the same standard.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

More housing numbers

October 11, 2007 – 8:00 pm

Another month. More lousy housing numbers:

A total of 223,538 foreclosure filings were reported in September, up from 112,210 in the same month a year ago, according to Irvine-based RealtyTrac Inc.

The number of filings in September was down 8 percent from August’s 243,947, the firm said.

Sounds like it is getting better? That’s not what the realtors say:

"August was an extraordinarily high month for foreclosure activity, so some falloff was almost predictable," said Rick Sharga, RealtyTrac’s vice president for marketing. …

"We don’t see September as the beginning of the end in this cycle of foreclosures," Sharga said.

How bad?

Nevada reported one foreclosure filing for every 185 households, earning the state the highest foreclosure rate in the nation for the ninth month in a row. The state had 5,504 filings in September, down 11.1 percent from August and more than triple from September 2006.

Florida had one foreclosure filing for every 248 households. The state reported 33,354 foreclosure filings in September, down just less than 2 percent from August, but more than three times greater than September 2006’s total.

Chaos in high-growth swing-states.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Why foreclosures matter: The numbers are huge

August 1, 2007 – 5:30 am
State 1/x Households
in  Foreclosure		 # of Households
foreclosing		 Bush 04
margin
 		EVs Primary
Date
Nevada 40 25,208 21k 5 1/19
Colorado 60 34,287 100k 9 2/5
California 69 189,560 -1.2m 55 2/5
Michigan 80 55,896 -160k 17 1/26??
Florida 81 102,213 380k 27 1/29
Ohio 82 60,728 120k 20 3/??

I know that I keep harping on the housing market as an important issue in the 2008 election. Let’s look at some numbers from RealtyTrac’s first-half of 2007 report, just released on Monday, in the worst 6 states. (ranked by % of households in foreclosure) So that you can get a sense of the possible electoral impact of these numbers, I have also included the margin by which Bush won (or lost) these states, the number of electoral votes that these states have, and the primary date. Some things jump out:

  • In the first half of 2007, more houses moved into foreclosure than the number of votes that Bush won by. (Note also, that "households" probably is something like 1.3 adults)
  • In Ohio, the number of houses that moved into foreclosure is approximately the same size as Bush’s swing.

RealtyTrac believes that this pace of foreclosures could stay stable or increase over the remainder of the year:

“Despite a slight drop in June, foreclosure activity shows no sign of slowing down,” noted James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac. “Based on the rate of foreclosure activity in the first half of 2007, we could easily surpass 2 million foreclosure filings by the end of the year, which would represent a year-over-year increase of over 65 percent.”

So, if you assume another 6 months as bad as these 6 months (and that the rates stay relatively stable in these states), Florida, Colorado, and Michigan would have a number of foreclosing households greater than the swing of the 2004 election results in those states.

Now, I am not saying that these are all Republican voters. Indeed, many of them will not be. But, by and large, people who think that their incomes will go up tend to vote Republican. In any case, with these large numbers, it is clear that this has the potential to become an election issue. Furthermore, with Nevada, Michigan, and Florida having very early contests, there is a real chance that Presidential candidates will have to take positions on these issues.

Candidates will need a message on this. Maybe they will need policies. In any case, electorally significant numbers of people will be effected by this issue.

If I were really clever and had a message, I might even target these people. After all, you can buy their addresses. In Nevada, we are probably talking about enough numbers to win a caucus.

Tags: , , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Mortgage lender collapses; real estate prices continue to fall

July 31, 2007 – 4:05 pm

The big news today in housing is this, from Bloomberg:

American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. shares plunged 89 percent after the lender said it doesn’t have cash to fund new loans and may have to sell off assets. …

American Home caters to borrowers whose credit scores fall just short of standards for top-rated mortgages. The announcement provides fresh evidence that defaults may be spreading from subprime borrowers with the worst credit records to homeowners with more reliable repayment histories. The biggest U.S. mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial Corp., said last week overdue payments rose among some of its most creditworthy clients.

Shares of American Home, halted by the New York Stock Exchange before yesterday’s regular session, plummeted $9.32 from their July 27 close to $1.15 in 2:50 p.m. New York Stock Exchange composite trading. They changed hands at $6.39 in pre-market transactions yesterday. Two years ago, they fetched almost $40.

Banks pulled the money out because of fraud. Nice. Now the problem is that there is a second side to this. Housing prices are collapsing too. The Big Picture has the details, about among the hardest hit? Las Vegas, Miami, and Denver. Three swing states. Here’s their summary:

Pretty astonishing fall from the peak. And, based upon inventory levels and present sale rates, we are not remotely close to done.

Defaults and foreclosures. Falling house values. Those do not make for a good environment for economic optimism, which Republicans need to win elections.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

What is going to happen to the primary calendar?

April 24, 2007 – 8:54 am

As has been repeatedly noted, the primary calendar is strongly in flux. However, one of the most interesting questions is: what happens if New Hampshire moves up sharply, as I expect it will. Consider some facts:

  1. New Hampshire is committed (and empowered) to move up before, at least, Nevada, meaning that the latest it is held is probably Jan. 15th.
  2. Florida is committed by law to be one week after New Hampshire.
  3. The South Carolina GOP has committed to moving up to be the "First in the South" primary, which probably means before Florida, but after New Hampshire.
  4. The Michigan Dems have stated that if New Hampshire moves up too much, they will do something radical. And if they do, the Michigan GOP has committed to re-evaluating its date.

Perhaps the most important limiting factor here is that New Hampshire can call and hold elections very quickly. Once the ballots are printed, Bill Gardner can call an election almost whenever he wants. Therefore, New Hampshire will be technically capable of holding an election as early as early December. Would Florida be able to print ballots and hold on election on 4 weeks notice? Would the South Carolina GOP be able to do it on 3.5 weeks notice? What if the timing meant that candidates were campaigning over Christmas? (say NH holds it in mid-December, putting the FL and SC elections between Christmas and New Years) Would NV move up to hold caucuses the same day as SC? (they’ve never done caucuses like this before. Are they capable of doing that either legally or logistically?)

Those are merely logistical considerations. What happens when NV becomes irrelevant because it is competing for candidates time with SC and FL, both of which will have more delegates. Candidates will fly from NH to SC and FL.

Finally, what happens if people believe that we are approaching a brokered convention and every delegate will count?

I think that it is fair to say that the current calendar really is more a set of negotiating positions.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Global warming and the GOP

April 1, 2007 – 8:55 am

This post emerges from some a number of sources including some recent polls and articles that I will reference, some discussions with conservatives in other countries, and Rob Bluey’s recent blogger lunch on the topic.

Let me start with a summary of where the GOP candidates are on the issue.

As many know, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are clear proponents of the position that global warming is happening and caused by human activity. Of the second tier candidates, you have Mike Huckabee who is probably to the left of McCain and Giuliani.  Sam Brownback is also on the side of taking action to address global warming.

As usual, Mitt Romney is  straddling the fence of the issue, (list of quotes here) although his recent position suggests that he will be willing to cooperate with people in the party who are opposed to interventions. Although in his recent interview on Kudlow, he responds to a question about taxes and caps by only answering the tax question

And Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich are on the record as more skeptical, although I have heard that Thompson is closer to McCain. But I can’t find it.

So, the top tier of candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Romney) is split, with Thompson being the only real skeptic. And much of the serious 2nd tier is with or to the left of McCain and Giuliani. (more on this in a second)

Now, let me point to two other things. First, the Concord Monitor recently said:

In November and December, the Mellman Group surveyed likely Republican and Democratic voters, 400 of each, for two climate awareness groups: Clear the Air and the New Hampshire-based Clean Air-Cool Planet. Seventy percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats called global warming a serious threat, though smaller majorities in both parties said they believed it was a human byproduct. Ninety-six percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans said the United States should take action now to reduce emissions.

As of yesterday, 143 New Hampshire communities had approved language calling on Washington to take action to slow U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Eight towns had rejected it and at least 25 have yet to vote.

The Boston Globe’s Primary Source has more on the poll and the NYT has more on the New Hampshire towns. (a LOT of them are Republican towns)

Now some analysis. First, it is highly unlikely that this is a vote-moving issue for Republican primary voters. If it is really that important to a voter, the voter is probably a Democrat. However, this may be an issue that independents might cross-over on. Second, if anyone does, those votes are probably already going to McCain or Giuliani, so there may not be much incentive for other candidates to take strong positions in favor of some sort of government response.

However, as McCain’s town hall speech above indicates, this issue may have a different sort of traction in Iowa, where talking global warming is a way of talking about ethanol and corn subsidies. The combination of a subsidy hungry Iowa and a green New Hampshire may make a more green position. Furthermore, the (phony?) issue of oil independence gives another pressure and excuse to move to the middle. Also recent statements by the Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals may provide some cover, although the statements by Dobson show that there will be pushback. (incidentally, I still don’t know what it means that the candidates filling the Christian conservative space are with the religious groups but not the conservative groups on this issue. It reminds me of immigration)

Another issue that McCain brought up is nuclear energy. In the UK, the Labour party has used nuclear as a way to square the circle of lower emissions and more energy. However, the presence of Nevada in the early primary calendar, along with a Senate Majority Leader from that state, makes it highly unlikely that the Dems are going to be moving much.

In conclusion, the front runners on the GOP side seem to be open to the idea of government intervention on the issue of global warming. This may move the party to the middle on the issue. At the same time time, the Dems are probably stuck with an anti-nuclear position until some alternative to Yucca Mountain emerges.

Tags: , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (3)

More on primary dates

March 27, 2007 – 1:44 pm

Regular readers will know that one of my favorite topics is the primary calendar. Fascinating things are afoot.

First, on Straight Talk Express, an experienced party hack told me that smart New Hampshire money is now on a December primary. As I have discussed before, New Hampshire and Bill Gardner are committed to preserving New Hampshire’s first in the nation primary. And they are fully prepared to interpret a Nevada caucus as in contradiction with that.

Second, in today’s Politico, the South Carolina state chair used similar language to protect their position:

“We will change our date as often as we have to to remain the first-in-the-South primary,” vowed state Republican Party chairman Katon Dawson.

“We have a proud eight-year history when it comes to selecting our nominee,” Dawson said. “We’re determined to protect it,” even if that means pushing the primary up to October.

Note that in South Carolina, scheduling and running the primary is a party perogative.

And third, in today’s Hill, there’s an article about the RNC’s credentials rules. The meat of the issue is:

The rules, which are supposed to be automatic, require that states lose either half or 90 percent of their delegates, including their three RNC representatives, if they do not hew to the RNC primary schedule. If a state waits especially long before declaring its primary date, a small state like New Hampshire could be left with fewer than five delegates.

The article goes on to note that the politics of this are such that delegations will likely be seated anyways because states moving up gives them power to demand promises from candidates:

“Every candidate will be asked: New Hampshire runs to the risk of a penalty because of when its primary is — will you pledge that if you’re the nominee, you will work to see that the entire New Hampshire delegation is seated?” said a New Hampshire Republican source. “My guess is they’re all going to say yes to that.”

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Nevada GOP settles on a date

March 5, 2007 – 1:15 pm

Feb. 7. That’s kind of weird.

But the logic is sound. If February 5th does not end the nomination battle, Nevada gets the first bite at the apple.

In the end, I think that Nevada is very good for both Mitt Romney and John McCain. It has both a large Mormon and large military population. Although, I wonder if the military voters will have the time to go to a caucus. On the other hand,I hear from my NV friends that Jim Gibbons is a McCain supporter, as was his campaign manager and perhaps the leading NV operative, Sid Rogich.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Democrat primary calendar about more than diversity

August 24, 2006 – 8:32 am

A professor at the University of New Hampshire has an interesting op-ed in today’s WaPo about the New Hampshire Primary and the recent shift of the primary schedule by the Democrats. A lot of attention has been focused on the racial/diversity issue, which was the argument that the DNC used to move up Nevada. But the point that I found interesting was this:

But unlike Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina, New Hampshire has a strong, broad-based economy with a significant concentration of high-tech companies and global exporters. In many respects its economy represents the nation’s (hoped-for) economic future. It’s a very good place for candidates to test out economic ideas and principles and to learn from workers and entrepreneurs.

In the past quarter-century, New Hampshire’s economy has been transformed. Its economic base has changed from traditional manufacturing to concentration in high technology and skilled professional services. It has improved in rank among the states in per capita income from 25th to sixth. It has been the strongest economic performer in New England, with the region’s fastest growth rates in employment, gross state product and exports. New Hampshire consistently has among the lowest rates of unemployment and poverty.

This is in contrast with Nevada, whose caucuses are dominated by the hotel workers union, according to Hotline’s Chuck Todd:

[Edwards] close ties to the hotel labor workers give him an interesting leg up in Nevada.

…

Consider the first three states in the Democratic schedule: two are caucuses (Iowa and Nevada) whose very nature favors liberals (Nevada also proved how liberal its primary electorate is in their most recent primary for governor) …

…

Rants against New Hampshire aside, there seems to be one giant unintended consequence of this early primary calendar jiggering: shifting the Democratic primary balance of power to the left.

As for electability, Edwards should be considered too liberal to win a general.

In other words, the new schedule emphasizes the low-skilled service workers at the expense of high-skilled aspirational information workers. And it favors economic populists over candidaes more in touch with aspirational voters.

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)