The usually definitively “cool” Obama got visibly upset in a press conference immediately after Boehner walked out. Boehner himself became angry during a meeting where he told members of his party to “get your ass in line.” Leadership on both sides struggle to cope with fundamental economic governance. To everyone’s dismay, even on the brink of oblivion the real work was not done. Structural changes to entitlements were abandoned and changes to revenues were beat into the ground before they even stood up. Instead of taking advantage of the manufactured crisis in a way that actually addressed the problems our country faces, our legislators yet again opted to claim a political victory rather than a practical one.

Mitch McConnell’s cards revealed his only true motivator: political power. His offering during talks was nothing more than a shallow political victory for Republicans. His willingness to abandon the possibility of reform that is desperately needed is atrocious.

The agreement that was eventually reached is, in essence, an agreement to deal with our problems later. It assigns the responsibility to determine what easy cuts can be made to a future super committee. But the cuts are still going to be made to the “easy” money. Being able to make just those cuts took us to the edge of financial collapse. What needs to happen before we reform entitlements and the tax code? How loud does the wheel need to squeak!?

America is in trouble if our political system continues to fail to take the steps, while potentially politically unpopular, almost everyone agrees needs to be taken. We have kicked too many cans down the road for a long time and we are currently facing the consequences. Despite trillions in government spending, we are nowhere near economic recovery. GDP growth has slowed to the point were even the models being used by legislators on The Hill during the crisis were likely too high. Job growth is nowhere it needs to be (we are not even covering population growth) and everyone who implies otherwise is plainly lying. Youth unemployment is so high that my generation will likely be primarily be the known for its remarkable aptitude to be overqualified, over-educated, and yet unemployed. The problems before us are not unsolvable, but they require decisive action that seems impossible now and simply cannot wait for a more favorable future. It is my terrible fear that the crossroads where we could have made a difference is far behind us.

Obama has said many times, and there have been consistent reports confirming, that changes to entitlement programs were on the negotiation table. This is an important step in the negotiation process, and it solidifies my opinion of Obama as a primarily moderate Democrat. Despite this supposed compromise, it is unclear if his willingness to put entitlements on the table is actually a willingness to really reform entitlement programs so that they are made fundamentally sustainable. Raising the age of retirement and other similar reforms are like duct tape on a leaky pipe, and do not offer the kind of long term change we need. Nonetheless, even without substantial structural changes in entitlement programs the amount of cuts that are on the table, and our desperate need for them, makes this deal one Republicans should not be walking away from.

Potentially cutting programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is unpopular, among both Democratic politicians and the public at-large alike. But there is no way to be serious about spending reduction without going after entitlement programs. They make up too much of the budget to ignore, and are growing at a rapid and unsustainable rate.

MSNBC TV host Ed Schultz likes to point out that 80% of Americans do not want entitlements on the table. He wants Obama to take entailments off the table. This is the kind of thoughtless populism that liberals love to criticize the Tea Party for.

Not touching entitlements would mean not even touching half of government spending. It means letting these programs alone exceed government revenues in less than 20 years. Most of all it means letting programs that were designed in the 1940s continue without major fundamental changes in how we deliver services to Americans. Entitlement reform is an issue in which many Democrats take a turn at mindlessly clinging onto the past without considering that there might be better, fairer, and more efficient alternatives. Obama’s willingness to face the massive political resistance against even touching the “big three” demonstrates seriousness about deficit reduction that cannot be argued with. But some still try to.

Conservative commentators such as Charles Krauthammer have been consistently criticizing President Obama for being sanctimonious. Krauthammer makes a good, and true point that Obama was not the one who originally pushed for deficit reduction, and that it was the Republicans who made this a possibility. Now the President is calling for a “big deal” and blaming the Republicans for not compromising to his idea of what should be in a deal. Also, when put into context of the rest of his domestic policy reforms it seems almost ludicrous that Obama is now transforming himself into some sort of deficit hawk. But it is the role of the moderate not to take a hard line, or even ideologically consistent road every single year. At the end of the day, the fundamental aspects of the big deal that have been proposed are good for America. Reducing our deficit means we can obtain a surplus and eventually start paying down our debt. That is money that could be otherwise be education dollars, infrastructure dollars, or even tax cuts. The closing of “tax loopholes,” and a small increase in top marginal tax rates are not my ideal tax reforms for generating revenue, but these are tenable in such a compromise. We should not question the authenticity of Obama’s desire to cut the deficit – we should just do it.

Not even a year has gone by, yet Wikileaks and founder Jullian Assange have been all but sterilized by events catalyzed by the United States government. Rather than attempting to beat Wikileaks on the digital battlegrounds they focused on the what is generally the weakest part of any organization – the human elements. This even applies to Assange, who had been notoriously personally courageous by putting his name, his personal safety, and really his entire being on the line for Wikileaks. But courage and one’s willingness to live out of a duffel bag is fleeting. The United States forced the the man to live like fugitive, something which he was certainly not accustom to. Feeling the net growing inevitably smaller Assange threw himself into the arms of the mainstream, and handed the United States a victory when he turned himself in.

Now in the light of the mainstream the United States could begin to take actions directly against Assange and Wikileaks in ways it was more familiar with. Some kind of high profile trial was not a good option, as it would further fan the flame public controversy. Instead, efforts would focus on cutting of Wikileak’s network of support, one limb at a time. Even organizations like Wikileaks must rely on large institutions, of which (as the largest and most powerful institution) the US has great influence over. The US could shut off a great deal of financial support by asking credit card companies, and PayPal to stop donations to Wikileaks. As for Assange himself, the goal would be to put him into a purgatory of sorts. This would turn Assange into a shadow of the man he once was. Now forced to live under house arrest, and check into a police station daily, he quickly lost his appeal as a symbol of courage and as a titillating news story. There would be no grand court case for reporters to cover, no official vindication or vilification, no story about an exciting international chase. Instead, there was an obviously farcical, and therefore boring case concerning allegations of rape and potential extradition.  In the end, the United States defeated Wikileaks by taking away its main asset – its ability to drum up hugely mainstream public controversy. This is death by masterful Public Relations.

Did you know there were hearings on Assange’s extradition on July 12-13th?

Wikileaks is slowly fading into the background. They have not broken headlines in recent memory. This is despite notable events: Visa accidentally opening up donations to Wikileaks, and progress being made on Assange’s legal status. Just a couple of months ago these stories would have been front-page news. Now they do not even reach the fringes of news aggregators, never mind front-page status. Ultimately it was the United States’ moves to bring Assange into the light of day, and to “let sleeping dogs lie” which proved to be the most successful. This may end up being an impressive story of the US’s ability to actually face the rapidly changing nature of national security threats via competent, nuanced, and nimble reactions. This is, of course, opposed to its typical lumbering, leviathan-esque ground pounding. Future efforts in the Muslim community, and the long-term result of Assange’s purgatory will be the real tests.

The Obama administration has been punctuated by a series of policy crises. This is the second huge, fiscal, and time sensitive piece of legislation that the administration has led through congress. Like the last one (the FY11 budget) this effort has had several weeks of front page news coverage, tremendous partisan opposition, and misleading rhetoric on both sides. Last time this all eventually culminated in very public last minute Cuban Missile Crisis -esque compromises made by leadership. Like passing the budget, the raising of the debt ceiling is an ordinary legislative event that has been utilized by the Republican Party. The raising of the debt ceiling simply must be done. There is no alternative. Yet, to the bafflement of most observers, the GOP has been threatening to left the United default on the debt. They want any bill that will raise the debt ceiling to include measures that will substantively address our fiscal problems. Such measures demand massive compromises on both sides, with each party wetting their palms and firmly grabbing onto their own respective political third rails.

Democrats have to grapple with entitlement reform (social security and medicare). Entitlement programs make up the largest share of the budget and have been growing unsustainably.

Republicans have to drop the "spending problem not a revenue problem" line. Federal tax collection has not been this low since the 1950s. Increasing taxes on the richest Americans is good policy (taking a stab at massive wealth inequality) and most americans support it.*

Not raising the debt ceiling is the unthinkable, and would result in a financial catastrophe of unimaginable long term and irreversible consequences. There are those who think that this public posturing  by GOP leadership may be as a result of the Tea Party injecting itself into the party’s politics. New York Times Columnist David Brooks says that is could be because the Republican Party has become “an odd protest movement” full of “fanatics.” Others have come to similar conclusions, calling the GOP’s willingness to threaten doing that which would ultimately bring about horrible consequences to everyone, a mark of insanity.

The behavior of the Republican Party reminds me of the “madman theory” employed by Nixon in his attempts to end the war in Vietnam. The most important military asset of the United States at that time was the potential power of its massive nuclear arsenal. Actual usage of nuclear weapons was a terrible option, and when it was suggested in the Korean War by General MacAruther, President Truman fired the hero of World War Two. Probably realizing the horrible consequences of actually using nuclear weapons, Nixon set out to take advantage of the potential use of nuclear weapons. The President wanted the Vietnamese leadership to think that he had become so obsessed with winning in Vietnam that he would be willing to do the unthinkable in order obtain victory. President Nixon thought that this would secure for him an extremely powerful position at the negotiation table. This obviously ultimately did not work, but it is a classic Machiavellian principle of posturing in negotiations, and today’s Republican strategists are now using it to great effect.

The way Washington gets things done is not pretty. The rhetoric used on both sides generally confuses the reality of the issue at hand. But at the end of the day this kind of extremist rhetoric seems to be the only way the beltway has figured out how to allow compromise laden sausage making occur. This is a Washington that has seen long-term problems (debt, entitlement, marginal tax rates) completely ignored by congressional action, so this could be a good thing. But it is truly unfortunate that even the most necessary fiscally responsible governing has to come with such radical rhetoric and threats. Having the conversation is better than nothing at all, but I have serious doubts that we are going to see legislation that is going to substantially improve our nation’s fiscal situation.

*This CBS/NYT poll has 72% of americans saying that taxes should be raised on households making more than $250k. Perhaps the threshold should be higher, but the public opinion principle  is the same.

Today I found that Brooks and Friedman have essentially done the same. They find absolutely no hope in the momentum of today’s political movements. As one would expect, their articles were far more articulate than my own, but their relatively unified message is striking. Both are intellectual columnists and authors, but both are also generally at odds with each other; Friedman sitting on left, and Brooks planting himself on the right. But today I think they would find, as many of us would, that we have more in common with each other than we once thought.

Both political camps have been fighting with ever increasing sensensationalization that has no end in sight. Any and every story has become a weapon of political activism, and the news meida loves it. Accuracy, stability, and context have been sacrificed because of reliable ability of ideological drum beating to drive up ratings. As a result the mainstream of our politics resembles a truly confusing hall of mirrors. This is nothing new, but we are fast approaching a point of crisis.

Today the most trusted newsman in America is Jon Stewart. He comes from the center left, but no one is exempt from his pointed profiles of the absurd and hilarious. It is obvious why people are so attracted to The Daily Show. Stewart’s monologues and research often have more sublime historical perspective and accuracy than the bombing throwing pundits and leaders of today. Everyone public and political is (and ought to be) threatened by the potential that Stewart will make them look foolish.

Jon Stewart's recent appearance on Fox News with Chris Wallace. Stewart touches on his place in the media: "And what I do? That’s the embarrassment. The embarrassment is that I’m given credibility in this world because of the disappointment that the public has in what the news media does."

Stewart is a politically chargedJerry Seinfeld. He’s the manifestation of our sensible inner monologue, focused at our political leaders. He reminds us that we are not the crazy ones, that in fact that the people we watch every day are crazy as we quietly suspected. The rise of Stewart is not insignificant, and to ignore him is a huge mistake.

Friedman rightly claims that radical sensationalism and perpetual contrarianism has made American Presidents terrifyingly ineffectual. Brooks complains that the current policies being promoted by both sides are “unimaginative” and “incommsumerate” with our current problems. How right he is. Left dejected and unenthused by the options at hand, both offer an alternative third way. Both walk their respective ideological line with their suggestions, but their hypothetical platforms are closer to each other than they are to the mainstream flag wavers of the political parties they so despise.

The political alignment of the extremes in class are relatively obvious. The poor want a net of safety to catch them as the hurdle towards the ground. The very rich want to protect their assets and stamp out any force that may threaten those assets, such as high taxes, industry crippling regulation, or any other structural changes to the economic status quo. As a result these two groups become the loudest voices within the political landscape, despite being small minorities.

The wealthier end of the middle class will find that they really do not feel so wealthy after all. They do not receive any of the benefits that their poorer neighbors receive, and are expected to what feels like a tremendous amount of their earnings into the system. Any increase in the portion that they are expected to contribute is seen as a serious threat to their quality of life. The poorer classes are somewhat reliant on government services. They are not on the streets, but are most likely only just making their monthly payments.  There is no way they could compensate for a reduction of government services and any attack on those services is seen as a serious threat to their quality of life.

The malaise’d middle classes are thus given two ends of the spectrum with which to align themselves, both of which generally do not represent a platform that will actually benefit them. At the end of the day the net political force exerted is towards: lower taxes and more government services. Sound familiar? This is good for the poor as they receive more services. This is also obviously good for the extremely rich, any government reforms (including tax cuts) enacted as a result of the negotiations for those services most likely allowed larger profits for big companies. Those profits will go directly into the already massive compensation packages of the ultra wealthy, and with less taxes no less. The big loser here is the middle class.

The middle class doesn’t benefit too much from the modest cut, they do not make enough to make the savings all that substantial. The middle class does not own a big company, and will not see any of the money from the large profits. The middle class does not benefit greatly from an increase in services, because they were not very reliant on them to begin with. What the middle class does receive is the economic repercussions of the absolutely awful combination of policies it just advocated for: deficit spending, a stagnated pay scale, inflation, and high unemployment. But most of all, they ought to be horrified by the resulting decrease in real wealth that they face. The rich have more, the poor even have more, and the self reliant middle class receives less despite working more.

This is only one aspect of the aching squeeze on the middle class.

If you were president after the 1990s the clear answer to this most problematic question is actually relatively simple: Have you addressed the federal government’s deficit/debt? As always, addressing the deficit means changing one of two things:  revenue & spending. The majority of revenue comes in from taxes, and the majority of spending goes out in the form of entitlements. Those are what need to be changed, and the ability to change those programs will determine success vs. failure.

Bush failed.

Bush cut taxes for the upper class and the ultra wealthy. Bush passed no meaningful entitlement or tax reform. His tax cut made things worse for virtually everyone. Even the wealthy, whom ostensibly benefited from a direct tax reduction, will likely be indirectly hurt by the lack of funds now available for infrastructure. Then again, if the Democrats had that additional revenue it wouldn’t be going towards infrastructure…but it certainly should be.

Real tax reform would have come in the form of reformulated tax brackets, simplified tax expenditures (incentives/benefits in the form of tax breaks), and a wholesale replacement of our system of corporate taxation. The ultra wealthy need to be taxed much more, and the system needs to be simple enough that tax avoidance becomes an extraordinary thing (and not something almost universally practiced). Currently, those who would provide us with the greatest amount of revenue are the same as people who can afford the elite wizards of tax avoidance. They make your tax liability disappear, and because their fee is less than your potential liability you essentially get money for nothing. Thus, I am confident in saying that our tax system is about as effective at generating revenue as war on drugs has been in preventing teenagers from smoking cannabis.

Bush attempted to reform Social Security. But his proposal did not address the major problems that make Social Security insolvent, and extended the central principals that keep Social Security on a path that is pointed directly towards insolvency. It was a bad idea, and it got no support.

Bush’s most significant contribution to our colossal health care entitlement liability: Piling on a pharmaceutical entitlement. This program is an obscene expenditure totaling close to a trillion dollars a year, and its cost will continue to grow. It’s unjustifiable corporate welfare, and it’s turning our healthcare system in to a huge drug-dealing scheme. And it will be impossible to ever get rid of.

When Obama became president I had hoped that he might be able to provide the kind of consensus building atmosphere that would allow for dramatic reform. Yes he could. I overlooked the childish claims of a new era of government transparency, doubling the peace corps, increasing taxes on capital gains, toughness against corporations/special interest influence, and his promise to end the war/close Guantanamo. I knew that he knew, that America’s real success in the next century would be determined by our ability to dramatically reform government programs so that they would be financially viable.

Thus far, Obama has failed. But I still have… “hope.”

Setting aside any constitutional objections that I might have to national health care policies, a national plan has the potential to save money, contain costs, and provide a social good. Tort reform is an obvious cost reducer. Incentivizing preventative primary care, and making it widely available reduces the unhealthy people we need to spend money on. Modernizing aspects of our health care infrastructure is also a “no brainer.” Keeping health care providers honest by making service shopping like shopping for anything else enacts powerful free market forces. However, the most important reform is the implementation of empathetic, but reality driven rationing of government monies for health care services.

Obama’s plan only does some of these things, and not the most important ones. Still, I gave him some kudos for trying. And then I remembered 2009.

The Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a slap in my face. I am not a Von Hayek purist, and the idea of stimulus spending to cover the output gap caused by a recession did not have me reaching for my pitchfork. But the fact that 12% of the spending went towards infrastructure had me scratching my head. When I learned that the biggest component of the stimulus spending went towards tax relief I lost a lot of respect for our president as a pragmatist.

Infrastructure is one of the most important jobs of government – no one else can do it. It helps everyone by reducing corporate costs, improving economic capability, creating jobs, and covering the output gap. Most importantly our need for infrastructure funding is tremendous (some estimate close to 2.2 trillion), and it will never go away or get better by itself. Here in Massachusetts 80% of our bridges are structurally unsound or utterly obsolete. Government is failing to do its most fundamental job.

We threw our precious stimulus capital into the black pit of tax breaks, and social welfare programs that will simply have to make due when the money dries up. This practice is not new, not hip, and it is part of the trend that is making the United States lose its competitive edge in nearly everything globally (expect for military spending). Fundamentally it comes down to our politicians having a decade long preference for shortsighted social wealth redistribution that precludes investment into what will benefit everyone in the long run.

Obama is a liberal sounding centrist. Philosophically he can accept some of the deep cuts that will be proposed by the Republicans. In return, Obama should ask for means tested entitlement spending, and substantive tax reform that places a heavier burden on the ultra wealthy. Doing so will dramatically change where and why money comes from and where it goes. Doing so will increase revenue, decrease spending, and it should allow us to start paying off the debt.

If President Obama can somehow push through such a massive compromise, he will have a successful presidency. However, the outlook for such a compromise is not great.

Enjoy the government shutdown on Friday!

This underground subculture has more or less left alone, albeit sporadic lawsuits against some of the more brazen among them. This is largely because crimes like piracy do not directly impact the public at-large, nor do they incite ethical outrage. More importantly, there is a silent recognition that any attempt to address these concerns would require an impractical amount of resources. There might also be a concern among those more ethically inclined not to throw out the baby of free information with the bath water of spam, scams, hackers, and pirates. But short of that, historically the approach of the government has been to draw a clear line in the sand of illegality (e.g. you can not break into banks) and put forth tremendous repercussions for anyone who crosses that line. This has worked, and will continue to. These individuals might enjoy the sense of adventure from living a life of gray legality, they the vast majority of them are not even profiting from their pursuits. Many of them are fully employed, live relatively normal lives, and are terrified of crossing the government’s line. But in this case, the government needs to realize that they need to move their line.

The US government’s response to Wikileaks shows the utter inability of the government to stop this from happening. In the past week they have been flailing at the low hanging fruit as means of retribution, the result has been a disaster. Pressuring large corporations (eBay) who have a lot to lose, to shut down their pay pal account only means that those who wish to donate have to rely on the four other ways to donate. As if that was not ineffective enough, they have decided to remove federal employee access to Wikileaks. This way they will have to wait until their shift is over to peruse the leaked embassy wires? At least they got good press that does not make the administration seem like it is exploring censorship policies evocative of those in China. Further pressuring corporations to cease cooperation with the ‘outlaws’ acted only in slightly awaking the sleeping giant which is the underground internet to respond by putting up hundreds of mirrors of the site (a carbon copy of the website) in a matter of hours.. What the government needs to realize is that these acts may cause a temporary inconvenience to some, their lack of effectively to accomplish virtually anything is beyond question. Furthermore, if the potential danger of the information that has and will continue to be leaked is, as characterized by the government, then they need to realize the implications of such actions. If they continue to escalate, the underground internet’s almost militaristic response will grow exponentially as soon as they feel at all threatened, or see an ethical violation on the part of the government. The putting up of 200 mirrors is but a paltry example of the capacity of the thousands, and perhaps millions of individuals acting in a massive retributive capacity only possible on the internet. The government needs to accept is that it will not, and cannot stop Wikileaks. Furthermore, despite the potential emasculation inherent, they must realize that further acts of aggression will absolutely not have a net positive result towards their end goal.

How is it possible that basement dwelling nerds with computers can challenge the world’s undisputed military and economic super power? I assume most people are totally unaware of the existence or the nature of what I’ve been referring to as the “underground internet.” Albeit the spooky nickname, these are generally informal networks of individuals which exist for nearly every purpose imaginable. Many of them exist miles away from the ‘basement dwelling’ stereotype. Some are more mainstream, while others are much more secretive and can even have a criminal element to them. What most powerfully unites these otherwise disconnected individuals is a somewhat common ethical code. For example, piracy is not wrong as long as you pay for what you really like i.e., trying is not stealing. Like any other society, violation of an ethical code can lead to moral outrage en masse. Doing that means getting a lot of talented people, who generally have a large amount of free time, outraged.

In this regard, the internet has never been fully mobilized. About two years ago a partial mobilization peaked against the Church of Scientology. As an institution which is foundationally concerned with the protection and careful distribution of secret knowledge, a leak a la Wikileaks would have been a nightmare for Scientology. And that is exactly what happened. An enormous amount of ‘secret’ information about Scientology was published online, despite the best efforts of the church. It should be telling that a group of ‘kids on the internet’ got away with an attack on the fundamental integrity of  an international organization which is generally known for having a ‘moral flexibility’ when dealing with outside threats. But what happened to Scientology really is fun and games compared the potential response Wikileaks could garner.

As far as I can tell, support for and interest in Wikileaks founder Julian Assange by internet denizens is second to none. He fundamentally represents this underground network, because he is one of them. Many might object to his motives, and his methods. But that is relatively unimportant. What is important is that this Australian, with the worst hair cut ever, and his skeleton crew have bested the United States government. These are highly skilled, highly motivated individuals, and there are many more like them who will come to the aid of Wikileaks if it is attacked. The broad appeal of Wikileaks has the ability inspire legions of capable people to fight in response to a case of ethical outrage. This is the nightmare scenario. This is a danger that I suspect no one in the Washington beltway fully understands. But they need to before a mistake is made. Right now the battle is contained, and focused by the leadership of Mr. Assange. As uncomfortable as we should be by the notion of being at the mercy of the ethical character of someone we did not vote for, it is far better than being at the mercy of the ethical scruples of the anonymous actions of thousands of internet activists. If the latter occurs we can be sure that the relative restraint and the responsibility Mr. Assange has exercised will not be continued. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the ailment. Thus was the case with alcohol. Some argue it is the case with drugs. This will undoubtedly prove to be the case concerning information.

There are limits to what the government can do to address even the gravest threats. This is an unsettling notion to be sure, but despite our delusional willingness to give the government traits of Orwellian omnipresence, such is not the case.  The more willing we are to assume any and all solutions must come from government hands, the more subject to authoritarianism we are. As a United States citizen I am opposed to anything that might hurt our government’s ability to operate and meet legitimate goals. But as a student of history, and an actor with a primary regard for ethics, I see the inherent value of reminding everyone the limits of government power. The lesson that government will not be the solution to the most difficult problems is just so damn important. While there are clear limitations to this (it is certain that I am no anarchist), perhaps the very public bloodying of several government noses now and then can be a good thing.

Wikileaks has the potential to make the fourth estate a real force once more. But like anything powerful, it can also be very dangerous.

California: CA

Senate

Boxer v. Fiorina

Winner: Boxer

Fiorina hasn’t had the momentum in the polls that I would like to see, but she has been an effective campaigner up until now defeating some of old school CA politicians. Boxer has made some real gaffs that hurt her character, and Fiorina is attractive to the wealth in CA, which somewhat recently elected a Republican Governor. But none recent polls have Boxer out pacing Fiorina by a very healthy margin.

Colorado: CO

Senate

Buck v. Bennet

Winner: Bennet

Despite buck’s consistent lead in the polls, Bennet shows a tremendous amount of positive momentum. Consequently buck has seen his number drop significantly in recent weeks. However, the republican primary in this state had over 70 thousand more votes than the democratic primary. What tips this to Bennet for me is his superior financial position in combination with his momentum will push him over the edge

Illinois: IL

Senate

Krik v Giannoulias

Winner: Kirk

Ahhhhh, the seat of the nationally beloved Roland Burris. First off the democratic primary had nearly 150k more votes in it. Fundraising is on Kirk’s side, Giannoulias is thousands in debt, and Kirk has a good deal of cash on hand. Both candidates have been fairly combative in debates that I’ve seen and seem almost childish. The polling on this race reflects this kind of back and forth, with Rasmussen showing the lead changing hands several times. Money + a decent margin in the polls makes me give this to Kirk.

Kentucky: KY

Senate

Paul v Conway

Winner: Paul

This race is made most interesting by the virtue of Dr. Rand Paul’s presence. He’s a pure ideological libertarian conservative, and has attracted a tremendous amount of attention because of it. Paul has been ahead in this race since day one. He enjoys a minor fundraising advantage as well. Frankly Paul has an national presence, and a mandate stamped with the tea party’s insignia. I personally don’t like Conway’s use of the aqua baby story, and I don’t think it will resonate with any independents, which is what Conway needs.  This one is in the bank for Paul.

Nevada: NV

Senate

Angle v. Reid

Winner: Angle

Ever since angle has become a viable candidate money has poured into Nevada in an attempt to de-seat Reid and of course to defend him. Reid has spent a ton of money and as of the last report has nearly 4 times as much cash on hand as angle. Angle’s current polling lead is minor, but the race is still tight. However a look at the general trend of the poll numbers shows clear momentum for Angle.

Pennsylvania: PA

Senate

Toomey v. Sestak

Winner: Toomey

Toomey has had a healthy margin in this race for the past two months. Toomey has almost double the cash on hand, and did show a small lead recently. Most of this is in the MOE. If the republicans are as successful as expected this race will be won because Sestak is totally beholden to his connection to Obama.

West Virginia

Senate

Raese v manchin

Winner: Manchin

With almost all other basic indicators being fairly equal, Raese has borrowed his way into viability. He’s almost 3 million dollars and debt and down in the polling numbers.

Washington

Senate

Johnson v finegold

Winner: Johnson

Johnson has been significantly up on the polls since the beginning of the month, and that doesn’t seem apt to change any time soon.

Massachusetts

House

Massachusetts 10^th

Keating v. Perry

Winner: Perry

This is actually a very close race, and very exciting! Who would have imagined Frank’s district would be labeled as a Toss Up by anyone? Perry has been riding the Brown coattails well and is within striking distance from Keating. The major chink in the Perry armor has been a scandal regarding a strip search. While it has gotten some major media attention it certainly hasn’t slowed down Perry from making impressive inroads with independents. I’m going to sleep on this one.

Okay I’m awake. After looking around at what Perry has put out, I have to say I don’t really love the messaging his campaign has put forth, its standard republican populism. But I really don’t think that the negative stuff about Perry has resonance. I think this one comes down to election day boots on the ground. Perry’s experience with the brown campaign might bring this one home for him. I’m going to give it to him by a nose.

Massachusetts 6^th

Hudak v. Tierney

Dem hold

Massachusetts 4^th

Dem hold

Governor

Baker v. Patrick

Winner: Patrick if there is medium to high turnout. Less than 3 point margin.
A race near and dear to my heart. As much as I love and support Charlie Baker, and I do, I have to say that this one is not an open and shut case. Charlie Baker is one of the most promising candidates I’ve ever seen in my short time paying attention to politics. He strikes me as a Massachusetts version of New Jersey’s Chris Christie. As a candidate I think he deserves to win, but plenty of people disagree with me on that. What almost everyone agrees with, unfortunately, is that the Baker campaign has been ineffective in establishing a name for Charlie Baker with Massachusetts independents.

The Tim Cahill debacle

One of the most defining features of this race has been the addition of a third party candidate. Tim Cahill’s now utterly defunct campaign has been a very painful thorn in the side of Republican Charlie Baker since the start of this race. Both GOP and Dem camps knew that a standard race between Baker and Patrick would have meant an early retirement for the Governor. However Cahill’s attempt to capture the residual tea party momentum meant moving to the right of Republican Charlie Baker. This meant a splitting of the anti-deval vote and enthusiasm, and it also meant a two front war for Charlie. The initial solution came in the form of RGA sponsored ads which pummeled Cahill into the ground and utterly destroyed any viability he might have had as a candidate. After it became apparent the Cahill candidacy was not longer viable almost every senior member of the Cahill staff jumped ship, some even heading for greener pastures with Baker. The resulting media frenzy surrounding accusations of illegal corroboration hurt Baker way more than Deval. It tarnished his partially defined name, and distracted from Baker’s number one job of effectively nailing Deval to a wall. This has been one of the worst messaging challenges the Baker campaign has faced, but it is uncertain how they might have handled it differently.

Media buys

Simply put, the negative attacks against Baker by the Patrick camp have been tremendously effective at tarnishing the name of Charlie Baker. While I personally find most of the accusations to be relatively dishonest, they are undoubtedly good rhetoric. The Baker camp hasn’t effectively done what the Patrick camp has done, which is to simplify their negative messages into clear, and thematically recognizable attacks that resonate with voters. It seems that they’ve identified and gone after too many of Patrick’s soft spots, and that has resulted in incoherency.

If you talk to someone right next to you they should be able to identify a connection between the big dig and Charlie Baker. Now ask them about the connection between Deval Patrick and Ameriquest. I’m willing to wager they wont have an answer, and that is huge problem for an anti-incumbent.

Horse Race

The standard horse race indicators are not friendly to Charlie. The republican challenger has yet to breech Deval’s lead in the polls. While the lead is within the MOE it has been consistent and demonstrates a clear lean towards Deval. While most handicappers had this race as a ‘toss up’ for a long time, several have moved it back to the left into the ‘lean dem’ category. Recently the Baker camp came out with an internal poll, an interesting news making tool which they have used several times, which showed Baker with a healthy lead. However, the whole thing came off like a disingenuous ploy to demonstrate momentum and viability, and I think that is what it was. Both Deval and Charlie have come out swinging the last months and have almost entirely emptied their war chests. That part of the campaign is over, and both sides have made their final strategic moves.

Conclusion

Unfortunately the horse race indicators tell a story that I agree with. Baker came into the race as an unknown and had the opportunity to define himself however he wished. The outcome of this race was always going to be determined by how that process went, and it seems that the Deval camp recognized that and went for the jugular early on. The Patrick camp has been successful at making clear negative attacks including an attempt to connect Baker to the big dig, criticism for the negative ads against Cahill, and somehow turning Baker’s tenure at Harvard Pilgrim into a negative (maybe). They have had a negative flavor for every taste of independent voter, and its worked. Baker’s unfavorables have shot up, and I think exactly that development is the key indicator that he simply will not be able to attract the independents crucial for a decisive victory.

Despite all this I am left to conclude that this race would still be winnable for Mr. Baker. Massachusetts is energized towards the right and the massive growth within the GOP’s state apparatus as a result of the Scott Brown win should count for a lot on election day. However, a cursory glance at the Patrick GOTV strategy reveals a new version of the old style ‘organizer’ or ‘town captain’ field strategy (an idea which I suspect they got from former governor Michael Dukakis). I think this kind of strategy is going to be fairly effective, and the Democrats are good at this. With no saving grace left to hold on to I’m forced, reluctantly, to give the race to the incumbent governor by the slimmest of margins. Patrick better hope it doesn’t rain.

Congress Overall:

I think the republicans are going to take the house, ending up with roughly 55 checks in the ‘gain’ column. However the Democrats will hold the Senate with a 2-3 seat majority.

But even if I can sympathize with the view, it does not mean I share it. For instance, I can understand why Palestinians feel such a deep hatred towards the Jews, but that does not mean I share their position or think that their actions are acceptable. I think that it’s human nature to embrace an “us vs. them” mindset. It helps to clarify one’s position in the world, because sometimes it is easier to define something by what it is not. But we as a society can move away from that lizard brain reaction and desire, and instead strive for what we all know is the ultimate goal (peace, end of conflict) then it makes it easier for everyone. But instead, the mainstream media, and really most media with large appeal simply can’t entertain complex ethical conundrums about what kind of information they are reporting to such a degree.

The modern media’s “should we report this?” flow chart would likely only contain  ”Will this make the company money?” and a “will this get me in trouble” steps, with little regard to how the information presented effects America’s knowledge of anything. However if “will this give viewers greater insight into the issue at hand” was the main concern then our political news cycle would not be so beholden to visceral movement en masse. There are always two sides to an issue, but unless that second side is going to sell papers it won’t even show up.

Here’s one example:

Ask yourself, if more people knew about a Pastor and a Imam who travel around Africa promoting peace, maybe this mosque thing really wouldn’t be that big of a deal. Maybe we would not be so quick to judge the “others” in bad faith.

-jay