On Principle

Delusional but True

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:43:00 +0000

It’s official, Team Clinton has officially committed to continuing the fight of the Democratic nomination.

It seems (and indeed, may in fact be) delusional, but the Clinton campaign's current path to victory includes:

Remaining Pledged Delegates:
The immediate goal of the Clinton campaign is to keep Obama from winning too many of the Pledged Delegates available through the last two primaries this week. Of course, even if Obama wins ALL the remaining Pledged Delegates, which he won't, he still wouldn't posses enough Delegates to clinch the nomination. But sanity ranks the effectiveness of this first tactic in keeping the nomination from Obama on about the same plane as the boy-gets-girl ending of every "Nerd" move produced through Hollywood. It's fun to imagine improbabilities via a movie, but sad to witness the futility of misplaced hope in real life.
Remaining 200 undeclared Super Delegates:
A cursory review of news sources would probably lead one to believe that still undeclared Super Delegates are flocking, en masse, to the inevitability of Obama's nomination. It is certainly true that Obama is inching ahead of Hillary, but it hasn't exactly been a daily avalanche of declared support for Obama. I've previously noted the mere fact that these Super Delegates aren't drawn to Obama like flies to messianic honey may be due to their secret, unrequited hope and preference for Hillary's nomination.

It should be noted that Obama is rumored to have accumulated an impressive reservoir of private "declarations" of support from a number of these publicly undeclared Super D's which his campaign is holding back from public acknowledgement until the opportune moment. I believe this is true, but he doesn't have 200 such Super D's.

I think it is fascinating to realize there is really no reason, at this point, for 90% of these undeclared Super D's not to declare. If they don't declare by Wednesday of this week (within 1 day of the final primaries), then we know the Clinton campaign may actually know something we don't (even more "Pastor Disasters", as is rumored?). They won't make up the Delegate gap, but perhaps they will hold on to 25% - 50% of these undeclared Delegates.
Enticing Declared Super D's to Switch Allegiance:
Vying for two above-mentioned categories of Delegates may breathe some temporary life into Clinton's campaign, but it won't secure her the nomination. Without further tactical advance by Team Clinton, it is overwhelmingly likely that Obama will still eke out support from sufficient remaining Delegates to secure the nomination. This is what leads us to examine Clinton's last, best hope to becoming the Democratic nominee.

The last key to the Clinton strategy is to convince existing Super D's to switch allegiance. As I wrote about here, this is, technically speaking, a completely viable option for a Super Delegate. For the sake of convenience, media organizations like the Associated Press and CNN keep track of declarations of support from Super Delegates as a way of handicapping the nomination process. But Super D's are NOT bound to these declarations. They don't cast their vote of support until August. Until then, they are free to publicly vacillate in support of the candidates or even remain undeclared. Hillary's campaign hopes are completely banked upon convincing these Super D's to switch allegiance.

How likely is this tactic to work? Again, as I depict here, the Super D's are pinned to the mat of reality by a monolithic media meme in Obama's inevitable victory. The sheer repetition of his assumed nomination creates an incredible inertia of presumed public opinion against which most elected officials just won't fight – even if they know he is the weaker candidate for the party. Thus the reason I classify this final tactic as a delusional jousting at windmills. Yet, Hillary is wisely campaigning with just such a Super Delegate this week:
"Clinton invited Virgin Islands Super Delegate Kevin Rodriguez, a recent convert, to travel with her to South Dakota where she planned to campaign Monday. Rodriguez had initially supported Clinton, switched to Obama, and recently returned to her camp."

Still, as Hillary inarticulately alluded last week, an awful lot can happen between now and the convention. Consider Obama's plummeting ratings among white Democratic women and on the "trust" of voters in general. If the media meme can be broken, Super D's may be convinced to switch.

I think the media is now fully invested in an Obama victory over Clinton. But continuing revelations of impropriety, racism, dangerous inexperience or poor judgment – if persistent or sufficiently shocking – may create the crack in Obama's reservoir of Super D declarations to create a new flood of support which changes the tide of this election and buoys her drowning candidacy (to truly stretch a metaphor).

Delusional? Perhaps.

Technically true? Absolutely.

Likely? Time will tell. . .

On Principle,

CBass

Econ Contrarian: Retail Spending

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Fri, 30 May 2008 15:53:00 +0000

I will continue to pull back the curtain to reveal the public media pieces I was tracking in March and April which led me to decisively take a stand against the near monolithic message of the pending, deep, dark and deadly national economic recession. That's why I title this series of posts the "Economic Contrarian"; they run contrary to the media narrative which has cemented conventional wisdom in a decidedly negative direction.

Due to the myriad of headline links included in this Post, I will only provide commentary here in the Summary. What will follow below is a list of the headlines (with links to the original articles) I was following which demonstrated the economy's strength via the consumer spending sector. Retail spending is traditionally considered an excellent barometer of economic health as it is measure of both:

The ABILITY of consumers to spend money (which addresses jobs, income, savings, home equity, available credit, credit ratings, etc) and
The WILLINGNESS of them to do so (which captures the consumer's confidence to tap credit, savings, etc verse uncertainty in the ability to repay in the future due to concerns over inflation, job security, interest rates, etc).

Thus, when retail spending is expanding across the board, it is a good measure that the economy is NOT in recession. As you will see below, my reading of the popular media was showing that an expansion of retail spending is exactly what we were experiencing in the First Quarter of 2008. What follows below is a summary of the types of retail spending I was following.

Past Posts on This Topic:

The Economic Contrarian

Economic Contrarian – Trade Deficit

Economic Contrarian – Personal Incomes

Economic Contrarian – Sometimes You Win

Economic Contrarian – Banking Rebound

Economic Contrarian – Industry Leaders & Profits

Summary:

Consumer Retail Spending

Consumer retail spending addresses the regular spending in which consumers engage. These purchases are generally referenced as being "necessities". In recessions (especially sever recessions), however, incomes become constrained due to job losses, spent savings, loss of home equity and "maxed out" credit cards. Thus, finding steady or growing consumer spending is not a sign in an exploding economy, but it certainly nullifies the warning that a recession is skimming all robustness out of the economy.

Examples Include:

Walmart, McDonalds, General Mills (cereals), 3M (products like Post-It Notes), Walgreens, Ebay (it must say something when we place Ebay in the "necessary/consumer" category! – Oh, how dire things are!)

Discretionary Retail Spending

Discretionary spending is an excellent measure of consumer sentiment – the willingness for consumers to part with their cash. While consumer spending may be incorrectly labeled as being "necessary", discretionary spending is not. Consumers generally purchase discretionary items when they feel confident in the security of their savings and/or the continuation and sufficiency of their income. Growth in discretionary spending is a tremendous indication that consumers feel secure in the economy (at least for themselves). It also indicates a continued ripple of healthy economic activity as most discretionary items are carry higher price tags and involved larger supply chains (like automobiles). When purchased, they are funding larger segments of the economy than when someone purchases box of cereal.

Examples Include:

Ford (Automobiles – purchases which could certainly be delayed a year or two), Williams-Sonoma (up-scale home goods), Aetna (health care services can be decreased through lower coverage or higher deductibles), Intel (new computer models are not exactly a requirement in a recession).

International Retailers

Another interesting element of our economy which the media seems to miss and which the Democratic party loves to hate is the International strength of American companies. International sales infuse our economy with cash, funding salaries, driving domestic consumer spending and further strengthening our economy.

Examples Include:

Coca Cola (drinks sold in darkest, most primitive areas on Earth – and beyond), Boeing and Lockheed Martin (aerospace and high-tech sales to foreign governments), Caterpillar (construction equipment)

Entertainment Spending

Entertainment spending could be considered a sub-category of Discretionary spending. I separate it here as this category is an even more stunning example of consumers feeling comfortable parting with their money. Where Discretionary spending may include the purchase of cell phones (no, they aren't "necessities"), Entertainment spending would include the upgrade to high-end cell phones and data plans. Where Discretionary spending may include DVD players from Best Buy, Entertainment spending would include movie tickets and rental clubs like (Netflex, etc).

Examples Include:

RIM (Blackberry data service is NOT a necessity – especially as the subscriber base expands), Viacom (video games), Disney (Theme parks.

The detailed list of headlines with links to the original articles follows here:

Consumer Retail Spending

Walgreen quarterly profit rises

March 24, 2008 08:11 AM ET

General Mills profit rises 60 percent

March 19, 2008 07:54 AM ET

Best Buy profit better than expected

April 02, 2008 08:35 AM ET

Futures drop on profit unease, but Wal-Mart up

April 10, 2008 07:51 AM ET

Duke Energy earnings jump 30 percent

May 02, 2008 07:55 AM ET

CSX - Income Jumped 46%

Kellogg earnings beat estimates but stock dips

April 30, 2008 04:14 PM ET

P&G quarterly profit rises, helped by cost controls

April 30, 2008 07:48 AM ET

3M profit tops Street view

April 24, 2008 08:34 AM ET

McDonald's profit beats estimates

April 22, 2008 08:37 AM ET

Burger King quarterly profit rises

May 01, 2008 07:22 AM ET

EBay profit rises 22 pct, fueled by int'l sales

April 16, 2008 04:16 PM ET

J&J profits beat estimates

April 15, 2008 03:27 PM ET

Discretionary Retail Spending

Williams-Sonoma profit rises, but outlook cautious

March 27, 2008 07:44 AM ET

Ford swings surprise profit

April 24, 2008 12:47 PM ET

Goodyear posts quarterly profit on price hikes, forex

April 25, 2008 08:29 AM ET

Aetna profit meets Street

April 24, 2008 07:43 AM ET

Quest profit jumps 32 percent

April 21, 2008 02:56 PM ET

Abbott profit rises on sales of drugs, devices

April 16, 2008 07:47 AM ET

Intel posts in-line results, stock climbs

April 15, 2008 04:32 PM ET

International Retailers

Nike quarterly income rises on international sales

March 19, 2008 04:37 PM ET

Boeing profit up on plane deliveries

April 23, 2008 08:12 AM ET

Lockheed Martin profit rises 6 percent

April 22, 2008 07:34 AM ET

Google and Caterpillar power gains on Wall St.

April 18, 2008 04:37 PM ET

Honeywell profit tops Street view

April 18, 2008 08:07 AM ET

United Tech profit beats estimates

April 17, 2008 07:42 AM ET

Coca-Cola profit beats estimates

April 16, 2008 07:53 AM ET

PepsiCo reports higher Q1 profit

April 24, 2008 08:38 AM ET

Cisco reports higher revenue despite economy worries

May 06, 2008 04:21 PM ET

Entertainment Spending

Cellphone market Q1 growth fastest since 2006

April 25, 2008 10:42 AM ET

RIM reports strong profit and rosy outlook

April 02, 2008 04:32 PM ET

Viacom profit rises on "Rock Band", MTV Networks

May 02, 2008 07:45 AM ET

Verizon profit rises on subscriber growth

April 28, 2008 08:00 AM ET

AT&T profit rises on wireless sales

April 22, 2008 08:15 AM ET

Hasbro's profit tops expectations as sales soar

April 21, 2008 07:38 AM ET

Disney results beat Wall Street, shares rise 3 pct

May 06, 2008 04:37 PM ET

DirecTV posts higher profit

May 07, 2008 07:10 AM ET

News Corp profit rises on cable, TV ratings

May 07, 2008 04:05 PM ET

Requisite footnote on the "Econ Contrarian" series:

As with so many other complex issues in this modern world, I don't claim to know what tomorrow holds for the economy. There are just too many competing systems interacting in labyrinthine layers. But, since no one else seems to want to focus upon any of the positive indicators in this complex mix, I think I'll stand in the gap and shine a small, small light to illuminate a few contradictory indicators – indicators which make the more balanced point that while certain segments of the economy will certainly retract a bit after years of unprecedented growth, this doesn't exactly mean the expansion of the new era of Mordor.

On Principle,

CBass

LOST Season 4

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Thu, 29 May 2008 04:53:00 +0000

If you have ANY inclination toward enjoying TV, you absolutely must do yourself the favor of giving LOST (ABC) a try.

I won't even both going into the plot premise – mainly because it just sounds weird. In fact, I didn't want to see this series when it was launched. A couple who are close friends of ours, made my wife and I watch the 3 first episodes of Season 1 (on DVD). I was hooked.

Season 1:

If you want a show that will entertain you with great acting, extremely tight writing and an intricate plot – LOST will win you over. The signature plot device of the show is the use of flashbacks. Each show focuses upon one character, there are many characters. During the course of an episode, events in the "current" timeline are highlighted by several flashbacks of prior events in that character's life which are either connected to or which shape the way they behave in response to the current timeline. The extremely creative twist, however, is that many of the flashbacks reveal a more clever plot device: connections between the main characters, connections of which they are mainly unaware.

Season 2:

Fans of the show will probably agree with me that Season 2 suffered from a couple of major mistakes. The show was so popular that ABC place a several month pause in new episodes. Problems were compounded by the writers' short, unexplainable deviation from flashback/connections device. This lapse only lasted about 5 episodes, but these episodes sandwiched the annoying gap in new episodes – leaving fans with double disappointment. Many fans dropped off the show during this hiatus. This was especially disappointing as a new group of main characters was introduced in Season 2. But the fans who dropped largely missed the fun and shocking twists these new characters introduced into the plot.

Season 3:

Season 3 rectified the issues of Season 2 and stunningly upped the ante by 2. First, yet another set of main characters was introduced. Well, actually, Season 3 allowed us to peer deeply into a community of characters of which only glimpses had been previously granted. And through this view, 2 years of misperceptions were challenged. Second, the season finale continued the now well entrenched flashback device. Yet, I was filled with angst while watching the episode as the events just didn't jive with the timeline which had been previously revealed for these characters. Did the writers think no one would notice? In the final scene of the two hours, it is revealed that these incongruous flashbacks were actually flash forwards – necessitating a complete rethinking of the episode and what it added to the plot line.

Season 4:

Season 4 has introduced yet another group of characters, has continued the flashback connections and has made the most of some tantalizing flash forwards. The question is what new wrinkle will be introduced tomorrow night? As do all fans, I have my guesses. I'll see.

Will you?

On Principle,

CBass

The Media’s President

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:53:00 +0000

Like many self-proclaimed conservatives I know, the grating, wily "Queen of Tusla" is actually warming the icy layers of my libertarian heart. There are lots of things to admire in her tenacity, but the Terminator is tenacious too. But the reason I find myself in stunned admiration is that she is actually striking the profession, principled position in terms of navigating the DNC process governing the Navigation.

I reach this conclusion through my intercept of a dialogue between a representatives of Hillary's campaign (a "Hillarite") and a concerned Super Delegate ("Super D").

Super D: Cut the BS, why is Hillary still in this race?

Hillarite: No one has won enough Delegate votes to win the nomination and she's kicking Obama's backside by unprecedented margins. Who quits a race when they are winning states by 35% and 41%? More importantly, Hillary is FAR more electable in November.

Super D: But cut the BS. You know Hillary CAN'T win

Hillarite: Why not?

Super D: She's 200 Delegates down and there aren't enough Pledged Delegates left to win. Obama only needs a handful more.

Hillarite: Not true. Obama only needs a handful more until Michigan and Florida are seated, because the current counts of what constitutes the "majority" of Delegates doesn't include these two states. That issue is getting addressed this weekend, so we'll all know what is happening soon enough. But everyone expects MI and FL to have some of their Delegates seated at the Dem National Convention. When that happens Obama will actually need more Delegates than what he's likely to win in the 3 remaining contests. Thus, when all the popular voting is completed, neither of us will have won enough Delegates.

On Michigan and Florida:

Super D: Cut the BS. All this pushing on MI and FL is a bit unseemly. You agreed that those states shouldn't be counted. You agreed not to campaign in them.

Hillarite: Yes, we did agree. Yes, we did obey the rules and did not campaign in either state. But, we also stated publically that neither state should be cut out of our process. They both held legal votes. In fact, all names were on the ballot in FL and the FL Secretary of State has officially confirmed the popular vote there. Are you saying a fair, legal election shouldn't be counted?

Super D: Well, ok. Maybe FL. But Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI. He obeyed the rules. Hillary did not.

Hillarite: Wrong. No DNC rule required candidates to remove their names from the ballot. Obama jumped the gun and limited his options by removing his name. Hillary showed more political judgment by leaving her options open. No one has filed an accusation that she broke ANY rules. In fact, watching how the two campaigns handled this issue provides another excellent insight as to why Obama won't make a good national leader.

On Obama as Frontrunner:

Super D: OK, I'll grant you MI and FL, but we Super D's HAVE to vote for him.

Hillarite: Why?

Super D: Cut the BS. Obama has won more states.

Hillarite: Number of states won is not a criterion for success under ANY measurement system. North Dakota is just not that important.

Super D: Cut the BS. Obama has won more popular votes. The voice of the voters must be heard.

Hillarite: No he hasn't. Hillary has won the popular vote if MI and FL are added. As we already discussed, there is really no argument that FL shouldn't be added and it isn't Hillary's fault that Obama mistakenly removed his name from the MI ballot. Besides, forecasts of the remaining contests show that Hillary will further increase her popular vote lead. It is very, very likely that Obama will NOT have won the majority of the popular vote when everything's done.

Super D: Ok, but cut the BS. Delegates are what matter and Obama is WAY ahead in Delegates.

Hillarite: Yes, Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegate count, but we don't know that he will be ahead once Super Delegates cast their votes in August.

On the Popular Will:

Super D: Cut the BS. Super D's are mostly elected officials. They have to vote according to the will of their constituents.

Hillarite: Wrong on 2 counts. First, if this were true, why are Senators Kennedy and Kerry supporting Obama? Hillary soundly won Massachusetts. If what you are saying is true they MUST support me. Second, if what you state was true, why would we even have a Super Delegate system? The ENTIRE purpose of having Super Delegates is to allow consideration beyond the foundational proportional distribution of Pledged Delegates.

Super D: Ok. I'll grant you this in concept. But come on. Cut the BS. Super Delegates must follow the popular will.

Hillarite: What popular will? Hillary has won, is winning and will win the popular vote! The only "popular will" Obama is winning is the will of the Media. Are you suggesting the Media should select our candidate? Not the voters? And not other considerations?

Super D: There you go again, mentioning "other considerations". What "other considerations" would justify overturning a major lead in Delegates?

Hillarite: What "major lead". If you remove the Super Delegates, wait for the MI and FL decision and forecast the final 3 primaries – then Obama is still ahead in Pledged Delegates, but not by more than 2 or 3%. At that point, Hillary may be ahead by 2 or 3% in the popular vote.

Super D: Cut the BS. You know Super D's have already stated their support for Obama. So you can't just separate them when you look at Obama's Delegate total.

Hillarite: There are several more months until the Convention. No Super Delegate votes until then. Until the Convention, they are free to change their mind. After all, there are several Super D's who changed their stated support from me to Obama. Why isn't it ok for Super D's to switch their votes from Obama to me?

On "Other Considerations":

Super D: Ok, but you haven't answered, what "other considerations" would justify such a switch.

Hillarite: I'll tell you, but first, please remember, there isn't some MAJOR justification needed for a Super D to support someone who is winning the popular vote. Now, that being said, this cycle is compressed to an unprecedented degree. We've never seen this before and will be studying it when all is done to learn from mistakes made. Voters may already be doing this. Consider, since March 4^th, Hillary has massively won the popular vote and in Pledged Delegates. So, the longer voters have to think, study and assess their options, the more they vote for Hillary. We even saw this in early primary states. Late deciders nearly always broke for Hillary by a huge percentage.

Super D: Is that all? Hillary's done a better job of campaigning, finally, so she's performing better. That's your argument? Vote for Hillary because she finally fixed her campaign?

Hillarite: No, there's much more. Hillary is winning all the states Democrats must win in November. She is polling ahead of McCain while Obama polls behind or even with him. And she has the larger, more stable coalition of supporters. Obama's is very narrow in terms of the general election. If it wasn't for Hillary's admitted mistake not to contest the primaries in a few small states (most of which McCain is guaranteed to win anyway), she would be even or ahead in Pledged Delegates as well.

Super D: Interesting. But cut the BS. Super D's can't go against the will of the people. . .

Hillarite: Have you listened to anything here? The ENTIRE purpose of Super D's is to make decisions on the larger parameters of what will help the Dem Party win in the General Election. The ENTIRE purpose. Hillary is the best candidate on all of these parameters. Obama's Delegate lead only seems large because of Super D's which could change their votes. Hillary is ahead in popular votes by about the same margin as Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegates – Delegates from states which won't decide the election.

Super D: Interesting argument, but cut the BS. Obama is black. This is historic. We Super D's can't deny such a historic moment.

Hillarite: So, the first female President isn't historic? Being "Black" is more important than being "Female"?

Super D: Well, the media would crush us if we Super D's reversed the popular will and voted for Hillary.

Hillarite: WHAT POPULAR WILL?????? Hillary will win the popular vote. Arghhh! Cut the BS. As an elected official, you are going to "lead" according to the media's vote. Doesn't that make the media unelected "Supder Delegates" of the Dem Party?

Thus, the feckless Dem’s will nominate Obama because the media won’t “let” them do otherwise. Mainstream Corporate Media - the real Supder Delegates. . . Welcome to the Democrat's version of democracy.

On Principle,

CBass

Econ Con: Industry Leaders & Profits

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Tue, 27 May 2008 21:19:00 +0000

Continuing my explanation of why I take a somewhat contrarian view of the media's push for recession, this post will explore March and April articles I was "clipping" on the topics of Industry Leaders and Corporate Profits.

Summary:

Industry Leaders:

Economics is a game of increasing returns. Under this theory, those who take a market lead tend to expand that lead. This happens due to the proclivity of consumers around the world to purchase products, frequent stores and invest money in ways similar to everyone else around them. Thus, to cut through the complexity of global economics, leaders in each industry are often the early indicators of what will follow among their lesser known competition.

Corporate Profits:

In many of these news clippings, mention is made of the horrendous decline in profits for some companies. Yes, it is true. When profits start to fall, especially for industry leaders, it is an excellent bell weather of turbulent seas ahead. However, that should not negate a very basic underlying principle: profits are good. When business make profits,

Industry Leaders:

Accenture profit gains, raises outlook; shares up

Accenture, one of the "The Big 4" consulting firms, brings in revenue from offering consulting and "outsourcing" services. By making huge profits and raising its outlook, Accenture is sending 2 signals to the market place. First, a consultancy makes record profits when its customers have the liquid cash to pay exorbitant prices, on large contracts, over lengthy time periods. Thus, Accenture could not grow revenues if companies didn't at least have a little free cash floating around – something which would not exist in "the worse economy since the Great Depression." Second, some of this cash is probably coming from companies facing tough times and wanting to get leaner (thus the "outsourcing" component of Accenture's profits). Getting leaner is synonymous with raising "productivity" – the exact measure Greenspan used throughout his tenure to explain our robust and expanding economy.

IBM profit rises on services, software strength

Thus showing that Accenture was not an "outlier". IBM, another company requiring on the "free" spending of corporate America for services, is marking expanding revenues. Corporate America considers 2008 Q1 to be a time for productivity improvements to be ready for the next economic sprint.

Interpretation: Yes, the economy is rocky. Yes, companies see some lean months ahead. But industry leaders indicate that this economy is retooling for even more growth in the near term.

Barnes Group Q1 results top Street

Barnes Group is a major manufacturer of aerospace and industrial components. While I wouldn't call them a "leader" in this industry in terms of size, their revenues are tied to the purchasing needs of such leaders. The article states that not only did the company do well in Q1, they raised their forecast for the remainder of 2008, based upon extremely strong demand in aerospace. Aerospace is a sector which requires massive infusion of investment over long time horizons. It doesn't expand when companies predict a coming Depression. Investment in large, expensive items with long manufacturing terms is an excellent test case for the economic outlook from top board rooms.

Corporate Profits:

Alcoa first-quarter profit falls more than 50 pct

This leader in commodity mining is still profitable. Apparently the manufacturing sector isn't completely trashed. Hurting? Yes. Limping a bit? Yes. But the worse period since 24% unemployment and soup lines? Not exactly.

Goldman, Lehman profits beat forecasts, shares rise

Read the article: Profits fell, but the company is STILL PROFITABLE. Despite stock market declines. Despite global panic from our mortgage market meltdown. The leading financial firms are still profitable.

Requisite footnote on the "Econ Contrarian" series:

On Principle,

CBass

Econ Con: Banking Rebound

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Tue, 20 May 2008 02:58:00 +0000

As I promised at the close of last week, I am here kicking off a series of posts outlining the data I was tracking in March and April which under girded my being pretty comfortable staking out a contrarian position on the economy – one which called out for reason when so many indicators (see below) were pointing that things weren't (and aren't) as bad as the press breathlessly reported.

The data making it through the filters of major media back in March was already indicating that the "crisis" in the banking and finance sector, stemming from the meltdown in mortgage markets, was beginning to abate:

Fannie, Freddie may raise $20 billion: report

Fannie and Freddie, public/private institutions underwrite a huge segment of the US Mortgage market. Their ability to remain solvent and continue to underwrite loans has a major effect upon the mortgage market. Without these two institutions, mortgage prices would likely rise beyond reach for most homebuyers – crippling our economy. As this headline reports, it was known in March that banks and institutional investors predicted Fannie and Freddie to be a wise enough risk as to place $Billions of speculative investments in these two institutions – during the midst of what so many forecasters were calling a global crisis, the worst banking situation since the 1930's and a full-fledged recession. Maybe these investors saw something else – something like a predictable business cycle. . . ???

Existing home sales post surprise rise

Then of course, media was reporting on the RISE in home sales in February – right in the heart of the supposed recession. This data also emerged in late March. I always greet this sort of data with caution as the real estate market is very susceptible to monthly fluctuations in sales between new and existing homes, mortgage rates, the general economy, local market trends, rental rates, etc. Yet, if the entire economy was caught in the downward pull of the proverbial toilet, one wouldn't expect to find positive trends in home sales of any sort.

Morgan Stanley earnings fall, but beat Street view

This is a huge point to which I kept returning when reviewing economic news these past couple of months: earnings and profits may be less than in the past (which is why I have acknowledged the pain of the current economy) but if companies are still making positive $'s, they are still making positive $'s. Making $ is a good thing. As long as major companies are still making $, the economy is not coming apart at the seams.

Citi says Lehman has ample liquidity

The mortgage markets are undergirded by huge banks which use these vehicles to diversify their giant pools of investment. When the banks are perceived to lack the ability to weather mortgage bankruptcies, the entire mortgage loses confidence and lenders raise the bars against the very first time home buyers and investors who were spurring growth. When the investment firms are determined to have liquidity, it is a sure sign that lenders will soon start to loosen the reins on new mortgages.

When positive liquidity is being found across the banking sector, it is a definite indication that things aren't as dire as the reports might otherwise indicate: Bank results soothe investors. Remember, it was the supposed rotting of the entire mortgage market that was supposed to be tanking the economy in the first Quarter.

Yet, any look at the banking sector by March would have provided the insight that a recession was not likely, a down turn was certain and a rebound probably coming sooner than being widely touted.

On Principle,

CBass

Econ Con: Sometimes You Win

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:04:00 +0000

I've had several folks remark that they thought I was out on a long, slender branch of a young sapling delicately clinging to the side of a steep cliff by striking a Contrarian course on my interpretation of the economy.

In fact, those proven to be possessed of far greater economic insight than I fully tossed their weight into the column of predicting recessions (Buffett, Buffett again and seemingly even more wrong, even eternal optimist Larry Kudlow)

Yet, surprise of all surprises, it looks like I was correct to wave a small flag of reason above the crowds of panicked analysts. Feast upon these headlines:

First-quarter growth stronger than forecast

By definition, a Recession is two (2) consecutive quarters of negative growth (shrinking) GDP. Thus, by definition, when the US economy GREW in the first quarter, we are NOT in a recession.

An economic contraction? Yes.

A tough patch? Yes.

A painful period for investors? Yes.

A time of economic realignment? Yes.

March retail sales unexpectedly rise 0.2 percent

A good hint that an economy is NOT in recession is when retail sales are expanding – no matter how slowly. Thus, when you see headlines of retail sales growth, you can discount any voices of recession. Again, note the appropriate gloom I outline above. The economy is NOT perfect. The economic environment is not a free money machine for everyone. But there is not some sort of massive mess-up.

Just to prove this point, notice that those retail sales continued to expand, yes expand (grow) in April: April retail sales barely budged: SpendingPulse

The reality is that I started accumulating a trove of positive economic indicators in March and April. Based upon my simple, daily clipping of headlines, I knew the weeping and gnashing of recession to be a bit overwrought. In following posts, I'll provide a few of the snippets of the data I've been tracking.

So, breathe a sigh of relief, hug your family and get out into the economy and spend some money! J

Requisite footnote on the "Econ Contrarian" series:

On Principle,

CBass

Super-Disappointed Delegates

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:11:00 +0000

I'm still a bit confused and baffled as to the all-consuming narrative that the Clinton campaign is caput. I may post some original thoughts in the next several days about the numerous reasons I see for her rational decision to remain in the race (and I'm someone who now believes Obama is the Republican's best opportunity for victory). But in this post, I want to question the assumption I'm hearing often repeated that Democratic Super Delegates are nearly unanimous in their push to have Hillary withdraw from the race out of fear that she is damaging the party. In fact, I think the exact opposite is really the case.

As I'll show below, the only two conclusions that make sense to me are that:

The majority of Super Delegates actually fear that Obama will result in a Democratic defeat in the November.
And / Or
The majority of Super Delegates actually support Hillary and are awaiting an opportunity to proclaim it.

Prior to PA
If Super Delegates in any large measure were set against Hillary and feared her impact upon the race, they could have confidently come out in support of Obama following the Ohio and Texas primaries – where Hillary, despite convincing wins in two large states gained only a handful of Delegates against Obama. The mathematics of pledged Delegates was clear at that point (2 months ago!). It would have been a simple matter for more Super Delegates to throw their public support behind Obama with a simple reference to party rules and Delegate counts. In so doing, the Super Delegates could have negated the extra 6 weeks of "negative" campaigning leading into the PA primary – if they actually supported Obama, that is.
Once again, after PA, Hillary's sizable win didn't make much of a dent in Obama's Delegate lead. Thus, if Super Delegates were enthusiastic about Obama, they again could have started publically stating their support for him following PA. At that point, it was even more obvious that Hillary wasn't going to win the Pledge Delegate count.
So, noting the near certainty of Obama's unassailable lead in Pledged Delegates some 2 months ago, and faced with the certain knowledge of Hillary's need to "go negative", why would the Super Delegates sit by quietly?
Popular Vote
When I reference the fact that Super Delegates could have thrown their support behind Obama 2 months ago if they truly were enthused for him, I'm NOT stating that all the remaining several hundred would have needed to do so. No indeed. If only 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 Super Delegates came out publically in his camp following TX and OH, the media coverage of such an "avalanche" of support would have arrested attention lavished upon Hillary's triumph and shown her continued candidacy to be a complete farce and fantasy.

"But wait", you may say, "Super Delegates are largely elected officials. They are afraid to make public pronouncements until they can see the direction of public sentiment. And such certainty would be available until after more Primary votes." This sounds reasonable, but it isn't.

Many of the Super Delegates represent constituencies which had already long ago voted in earlier Primaries. If they enthusiastically supported Obama, they could have easily come out in public support of his campaign with the simple statement that they are simply honoring the popular vote of their constituents.

Heath Shuler today announced his Super Delegate vote for Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that his state, North Carolina, favored Obama by some 14% points. He can do this, because his district was won by Clinton.

How many undeclared Super Delegates who support Obama represent districts and states which have already held Primaries? If they enthusiastically supported Obama, is it possible that there are at least 10, 20, 40 or 50 such Super Delegates? I'm willing to bet. Then why wouldn't they publically proclaim their support, secure in their alignment with their districts, and save their party from 2 additional months of controversy and negativity?
Pledges Are NOT Permanent
It may be argued that Super Delegates, as elected officials, are notoriously careful to cover themselves. Thus, there is no reason for them to publically proclaim their support until the Primaries are completed and the vote totals are obvious. This is nonsense.

As I point about above, many of these Super Delegates already know the vote of their constituents. If they were enthused about Obama, they could confidently support him.
The party's Congressional leadership have pretty much already publically proclaimed their support for Obama. Thus adding further cover for these Super Delegates.

Further, I suggest one further cover is available for wise Super Delegates. Instead of publically stating their "Pledge", they could have come out with their "Intention" to support. Why couldn't Super Delegates who secretly support Obama simply state, "Based upon the clear expression of my constituents and the overwhelming lead in Pledged Delegates held by Senator Obama, I am currently intending to (or leaning toward) support his nomination, though I'm still supportive of the entire process playing out to ensure we select the best nominee for our great party"?

Such a statement wouldn't even need to be made directly. Every Super Delegate is deluged by interest in the leaning of their vote. They could make such a statement in a simple, off-the-cuff sort of manner in some public forum.

And notice the terminology. They aren't "Pledging". They aren't making an official announcement. They are simply indicating a direction in which they may lean at the present moment – but are still open to change. This simple maneuver would provide all the cover they need to later change their minds if necessary.

All Obama needed was a small team of 10, 20 or 30 supportive Super Delegates to make such public statements in the 2 – 3 days following the TX and OH primaries. Surely his campaign is savvy enough to identify and know how to entice such a small cadre of supporters into making such statements in groups of 5 or 10 each day. This small show of support, for someone who is truly already enthused for Obama would have put enormous pressure on Hillary, would have changed the media coverage going into PA, would have provided a template for other secrete Super supporters and would have probably saved the party another 2 months of negative vetting of Obama.

When I examine the above logic, I can only assume 2 things:

There are certainly Super Delegates who support Obama from completed Primary states. If they haven't made such a simple and tentative pronouncement of support they are either even more spineless than I imagine or they are holding out for patronage from the eventual winner – which means they don't truly support Obama enthusiastically.
The bulk of Super Delegates believe Hillary's message that Obama is the least electable in the General Election of the two candidates. They have been waiting and hoping for the past 2 months that Hillary can generate enough momentum and support to allow them to make a similar, tentative statement in her favor – to eventually cause a tipping point. But with the dismal results of Indianan and North Carolina, these Super Delegates are just super disappointed.

On Principle,

CBass

I'm Back

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:50:00 +0000

Hey folks,

Sorry for the long delay and dearth in posting.

As some of you may know, I initiated my own consulting company, Successant, in January. As one would expect, beginning an entrepreneurial endeavor such as this is time consuming in the extreme.

To make blog maintenance matters worse, however, I came down with a fever in late February which lasted, in some manner, for 6 weeks. Finally frustrated, I belatedly visited the Doctor to find a simply diagnosis of Tonsillitis. (No surgery, just 5 days of simple antibiotics).

So, in summary, I haven't stopped following the news or formulating my many opinionated thoughts. But getting these drafted out and posted just fell down the list of priorities while struggling to establish my company between fever flash-points. It does feel good to be back, however.

On Principle,
CBass

Econ Contrarian

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:32:00 +0000

Personal Incomes, What? Rise? But We're In A Recession!

Personal income up more than expected

March 28, 2008 08:34 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. personal income rose more than expected in February as the economy teetered on the brink of a possible recession, while both personal spending and a key price measure increased only slightly, a government report showed on Friday

Personal income rises, inflation moderates

The Commerce Department reported that February personal income rose 0.5 percent, exceeding a forecast of a 0.3 percent gain made by analysts polled before the report.

"The decline in the year-over-year core PCE is important in that it supports the notion the Fed is making the right decision in cutting rates aggressively and not threaten long-term price stability. It argues that the Fed can lower rates in the months ahead," said Zach Pandl, an economist with Lehman Brothers in New York.

Even Fewer People Are Looking For Jobs?

Jobless claims fell 9,000 last week

March 27, 2008 08:38 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits fell by 9,000 last week, the government said on Thursday, though a more reliable gauge of layoff trends rose to its highest in more than two years.

Full Article

Requisite footnote on the "Econ Contrarian" series:

On Principle,

CBass

Bush Derangement Wearing Off

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:32:00 +0000

There are signs that the pandemic which is the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (BDS) is starting to subside.

What is BDS?

BDS is that pervasive contagion which subversively and subtly causes one's perception of all events in life to be negatively interpreted and then be linked back to President Bush. BDS is the reason why Bush can both be a stumbling dunce AND the current evil mastermind behind the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. BDS is how Bush can simultaneously be an inhumane, war mongering drunkard and a radical born again Christian who insanely feels personally called by God to the Office of the Presidency. BDS is why Bush is obviously the original, prime and personal point of causation for Global Warming, Hurricane Katrina and bridge collapses.

Is BDS Subsiding?

A recent poll reports some perspective may be returning to the populace:

About 64 percent of likely voters approve of Bush's economic stimulus package passed earlier this year;
67 percent back his initiatives to help struggling home owners survive the current mortgage crisis
70 percent endorse his plan to allow monitoring of foreign communications of suspected terrorists
72 percent back his visit to the Mideast to promote peace. In addition, 52 percent approve of his surge of U.S. troops into Iraq.

If you are like me, you may not wholeheartedly support these specific initiatives, but it is encouraging to see folks finally being willing to attribute something positive to the President. If BDS antibodies continue to fight back this infection, perhaps the body politic will finally take a second looks at:

An economic record which, despite the current unpleasantness, featured record growth in jobs, home ownership, minority income advancement, stock market levels, involvement in the stock market and GDP growth.
A foreign policy record which features huge increases in international aid, the dismantling of an international nuclear weapons black market, the clearing of chemical weapons from Libya, alignment with Eastern Europe, the birth of Democracy in numerous nations and the building of alliances in the emerging Pacific super-market.
A return of decorum and respect to the White House.

On Principle,

CBass

North Korea

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:25:00 +0000

One of the perpetual frustrations in US foreign policy for 2 decades has been our absolute stumbling response to North Korea's nuclear intentions. Any rational observer must surely admit the Clinton administration's back-slapping self-congratulations were a bit premature. But that same observer must scratch the head in wide-eyed wonder and the aimless dance of the Bush Administration's 6 party talks.

An analysis of the history of this problem and a dissection of the last 7 years of our policies toward North Korean would surely take a cumbersome tome to detail. In short, I think it all boils down to 3 key points:

It's not North Korea: A petty dictatorship which can't feed its own populace and which engages in blatant global narco-trafficking and counterfeiting of US currency is not our stumbling block. When interpreting the daily news out of this region, please don't fall into the trap of wondering "How does Kim Jong-il do it?" He doesn't. Any sort of naval blockade and economic sanctions supported by the US and China would quickly cripple this potbellied despite.
South Korea: The sad reality is that the US has not had a strong partner in South Korea at the negotiating table. South Korea is separated from its deranged sister by an imaginary line drawn to win a quick peace. While the world could crush North Korea with economic sanctions, South Korea would be left of mop up the mess of fleeing refugees and familial ties which have bridged the Demilitarized Zone for half a century. These concerns have tied the hands of the US in pushing for negotiations which are stronger than South Korea is willing to pursue.
China! China!: Many folks don't understand why China would ever support US policy toward North Korea. Won't China do anything possible to thwart our interests? Perhaps. But reality on the ground is far more basic than that. North Korea also poses a HUGE destabilizing, boiling pot of potential refugees. While China's economy is booming, it is extremely unstable and the addition of hundreds of thousands or millions of poverty stricken refugees won't help its stability. Well, isn't China concerned about a nuclear armed North Korea? Probably only marginally. North Korea exists largely because of the economic, agricultural and pharmaceutical aid of China. China's military might outstrips that of North Korea beyond any analogy of David and Goliath. So, in short, no – China is not that concerned about North Korea's nukes, but it is very concerned about onerous economic sanctions.

Based on the above, how can the US hope for any progress in this year? The answer lies in changing the dynamics of one of these points. In this case, South Korean's democratic electorate has decided for a change. The new South Korean government, headed by President Lee Myung-bak has strongly stated its intention to align with the US and its willingness to place pressure on North Korea again – changing years of South Korea's policy of friendship toward North Korea. So, perhaps, this impediment to progress may be adjusting into an additional push for progress.

With this change, the US now has some key momentum to move China. China, in addition to fearing economic instability from a refugee crisis also eagerly desires economic leadership in the Pacific realm. South Korea, not a small player in the new economy, may not be willing to work in unison with the US and Japan to build a network of supports for China and sanctions for North Korea which will move China into a more proactive role of ending North Korea's ambitions.

Kim Jong-il is China's lap dog. Present China with a much enlarged dog dish and I think they may be willing to neuter this tramp.

On Principle,

CBass

Econ Contrarian – Trade Deficit

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:48:00 +0000

Another installment of posts which stand against the obvious torrent of negative news about the economy.

It seems the US Trade Deficit dropped by 9% in 2007. In my world of consulting, companies pay HUGE bucks to improve their efficiency by 10%. (Note: if you work for one of these large companies and write those large checks, please see my business at www.successant.com).

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/03/17/ap4780608.html

On Principle,

CBass

Travelocity Tort

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:53:00 +0000

Now see, if this happened in America, someone would be taking the Roaming Gnome of Travelocity to court for pain and suffering. . .

'Creepy gnome' terrorizes town

""One of my friends was so scared after seeing that thing that we had to take him to the hospital."

Economic Contrarian

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:43:00 +0000

There is much economic doom and gloom being broadcast and re-broadcast and re-broadcast and re-broadcast and. . . (you get the point).

It seems that every day brings new "wisdom" about how the US Economy is on the crux of a major collapse, how prices are rising faster than 80's-90's Argentina, how consumers must stop buying anything but absolute necessities – like milk and bread (oh, sorry, milk is too expensive now – so just buy bread) and how we are all going to lose any and all value from our homes – the quintessential cornerstone of the quixotic American dream.

Run for the hills, chicken little, the global financial sky is about to crumble upon our miserable, poor, recession sickened heads.

Look, as with so many other complex issues in this modern world, I don't claim to know what tomorrow holds for the economy. There are just too many competing systems interacting in labyrinthine layers. But, since no one else seems to want to focus upon any of the positive indicators in this complex mix, I think I'll stand in the gap and shine a small, small light upon the few contradictory indicators that while certain segments of the economy will certainly retract a bit after unprecedented growth, but this doesn't exactly spell the new era of Mordor.

Looks like not ALL jobs are evaporating. . .

U.S. jobless claims tumble 24,000 last week

Does this sound like Stagflation?

Wal-Mart February same-store sales up 2.6 pct

On Principle,

CBass

The Case for Clinton

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:29:00 +0000

Well, this year's primary process has taken yet another turn in presumed direction – this time in favor of team Clinton. I must state that I wasn't surprised by last night's results, but that doesn't make the current state of the Democratic race any less fascinating to behold.

It seems to me that neither candidate is really THAT close to clenching the nomination in terms of pledged delegates and due to the Dem's method of delegate distribution, I don't foresee this changing. Thus, at this point in time, it certainly seems as though the eventual winner will become the winner due to extra delegates from 1 of 2 sources:

John Edwards: He holds only 26 Delegates, but as the race tightens, those 26 may make all the difference in the fight for Super Delegate votes. Who offers him the best perk is likely to get his support. Clinton is in a better, and more desperate, position to offer VP as a trump to Obama's likely Attorney Generalship.
Super Delegates: This monstrous invention of the Democratic party invites party insiders to make leviathanic backroom deals. While Obama currently lays claim to popular and delegate vote leads, Clinton can stake a convincing claim that her victories are the ones which will matter most in the General Election – the entire purpose for this primary process. And when all else fails, Bill Clinton has 4-5 months to raise the funds necessary to buy Super Delegate support.
Unseated Delegates: How this sticky issue is decided may make or break the Clinton candidacy. She stands on solid ground arguing that she honored all DNC rules while also honoring all Democratic voters and that she and the voters should not be further penalized by having January votes disenfranchised. Her compromise solution may be to follow the GOP and allow only half the delegates to be seated. This honors DNC rules, honors voters and allows her to pull closer to Obama – while claiming any Super Delegates representing these two states.

John Edwards:

The nearly forgotten spoiler in this race is John Edwards. The trial lawyer turned populist rhetoritician has not yet revealed to which candidate he will encourage his 26 pledged delegates to favor. There is no rule that I know of stating these delegates must act in accordance with his eventually stated wishes, but since this is an unknowable black box and since delegates tend toward following the expressed wishes of the candidate to whom they are pledged, let's assume the vast bulk of them become pledged to which ever candidate he chooses. This could be the game winning boon needed by both candidates. With whom will Edwards side? It's anyone's guess. Both candidates have pilgrimaged to his humble home of class conscience to make obeisance at his altar of hair flare.

I predict that if the race becomes tighter, the stakes of courtship become higher. Edwards will eventually throw in his lot with the candidate who offers him the biggest and best sacrifice. Obama can't afford to entice Edwards with the VP slot as the preening former Senator from NC has nearly as little experience as does candidate Obama – leaving the the weakest flank completely open to GOP attack. I predict this leaves Obama with the somewhat spotted calf of Attorney General.

Clinton, on the other hand, has nothing to lose by offering Edwards the coveted VP position. He's a Dem populist to her Washington insider experience. If she were the front runner, I would predict she would merge her strength (convincingly demonstrated last night) with that of Gov. Strickland and turn Ohio into the MAJOR battleground of the general election. But, since she must win the nomination to play in the general, I postulate that Edwards and his precious 26 delegates are needed more. Indeed, Hillary has already demonstrated her strength in Ohio and she isn't likely to lose the support of Strickland – there are many more perks a confirmed nominee Clinton can confer upon a supportive Governor if successfully elected.

Who knows, Obama may take the general election poison pill and extend the VPship to Edwards as a last ditch effort (though unlikely as the 26 delegates are less important to him). Perhaps Edwards really just can't stand the Clintons and will act as a spoiler. Perhaps Edwards calculates an AGship in the hand is better than a VPship in the bush. Perhaps an infinite myriad of contrary passions lead Edwards in any number of directions. . .

But when left with only speculation, I count on reasoned judgment and position envy. Clinton may offer VP and Edwards will jump to accept. Plus, she's a Clinton; she doesn't have to actually follow through if doing so becomes inconvenient.

Supper Delegates:

Surely there is no one left in this country who doesn't know about the Dem's Super Delegates. These individuals, anointed by position and prestige, have been conferred power by the party to cast votes for the nominee unhindered by the electorate, unaccountable to the electorate and unlike the electorate – without the confusion of ignorance. Yes, the Dem's are truly the part which empowers the "forgotten man".

Current conventional wisdom states that the Super Delegates will not cast votes counter to the will of the people and will reinforce Barrack's lead in the popular vote. This is certainly possible, but I believe Clinton has a compelling case to make to these party insiders:

The Electoral College: While Barrack has won more states and has won a better apportionment of delegates, Hillary has won the largest states. If the Dem nomination were a winner takes all race, akin to the general election's Electoral College, she would be leading in the Delegate count. Since the General Election is what the entire nomination is about, she has actually demonstrated more strength in states important to the General Election. Thus important to the party being protected by the Super Delegates.
The Winning Base: Extending this argument, Clinton can also point out that Barrack's wins are largely in states that will be solidly "red" in 2008. His strength may put the GOP candidate on the ropes defensively, but no matter how strong he is nominee Barrack would not be likely to ultimately win in these states. Clinton, by contrast, is winning the states which the Dem's MUST hold in 2008 (Michigan, New York, California). In a tight election, a party wants the candidate who has the deepest, most solid in-roads with the base. This is especially important as the candidate must pivot in the general to proclaim a moderated message. Barrack excites more of the base, but not in the states the Dem's must hold.
Swing States: This argument can convincingly be extended to the General Election's swing states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc). Clinton beat Obama convincingly in OH and FL, both important swing states in 2008. While PA hasn't voted yet, Clinton is polling well ahead there. If she wins PA and makes the arguments outlined here, I think she may be able to cinch a majority of the Super Delegates.
Bill Clinton – Fundraiser: If all else fails, Hillary has something many of the Super Delegates want, Bill Clinton is still a dominant figure in Democratic fundraising. Team Clinton has gotten Bill off the wreckage of the campaign trail. They should keep him entirely focused upon buying Super Delegate votes through fundraising. Barrack has outspent Hillary in political donations to these individuals by 4:1. Bill Clinton, provided 4 – 5 months of dedicated service can even these donation odds.

Unseated Delegates:

The arcane and somewhat bizarre rules of the Democratic National Committee decided to punish Democratic voters in two important swing states (Michigan and Florida). At present, these millions of voters won't be represented when delegates select the candidate at the Dem convention. I, along with most of the political world, think this will change. The method of this remedy may determine the final selection of the nominee.

Hillary abided by the same rules as did the Obama camp, meaning she hasn't been shown to have broken any rules. Yet, being a Clinton, she surely played the rulebook with much more cunning than did the great savior from Chicago. Her judicial audaciousness gave her two much needed infusions of "momentum" in January (which made last night's wins possible) and resulted in her claim to a valuable and fairly large cache of Delegates.

Many in the party want both states to simply "re-vote". In such a matchup, if held today, Barrack would likely do well in MI and Hillary would do well in FL. The near draw would probably result in a slight gaining of delegate ground by Clinton, but nothing large enough to secure her the clear nomination.

Team Clinton will angle to argue the following:

She didn't break any rules, she simply honored the entirety of the Democratic electorate. Obama quickly wrote them off. Why should he be honored for this?
Obama actually did participate. In Michigan, his campaign and its surrogates actively encouraged voters to select "Uncommitted". That he chose this negative strategy rather than Hillary's positive strategy is not her fault, it's his.

Clinton may opt to compromise with the GOP solution to the same problem. The GOP penalized states half of their delegates for holding primary contests "too early". She could "compromise" that half the delegates be seated at convention. That would provide 105 FL delegates and 78 MI delegates. As "Uncommitted" received sizable votes, Clinton would not receive ALL the delegates, but she would probably receive around 85. Clinton could argue that based on the above two points, she played by the rules – as did the voters in those two states. Neither should be penalized by acting as if the votes cast in January somehow didn't mean anything. And by halving the delegates, the DNC is still penalizing the states and her contested "advantage" against Obama is getting muted. It's a pretty clever and convincing argument.

I suspect the outcome of this argument will be determined by how well Obama and Clinton court the Super Delegates. If Clinton is successful in that courtship, I think she may win this argument and lay claim to winning 2 more large and swing states – further bolstering her claims for Super Delegate support. If Obama does the better job courting, I would look for a rematch in both states. In a rematch, Obama both maintains his delegate lead and the very "solution" points toward a Clinton who isn't winning Super Delegate votes as she must.

On Principle,

CBass

Democrats, Demagogues and Demi-gods

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:17:00 +0000

For most of the primary season, the action was between the seemingly infinite field of flawed GOP candidates. Like most commentators, I relished following, probing and predicting the turns in this race of limping Elephants (still powerful, just not perfect).

Well, my good friend Gene Brooks posted a comment on this blog some time back asking me to comment on the now much more exciting and ever malleable Democratic race. Let me firmly and clearly state at the outset – I am NOT an expert on how the Democratic base perceives candidates or issues. But I will provide how I see those candidates and issues.

Democratic Candidates:
As I stated to a group of wonderful Republican activists in Phoenix the other week, "The Democratic Party is like a Pez dispenser of awful candidates. Hit them on the head every 4 years and out they spit some candy coated, weak and ineffectual representative." I could easily retrace the litany of perfectly terrible Dem candidates for the past 30 years, but just consider this year's offering: Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama
Hillary Clinton:
Mrs. Clinton has no major accomplishments to her name, no Executive experience of ANY kind (elected or private or even running a large charity), some of the highest negativity scores of any modern candidate, is uniquely impersonal and unattractive (in spirit, not in looks) and can't say anything negative about her opponent without sounding like the stereotypically shrill ex-wife.

Barrack Obama:
Mr. Obama also has no major accomplishments (in either Senate or State Legislature), has no Executive experience of ANY kind (elected or private or even running a large charity), represents a black separatist church, is on record in writing, speeches, votes and debates as supporting some of the most radically liberal policies in modern politics and despite his overflowing charisma is completely at a stumbling lost when pressed to explain policy.
Demagoguery:
I don't know that the Dem's will lose this race in 2008. In fact, most of the "smart money" is on them to win. I don't buy this - - - yet - - - but do find a silver lining in this prediction. America could do a lot worse than demonstrate our willingness to elect a woman or black to the Presidency. As a conservative, I never doubted America would be so inclined if a decent candidate would step forward. Remember, it was the Republican party who supported a robust effort to push Colin Powell forward as our candidate a decade ago (not that he would have been a great conservative, but that's another post).

I fear for Judicial appointments, victory in the war on terror and for the stagnation of high taxation if the Dems win. At the same time, I can at least welcome, with absolutely open arms, the final nail in the coffin of identity politics. Yes boys and girls, while such is ALREADY the case, if one of these Dems wins, there can no longer be any arguments that certain classes and groups of people can't succeed.

But I do also love the wonderful insight America is finally getting into the Democratic party. The GOP, while not perfect, is not a party based on identity politics. The GOP takes positions on issues from a uniformly principled stance. You may disagree with the principles, but there is a logical and consistent approach from the Right. The Democrats, by contrast, are a party of identity politics. The majority of its support base, organizations, policies and rhetoric are based not upon unified principles, but upon segments of identity. There are black issues, Hispanic issues, women's issues, low-wage workers issues, Hollywood issues, etc. Yes, there are other power centers – like anti-war and environmental groups, but the vast majority of their base is identity focused.

This is wonderfully coming into focus due to the demagoguery of the Clintons. The entire primary fight has turned into a disgusting identification of women, Latinos, Blacks and whites – with the clear intention of playing one off the other. Even Clinton's black supporters have taken to arguing that Obama isn't "Black enough". This is identity politics in its rawest form. I doubt most Blacks, Latinos or women who are inclined toward the Democrats will leave the party due to this ugly laying bare of the naked party underbelly. Too bad. But I rejoice in the fact that they at least have to acknowledge it – and eventually, perhaps this will lead them to change it.

I think all "identities" are best served by the Conservative message of individual worth and capability, but minorities are certainly better served by a Democratic party which comes to terms with the perniciousness of identity politics and is working to move from that ignoble base to something that doesn't cater to the lowest possible denominator of identity. Since the Dem's will win power either now or in the future, such a move is good for them – and by extension, would be good for America.
Demi-gods:
The other, obvious observation about the Democratic nomination is the role of the personality cult. And what we see being laid out is the same poetic judgement that befalls all people who allow themselves to be set on the thrones of demi-gods.

Everyone reading this post, both of you, must remember the cult of personality which buoyed Bill Clinton to new levels of stardom. His crush of supporters even kept his performance ratings at relatively high levels in the midst of adultery, sleazy old man sex, obstruction of justice, perjury and sloppy ambition.

Now these adoring legions have rallied to another prince charming. Barrack is enjoying unreasoning adoration and praise – he was applauded for publicly blowing his nose last week. That's just a little gross.

But worshipers can't have two masters and demi-gods all demand sacrifice. In this cycle, the image of Bill Clinton the Untouchable Ruler of All Politics has been sacrificed at the altar of Obama the Wise and Gracious. History warns that such poetic judgment is not to be escaped.

Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem by waves of adoring pilgrims who loudly proclaimed his coronation. Three days later same emotional crowd was trading his life for that of a murderous rogue. Emotional swells dissipate. When they do, the weak thrown upon which the former demi-god sits is revealed as the hollow buttress it is. Emotion doesn't last.

I hope the swooning worshipers get this emotional burst out of their system before Nov. I can't claim to know if they will. But I do know this outpouring won't last forever. When the fever subsides and sanity briefly intrudes before the next demi-god, folks will ask, "What was it all about? Did one man really change the way Washington works? Are we safer, stronger and better as a people or did we just feel better for a while?".

On Principle,
CBass

Phoenix Speech

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:42:00 +0000

I'm returning home from Phoenix where I was honored to deliver a short speech to the Arizona Federation of Republican women.

Here are some summary notes we included in the conference packet for each attendee:

Why the GOP Can Retain the White House in 2008

Winning Factors:

1.The Primary Calendar: For the next 2 months, Huckabee’s campaign will provoke a civil debate over conservative principles and will maintain pressure on McCain to reach out toward conservative constituencies. In addition, thanks to Romney’s gracious suspension of his campaign, the GOP probably has 4 – 6 months to clarify, unify, organize and invest for victory ahead of the nominee of a hyper energized Democratic base.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST clarify our unmovable core principles, agree on topics still open to debate and emotionally unify behind our nominee – without wasting a day.

2.The Democratic Line-up: Election after election, the Democratic party kindly nominates critically flawed nominees. Neither Clinton or Obama should be underestimated, but BOTH are capable of being beaten.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST calmly and consistently contrast our nominee with both the Dem nominee.

3.Understanding Change: Every election is a triumph for the message of “change”. The key in this election, however, is to understand exactly what exact kinds of “change” are wanted. American’s overwhelmingly support conservative principles (lower taxes, family values, individual responsibility and security). Rasmussen polls for party identity demonstrate that the current administration is supported by about half of the nation’s Independents.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the nominee must remind the base of the critical issues at stake this year (national security, taxes and judges) and must positively motivate moderates – especially past Republicans.

4.It's the Economy: Under the Bush economy, minority house ownership is at an all time record, job growth continued unabated for a record 52 months, the GDP grew faster than any other industrialized nation and unemployment has remained below the average for any of the past 3 decades. Additionally, the “Bush” tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 – making for an easy and precise measure of EXACLY how much a Dem President and Congress will cost individual voters.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the facts must be told in terms of timeless conservative principles, not as a continuation of Bush policies. For example, highlight the radical moves toward fiscal conservatism in Ireland, France, Eastern Europe, New Zealand, Australia and Japan.

5.The War on Terrorism: It's hard to say which direction this war will ultimately go, but Iraq is clearly on the right military track, the Surge is drawing down and reconciliation laws are beginning to roll out of the Iraqi Parliament. Thus, the GOP candidate can probably point to positive signs in Iraq (if McCain, he can claim personal ownership for the policies which are bringing victory) and constantly focus on the real threats of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. If the electorate sees some success in Iraq and understands the threat from other quarters, the GOP should do well.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP must call Americans to set priorities without playing the “fear” card. This can be done by speaking directly to these issues of international security and calling America toward a vision of moral excellence – in the model of Reagan.

Stumbling Blocks:

1.Immigration Reform: To govern, the GOP must win elections. Traditionally, the GOP wins elections on shared principles, not identity groups. Immigration is a uniquely difficult issue for the GOP as it is inextricably linked to a racial identity – Hispanics. A party can’t win elections without votes from voters and Hispanics are passing blacks as a voting bloc. Security must be first, but terms must be tight. If the GOP uses blanket terms (Immigrant, Hispanics, Illegals, etc), we will be quickly painted as racist. Then, cool-headed logic must guide our policy preferences moving forward.

3.Housing, Stock and Oil Turmoil: The economy is a great campaign platform for the GOP, but a still stagnant housing market, stock slumps and increasingly high oil prices, could rot this support. There is no magical inoculation against market volatility. The GOP must figure out how to trumpet financial conservatism without hanging its hat on every micro-indicator.

4.Health Care: The Dems will march with full force to the tune of Universal Healthcare. While the left-leaning media trumpets along with the handpicked results of selective polling. The facts and history are on the side of conservative principles, but this will be an uphill fight the entire way.

5.GOP Civil War: Reagan’s guiding principles was that anyone who is in 80% agreement with me is my ally. Beyond that, when the 80% of agreement is National Security, networking like-minded economies and cultures against nuclear equipped and well financed regimes and gaining 1 more vote on the Supreme Court.

On Principle,
CBass

McCain at CPAC Today

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:49:00 +0000

Here's one of the funniest blog posts I've read in weeks. I contains some great advice for McCain's speech today at CPAC:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/frank_advice_for_mccain_at_cpa.php

Some highlights to prep your pallet:

* Call for a bombing run on Berkeley until they admit the military is awesome. Conservatives would like a nice local war. Plus, if in the end we decide to pull out of Berkeley and never go back, that's cool too.

* Vow to create more global warming. See, here's a great compromise. You believe in man made global warming, but that doesn't mean you have to take a liberal position on it. Say warming is awesome and call for more of it. It will be an especially popular position this winter.

* State that Fred Thompson will be your VP and vow not to live long. That would be awesome. I bet it would get a standing ovation at CPAC.

Foretaste of Arizona?

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:44:00 +0000

I received the following Straw Poll Results from a leading party activist and friend in Arizona. Is this a foretaste of concern for McCain?

Maricopa Republicans Presidential Straw Poll Vote Results

Maricopa County Republicans conducted a Presidential Straw Poll during the Jan. 19 Maricopa County Republican Committee meeting in Tempe. In the first category the delegates were able to vote for only their first choice for president.

Those results were as follows. Presidential Straw Poll with 721 ballots cast:

188 Mitt Romney 26%

121 Fred Thompson 17%

115 Ron Paul 16%

93 Duncan Hunter 13%

80 John McCain 11%

33 Rudy Giuliani 9%

32 Mike Huckabee 9%

In the second voting category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as unacceptable. In the Unacceptable Category 427 out of 721 (59%) of the delegates declared McCain as one of their unacceptable candidates. The tallies were:

427 McCain

396 Paul

357 Giuliani

340 Huckabee

156 Hunter

152 Thompson

121 Romney

In the third category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as acceptable.

Those results were as follows:

370 Thompson

358 Hunter

356 Romney

235 Giuliani

207 Huckabee

135 McCain

120 Paul

What To Watch Tonight

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:41:00 +0000

Most of you reading this blog post will do so tomorrow morning via your various “feed” subscription services. Meaning, by the time you read this, the media will already be spinning their thoughts about tonight's results.

Don't be dazzled by all the rhetoric, reams of exit poll data, conflicting claims if victory and the sheer magnitude of election results. There are only a few states and a few points that matter:

Democrats:

The Democratic primaries and caucuses don't use a winner takes all system. The methods by which they proportionally distribute delegates between candidates is unique to each state and beyond those of us who are not full-time professionals to understand. As a result, the news media will probably tend to focus on who won and who lost particular states, instead of detailing the quantity of delegates won by each candidates. Similarly, if the candidates count is close, keep searching until you find vote counts. In some states, equal quantities of delegates are awarded to candidates receiving 40% and 60% respectively. - yes, further complicating your lay analysis and further boggling the mind.

In summary:

Don't fascinate over just about who won what states. Who got what quantity of delegates in each state? That's what will determine the nomination.
If deleagate counts are close – then pay attention to actual vote totals in each state. Where does each candidate show strong support?

Republicans:

In the GOP race, only a few states really matter. Here they are:

Georgia:

Georgia is polling as a tight 3-way race. Why is Georgia important? What will it tell us?

Huckabee campaigned VERY hard here. In fact, Huckabee left Florida before the primary to hold rallys in GA when no one else was there. GA is a southern state in the Bible belt. It SHOULD be a win for Huckabee. Right now, he's polling 3^rd. If he comes in 3^rd, it proves he just isn't widely electable.
McCain just won the very public endorsement of GA's Senators. GA is also a state heavily loaded with military populations. McCain hasn't won a majority of Republicans in ANY state thus far, but he does very well in “open” primaries, where Independants can vote. GA is such a primary. With his endoresements, military support and Independent voters, McCain should win – he's currently polling in first or tied for first (depending upon the poll). If he comes in 2^nd place, it will be a clear loss.
Romney has focused advertising dollars in GA, but hasn't spent much time in the state. Although he has positioned himself as “the conservative choice”, conventional wisdom says Huckabee should take this portion of the vote. Half the GA population resides in the metro Atlanta area – which is booming economically. Thus, he doesn't have a large pool of worried workers to leverage his business experience – as in Michigan. All told, Romney should come in 3^rdas he has been consistently polling VERY poorly in the South. His current polling is in 2^nd or tied for 1^st place. If Romney wins, it proves he is more widely electable than one may think. If he comes in 2^nd, it proves he can mobilize conservative voters after Super Tuesday should Huckabee then drop out – which is FAR from certain.

California:

I wanted to post thoughts on CA's role in this race a few weeks back, but was not able to make time for it in light of my new business ventures. CA is of interest due to it's HUGE delegate count AND due to it's way of proportioning those delegates. Each congressional district will give 3 delegates to the popular vote winner.

McCain has gained endorsements from Rudy (who formerly polled well in CA) and the "Governator". Simply put, he should win CA hands down. If he doesn't it is a sign that he MUST turn toward the base (CA COP is educated and conservative) and assuage their concerns.
Romney won't win many winner take all states – those are largely McCain's to win (Mainly New England and AZ). Thus, while Romney polls closely to McCain in CA and can claim a moral victory, that won't do much to increase his delegate count against McCain. I think Romney wisely invested in this state early. Look at the travel calendar posted on his website. He invested his time here just after his victory in the Ames Iowa straw poll. That early investment may produce his largest returns. . .
The story in CA will be the distribution of the popular vote vs. congressional districts. In terms of this analysis, think in terms of Gore's popular vote victory of Bush in 2000 (no matter what you think of the outcome in FL) through huge concentrations of votes in urban areas and thus losing the Electoral College's spread of votes across the heartland. I think CA could tell the same story. McCain may accumulate huge numbers popular votes in dense urban areas like LA and San Fran. Romney may well win smaller majorities in more Congressional districts. Thus, Romney could lose CA in terms of the Popular vote, but come out ahead by as many as 100 delegates in CA.
Also of interest to watch is the spin. CA results won't be in by the time East Coast centered coverage closes down their telecasts. McCain will win more delegates earlier in the night. He will get the spin. If Romney wins the state in Popular vote or by a convincing Delegate lead (say 50 or more) then he may pick up spin the next day. If not, his surprisingly strong showing will likely be swept under the rug of the Clinton/Obama death match.

Massachusetts:

Conventional wisdom, polls and common sense all say that Romney should win convincingly here tonight.

McCain campaigned here over the weekend while Romney was pushing a sudden and impressive surge of support in CA. Tonight's vote will show if McCain is crazy like a fox or just crazy like a man left marooned at see (think Tom Hanks and his buddy, “Wilson”).
If Romney doesn't win convincingly here, it is hard to imagine a case for his continued support. This is his home state, he has mobilization networks and knows the politics. He was pretty popular as Governor and the primary is closed against Independents. If he loses, McCain is crazy like a prophet!

Arizona:

Much like I predicted CA would be a huge state in this race several weeks ago, I predict that AZ, starting Wednesday COULD change the dynamics in this race.

Simply put, many in the AZ GOP simply don't like John McCain. They have lived with him as their Senator and he's burned many bridges with much of the base. Just as he has “stuck his thumb” in the collective Conservative eye on some high profile issues in the past, I'm told that many GOP activists may take today/tonight to do the same back to McCain.
McCain boasted in the CNN/Politico debate held at the Reagan Presidential Library that he would not lose endorsement in his home state – unlike Romney in MA. That may be his set up. If McCain were to lose AZ, Romney will play that line against the vote total mercilessly. Plus, AZ is a winner takes all state with 53 delegates – a meaty sum.
I assume McCain will win AZ tonight, but if Romney comes in a close second, there is a real story to be told about McCain's inability to please his base constituency – which will forecast real weakness in the General election.
There's another items you analysts should look at: by what percentage spread does Romney win his home state vs. McCain win his? Since McCain campaigned in MA and Romney didn't campaign in AZ, Romney should win by the lesser spread. If McCain is the one squeaking out a narrow victory – it should educate the Senator to change tactics and speak to the base.

On Principle,

CBass

Republican Run-Down

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:37:00 +0000

Well, it's Super Tuesday and after repeated requests, here's my VERY SHORT run down on the Republican candidates.

Huckabee:
Summary:
Contrary to some responses to my article comparing Huckabee to a High School Homecoming Queen, I actually quite like Huckabee. In fact, I lament the fact that I could not, in good conscience, cast my vote for him in this election season. I hope he stays on the political stage and grows a bit into the holistic package I demand in the person receiving my vote for the Presidency or as a Presidential nominee.

Pro's:

Huckabee is an unabashed, consistent and determined pro-life candidate. There is really no other issue I consider to serve as quite such an integral nexus of moral and political worlds.
He was a successful Governor, reelected two times, in a Democratic state and winning 40% of black voters. This is the sort of record we need more leaders to strive for in the GOP.
He is obviously incredibly well spoken. Since Reagan, Republicans have evidenced a peculiar ineptitude at explaining the principles informing their positions. Polls repeatedly demonstrate that most American's are inclined toward the central pillars of conservative thought (smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, individual achievement, family values, military strength, and favoring life). If we could have a few politicians use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to communicate past media distortions, perhaps more American's would realize that these are not the central themes of the Democratic party.

Con's:

Huckabee is a novice (at best) and dangerous (at worst) in terms of foreign policy. In a highly publicized speech and in an article for Foreign Affairs magazine, Huckabee stated that “all our troubles” with Iran started with Bush's Axis of Evil speech. Never mind the taking of American hostages from our Embassy. Who cares about those Marines blown up by Iranian agents in Beirut? Hezbollah? No, their now an Iranian front group occupying Lebanon and fomenting civil war for decades. I guess those weren't really Iranian munitions and gun boats arming the 2 Palestinian intifada's – against even UN mandates? He also compared our issues with Iran to be similarly handled to relational disagreements one may have with a friend of family member. This comparison only works if your estranged relationship is with a murderous, nuclear armed, religious Zealot who has repeatedly pursued genocide. What is concerning is that Huckabeereally believes this rhetoric and is completely naïve and ill equipped to be Commander in Chief or he doesn't really believe this anti-Bush charge and is willing to sacrifice American resolve in an age of nuclear terror for the sake of his own campaign. You decide. Neither is exactly inspiring of confidence.
Ok, maybe he isn't a policy wonk on Iran, but surely he would listen to his advisers on these matters if he were elected President. One would certainly hope this to be the case. Yet, early evidence confronts these honest hopes. One need look no further than the Foreign Affairs article written above. Such articles are not dictated off the cuff late one night on the campaign bus. These sorts of major policy pronouncements get vetted through selected advisors. So, yes, Huckabee probably did work with advisors, but not any I want in the White House. Huckabee once mentioned several conservatives as being his advisors on international affairs. Unfortunately, they publicly stated their amazement at this pronouncement – none claiming to have met or corresponded with Huckabee more than one. Once of the aforementioned “advisors” is Michael Ledeen – a widely acknowledged expert on Iran. He stated he has specifically met with Huckabee and strongly explained why dealing with Iran is different, on a life and death level, than a Pastor might counsel an troubled couple. Huckabee chose to not follow advisors of this sort and opted for dangerous, irresponsible and uninformed rhetoric.
But is Life is your most important issue, shouldn't you vote of Huckabee? The answer would be, “yes”, if the only other choice was to vote for candidates favoring abortion. Both McCain and Romney have actual records of standing for pro-life positions and legislation. I do think Huckabee is more principled and solid on pro-life issues, but it's not as though he's the only pro-lifer in the race. I see being pro-life as more than anti-abortion. If you can't clearly stand against theocratic extremist, nuclear armed, consistently active terrorists – then I question your stance for protecting American life.

McCain:
Summary:
Conservative talk radio is all abuzz about McCain's lack of conservative credentials. My guess is that McCain is a clear favorite for the nomination as of this writing. I have some differences of opinions on specific McCain issues with these radio talkers, but won't write about those until after tonight's vote. In the end, my summary of McCain is this. He is clearly erratic in terms of issues importance to the party's base. Yet, he has a lifetime rating of being a consistently conservative legislator on issues of importance and a brand that may actually attract independent voters.

Pro's:

McCain is obviously very clear on issues of national defense and pro-life issues. McCain, unfortunately did vote to fund embryonic stem cell research. Recent science, however, has nearly rendered this issue moot. Leading scientists, including the one who successfully cloned Dolly the sheep, have stated that recent successes in converting adult skin cells into multi-potent stem cells is cheaper than cloning embryonic stem cells and shows more promise as it limits the carcinogenic and rejection issues inherent in introducing cloned embryonic stem cells into adult hosts.
McCain has attracted a top-flight team of advisors on the economy (Jack Kemp, Phil Graham, and Steve Forbes) and on nominating conservative judges (Ted Olson). Say what one likes about McCain's “dangerous” positions on Imigration, Campaign Finance Reform and Global Warming, but on key issues of government spending, taxation, the Supreme Court and national defense, McCain is strong.
The very thing that ticks off most Conservatives about McCain – his gruff demeanor and willingness to “buck” the system – is what makes him attractive to independents. He is the only candidates from either party who can convincingly run on his government experience AND still claim to carry the mantel of change.

Con's:

McCain's Achilles Heel this same personal demeanor that makes him attractive. The Dem's will poke and poke and poke at him. They will use every trick in the book. They will make themselves look small, negative and unattractive. All for one purpose – to send McCain into a red-faced rage in front of the cameras. At that point, all punditry becomes focused on the topic of whether America wants an emotionally uncontrolled curmudgeon at the helm of our nuclear arsenal and interfacing and responsible for building international coalitions.
If Obama is the Dem nominee, the race may be a repeat of sweaty Nixon debating young, vibrant Kenedy. Further, in such a match-up, both men are poised to gain independent voters. But only Obama also electrifies and mobilizes his base. I seriously doubt McCain bashers will refuse to support or vote for him, but they are less likely to make phone calls, host house meetings, go door-to-door, bus folks to the polls and do all the other things only a committed base will do to win an election.

Romney:
Summary:
Conservatives are seemingly rallying to Romney in great numbers. Today will tell the tale. I think Romney has a real story to tell in terms of his experience and if the economy remains a strong issue in the general election, I think Romney stands a strong chance of doing well. At present, I doubt he can win the GOP nomination, but I do think a strong showing for him today and his continued presence in the race does great things to frame debate within the party and hopefully may cause McCain to take steps further toward the base. (Well, a boy has got to have hope!).

Pro's:

Experience. Romney just oozes credibility in terms of Executive decision making.
While many conservatives are dubious of Romney's “conviction” on issues such as pro-life, gun control, and homosexual marriage, I don't quite understand the concern. Yes, Romney certainly does seem, on some issue, to be more fluid than one may like. But in terms of the issues listed above, Romney actually governed, unambiguously as a conservative. He tells a compelling and detailed story as to his conversion – exactly what most conservatives claim to want from people. Instead, he's greeted as a flip-flopped. Only, form my perspective he has never flipped and then flopped. He's only shown a progression in one direction.
Money. Non-one knows how much he has, but it is estimated to be in the Billions. Even McCain's campaign finance reform can't stop Romney from spending his own money on his own candidacy. The playing field has changed and Dem's now raise alarmingly more money than do Republicans. Romney's wealth will assist in leveling this field until we can get our fundraising gears re-aligned to the new world.

Con's:

Romney's experience in the business world, while being his strongest suite, is also one of his two greatest weaknesses. The Dem nominee will paint Romney as a mean spirited despoiler of lower and middle class American jobs through downsizing, outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs. If convincingly questioned, Romney will have a hard time making his necessary managerial steps as sounding sufficiently attractive.
Romney's second greatest weakness is his unfortunate lack of ability to motivate anyone. He is eminently competent, but he isn't exciting. Obama's excitement is likely to obviate Romney's competence.

On Principle,
CBass

Trade Wind Tumult

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:52:00 +0000

In keeping with this fascinating Primary marathon, there are some interesting currents blowing across South Caroline which threaten to disrupt the neatly predictable primary trade winds of surfed by the Established media. These winds steadily blow from Iowa to New Hampshire and then down to South Carolina before sweeping the nation with news of an ordained front runner.

Not so this year. And especially not so in South Carolina today. Consider:

Snow in the Upstate

All avid followers of politics know the importance that weather plays in turning out voters. On a good day, voters participate in Primaries in much lower numbers than they do in general election contests. Those who do vote enact this right of citizenship due to some strongly felt conviction about the system, a candidate or an issue.

Snow is not unheard of in Upstate SC, where I went to college, but three inches on the ground and icing up the many bridges is a definite hindrance to the less than zealous. It will be interesting to see how this affects Huckabee's run. While polling well around the entire state, his base of support is indeed in this growing evangelical expanse. As we saw in Iowa, Huck's supporters tend more toward the side of zeal. This is good for Huck and should dampen down the negative affect of the weather on him. Verse other candidates in this region, he should fair better. But verse the rest of the state where the weather is merely annoying rain (McCain's stronghold), not deadly ice, Huck risks the loss of critical numbers in this tied for first race.

My guess. My sad, dejected and weeping guess is that the weather, on total, will help McCain. But there is hope . .

Shifting Support: Thompson or Romney Surprise?

SC may just upset the GOP apple cart in a fashion similar to Hillary's amazing upset over Obama in New Hampshire. There, the girl wonder somehow wooed record numbers of voters. In SC, the voters are proving to be reluctant dates. Scott Rasmussen - widely regarded to be the most accurate political pollster in the business - reports:

Perhaps the most significant finding of the survey was that, as of Wednesday night, 41% of voters indicated that they might change their mind. That includes 7% who have not decided on anyone, 10% who said there’s a good chance they could change their mind, and another 24% who said they could change their mind. Such uncertainty just three days before an election is extraordinary.

What could these numbers mean:

First, keeping with the law of motivation, I suspect the weather will dampen these numbers. If so, perhaps only half of these undecided voters (20% of the statewide turnout) will vote in today's weather - even though these were all "likely voters".

Second, if they break in a distribution mirroring the current polling - and considering the likely lower turnout for Huck in the Upstate - McCain stands to inch ahead quite convincingly. :(

Currently Polling: McCain and Huckabee around 25% / Romney and Thompson around 18%.

Undecided Voters: 20% of turnout = McCain and Huckabee +5% each / Romney and Thompson +3% each.

Considering Weather: Inclement weather skews this distribution a bit more toward McCain and:

McCain +5% (30% total) / Huckabee +2-3% (27-28%) / Romney and Thompson +2 - 3% (around 20%)

Third, Thompson has been gaining in the polls consistently for the last 1 - 2 weeks. As such, it is possible, just possible, Thompson could be in the running for 1st or 2nd place suddenly:

Undecided Voters: 20% turnout due to inclement weather =

McCain +3 (28%) / Huckabee +2 (27%) / Romney +3 (21%) / Thompson +12 (28%) - an amazingly tight race with McCain.

Fourth, McCain, Huckabee and Thompson have all been campaigning hard in SC for weeks. If 41% of likely voters (assuming 20% of actual turnout) still aren't decided, only a small number are likely to break for them now. Keeping the above numbers, but skewing for Romney and the other candidates and assuming a small "surge" for Romney from Michigan and his recent campaign adds we may see something like:

McCain +2 (27%) / Huckabee +2 (27%) / Thompson +4 (20%) / Romney +10 (28%) / Others +2 - a close Romney win or convincing 2nd.

Nevada News - Romney's Ace?

The weather may have brought one more wild card into the race, a card which may just be Romney's "Trump" card.

Folks are more likely to stay home today. When folks stay home, they watch TV. Romney's win in NV was called 6 -7 hours before polls closed in SC. This win will get at least some airtime during those 6 - 7 hours.

Some of those undecided voters - or even week supporters for other candidates - may have been influenced by news of Romney's 3rd state win, his 2 "silver medals" and his commanding lead in the Delegate count.

Frankly, I think this is a VERY, VERY long shot.

I think things look good for McCain today. But, if this NV win factors in on top of the shifting support out outlined above, it could break just enough for Romney or Thompson to squeak out a 2nd place finish. Either way, Romney's win certainly helps insulate him from losing the expectations game out of SC.

On Principle,

CBass

Under Reporting the Primaries

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:37:00 +0000

Yes, really! I contend that Primaries have been vastly under reported. Consider. . .

It is still amazing to me that in a world of 24hr news cycles, 7 days a week, on multiple channels; with 25 million viewers of the 3 legacy news casts; along with declining but still pervasive newspaper distributions, supplemented further by the websites, blogs, RSS feeds, news aggregators and email distributions of "new media" - that the same stories get repeated, ad nauseum (heard enough of Britney and Jamie-Lynne Spears?), while information of real importance is seeming lost in the sea of pabulum.

In this environment, news casters, supposed journalists, pundits and other members of the "chattering class" glom onto the most easily digestible news sound bites. This coalescence forms an informational black hole conveniently known as, "Conventional wisdom". Important information must fight against the pervasive pull of this media monolith.

Submitted for your approval:

Debate Audience:
Conventional wisdom, repeated nearly nightly for the last year has well anchored an assumed distaste into the collective American mind against the "too-long" primary process. Yet, with a little digging from a obscure tool called "Google", one can find out all sorts of interesting information whereby to gauge voter distaste for the "too long" primary campaign.

Early Debates generated 2 million viewers each. This is about what Fox News, the leading cable channel by nearly all measures, generates nightly for "Special Report" with Brit Hume.

The most recent debates hosted by ABC and Fox News attracted: 16.7million and 2.6 million viewers respectively. When rebroadcast on CNN, the ABC debates captured 2.4million viewers.

That's 16.7million on a Saturday night (for Democrat and Republican debates) and 5million on Sunday night for just the Republicans (since Dems are still lurking in the shadows from arch-conservative, Chris Wallace.

Let's add a bit of perspective to this. The Allstate BCS National Championship Bowl Game generated an audience of 16.2million.

Audience of Primary Debates = National Championship in College Football.

Somehow I’m just not convinced the American electorate is backing down from the responsibility to seriously vet candidates for Commander in Chief.

Wyoming:
Conventional wisdom, myopically obsesses over the entrenched, exalted importance of Iowa and New Hampshire in rocketing candidates into the stratosphere of popularity and inevitable party Nomination. Yet, the citizens of Wyoming dared to hold their GOP caucuses dangerously early. In fact, they had the audacity to actually hold their votes PRIOR to New Hampshire.

Wyoming Republicans voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney. How much media time was invested in covering this clear and sizable win? Absent conservative bloggers, this was the victory heard around the Romney home and that's about as far as it reverberated.

Interestingly, Wyoming could have sourced some interesting facts for further analysis of the Primary process. For instance:

Wyoming's electorate is 62% Republican. Provides a very different electorate for analysis of the GOP field from the electorates of Iowa (30%) and New Hampshire (30%).

How did voters from this Republican electorate express themselves?
67% Romney, 25% Thompson and 8% Hunter.

Some alternative analysis I would expect to have heard - but didn’t:

Mitt Romney: Wins a convincing Majority of the vote 67% - even with a packed field of 6 candidates. This is HUGE in Presidential Primaries, but I heard hardly a peep.
Fred Thompson: When being evaluated by a deeply Red electorate, Thompson takes a solid 2nd place.
Mike Huckabee: Despite the promised Iowa surge (just 2 days prior), Mike Huckabee's zeal for political converts doesn't touch the more secular Republicans of WY.
McCain and Giuliani: Both presumed at some time by conventional wisdom to be GOP front-runners, both fail to even register on the vote board in a solid conservative state.

Delegate Counts:
Conventional wisdom equates 2nd place in the early primaries with a loss - unless, of course, one was polling in 4th place or worse. Finish early primaries in a disappointing 2nd or 3rd place and the despairing candidate must withdraw from the race or face certain humiliation and presumed personal ruin (queue music from a Lifetime movie and pass a Kleenex). Missing from this analysis, however, is the fact that party nominees will be selected by delegates won, not states won. In many cases, the two are partially mutually exclusive and delegates votes trump state ballots every day.

Granted, the occult workings of Party delegate rules defy explanation within a 1-minute news segment, but let's face it, the general concept of a delegate vote rather than a winner takes all system, even without the wonkish nuances, could make for understandable broadcast journalism. I dare propose that our highly literate populace could grasp the general concept. Yet, conventional wisdom continues to harp incessantly about the important of "winning" Iowa and New Hampshire - not the importance of building a coalition of delegates.

Would it be nice to win states? Absolutely! But just look at most other democracies in the world? They all deal with Parliamentary systems where no candidates or parties win a decisive majority. Do they curl up in the corner and lament their loss? No. They build a coalition through the power bestowed upon through their PLURALITY of the vote.

The GOP field officially has 5 assumed "First-Tier" candidates. The notion of particular candidates having to win all early states is moot. In this crowded field, candidates must win enough to keep excitement among supporters and, in a larger context, attract enough votes (2nd and 3rd place finishes) to coble together a decisive coalition of GOP Delegates.

This is how the entire world does elections. Seriously. I dare think that at least one of our media mega-houses could figure out a graphic, jingle and banner scroll to get this point across.

I recently proposed, half jokingly, to a politically savvy friend that purhaps someone like Romney could come in 2nd in more states than he does 1st and yet build the largest coalition of delegates. The folks RedState have done the hard math.

What's key here is that in terms of the Delegate count, there's good reason to forecast a Romney victory and a convincing path for the other 4 front-runners. It turns out this is the simple wisdom of Karl Rove as well:

At the end of Super Tuesday, it won't be just who won the most states, but who has the most delegates.

Absentee Balloting:
Conventional wisdom, in an incredibly tight and turbulent race, explores how the results from one race will affect the next race - one successive race at a time. Missing from this elementary perspective, is the fact that early balloting has begun in states which may vote much later. Absentee ballots in Florida, for instance, equate the totality of voters in Iowa caucuses.

The fact that absentee balloting often predates prior primaries is "pert near" completely missing from most news coverage. This is why possessing an organization and funding prior to the Iowa caucuses was so important this year. Romney's organization has been mobilizing absentee voting in New Hampshire and Michigan since December. Giuliani has been pursuing absentee, pre-balloting in Florida for all of January. The preferences of these early voters is captured around dynamics when these candidates were ahead in the polls.

How often have you witnessed this fact being clearly explained and intelligently pursued in primary news coverage?

To put the importance of absentee voting in Florida into perspective, consider that the more than 325,000 Democrats and Republicans who have requested ballots comes close to the number of Iowa voters last week who -- with hundreds of media outlets recording their every move -- trooped to schools, libraries and churches to support their favorite candidates.

Conventional Wisdom is a gapping maw form which little light emerges. I hope these thoughts help shine a bit light into the Twilight Zone of established media.

On Principle,
CBass

Iowa's Homecoming Queen

noreply@blogger.com (CBass) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:40:00 +0000

Any reading of the "Entrance Polls" (**see below for definition) for the Iowa GOP Caucuses uncovers a glaring, blaring, disturbingly adolescent quality to the vote reminiscent of the vote for High School Homecoming Queen. No matter what you may think of Mike Huckabee, the insights these poll numbers provide into the GOP electorate of Iowa are down right frightening in an age of terror, balance of power on the Supreme Court and a teetering economy.

As can be seen from the chart above, courtesy of CNN, Huckabee was ushered into his commanding victory by folks who thought he spoke honestly and thinks like they do. In other words, they voted for the guy they like. Unfortunately, the numbers in the left-hand column demonstrate that 78% of the Iowa GOP caucus goers felt that liking the candidate was the most important qualification for being President.

Excuse me, but WHAT?!?!?!

This isn't a vote for Miss Congeniality. This is the vote for the individual with the qualities necessary to protect the American populace, build coalitions of international allies, maintain vigorous economic growth, shrink government spending, move tough legislation through a hostile and gridlocked Congress and select Judges who will shape culture for the next 40 years - especially through an aging Supreme Court.

I'm not so Pollyannaish as to believe that likability isn't an important factor in a presidential race. It absolutely is. We have to live with the face and droning speeches in our living rooms, from whomever is elected, for the next 4 - 8 years. But, here's what I find interesting in the poll numbers:

GOP Caucus goers didn't think that Romney, McCain, Thompson or Giuliani were unlikeable to the point of not being electable. In fact, these Caucus goers all found these candidates to be more electable than Huckabee - so it is not a matter of these candidates having high likability negatives (like Hillary). It is simply that they found Mike Huckabee to be the coolest guy at the party.

Disturbingly, 78% of the Iowa GOP voters stated that being cool was the "TOP QUALITY", in other words the most important quality, in selecting a candidate for the Office of President of the United States. This is a fine quality in voting for Homecoming Queen, but the simplicity of "coolness" has always bothered me even in votes as unimportant as "Student Body President" (which I won, so don't read into this).

What is perhaps more shocking is that Huckabee outperforms the other candidates in the two likability categories, but he doesn't run away with either of these categories. On the other hand, Romney and McCain are 25% points ahead of ALL other candidates in terms of Experience. Romney alone is 35% points ahead of ALL other candidates in terms of Electability.

Translation: Huck doesn't stand a chance of winning an election against Obama or Clinton, but he's a little bit cooler than everyone else.

Answer: Fine. Let's elect him as Homecoming Queen, but not as our nominee for President of the United States, Commander in Chief and Leader of a Super Power in an age of global, violent Jihad.

On Principle, Who knows, maybe Mike looks good in a dress - we've all seen how Rudy sports one!

CBass

Special Notes

Entrance polls are a survey of selected voters taken soon before they enter their voting place. Pollsters use this sample information, collected from a small percentage of voters, to track and project how all voters or a specific segments of the voters sided on a particular race or ballot measure. Because of the nature of the Iowa caucuses, these polls are conducted as voters enter a caucus venue and are known as entrance polls. For more on how to read entrance or exit polls, click here