"If you don't help out, we will"

There's a somewhat small debate going on in US policy circles over to what extent we should be funding the Lebanese military. I would think this news that Russia is selling Lebanon 10 Mig 29 Fighter jets won't make things easier.

Apparently the best the Pentagon was willing to do was a single engine Cessna, which would have been helpful in taking out small domestic targets, and not much else. The new MiG's would, according to the article, become a potential challenge to Israel as well.

I don't know how true that is. First of all, Lebanon is only getting 10 of them, which isn't enough fight a drawn out air battle. Furthermore, having planes is one thing, but an advanced system of trained pilots is another. It would take some time for Lebanon to train pilots in the new jets to a level that would make them capable of fighting an intense war. The MiG 29 has a mixed combat record, and I can't find any record of it going up against what it would face in a war with Israel. I think the Israeli airforce, with its far larger fleet of F-15 and F-16's would be more than able to handle something it shouldn't really be going to war with in the first place. It should also probably be noted that this is not kind of fleet you would be mounting an invasion with - so unless you have plans to invade Lebanon, you shouldn't really be upset. Now I understand that things don't work with that in real life, if Russia decided to supply Lebanaon with SAM batteries, that would probably raise a little bit more of an outcry, but they didn't.

This seems to me less legitimate concern over military capabilities, and more complaining that the Russians aren't going to let us sit around and do nothing. It seems rather natural that Lebanon would want a real, capable air force rather than the joke we were offering them.

Obama, Health Care

With all the talk about the auto industry bailout and the latest stimulus package, I've been somewhat worried about Obama's commitment to pushing for health care early on in the administration. (I would like universal coverage but sadly, Obama's plan technically falls short of that). I've heard the issue dismissed recently in the belief that with all the money required to save the economy from another depression, we simply don't have enough for comprehensive health care reform.

Not only do I think that this is not true, it misses the point. Almost everybody can agree that the way to get out of this crisis is through more spending, hence the stimulus plans. I can't think of a better way to put more money into the pockets of everybody than a real, functioning health care system.

Our current system has become an unquestioned burden on far too many Americans; one that strains our economy in countless ways. People are less likely to look for better jobs for fear of losing their employee health benefits during the process; this also discourages people from becoming self-employed or starting their own business. In addition, businesses of all sizes have become increasingly burdened by the costs of keeping their employees covered. One of the most expensive costs that the auto industry has to face is the health coverage for its workers, even after they retire.

I really don't see pushing for health care reform as being an impossible task, in fact I think now would be the best time to do it. Forget about not having 60 Senate seats to work with. Obama would face some opposition from Southern Democrats anyway, but there was always going to be enough Republicans he could pick off. Just off the top of my head, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, Mel Martinez , Arlen Spector and Norm Coleman (presuming he holds on to his seat) come to mind.

The issue could be sold to the pro-business crowd in Congress as something that’s necessary for businesses to survive, for the reasons mentioned above. I would even think it would be possible for Democrats to cut a deal – agree to universal health care, and in exchange, Democrats won't push for Card Check. This might anger the unions, and it would be a broken campaign promise, but there are other ways to deal with them. The UAW isn't going to be in much position to argue, and Obama can placate them by saving the auto industry. (As mentioned above, saving the industry would be easier with health care reform). SEIU wouldn't be as easy, but universal health care would benefit its member so significantly that I think a deal could be brokered with them. Union's have typically been very good about fighting for government programs that would technically make them useless. While pushing for quality health benefits for their members is one of the main reasons for their existence today, past behavior indicates that they would be more than happy to abdicate that job if it brought its members health care. This could especially work if Democrats allowed the unions to take credit with its members for passing the plan.

I also see this as something that has the potential to really cement Obama's legacy as a President. It could even have a lasting effect on the political landscape, giving Democrats a loyal base in the same way the New Deal reforms did. (Just think of what the National Health Service did for the Labour Party in Britain). Contrast this with a stimulus package that nobody would ever really know for sure its actual effects.

The only issue left would be what would the plan look like. While I actually like Senator Ron Wyden's (which was pretty similar to Hillary's) I don't know if something like that would be feasible at the moment. It's also not what Obama pushed for in the primaries. I do think however that moving towards as system similar to France's would work in the States – as long as we don’t say were basing it off of the French. By creating a government run program that everybody can buy into – regardless of past medical conditions, we would be giving affordable access to millions who don't have it now. We would also be giving people currently paying too much health bills a more affordable option. The plan would be immune from those who warn of the pitfalls of socialized medicine, because individuals could still choose from any private plan they wish. It is true requiring companies to not deny coverage based on previous medical conditions would raise premiums for us healthy folks, but that pool of people is shrinking anyway. Besides, there would always be the government plan for us. Sure the powerful Health care lobby would put up a huge fight, as they would be bound to lose a lot of money in the event, but polls during the last election showed support for universal coverage at an all-time high. This isn't 1994, it’s a different environment and Obama needs to take advantage of the situation he's in.

More Cartoon Controversy

Photo Courtesy of Alex Segre via Flickr.

I'm ashamed to admit that I haven't had the opportunity to really find out the reaction amongst the Egyptian population about Obama's victory. The day following the election, I became horribly ill, and spent the next week and a half in an Egyptian hospital. The only Arabic I was practicing had to do with asking what drugs they were injecting me with at the time. (I never fully learned the vocab). I felt rather robbed of a special moment in my life because of this. Not just to see Egyptian's immediate reactions, but to bask in the glory myself. So now I've had to play a little bit of catch-up when it comes to observing what people think. One of the occurrences that I missed during my sojourn in the hospital was this cartoon printed in Al Ahram:

It seems like an appropriate enough cartoon. The depiction of the president elect Barack Obama with the US flag behind him and thebubble quoting Obama as saying the change has come to Washington. Looking up to the Obama depiction was an excited Egyptian woman congratulating the African American senator, reminding him not to forget that people around the world have been hoping and praying for his success. This was followed by the Arabic phrase: `uqbal inna' meaning may the same [change] happen to us.

According to the opposition weekly Sawt al Umma, the cartoon appearing in the leading Egyptian daily Al Ahram, caused a sense of an emergency among the Egyptian leadership. The independent weekly stated that150,000 copies of the paper's first edition were quickly removed from the streets and destroyed and the `troublesome' phrase disappearedfrom future prints that day. The before and after cartoon depictionappeared in Sawt al Umma.

The writer of the above, a Palestinian blogger named Daoud Kuttab, goes on to talk about how Obama's victory has given hope to many citizens of countries such as Jordan and Egypt, in the hope that they too can overturn their governments.

I don't question the analysis of the writer; I think he probably had his finger on the pulse of Arab youth much more so than I do. It does however somewhat fly in the face of my previous perceptions of what an Obama victory would mean.

My general understanding talking to people over the past year was that Egyptian's appreciation for Obama was very much based on his identity and what he represented to them, not policy. One thing that stood out fairly dramatically was that nobody I talked to seemed to be under any illusions about what would happen in an Obama administration. People defiantly believed that US policy would improve regarding the Middle East, but it seemed well understood that Obama was still going to maintain a policy generally supportive of Israel.

In this sense, Egyptians were far better informed than many Americans. While rumors spread in the US that Obama was a stealth Muslim, I don't think anybody in Egypt believed that Obama's first move as President would be to tell Livni to dismantle the Neve Manyak settlement. People knew he was against the Iraq war, but had tempered expectations about overall policy. His popularity seemed to rest more on the fact that his rise signified that Americans wanted something radically different, and that his win would be the beginning of at least a more evenhanded, respectful treatment of Arabs.

This type of acknowledgment of reality would make me question whether anybody could think that Obama's win could pose a threat to the Mubarak regime. Unless Obama wants to really shake things up, I don't see a real push towards democracy in Egypt being high on the US agenda. After all, Egypt is arguably the most important US ally in the region besides Israel. The Egyptian army (half of which is funded by the US) is the largest in the Arab World, and its cooperation with the US and Israel leaves the Jewish State with no conventional military threat. Egypt's position of influence in the Arab World, containing a quarter of its population, and playing host to the Arab League, makes its close friendship that much more important. Mubarak has also been cooperative with the US and Israel when it comes to the sealing of the Gaza border. On top of this, Cairo's rarely reported mediation between the West and Hamas is certainly a valuable asset. This isn't' all to say that only a President Mubarak could deliver all of this, but it's safe to say a more democratic leader probably wouldn't be on board so strongly with all of those issues. I hope President Obama looks to real democratic and human rights reform in the Middle East, but I suspect that nobody on his team is going to want to rock the boat too quickly, especially when it comes to our most important allies.

Kuttab continues with a story of imprisoned Egyptian opposition leader Ayman Nour, the man who received the second largest vote count in the last Egyptian Presidential election. Nour wrote to Obama:

"The writer of these lines is a human being, about your age, who was — and still is —dreaming like you of change and reform in his country. However, in our countries legitimate dreams turn into horrifying nightmares!!"

Nour is a secular politician, with high name recognition, but there is no way to tell if somebody like him would take charge in the even to a power vacuum in the country. Is Obama going to push for democratic reform in a county like Egypt when conventional US opinion seems to be that the Muslim Brotherhood could take over? (I'm not saying they actually would) From the list of foreign policy advisors he's collected so far, and from previous statements, I don't see any indication that democracy in the Middle East is goal number one. Joe Biden, for example, who is sure to play a major role in decision making, has stated he was against the Palestinian elections that brought Hamas to power.

Which leads me to the last point that Kuttab makes:

"Some of the same skeptics are now optimistic. After seeing America at its best, there is a renewed sense of confidence in American-style democracy throughout the world. However, this growing confidence aboutthe possibility of political reform can turn into a disaster if change does in fact stay limited to the American shores. If young reformers in the Arab region are again crushed after the change candidate takes power in Washington, their hopes for genuine reform in the Arab world will be set back for years, once again."

Pundits have talked about a similar set of expectations that Obama faces domestically, but I wonder how significant they are in the rest of the world. What do people really expect from President Obama? If after two years of an Obama administration, and the Middle East looks essentially like it does now, what will the opinion of Obama be?


To go slightly off topic, (but only slightly) I feel this is one of the worst legacies that the Bush administration has left us with. The idea of Democracy promotion has been so tainted with neo-conservatism and failed experiments in the Middle East that I think the American public and policy makers have soured on what should still be an important part of US policy. The answer for the last eight years isn't' isolationism (and I don't think Obama will resort to this) and just because democracy wasn't successfully forced down Iraqis throats doesn't' mean we still shouldn't push for those values. I agree that maybe a focus on human rights should come before elections, but both are important and shouldn't be ignored. It's not just that we're better off with more democracies in the world; I think people really may be looking at the US right now to show real leadership on this issue.

President Bush had made several small attempts to prod the Egyptian government into democratic reforms; unfortunately his reputation was so tarnished in this region that it was only interpreted as bullying. Meanwhile the actual reforms that Mubarak was pressured into taking only led to the elections in which Nour was arrested.

I hope President Obama makes continued efforts to gently push leaders like Mubarak into making real change. Of course part of this can come from Obama himself. Putting an end to extraordinary rendition and other policies where the US is complicate in the suffering of Arabs would demonstrate that Obama isn't going to go along with human rights abuses as long as it keeps the radicals out of power. It would also make any advocacy of real reform that much more credible. Either way, it seems like Obama finds himself in a position where he actually has a bit of soft power capital to use; at least among certain people.

DSCC still looking for money

Well over a week after the elections I'm still receiving a fair amount of fundraising emails from various groups, which isn't altogether surprising. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in particular has been hitting me up a lot in emails talking about the three outstanding races still left to be decided: the probable pickup in Alaska, the recount in Minnesota (where I think Coleman will hold on) and the runoff election in Georgia. Whats significant about all three races however, is that of them, only the Georgia race is one where my money could possibly help. The other two are a matter of finishing counting the ballots, or recounting them. I also think its stands out in that of the three races, I would put Georgia as the least likely for Democrats to win. Democrats probably won't see the record turnout they did on election day, and overall excitement will be down. Plus now that its clear Democrats will have overwhelming control of the government, Georgians might be more inclined to keep a Republican in the seat to balance things out. This would follow the logic that allowed Mary Landrieu to win her Senate runoff in 2002 after less vulnerable Democrats lost in the main election.

Of course the emails I'm getting aren't highlighting the Georgia race - they're harping on the other two, and the razor thin vote margins. This is a good way to get people fired up, but I think a somewhat dishonest form of fundraising. Would my money be spent in Alaska or Minnesota? I don't think so, it would only be spent in Georgia, so why can't they say that?

Below is the text from just one of the emails which I think displays what I'm talking about.

Dear David,


The staggering scope of your victory is only beginning to sink in. Because of all of your hard work and dedication, Barack Obama will take the oath of office on January 20. It's going to be astonishing.

Because you helped the DSCC win at least 6 new Democratic Senate seats, he'll hit the ground running with big majorities in both houses of Congress. Those big majorities are essential to delivering the change we need.

Thank you - from all of us at the DSCC - for all your effort and all your support. The American people owe you a huge debt of gratitude. And our tremendous record of accomplishment this year isn't finished yet. There are still three unresolved Senate races where your time, money, and effort have put us on the very cusp of victory. Here are the latest updates:

Alaska:
Mark Begich holds a solid 1,022-vote lead over seven-time convicted felon Ted Stevens with 24,000 votes still to be counted. We should have a final count sometime this week, but I am cautiously optimistic that Sarah Palin's next senator will be a Democrat.

Georgia:
The race to win the December 2 runoff is boiling over. Saxby Chambliss, the NRSC, and the right-wing attack organization Freedom's Watch are all blitzing the airwaves. But thanks to your generous support, the DSCC and Jim Martin have been able to nearly match the Republicans dollar-for-dollar and fight back with ads of our own. Chambliss is campaigning with John McCain and Mike Huckabee, but special elections like this one are won and lost on voter turnout. That's why the DSCC already has staff and volunteers on the ground in Georgia, getting people ready to vote on December 2. Our proven strategy has worked over and over again, and I know we can do it again.

Minnesota:
Al Franken trails Norm Coleman by just 204 votes - seven one-thousandths of one percent (.007%) - and an automatic hand recount of every vote will begin soon. Coleman and his right-wing buddies are scared the recount won't go their way. So they have already started trying to undermine the process, intimidate ballot counters, and disenfranchise enough voters to win at any cost - just like in Florida eight years ago.

The DSCC and the Franken campaign won't allow them to distract from ensuring that every vote is properly counted. It might take a few weeks, but we need to count all the votes fairly. It's the only way the true voice of the electorate can be heard.

The DSCC is doing everything we can to win these final races. We'll make sure every vote is counted in Alaska and Minnesota, and in Georgia, we'll unleash the same proven field program that has already won 12 new Democratic seats in the last two elections.

We need your help to win, and even as little as $5 from you can make a big difference. Our new and condensed campaign plan shows that we need to raise $100,000 before midnight Friday. It's so crucial to make this goal, that if you give before the deadline, a group of Democratic senators will triple your contribution. Your $5 will go that much further towards giving President-elect Obama an even bigger Senate majority to pass his agenda.

Click here to rush a contribution of $5 or more to the DSCC. We still have three more chances to grow our Senate majority for change.

You have already accomplished so much to elect great Democrats and change this country. Stand with us over these next few weeks, and we can win as many as three more Senate seats to make it even easier for Barack Obama to hit the ground running on Inauguration Day.

Thank you again,

J.B. Poersch
Executive Director

Election Day Weather Reports

The folks at Harvard's Kennedy School have apparently put up a website that monitors voting conditions in every state. This brings up a questions I've always wondered about the media's fascination with weather conditions on election day.

Every two years I hear reports about what the sky is going to look like tomorrow and how this is going to have an effect on turnout. I have to say, I'm skeptical about the relevancy of it in the first place. Don't get me wrong, it many cases, I'm sure weather plays a role in final turnout. If a bad snow storm hits, I could understand how that could keep some people home, and I do believe that primary caucus turnout would be subject to particularly bad weather. Local races of low interest also might be somewhat vulnerable, but I really don't see how rainfall would have any effect on a high-profile Presidential race. After all, most people drive to the polls, not walk, and if you live in an area where it's raining on election day, it probably means you live in an area where you're used to rain and drive in it all the time. I know there are a lot of less-than-passionate voters out there, but does anybody really stay home for that reason?

I would like to think that somebody has done some research on this to try to see if there is any quantitative evidence to back it up. Of course I could see a lot of problems with doing a completely accurate study. Simply comparing areas with heavy rainfall vs. those that were sunny wouldn't take into account a whole host of other important factors such as historical participation habits and local ground operations. (Urban environments in competitive areas would be subject to more investment from respective campaigns, and therefore, see a more intense turnout drive).

I imagine however, you could compare a number of areas, maybe by county,(to be safe, maybe divide urban vs urban and rural vs rural)measure their turnout vs. national turnout, then compare that number to the historical average of that county in previous elections. Even then you would only be able to compare Presidential year elections as off-years would be subject to fluctuations in competitiveness of downballot races. This is also making an assumption that the importance of a competitive downballot race plays no effect on overall turnout when there is a Presidential race at the top of the ticket. That's a somewhat risky jump, but seeing as significant statistical evidence of a drop off in voting for downballots is always present, I think it might be an acceptable and necessary omission. Plus for the sake of this study, we would be concerned mostly with dispassionate voters, who would be the most likely to only vote at the top of the ticket. This study might be made more difficult with the emergence of early voting, which allows voters to avoid election day variables. It could be argued however, that early voters are far more likely to have a high interest level, and show up regardless of weather conditions.

If this is a reasonable thing to look at, I wonder what the numbers would look like? My guess is that you might find some small discrepancy, but anything under 5 percent could easily just be random fluctuations that could exist for a number of reasons. But I suppose that's my point, this is all just speculation and yet we treat it as something else.

Update: I think there is a group that could be potentially influenced by rainfall - elderly voters who don't have a ride to the polls. I still see this as somewhat suspect as both parties will ensure their seniors have a ride to the polls as one of the most crucial steps of any ground operation. However I will concede that there could be a number of seniors who would feel comfortable driving in normal weather conditions, but not in the rain. I don't know if this would be offset by the fact that seniors are significantly more likely to vote than other age groups however. Worth noting.

The Home Stretch

It seems that the race has tightened a noticeable amount in the past few days, according to RCP, Pollster.com and fiverthrityeight.com. I'm not going to get into specifics about the methodology of each analysis because it appears that whatever the true numbers are, we really have witnessed what seems to be a several point gain by McCain that appears to be tapering off a bit.

We can usually attribute this to an almost inevitable tightening in polls in the last few days of an election. The only (semi)troubling aspect about this for me is if this is the case, then it shows a high level of undecideds breaking for McCain.

Conventional wisdom is that in the last few days of the election, undecided will typical break to the challenger by a ratio of about 60 to 40 percent. This is usually attributable to the fact that somebody who was undecided is probably less inclined to favor the incumbent. The best example would be somebody asking you if you wanted to be with your girlfriend or boyfriend a year from now. If your answer at any point is undecided, then you're probably a bit unsatisfied. Likewise, if you're undecided about your current leadership, you probably think somebody could do a better job.

This race of course doesn't have an incumbent individual, but it does have an incumbent party, and most numbers seem to indicate that people are issuing a collective punishment on the GOP. This would normally lead somebody to conclude that most undecideds should break towards Obama - but I actually think the opposite.

Obama has been riding a wave of positive press for several straight weeks, while McCain has suffered setback after setback. Poll numbers showing a massive swing towards Obama and downballot Dems indicate to me that a general consensus has emerged among most people. I think Obama plateaued about a week ago, with everybody who could be convinced, being convinced. Still being on the fence after such a lopsided level of press coverage would lead me to believe that very little could persuade that person to vote for Obama. (I realize this could be my partisan opinions coming out)

I'm assuming the tightening in the polls is due to undecideds, but that in itself is just speculation. I don't have access to poll crosstabs (or time to analyze them) so I can't tell if that number has shrunk in the past week. I mostly want to attribute it to that because I can't think of any other event that would cause a shift in opinion. Have McCain's "spread the wealth" attacks really been that effective? We really can't tell, but it doesn't seem like a winning line to me.

Overall this doesn't worry me a great deal. The overall numbers still make things look pretty difficult for a McCain victory. Both candidates are drawing the same level of support from their party, but Dem party id is far higher than Republicans this year. A McCain path to victory would require him siphoning of a solid majority of independents, a group he is trailing badly with. (Independents aren't the same as undecideds) There's also the fact that despite the national numbers getting closer, McCain seems to have been making very little headway in the key battleground states. Obama's superior ground operations coupled with his cash on hand advantage seem to be keeping the eight or so important states immune to slight national fluctuations.

I think the most important thing to look for these next few days will be if the trendline continues or flattens out (as it appears it is). If we don't see any difference in the battleground states it will also be a mute point. So despite whatever outlying Zogby poll that Fox or Matt Drudge try to pull out, I think this race is still pretty out of reach for McCain.

Sarah Palin, Clothes, 2012

Christophr Orr over at tnr.com flags down this youtube showing an internecine feud on the right over the Sarah Palin wardrobe issue. Orr correctly points out:

Notice what's missing from all this skirmishing? Anyone associated with the Democrats or the mainstream media. At this point, Barnes, Wallace, Kristol,Palin, Duncan,et al. are just about the only ones keeping this story alive.

Orr goes on to claim that is the opening round of a 2012 battle between Palin and anti-Palin factions of the GOP. I think this is about right (although I don't believe she will be a serious candidate at that time). It's rather remarkable to see the conservative media keeping a story like this alive and debating it in such a way. It certainly shows a lack of discipline from the GOP that they can't get a unified message out through what should be a friendly media outlet.

Finding somebody to blame for the outfits should be a non-issue, because the issue itself is a non-issue. Mini events like this may serve some small significance in occupying one news cycle, but beyond that their effect has to be pretty minimal. This isn't saying that these things can't play some role; John Edwards 500 dollar haircut got some play among the late night comics. But after the Iowa Caucuses, I don't know of any serious analysis that showed it factored into anybodies decision.

The fact is the wardrobe issue came about well after the McCain/Palin ticket starting plummeting in the polls, and even further after her negatives had gone sky high. The finger pointing between Republicans seems to be more a pre-loss blame game than anything else. If the ticket goes down in failure, and it increasingly looks like it will, there will be several decisions and moments in which we can look back at and see where the race was lost. This one however, won't be one of them.