Locus Medius

Congress Doesn't Get It

Here are two CNN.com headlines this evening that show up right in a row: "Dow's Worst Week Since October 2008" and "Senate rejects GOP spending plan as shutdown looms". If anyone in Congress thinks those two headlines are not related, then they are smoking dope. The markets are spooked by government inaction. More inaction is not the cure.

"Heart of a Soldier" — Opera About Rick Rescorla

The LA Times just posted its review of "Heart of a Soldier", the San Francisco Opera's newly commissioned opera about the life of Rick Rescorla which premiered last night.

You may not remember his name, but Rescorla was the head of Morgan Stanley's security at the World Trade Center on 9/11 who famously overruled the Port Authority's suggestion that everyone remain in the South Tower.  Because of his decision — and previous planning, insistence on semi-annual evacuation drills, etc. — only a handfull of Morgan Stanley's thousands of workers in the South Tower were lost.  Unfortunately, he was included in that handful.

Murdoc Online posted about Rescorla yesterday.

The LA Times review was kindly worded, but reading between the lines, the opera is only OK.  

Let's give the SFO credit for trying, though.  Opera companies have gotten good at pretending they are moving the art form forward by producing avante garde productions of the same old classics.  All too few are taking chances with new material.  Perhaps more importantly, too few have found interesting contemporary topics for new material.

"Heart of a Soldier", at least, has an epic story line — Vietnam Vet heroically saves thousands on 9/11.  I, for one, have my fingers crossed that (i) the LA Times is being a little hard on the production or (ii) at the very least, SFO continues to look for ways to move the art form forward.

Ars Technica Fears the Ideologues Also — But Maybe Huntsman Is OK

The day after my last post about ideology trumping actual facts, Ars Technica posted an op-ed titled "Political science: why rejecting expertise has become a campaign strategy (and why it scares me)".

What's their take-away?

With the exception of Huntsman, the candidates don't know science, haven't bothered to ask someone who does, and, in several cases, don't even know anything about the settled policy issues... Why would we want these traits in a president?

I agree completely.  Except for one thing — I did not know that Huntsman actually had a reasonable position on science.

Apparently, Jon Huntsman recently tweeted "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Furthermore,

In an ABC News interview, [Huntsman] argued that the leading candidates' stance would make them unelectable. "The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party—the anti-science party—we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science—Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position."

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is unlikely to win Huntsman the nomination, but it's good to see there is some element within the Republican party that can think beyond ideology.

Ideology Trumps Data - Yet Again

In a blog posting at CNBC, Tony Fratto asks the question "Do Long Term Unemployment Benefits Elevate the Unemployment Rate?"  He provides the graph below, purportedly showing that the current recession is unique, in that "weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance are very tightly correlated with the unemployment rate – until mid-2009, that is..."

Looking at that data, you might find yourself thinking that it is, in fact, strange that well into the recession there is a sudden dislocation between the two measures.  And, look!  There was no similar dislocation in the 2001 recession.  It must be that there is something different about the current recession that is affecting unemployment.  And it must be something that occured later in the recession.  Therefore, it must be that we extended unemployment benefits longer than in past recessions.  Quod erat demonstrandum!

Only did we really demonstrate that?

Absolutely not.

First, there's no cause/effect argument that would tell us that the unemployment rate should drop as soon as initial claims start to drop.  Just because fewer people are losing their jobs doesn't mean a lot of unemployed are being rehired.

Second, the 2001 recession was relatively short and shallow compared to the current recession.  What if we looked for more data?

Does the Tea Party Really Represent Reagan's Legacy?

I was surprised the other day to see this op-ed on the Fox News website criticizing the contemporary mythology in conservative circles regarding Ronald Reagan's legacy.  Here's the key quote:

If conservatives believe Reagan was a good president, what made him good was not his ideological rhetoric but his actions as a leader, including many moderate and even left-leaning initiatives. Coming on the heels of the liberal agenda of the 1960s and 1970s and supported by the rising Christian Right, Reagan may have seemed like an extreme conservative figure. In reality, and especially by today’s standards, he was a fairly moderate figure.

Maybe not all Fox News contributors are mindless ideologues after all.

Ethanol = Cure for Obesity?

I was just listening to an NPR piece about how the increased demand for ethanol, due to federal mandates, has pushed the price of corn up.

Suddenly it occurred to me how great this is for the current obesity problem. One of the key factors in the obesity epidemic is that U.S. farmers grow significantly more calories than we can eat. Much of this is in the form of corn products. The proliferation of high-calorie, low-priced food can be directly related to the vast availability and low price of corn by-products -- corn syrup most especially.

I haven't read it yet, but Michael Pollan's book The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals extensively discusses our dependence on corn. Apparently, much of what we eat can be traced back to a corn field in Iowa. And much of the foods involved are not particularly healthy -- junk food, fast food, red meat, etc.

So maybe we'll get some positive health effects out of this ethanol craze.

Final Results

I seem to have received a lot of hits from people who were looking for updates on the elections. Therefore, I am posting this link to the CNN election results site.

Gas Prices by County

Murdoc's got a great post with a map of U.S. mainland gas prices by county. I find the map very interesting. Something is clearly up in the midwestern states and New York. My guess is tax rates, since these are prices at the pump.

The west coast is also significantly higher. Since that covers a broader geographic area, I hesitate to attribute it to tax rates, since it could also be a supply/distribution issue in the fast-growing west. It wouldn't surprise me if those states also have higher taxes, though.

Murdoc also makes the comment:

I guess we'll see what they do in the coming weeks, and if they shoot back up you can be sure we'll be hearing all about how the GOP manipulated them down for the elections. And it might even be true.

I, for one, do not believe the GOP has been manipulating anything associated with gas prices. Mainly because they haven't had to. The petroleum companies have been doing it on their own. There is no question that the petroleum industry will be better off under a Republican congress, and they know it.

And I don't even believe this is a matter of collusion. It's only collusion if the companies get together and agree to do something. In this case, I believe they are all doing it because it is so obviously in their best interest; they don't have to get together and discuss it. Their best interest is for Republicans to retain as much influence as possible and they know that lower gas prices will help achieve that goal.

Midterm Election 2006 - Final Analysis

Update 11/8: Final results for the 2006 midterm election can be found at CNN's site here.

OK, here's my final analysis before the election today.

New polls since my last update on 11/4 have resulted in some interesting changes.

As usual, the detailed race-by-race analysis is a pdf here.

On the Senate side, I am now showing the Republicans maintaining a one seat lead. However two races are actually tied with a third within one point. (These are actual ties, in contrast to the mythical "statistical tie" I also posted about this morning.)

• In Maryland, Michael Steele (R) is tied with Ben Cardin (D) at 47%, with only 3% undecided and 3% going to Kevin Zeese (I). Because Zeese is the nominee from all three of the Libertarian, Green and Populist parties, it is not clear whether he is siphoning off more votes from Steele or Cardin (i.e. whether a voter deciding to avoid the third-party candidate effect at the last minute would be switching to Steele or Cardin). Since I have the tie going to the incumbent party, I am showing Cardin winning.
• In Missouri, James Talent (R) seems to have pulled slightly ahead of Claire McKaskell (D), but only by a point or two. This is a change from my last analysis. Note that the third-party candidate, Frank Gilmour, is a Libertarian so voters avoiding the third-party candidate effect at the last minute would be more likely to switch to Talent.
• In Virginia, the lead has switched back and forth between George Allen (R) and James Webb (D). Right now, I have them listed as tied at 49%, which I show as a win for the incumbent (Allen).

It should be noted that there are 2% to 3% undecided in each of these races. Undecideds tend to lean more heavily against the incumbent (Talent and Allen, both Republicans; the Maryland seat is Paul Sarbanes (D) current seat, so Bill Cardin is of the incumbent party but is not himself the incumbent). At this point, these races are anyone's to win.

The table below shows Cardin, Talent and Allen winning, resulting in a one-seat majority by the Republicans. If the Republicans win all three, they will maintain a two-seat majority. If the Democrats win all three, the could achieve a one-seat majority. These are definitely the three races to watch right now.

Two other senate races that are still pretty close are Montana, where Jon Tester (D) leads Conrad Burns (R) by two points, and New Jersey, where Robert Menendez (D) leads Tom Kean, Jr. (R) by five points.

Finally, I should mention that I removed two seats from the in-play column, as Maria Cantwell (D) has pulled out to a 16 point lead over Mike McGavick (R) in Washington and Debbie Stabenow (D) has also pulled out to a 16 point lead over Michael Bouchard (R) in Michigan.

In the House, there have only been a few significant changes since my last posting, leaving the end result unchanged.

• NY-20 was added back to the in-play column as Kirsten Gillebrand (D) pulled ahead of incumbent John Sweeney (R) by three points after allegations of spousal abuse were made against Sweeney. Sweeney was previously up by 14 points.
• CA-50 was removed from the in-play column after incumbent Brian Bilbray (R) widened his lead from three points to 14 points over Francine Busby (D).
• In KY-04, the incumbent Geoff Davis (R) pulled ahead of Ken Lucas (D) by six points, after being down three points previously.
• In FL-22, Ron Klein (D) widened his lead over incumbent Clay Shaw (R) from two points to nine points.

There too many House races worth watching for me to give detail on each one. I will merely list the district and the current poll result from my analysis for each. My system for picking these races is simple, it represents all races that are within two points, plus the NY-20 race where the swing occurred suddenly based on new allegations. There are other races with two to five point spreads that are probably also worth keeping an eye on, and can be found in the the detailed pdf.

• AZ-01 (R +2)
• AZ-05 (D +2)
• CA-11 (D +2)
• CO-04 (R +1)
• FL-13 (D +2)
• IL-10 (D +2)
• IN-09 (R +2)
• IA-02 (R +2)
• NM-01 (D +2)
• NY-19 (D +2)
• NY-20 (D +3)
• OH-01 (D +2)
• WA-08 (R tie)

The table below includes all of these closest races as shown. If the Republicans win all of these closest races, they will still only have 206 seats in the House, leaving the Democrats with 229 seats and the majority. If the Democrats win all of these, they will have 242 seats.

In the Gubernatorial races, the only significant changes have been Democrats pulling ahead in three races.

• In Michigan, incumbent Jennifer Granholm (D) has increased her lead over Dick DeVos (R) from nine points to 14 points, removing it from in-play.
• In Arizona, incumbent Janet Napolitano (D) has increased her lead over Len Munsil (R) from eight points to 28 points, also removing it from in-play. (Note that this may not represent a huge gain, but may merely represent a poor choice on my part of the poll I used in the previous analysis. Few pundits have expressed any belief at any point that Napolitano's seat was in play.)
• In Ohio, Ted Strickland (D) increased his lead over Ken Blackwell (R) from nine points to 18 points. Note that I still keep this as in-play because I am including any seat changing parties as in-play (regardless of the lead).

Now that I've discussed the Governors races that are no longer close, here are some races to watch.

• In Alaska, in spite of disbelief that this seat is in play, Sara Palin (R) is only leading Tony Knowles (D) by two points. A third-party candidate, Andrew Halcro, is polling at 12%. Although a former Republican, his independent platform may be appealing to "change voters" from both sides of the aisle. It is not clear which candidate would be helped if some of his voters switch in order to avoid the third-party candidate effect.
• In Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson (R) leads Mike Beebe (D) by only three points.
• In Iowa, current Secretary of State Chet Culver (D) leads current House member Jim Nussle (R) by only two points.
• In Maryland, Martin O'Malley (D) leads incumbent Robert Ehrlich (R) by one point, in spite of relatively high approval ratings for an incumbent Governor.
• In Minnesota, Attorney General Mike Hatch (D) leads incumbent Timothy Paulenty (R) by only one point. Momentum has been on Hatch's side, though.
• In Nevada, Dina Titus (D) leads Jim Gibbons (R) by one point. Nevada's political leanings can be illustrated by noting that Jim Gibbons is disliked by approximately half of the electorate and has been accused of sexual assault, but is still running neck-and-neck.
• In Oregon, incumbent Theodore Kulongowski (D) leads Ron Saxton (R) by approximately half a point.
• In Wisconsin, Mark Green (R) leads incumbent James Doyle (D) also by approximately half a point. In this race, the Green Party candidate, Nelson Eisman, is polling at 4%. Voters avoiding the third-party candidate effect at the last minute would be more likely to switch to Doyle.

As with the Senate and the House tables, the summary below shows the outcomes as listed above. If the Republicans win all of these close races, they will only lose a total of two Governors' seats. If the Democrats win all of these close races, the will gain a total of ten Governors' seats.

I have mentioned the "third-party candidate effect" a number of times in this post. There have been cases where, in close races, voters who have previously indicated they will vote for a third-party switch to one of the main-line candidates. An example of such a thought process is as follows: "When the Democrat was losing by 10 points, I decided I would vote for the Green Party candidate to express my interest in the environment. Now that the Democrat actually has a chance to win, I will switch to voting for him/her."

To reiterate my methodology: As you may be able to tell, I am trying to inject as little of my own opinion into this analysis as possible. That is why I am allowing close races to switch back and forth between times I publish the list. The only place where my opinion matters is that I sometimes have to pick which of two or three polls I will include in the analysis. In such cases, I tend to favor polls that are (i) newer, (ii) by national non-partisan firms versus local organizations or partisan polling houses and/or (iii) favor the incumbent. Where there are three or more polls, I also try to exclude any outlyers.

"Statistical Tie" Is Not Statistically Meaningful

I'm tired of hearing journalists say (or seeing them write) something like this:

The latest MajorityWatch poll was taken from October 24-26, with 1,008 likely voters and a margin of error of 3.08%. It shows Seals with a narrow 48%-46% lead, within the margin of error and thus a statistical tie.

(I took this quote from this post on Blogger News Network — for no other reason than it illustrated my point in just two sentences.)

It's clear to me that most people understand the phrase "statistical tie" or "statistical dead heat" to mean that, because the poll is within the margin of error, we really have no information about who is leading.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what the margin of error represents.