A New Climate

At long last, there was a question and a long answer on the climate crisis at President Obama's press conference.  Here it is in full:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. In his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg said he was motivated by the belief that you would do more to confront the threat of climate change than your opponent. Tomorrow you’re going up to New York City where you’re going to, I assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which many people say is further evidence of how a warming globe is changing our weather. What specifically do you plan to do in a second term to tackle the issue of climate change? And do you think the political will exists in Washington to pass legislation that could include some kind of attacks on carbon?

THE PRESIDENT: As you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily -- there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.

And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we've got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.

Now, in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That will have an impact. That will take a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere. We doubled the production of clean energy, which promises to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels for power generation. And we continue to invest in potential breakthrough technologies that could further remove carbon from our atmosphere. But we haven't done as much as we need to.

So what I'm going to be doing over the next several weeks, next several months, is having a conversation, a wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers, and elected officials to find out what can -- what more can we do to make a short-term progress in reducing carbons, and then working through an education process that I think is necessary -- a discussion, a conversation across the country about what realistically can we do long term to make sure that this is not something we're passing on to future generations that's going to be very expensive and very painful to deal with.

I don't know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point, because this is one of those issues that's not just a partisan issue; I also think there are regional differences. There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices. And understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused, and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth, that if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody is going to go for that. I won't go for that.

If, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth, and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, I think that's something that the American people would support.

So you can expect that you’ll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps move this agenda forward.

Q Sounds like you're saying, though, in the current environment, we're probably still short of a consensus on some kind of attack.

THE PRESIDENT: That I'm pretty certain of. And, look, we're still trying to debate whether we can just make sure that middle-class families don't get a tax hike. Let’s see if we can resolve that. That should be easy. This one is hard -- but it’s important because one of the things that we don't always factor in are the costs involved in these natural disasters; we just put them off as something that's unconnected to our behavior right now. And I think what -- based on the evidence we're seeing, is that what we do now is going to have an impact and a cost down the road if we don’t do something about it."

So in this answer President Obama alludes to both components of the climate crisis: the causes (carbon and other greenhouse gas pollution) and the effects (weather and other related disasters.)  This is in the context of renewed interest on both the left and right in the idea of a carbon tax, which also has the virtue of being a revenue source.  And despite national inaction, the state of California is about to start its own cap and trade system.  Here's another article on this.

President Obama's position here is pretty clear.  It seems to me that if events and other actions accelerate the willingness for action, he will respond. For it may be as a former Congressman who lost his primary because he said global warming exists, "I think the impossible may be moving to the inevitable without ever passing through the probable," said former Rep. Bob Inglis.

 In any case President Obama is now on the record as making the climate crisis a priority for his second term.  We'll probably hear more on Thursday, at least on the "effects" side, when the President tours areas of New York hit hard by superstorm Sandy.

Of the Day

Headline of the day: Two Generals, Two Women and the FBI: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Epic Fail: Lakers hire D'Antoni over Phil Jackson.  They will now lose their season, and Dwight Howard after it.

Wonder which Mitt was the real one?  Wonder no more.  In yet another confidential conversation with big money donors on Wednesday, Mitt Romney blamed his loss on President Obama "giving gifts" to blacks, Latinos and young voters.  You know, the ones who just want stuff from the government and won't take personal responsibility for their own lives.  So yeah, it's this one:

Smackdown of the day: President Obama defends UN Ambassador Susan Rice against cynical and baseless attacks by John McCain and the Senate's prick-in-chief, Lindsay Graham.  "If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me."  I know who my money's on.

Insanity of the day (if insanity is repeating something and expecting a different result):  As Rachel pointed out, while the NRA spent millions of dollars this election and won essentially nothing, Planned Parenthood won essentially everything--every candidate they supported, every candidate they opposed, every ballot measure--for their contributions. 

So Ohio Republican legislators decided to repair their problem with women by...voting to defund Planned Parenthood.

Virtue of the day: Perseverance.  Instead of being exhausted by the election campaign, and depressed because every though they won so much, there is still so much opposition, supporters of Planned Parenthood in Ohio came out in strength to fill the halls and adjacent rooms of the Ohio legislature, to demonstrate their support in no uncertain terms.

Perseverance also for the high school activists in Arizona who protested that state's restrictive and prejudicial (anti-Latino) voter registration process by going out and registering thousands of voters.  When election day came, suddenly election officials didn't have those voters on the rolls, so they had to file provisional ballots.  Most of those ballots in Arizona are routinely thrown out, but those high school kids are on the case, demonstrating publicly to hold those election officials accountable and get those votes counted.

For it turns out that there's actually a state worse at elections than Florida.  It's Arizona.  The counting isn't over there.  Several late-breaking House races have flipped to Democrats.  The Senate seat may still be in play, and Gabby Giffords old seat definitely is.    

Election 2012: Winners

 

 

 

 

Election 2012: Losers

 

 

 

Victory Continued

The news and the numbers continue to define the 2012 elections.

As of today, President Obama has more or less officially won Florida,  making the more or less final electoral vote tally as Obama 332, Romney 206.

As votes continue to be counted, President Obama is expanding his popular vote lead, which is now above 3 million votes.  It's now Obama 51% to Romney 48% with a margin that surpasses GW Bush in 2004. 

Although Paul Ryan won reelection to his House seat in Wisconsin, it was not only by a narrow margin, but he lost his hometown in spectacular fashion.  At the beginning of his vp campaign, Ryan made a big deal out of going back to his hometown of Janesville and accusing the Obama administration of going back on its promises to save a plant there in the reorganization of the auto industry.

It didn't exactly work.  Ryan had been used to winning reeelection handily and Janesville by big margins.  Not this time.  He lost Janesville by 11 points. His Democratic opponent led 55% to 44%. 

The Romneyryan ticket did even worse than that in Janesville.  They lost by 25 points.  President Obama got 62% there. 

Who's Better At Business?

Mitt Romney ran on the image that he was better at business than President Obama.  He made millions in the private sector, while Obama was a community organizer, a professor, a public servant and an author.  Slam dunk.

Except it was all an illusion, and for the Romney campaign, a delusion.  Being good at business also means getting the job done.  It means efficiency and organization.  And Romney turned out to be very bad at business.

This is becoming clearer in the campaign postmortems. Usually a strategist or candidate will divulge the moment they knew they were probably going to lose.  But apparently, with the same data available to them as to everyone else, they never believed it.  They were in denial on election night.  They were so very sure of themselves.  Confidence is great.  Not being able to read the numbers is incompetence.

But that's just one bit of evidence.  The Romney campaign spent millions and perhaps billions on media, enriching its senior staff but getting little bang for their bucks.  They made inefficient media buys throughout the campaign.

Their ground operation also failed.  It failed partly for the same reason their media did: they outsourced.  Their vaunted system to target and deliver voters called  ORCA  was an ineffective mess. 

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign ran what some are calling the best political operation in history.  They used their strategic advantages, made some big bold moves.  But basically they worked the details.  They were very organized and disciplined about identifying and bringing in new voters, and identifying and delivering their voters. 

So it turns out that President Obama is the CEO of this campaign.  The Obama campaign was good at business.  The Romney campaign was terrible at their business.

The truth is that Mitt Romney has never been good at business.  He's been good at making money, which is an entirely different thing.   

Ripples of Hope

This video has been making the rounds since some of us got the link in our in-boxes. At his Chicago campaign hq the day after the election, the President is talking about the hope he has for the future based on the young people who he met working on his campaign.  It's not the first time he's teared up recently when talking about his supporters--he did so in his Des Moines speech (photo below) but it was prompted basically by the same thing--he was talking then as this time about the people who worked in his campaigns.  The full circle of his campaigns turns out to be the circle in the center of the pond, from which the ripples flow out--the "ripples of hope" Robert Kennedy talked about, and President Obama quotes in the video above.

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

Senator Robert F. Kennedy, June 6 1966 (South Africa address)

Action

In about 8 minutes, President Obama outlined his plan for immediate action on the economy.  Missing from most accounts of this statement I've heard is the President convening not just the same old Washington leaders but business, civic and academic leaders next week to bring some reality to the search for political solutions.  Here's a transcript of the above statement.

By the way, FDR and now President Obama are the only Democrats since the Civil War to have achieved popular vote majorities in two successive presidential elections.

Getting Richer From the Romney Campaign

So the Romney campaign didn't get to set off their planned fireworks display over Boston Harbor on election night, and their transition website's instructions on how to apply for jobs in the Romneyryan administration have been terminated.  There were stories Thursday that the campaign organization collapsed so quickly that staff expecting to charge their cab rides home to the campaign discovered their credit cards had already been cancelled. There were stories also about the non-political future of Mitt Romney.

But I wouldn't waste a lot of tears on them.  Some of those who aren't multi-millionaires may well have become so as a result of the campaign.  For there was this underreported truth: for them, a presidential campaign was just another business opportunity.  And considering the billions spent in far and away the most expensive campaign in history, it was a big business opportunity.

The Los Angeles Times reported that the Romney campaign "has directed $134.2 million to political firms with business ties to his senior staff. Nine firms that are run by, or recently employed, top Romney aides have received almost a third of the $435.8 million that Romney's campaign and a related fundraising committee have spent on operating expenses through Oct. 17, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis.

To a certain extent and at a certain level, this is a business for everybody concerned (the Obama campaign spent a measly $5.8 million on consultant fees to firms with ties to its senior strategists, the LA Times said) but the Romney campaign made the most of this business opportunity in which literally billions of dollars were raised and spent:

The campaign finance reports show that this year's presidential race has created a huge economic stimulus package for campaign operatives, whose total payday is often undisclosed.

Ryan Williams, a Romney spokesman, said payments to firms with connections to staff members were not only for consulting, but also were used to purchase a variety of services, including "polling, video production, political mail, get-out-the-vote phones, online advertising, website development, and budget and compliance management, among other things." He declined to break down the specific amounts.

An examination of finance reports shows that Romney and Obama both lean on trusted advisors to provide major services, such as media, polling and direct mail. But the Romney campaign has gone further, building its operations around a small group of companies that are either run by senior campaign aides or had employed them until they joined the campaign.

All this is in addition to the millions of dollars used for television and radio advertising, much of which the Romney campaign funnelled through the companies of campaign staff.  You have to guess that superpac and dark money was likely also paid to the same people and companies.

So don't weep for them, America.  Romney provided two bonuses we know of to senior staff during the course of the campaign.  And to make sure no money-making opportunity was missed, right at the end of the campaign, the Romney campaign became the first ever known to charge reporters and news organization for access to their campaign headquarters on election night.

Andy Borowitz headlined a post-election post: Nation Spends $2.5. Billion on Nothing.  Well, it was more than $2.5 billion. And it wasn't on nothing--while it cost us donors, it enriched some people, apparently none more than Romney's. Losing feels bad, but making a killing from the campaign itself must take away a lot of the sting.

Nuggets and Oddities

The oddity at the moment is that with our ATT DSL I am unable to access any Internet sites not affiliated with Google! I get blogspot blogs, Google news--but none of the sites it connects to.  It's very weird.  Email seems to be working and there's no problem on the line that shows up anywhere I can access.  This has happened before late last month when it was intermittent for about 12 hours.

A good oddity if that's what it is--the hummingbirds have been very present and hungry today--and there are THREE of them.  I still mostly see two at a time but I did see three together.  It does make more sense since one looks younger than the other two, although with hummers who knows.

Now for the nuggets, as the dimensions of the election continue to unfold:

California Democrats attained a super majority in both houses of the state legislature, so together with the passage of Prop 30 (temp tax increase on wealthy and sales tax fraction for education funding, hardest hit in budget crunch), the worst may be over for our once-mighty public education system, including the universities and junior colleges.  A supermajority is necessary to pass any spending bills.

The Romneyryans have conceded Florida, though the votes are not all counted still.

 President Obama continues to increase his popular vote majority as more western votes are counted, Washington primarily I think.

African American votes in this election not only surpassed the number in 2008--in Ohio they were a third more.

The women elected to the Senate in Massachusetts and Wisconsin are the first women from their states to be elected U.S. Senators. 

Now that I think of it, my Internet problems may be caused by the cable TV company because I was within hours of cancelling service.  Now without Internet I am cable news dependent.

Election 2012: Truths and Consequences

I made a list of truths and consequences from Tuesday's election, but Rachel covered a bunch of them with such style that I yield the first sixteen minutes of my time to her.

It's pretty wonderful, all she said. I want to emphasize how big the Obama coalition showed up--higher percentages than in 2008 of Latinos (by several) but also of African Americans and the group that was less conspicuously enthusiastic but came through anyway--young voters.

Here are a few more things she didn't mention (at least in that segment):

Voter suppression didn't work.  It backfired.

Racism didn't work.

Lying didn't work.  Especially that one about Jeep jobs to China--a lie too far in Ohio.

War on women: not a good idea.  Didn't work.

Voucherize Medicare, didn't work.

We got Obamacare, people.  It's coming big time in a year or so. 

Money isn't everything: the dark billions the GOPers spent got them nothing.

The era of angry old white men is ending.

The Rabid Right is wrong, but unfortunately still delusional.

"a warming planet" he said in his victory speech.  It's time to take that on directly, too.

President Obama spent much of his victory speech giving credit to the people who reelected him.  He repeated things he's said before but that most people didn't hear, but now they've gone through this first term and this campaign together, and they could hear them now.  He said things that people have heard before, but in this new context.  If he can keep this sense of true participation, his second term can be wondrous.    

Victory

With all there is to absorb about the election, it's probably not too surprising that not a lot of attention is being paid to President Obama's victory address in Chicago last night.  But I think it is one of the most important of his presidency and most eloquent of his political career.  Not that there was a lot "new" in it--precisely the opposite.  He put everything into a continuous context.  He further defined the change he believes it, and in many ways the change he and his campaign and his administration are creating.

President Obama has won re-election as President of the United States.  By the time all the votes are counted, his electoral vote margin is likely to surpass most predictions, and to equal the most optimistic predictions, with a total of 332.  He will win the popular vote with over 50%, and so will be the first Democrat since FDR to surpass 50% in two elections. 

The dimensions of this victory will become clearer in coming days.  But what seems to be the case right now is that he has held his ground with white voters from 2008 but increased his votes from the increasing populations of Latinos and African Americans.  The Obama campaign, from its strategists to its volunteers, proved itself to be the best ever.

President Obama's victory speech before an indoor but still huge crowd, threaded together elements of his campaign speeches and even his 2004 Democratic convention speech that brought him to national attention, but most of all it put this victory in a meaningful context for going forward.

This victory was a repudiation of GOPer politics of the past year, across the country.  Democrats increased their Senate majority, the most progressive candidates won, and the most extreme Rabid Right candidates were almost without exception defeated (a few House races are still outstanding.) 

Elizabeth Warren beat the bullyboy Scott Brown to become the new Senator from Massachusetts.  Tammy Baldwin became the first openly gay member of the Senate, and one of an historically high number of women to be U.S. Senators. 

With this victory, American voters decisively rejected the terrible turn back that a Romney victory would have meant.  But with this victory speech, President Obama has begun to consolidate his presidency, while consolidating--for his supporters especially--- the kind of politics he has advocated since the beginning.   I'll try to say more about what I mean when the transcript becomes available.

 For now, it's enough to let this victory sink in.  After all the tension, it took about 17 minutes longer this election than last for his victory to be proclaimed--which after this terrifying campaign, was sort of stunning.  Even when, as in my case, this was the outcome I expected.

 

Land of Hopes and Dreams

President Barack Obama made his last speech of what he says is his last campaign, where his remarkable journey to the Presidency began, in Iowa.  After Bruce Springsteen talked and sang, and Michelle Obama introduced him, President Obama blended reminiscences--some of which brought a tear to his eye--with a strong case for his re-election. He sounded his consistent theme: "We are all in this together."   There was a John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath lilt to his close, as TPM reports:

We’ve made real progress these last four years,” he said. “But, Iowa we’re here tonight because we got more work to do. We’re not done yet on this journey, we’ve got more road to travel. As long as there’s a single American who wants a job but can’t find one, as long as there are families working harder but still falling behind, as long as there’s a child still in Des Moines, anywhere in Iowa, anywhere in this country languishing in poverty, barred from opportunity, our work isn’t done.”

“Children don’t have lobbyists the way oil companies or banks do, but it’s the dreams of those children that will be our saving grace,” he said. “That’s what we fight for. That’s why I need you, Iowa, to make sure their voices are heard.”

He added: “I got a lot more fight left in me. But to wage that fight on behalf of American families, I need you to still have some fight in you, too.”



Earlier on Monday, President Bill Clinton spoke in Market Square in Pittsburgh, which is precisely where I heard him speak in 1992 and shook his hand (or maybe almost. Anyway, I tried.) Clinton has been heroic in his efforts these last few days--it literally brought back "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" to the campaign. 

  Romney will make one of his last stops in Pittsburgh on Tuesday, a last ditch effort to increase his totals in the western part of the state, hoping to offset the Obama tide in Philadelphia.  Except Romney won't get out of the airport. Nobody but the Romney campaign and the Rabid Right (who forecast a Romney landslide) thinks it will work.

As for election eve forecasting, the pundit/numbers nerd consensus seems to be that the national polls are converging with the state polls, showing President Obama ahead.  If you average polls from the major legitimate pollsters it probably averages out to be about 2 points.  Nate Silver now gives President Obama a 91.5% chance of winning.

Looking at the registered voter numbers vs. the likely voter percentages, President Obama's lead is wider. (In the Gallup tracking poll he goes from behind by one to ahead by several.)  So if turnout is high and there is less chaos at the polls in certain states than feared, chances are better that the long, long night most pundits are forecasting won't be so very long.

The first polls close at 7 p.m. Eastern.  The best of all possible worlds for Obama supporters is that Virginia is called quickly for Obama.  That pretty much means the election is over.  And if a half hour later, Obama wins North Carolina, pop open the champagne.  However, even in 2008 it was hours after polls closed that Virginia was called, and North Carolina wasn't awarded to Obama for days after it even mattered anymore.

If Virginia, NC and Florida are either still out or have gone Romney, despair is not yet in order: the Midwest is where it will then be decided, and President Obama is pretty solid there.  There's no telling when Ohio will come in (polls close officially at 7:30, but voting could still continue if there are still lines), and some other midwestern states don't close until 9 p.m.      

In 2008, once Florida and Ohio were called it was essentially over, but that was pretty close to 11 p.m., when the West Coast made it official.  So even on a night when Obama won many more electoral votes than even the most optimistic forecast this time, it doesn't seem all that likely the suspense will be over by late news time.  Maybe, however, by late news time here on the West Coast.

Anyway, the Obama campaign suggests that the longer Florida remains undecided, the better chances they have of ultimately winning it.  The voter suppression tactics alone--but also the response to them by voters--makes that state a complete mystery.

It's simplistically true in every election, but there's a point this time in saying the key is turnout.  If Obama voters turn out, Obama wins, regardless of how "enthusiastic" Romney voters are.  There are a number of possible storylines that could emerge.  One would focus on women, and the percentage of their votes for each candidate.  And one definitely will focus on Latinos--on turnout. 

A Great President

Jonathan Chiat at New York Magazine wrote an essay last week entitled Barack Obama is a Great President.  Yes, Great.  Some excerpts:

For anybody who voted for Obama in 2008 and had even the vaguest sense of his platform, the notion that he has fallen short of some plausible performance threshold seems to me unfathomable.

Obama’s résumé of accomplishments is broad and deep, running the gamut from economic to social to foreign policy. The general thrust of his reforms, especially in economic policy, has been a combination of politically radical and ideologically moderate. The combination has confused liberals into thinking of Obamaism as a series of sad half-measures, and conservatives to deem it socialism, but the truth is neither. Obama’s agenda has generally hewed to the consensus of mainstream economists and policy experts. What makes the agenda radical is that, historically, vast realms of policy had been shaped by special interests for their own benefit. Plans to rationalize those things, to write laws that make sense, molder on think-tank shelves for years, even generations. They are often boring. But then Obama, in a frenetic burst of activity, made many of them happen all at once.

Obama can boast a record of accomplishment that bests any president since Roosevelt, and has fewer demerits on his record than any of them, including Roosevelt.

What can be said without equivocation is that Obama has proven himself morally, intellectually, temperamentally, and strategically. In my lifetime, or my parents’, he is easily the best president. On his own terms, and not merely as a contrast to an unacceptable alternative, he overwhelmingly deserves reelection."

What about the issues? In endorsing President Obama, a newspaper I'm proud to have written for, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote this:

Every election is meaningful. But some, like Tuesday's, are pivotal. The choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney could not be more clear. Each man, as president in the next four years, would lead the country to a vastly different place.

Saddled from day one with the largest economic calamity the United States has seen since the Great Depression, Mr. Obama worked to stimulate jobs and business, stabilize a teetering banking system, calm a housing market in free fall and save a large chunk of the economy by way of the auto industry.
Along the way, he inaugurated a comprehensive health insurance overhaul that had eluded presidents of both parties and that now guarantees coverage for tens of millions who once fell through the cracks. He also accomplished a sweeping reform of financial regulations to prevent what happened in 2008 and reduce the vulnerability of average savers and investors to the risky gambits of high-flying market manipulators.

The choice is clear. Barack Obama wants to lead the country out of its morass and deserves the support of all Americans. His challenger is a man of shifting convictions, save for one core belief -- that he should be president. In America that's not enough, no matter the size of one's checkbook."

E.J. Dionne began his endorsement in TIME magazine by describing the America that President Obama represents, as opposed to Romney's.

If Obama wins, he will owe his re-election to a little bit of all of us: blue-collar white voters in the Midwest, upscale voters in the Northeast and on the West Coast, an overwhelming percentage of Latino voters turned off by a new nativism on the right, and near unanimous solidarity on his behalf among African Americans. Obama is not the sort to think about dismissing 47% of us.

Romney's crowds and Romney's support is nearly all white.  The intensity and delusionary quality of the hatred of Obama among them points to ideological zealotry mated with racism.  It drips from Romney himself, who also makes it a class reaction.  It reminds me of a point made by Toure and Andrew Sullivan that the real test of the state of racism in America wasn't the election of a black President, but the re-election.  As Sullivan noted, some people were willing to elect a black President, but not prepared to be governed by one.     

 

Dionne goes on to discuss policy:

Most relevant to this year’s choice is the fact that the economy is in far better shape than it would have been if we had followed the counsel of Obama’s foes. They would have allowed the auto industry to collapse. They would have ignored history’s lesson that government must step in to stimulate economic activity when private demand plummets. We know from the experience of Europe that austerity leads to stagnation. Obama made the better choice.

 

Beyond these large questions are concrete Obama achievements: his support for women’s rights, including the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; the end of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and his endorsement of gay marriage; passage of Wall Street reform, including the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; reform of the student-loan program; his appointments of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, checking the right-wing drift in the judiciary that gave us decisions like Citizens United; and many of the investments in the stimulus package, notably in clean energy. In quieter times, these would be playing a much larger role in the campaign.

Dionne's conclusion is about the same as Chiat's though he says it more delicately.  

 

 Obama is battling to defend the long consensus that has guided American government successfully since the Progressive Era. It is based on the view that ours is a country whose Constitution begins with the word we, not me, and that the private success we honor depends on a government that serves a common good and remembers the most vulnerable among us. The task of our moment is to revive that long consensus and renew it. Of the two major candidates, only Barack Obama accepts this mission as his own."

Nov. 6, 2012: The Future is On the Ballot

The most historically important--and heartening--election of my lifetime was 2008.  But the most important election for the future is this one, 2012.

Never has the threat to the future been so clear.  Over the course of the campaign, Romney and Ryan have flat out said what they want to do, even if they've been trying to obscure those statements in the last weeks. 

They want to undo the hard-won progress of the past four years.  And the past fifty years.  And the past 70 years. 

They are contemptuous of providing universal health care, something which every advanced democracy provides, and which leaders have been trying to institute since Harry Truman.  Even in the hybrid form that is going to make billions for the same private insurance companies that have been soaking vulnerable citizens and denying them care for a generation or more.  In doing so, Romneyryan will stop the falling prices of health care that have begun as a result of Obamacare, which will cost individuals, families and businesses--including and especially the small businesses they profess to champion--billions of dollars, and in the case of some businesses and some people, their very lives.

They want to bring back Don't Ask Don't Tell or something similar.  They want to reverse the very measured economic incentives that have helped to bring the U.S. economy back and set it on the road to a better future, as well as further enriching Wall Street.  They want to destroy the beginnings of real protections for consumers against predatory capitalists.

They want to erase the gains America has made in the world.  They want to return to armed swagger, costly wars, torture.  They want to erase gains made in immigration fairness.

But erasing the gains of four years is not enough.  They want to erase the gains that women have made towards full equality in the workplace, in the courts, and in managing their health and their families.  They want to defund the largest network of healthcare providers for women, especially poor women.  They want to criminalize abortion and possibly even certain forms of contraception.

They want to destroy the most successful programs in helping seniors avoid poverty, starting with Medicare and Medicaid, and moving on to Social Security.  They want to reverse hard-won principles that work in practice: to help students of all ages get an education, to rebuild our infrastructure, and even to help rescue and rebuild in times of disaster, like hurricane Sandy.  And they aren't too sure about public services like firefighters, EMTs, teachers and public schools.  Oh, and public television has got to go, too.

They justify all this with narrow theology and lies.  They wail about the national deficit, which soared from a surplus under Clinton to huge debt under Bush, but which has been declining under Obama.  But their announced plans add up to creating massive deficit, without doing anything for the country but transferring more to the wealthy.

And that's the basic reversal, the most dangerous one.  For years now--since the 1980s perhaps, certainly since 2000--the middle class has been declining while the wealthy have taken a bigger and bigger share of the country's wealth.  The most important threat to the future represented by plutocrat Mitt Romney is making that imbalance greater--so much greater that economically and politically, it will become very very difficult to reverse.

As Jonathan Chiat concludes: "Both his fealty to his party and his belief in his own abilities point in the same direction: the entitlement of the superrich to govern the country."

Heroes and Villains

The polls look good, but close.  The crowds look good, too.  Romney is getting his biggest crowds of the campaign but the largest is 5,000.  President Obama spoke before 23,000 in Virginia, 24,000 in Florida and to the largest political gathering in New Hampshire history, 14,000. 

But the danger to not only President Obama's reelection but the election itself continues to be GOP voter suppression and intimidation, particularly in the probably determinative states of Florida and Ohio.  At this point it is taking the form of incredibly long wait times and incredibly long lines at early voting polling places, with the GOPer state officials refusing to remedy an obvious need.  And of course they are trying to make it even worse.

In Florida, a four hour wait is speedy.  One woman reported waiting more than 8 full hours.  In Miami Dade the last person in line Saturday evening cast a vote at 1 a.m.  Extra hours for in-person absentee voting (the local officials' way of trying to get around Florida state government's rules) was announced but then rescinded, with hundreds of people literally locked out, chanting "Let us vote!"  In further intimidation attempts, cars of waiting voters were towed from the parking lot.  Eventually the doors opened.

On the court-ordered Sunday early voting in Ohio, there were hours-long lines in the Ohio counties with the highest population, hence black people and minorities, hence Democrats.  Officials continued to limit hours to fewer than in 2008.

But people are coming out, they are standing in line and staying in line until they vote.  They are the heroes of democracy at this moment in America.  The hardships are more than hours in line, which actually look like they can be sociable and fun.  This is lost family time, lost work time, lost revenue.  It's scheduling, babysitters, impatient bosses.  It's also a scandal in the country that prides itself as the beacon of democracy.  Noone knows how many leave the lines, but a lot are staying.  They know what's up.  They are fighting for voting rights not only for themselves but for the future.

These are the heroes, and the villains are very well known.  They are the GOPer officeholders who are abusing their power to make people suffer in order to vote.  Because they don't want those people to vote.  It's way more than partisan politics.  The division is between districts where people of color are, versus districts where white people live.  So it's racial.  The division often is between districts where rich people live--districts where there are plenty of voting machines and staff--and districts where the non-rich live.  It's class warfare.

A lot of this election is about class warfare: it's the war by the rich on everybody else.  It's Romney's war on the 47%.  On the 99%.   "They think we're stupid," Bill Clinton says.  Some people are--those not in the 1% who believe that Romney has their interests at heart.

But the people in line aren't stupid.  They know exactly what's going on.  And they're doing their best not to let it happen.  They are the heroes of democracy now.

 
   

Weekend Update

Late Sunday: TG Political Wire: if final polls from The Economist/YouGov are correct, President Obama will win 303 electoral votes. The final Reuters/Ipsos polls suggest Obama will win 294 electoral votes. The final Public Policy Polling surveys point to an Obama landslide of 332 electoral votes.

All this comports with predictions of poli sci types who hang out at Jonathan Bernstein's blog.
Sunday: New polls continue to show an Obama surge, especially national polls. " The final USA Today/Gallup Poll of swing states finds voters "have become as enthusiastic and engaged in the 2012 presidential election as they were in the historic contest four years ago."

Pew has President Obama up 48-45, and all the other polls released Sunday have the President with a slight lead or tied nationally.  Several polls show independents coming back to Obama.  And some of these polls don't yet reflect the period of the hurricane response, Chris Christie or the NY Mayor's endorsement.  State polls in battlegrounds generally show an Obama advantage, however small.  Nate Silver increases President Obama's chances of winning the election to 85%.

Saturday:
With his job approval up after last week's hurricane and positive jobs report, President Obama took the biggest lead in the PPP tracking poll that either candidate has taken, at 50% to Romney's 47.

The latest swing state polls: all four show Obama ahead in Ohio, two of two show him ahead in Virginia and in Iowa, and polls of PA, Wisconsin and Michigan show him comfortably ahead.  Of 3 Florida polls, one has his ahead, one behind, and one tied.  The one poll in Colorado gives Romney a one point edge, with New Hampshire tied. 

Meanwhile, desperate GOPers are doing their best to subvert voting in Democratic and minority districts.  Early voting in Florida was disrupted twice by bomb threats.  The Ohio Secretary of State is trying another ploy to nullify provisional ballots--it's back in court on Monday. 

And while a lead essay at Kos quantifies how Obama wins if minorities vote, Politico wimpmeister Mark Halperin writes: "Don't kill me for the obvious, but the near absence of racial diversity in the Romney crowds is teased out further by the contrast with the rainbow the President draws. It is more striking than I have ever experienced it in any presidential campaign I have covered."

The Obama campaign released a memo on their ground game, picked up by several pol outlets.  Among the stats: the campaign has registered twice the number of new voters in battleground as in 2008, and nearly 30% of them have already voted.  The memo shows the focus and the experience.  Pretty impressive.

Meanwhile, Andy Borowitz reports on Romney's November Surprise: dropping $2 billion in small bills over Ohio.

Sea Change: the Climate Crisis Comes Home

In Forty Days of Rain (2004), the first volume of Kim Stanley Robinson's Science in Washington trilogy, the event that finally triggers acceptance of the climate crisis, and official action to confront it, was the flooding of Washington, D.C. as the result of--and I am not kidding--Tropical Storm Sandy meeting up with another northern weather system. 

But in 2012, Hurricane Sandy pretty much bypassed Washington to hit hard in New York City and New Jersey.  Storm surge caused massive flooding and sucked away parts of the coastline.  Of the Jersey shore, NBC anchor Brian Williams (who talked about summering there since his childhood) noted that "it's never going to be normal again."

It's still an open question whether the climate crisis awareness is going to recede with this storm's flood waters, but so far it has been more than the usual half dozen stories about whether or not this particular storm can be attributed to climate change. 

This time some official voices had something to say.  Governor Cuomo of New York didn't want to get into the climate crisis debate--he just said that it's time to recognize that we're in a period of "extreme weather events."   Of, as he put it, a storm of the century every two years. 

Mayor Bloomberg of New York was more explicit.  He titled his oped endorsing President Obama "A Vote for a President to Lead on Climate Change."  He began it: "The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast -- in lost lives, lost homes and lost business -- brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief."

It makes sense that these state and city leaders would be the first to make these explicit statement about the future, rather than those in Washington.  It is the states and municipalities--particularly on the coasts-- that have already been trying to deal with how they will protect their citizens against the effects of the climate crisis.

Here in Arcata several weeks ago, another official step was taken towards developing plans to deal with the expected rise of the oceans and therefore Humboldt Bay.  The other local governments and their agencies, as well as appropriate state agencies, are all involved.  That's been going on in various states and municipalities for years.

It's also logical that the Bloomberg and Cuomo statements emboldened a certain kind of conservative to add their voices on behalf of climate crisis realism: business people, particularly in insurance industries but also in others that have to deal with these realities in their business plans.  So it shouldn't be too shocking that the headline It's Global Warming, Stupid appears not in Mother Jones but in Business Week.

Particularly Governor Cuomo's statements have followed the pattern I've been predicting for years.  The first calls for action would be about the effects.  Cuomo was explicit in this language--he talked about dealing with effects while we debate the causes.  This makes sense, especially on state and local levels.  But it does suggest the danger of ignoring the causes--which will continue to cause worse and worse effects.

Up until the last year or so, I tried to make the point that in a way the climate crisis was an evolutionary test for humanity: with its genesis in what humans did without understanding its future effects, it tested whether we were now ready to take the next step as an intelligent species by acting to forestall a crisis that we could anticipate and predict but that had not yet happened. We would address this crisis before it could harm and weaken us, and in ways that would strengthen us. This success could take us into a new era, in which many more things might become possible for humanity. To wait would be to risk ultimate failure, and at the least an expenditure of much more in resources, societal strain and especially suffering.

But a year or two ago, I had to concede that humanity was not going to pass that test this time either, as it had failed to do so in the decades before the widely foreseen world wars. The climate crisis effects had already begun and so much more was already in the pipeline for decades to come--it was too late to avoid dire effects (as a brace of books--like McKibben's Eaarth--confirmed.)  The next test then will be confronting both parts of this crisis at the same time: the cause and the effects.  The temptation will be to ignore dealing with the causes--and possibly even making them worse.

We may just be approaching the starting line on admitting the effects.  The other reason that a real sea change in confronting the climate crisis may develop, is another outcome of this storm hitting New York rather than Washington. While New York is not the political capital of the U.S., it is the media capital of at least the U.S.  Moreover, as a telethon on Friday that brought out media and entertainment stars showed, the impact of this storm is perhaps more profound because these media figures not only work in New York, they live in New York and in the region.  Many of them grew up in New York state or New Jersey.  The impact on generations of family, on the geography of their childhoods and their current lives, brings home the climate crisis in ways that it perhaps would not for the politicians of Washington, with their multiple homes and scattered ambitions.     

Into the Weekend Election Overview

As the weekend begins, the polls are close enough--and the circumstances uncertain enough--that the outcome of the presidential election next week cannot be confidently predicted (though I confess I feel pretty confident about it.)  The latest numbers however are good for President Obama, and some are very good.  Of the swing state polls released Friday he is behind in none and leading in almost all.  Particularly interesting are the states where he is at 50% or above, including the NBC poll in Ohio which shows him at 51% (to Romney's 45%.) 

The Ohio polls are pretty consistent.  Florida polls much less so.  Some new ones show Obama with a narrow lead, others favor Romney by more.  By poll average, Colorado is very close, but some information coming out of the state suggests that it isn't really that close--Obama is well ahead.  The numbers people do agree that Obama is the favorite at the moment, though narrowly. (Nate Silver has his chances back up above 80%.)  And that whatever tiny momentum that has shown up in the polls favors him.

But whatever the numbers say or whatever they actually are at this point, it is pretty clear that in the past week, Mitt Romney's rationales for his candidacy have collapsed.

Romney's emphasis on jobs and the economy was coming up against all new economic indicators suggesting consumer confidence is up and the economy is growing.  Then on Friday the jobs report showed a greater than expected number of jobs added, boosting the average job gain to above 150,000, one of Nate Silver's thresholds for reelection.  If the issue is to continue on the path to recovery, then the advantage is to President Obama.

In Romney's most recent Etch-a-Sketch, he's been portraying himself as bipartisan, while President Obama is incapable of bipartisan cooperation, of working with the other side.  Then came hurricane Sandy, and President Obama working closely with GOPer Gov Chris Christie.  This imagery melds with another difference in this campaign: President Obama's insistence that government, and the federal government, can help ordinary people.  His leadership in the storm recovery says it in reality.  And it all is perfect illustration with the central phrase in his campaign from the beginning: We're all in this together.

So the President was seen being nonpartisan and effective, while the supposedly nonpart Romey was engaged in political sniping, and dodging reporters' questions about FEMA.

 Part of Romney's case on effectiveness is that President Obama is too ideological and far left.  The Colin Powell endorsement had already severely weakened that impression, and then came the endorsement of Independent NY Mayor Bloomberg.  (This by the way may have an influence I hadn't thought of, mentioned by a political pundit on msnbc: there are a lot of New Yorkers now living in Florida, and many are independents.  Bloomberg--and what Obama's FEMA is doing to help New York--can make a difference with them.)

This image is also belied by the rationally conservative Brit magazine The Economist, which endorsed President Obama (however grudgingly).  Though this is unlikely to influence a lot of American voters, it does point up a big problem for Romney, even if he were to win.  A lot of the people he would have to work with don't like him, and a lot of those whose opinions matter simply disdain him and the intense dishonesty of his campaign.

The latest evidence of this was Friday Washington Post editorial which began:"Through all the flip-flops, there has been one consistency in the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: a contempt for the electorate."  The rest of this long editorial details his record of expressing this contempt throughout this campaign.

So what does Romney have left?  A core of Rabid Rightists frothing at the mouth with barely repressed racism and aggressively delusional zealotry, along with the strict ideological voter.  Augmented by corporate and financial interests and those controlled by them.  The low-information, low ability to reason voter.  Apart from those who will vote against Obama (and only tangentially or accidentally, for Romney) are those who will simply not vote, or will vote for a candidate who is neither Romney nor Obama.  

Plus the further uncertainties of the vote itself: the effects of the storm suddenly added to the effects of voter suppression and intimidation.  Voter suppression is visibly underway in Florida early voting, where 3 to 5 hour lines in Democratic areas are reported. 

So in many respects, the election is already in the hands of voters--especially the determined ones.  But there's the possibility to watch for this weekend: does the Romney rationale visibly wilt, does it become increasingly obvious that America understands it needs to save itself from him? 

There's also President Obama in recent speeches, turning on the rhetorical skills that he had suppressed and that some suggested were gone.  For example, he brought together his themes of fairness and opportunity, of we're all in this together, with his signature theme of hope, partly by quoting FDR: “'In the strength of great hope we must shoulder our common load.' That’s the strength we need today. That’s the hope I’m asking you to share.” Will he make even more Americans comfortable this weekend with returning him for a well-deserved second term?

Our Saving Grace

Fresh from leading the federal disaster response to the approval of 78% of Americans, and with the endorsement of the Independent Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, President Obama talks about who needs a champion in Washington, and who is our saving grace.

Values for the Future

From New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's oped endorsing President Obama for re-election this year:

The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast -- in lost lives, lost homes and lost business -- brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief.

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be -- given this week’s devastation -- should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

We need leadership from the White House -- and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. His administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury emissions, which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an effort I have supported through my philanthropy), which are estimated to kill 13,000 Americans a year.

When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America.

One believes a woman’s right to choose should be protected for future generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies, weighs heavily on my decision.

One recognizes marriage equality as consistent with America’s march of freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of history.

One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.

Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both found success while their parties were out of power in Congress -- and President Obama can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And that’s why I will be voting for him.

(Michael R. Bloomberg is mayor of New York and founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.)

Mr. Slick Pretends to Be Mother Theresa

I just refilled my two hummingbird feeders, and there's a hummingbird at each one as I write this.  My day is made.  We usually have a pair that hangs out here, no more, no less.  Glad to see them both back today.

Anyway.  I woke up with (in addition to other less political stuff) the sense that today somebody was going to find out that the Romney campaign had itself bought some of the canned food and "donations" it awkwardly paraded at its rally in Ohio with Romney yesterday.  And sure enough:

"...campaign aides reportedly spent $5,000 at a local Wal-Mart on supplies that could be put on display. When supporters arrived at the rally-turned-relief event, they were treated to the 10-minute video about Romney’s life, which was first unveiled at the RNC. The event ended with supporters lined up to hand over supplies and meet Romney. But according to BuzzFeed, this donation process was also staged:

Empty-handed supporters pled for entrance, with one woman asking, “What if we dropped off our donations up front?” The volunteer gestured toward a pile of groceries conveniently stacked near the candidate. “Just grab something,” he said.  Two teenage boys retrieved a jar of peanut butter each, and got in line. When it was their turn, they handed their “donations” to Romney. He took them, smiled, and offered an earnest “Thank you.”

The Red Cross, meanwhile, said they were grateful for the supplies but encouraged people to donate money or blood as a more efficient way to help the relief effort."

This is the Romney campaign in a nutshell: flackery, fakery, dishonesty--and the wrong solution.  Mr. Slick.

Today President Obama visited hard-hit areas in New Jersey with his new BF, Gov. Chris Christie.  Swing state polls today were quite good for the President, with two showing him holding a five point lead in Ohio.