Wednesday, October 10, 2007
New York Times & Wal-Mart
In today's New York Times David Cay Johnson takes Wal-Mart to task for trying to reduce its property taxes. This could be the most ridiculous anti Wal-Mart story in recent memory. This kind of story makes me rethink my subscription to the Times.
Hillary's Gender Challenge
A few weeks ago a had a short post discussing Hillary's challenge as a female presidential candidate. Given her present status as the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination it is probably appropriate to expand on that previous post.
Polls have consistently shown that a significant percentage of the American people will not vote for a woman for President. Gallup, CBS News, Rasmussen and Newsweek have each polled this issue and their results fall between 5% and 17%, with an average of 12%. Additionally, this is the type of issue that will underpoll. Many people will be a little reluctant to admit to a pollster that they wouldn't vote for a woman, as a result they may not tell the pollster the truth. I suspect that the polls have under counted this result by a few percentage points.
By simply extrapolating the number of Presidential voters in 2000 and 2004 you can roughly assume there will be 140,000,000 voted cast in the 2008 Presidential election. If we are conservative and assume that the actual percentage of voters who won't vote for a woman is 8% that would mean a loss of 11,200,000 votes for Hillary right out of the box. If we further assume that 2/3 of these voters are Republicans that still leaves Hillary with a loss of 3,696,000 votes. Keep in mind that the popular vote in the 2000 election was separated by 543,816 votes and the 2004 election was separated by 3,012,499 votes. It is important to note that Presidential elections are not decided by the popular vote, but by the Electoral College. And it is hard to say the effect of this bias on the Electoral College system. I think it would be exaggerated as the election is usually determined by three of four states whose Democrats are blue collar Reagan Democrats and are prone to the bias discussed above.
I understand that the above mentioned polls were based on a generic female candidate and not Hillary. However, given voters high negative opinion of Hillary anyway, these polls don't bode well for her. It will be interesting to see how accurate the polls are for the upcoming primaries, and if they hide an bias against female candidates.
Polls have consistently shown that a significant percentage of the American people will not vote for a woman for President. Gallup, CBS News, Rasmussen and Newsweek have each polled this issue and their results fall between 5% and 17%, with an average of 12%. Additionally, this is the type of issue that will underpoll. Many people will be a little reluctant to admit to a pollster that they wouldn't vote for a woman, as a result they may not tell the pollster the truth. I suspect that the polls have under counted this result by a few percentage points.
By simply extrapolating the number of Presidential voters in 2000 and 2004 you can roughly assume there will be 140,000,000 voted cast in the 2008 Presidential election. If we are conservative and assume that the actual percentage of voters who won't vote for a woman is 8% that would mean a loss of 11,200,000 votes for Hillary right out of the box. If we further assume that 2/3 of these voters are Republicans that still leaves Hillary with a loss of 3,696,000 votes. Keep in mind that the popular vote in the 2000 election was separated by 543,816 votes and the 2004 election was separated by 3,012,499 votes. It is important to note that Presidential elections are not decided by the popular vote, but by the Electoral College. And it is hard to say the effect of this bias on the Electoral College system. I think it would be exaggerated as the election is usually determined by three of four states whose Democrats are blue collar Reagan Democrats and are prone to the bias discussed above.
I understand that the above mentioned polls were based on a generic female candidate and not Hillary. However, given voters high negative opinion of Hillary anyway, these polls don't bode well for her. It will be interesting to see how accurate the polls are for the upcoming primaries, and if they hide an bias against female candidates.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Free Flow of Information Act (part II)
Given the fact that the Act would benefit the media we can expect to see a full court press of support for this type of law in the next few months. The media can't help but over-cover themselves and their own interest. (i.e. The over-abundance of media coverage surrounding Rupert Murdoch's recent purchase of the Wall Street Journal)
Free Flow of Information Act
Over the last few months both houses of Congress have been trying to pass a version of a Federal shield law for journalists. The Act, entitled "The for Free Flow of Information Act" would prevent a court from compelling a journalist to disclose a source of leaked information.
If signed into law, the Act would basically create a "privilege" situation similar to the attorney-client privilege and spousal privilege. This type of privilege allows parties to refuse to testify about the details of their conversations. These privileges have worked their way into our legal system because we recognize the unique nature of the attorney-client and spousal relationships. I don't think as a society we hold the relationship between a journalist and source in the same regard as that of my previous examples.
Setting aside the philosophical reasons, given the broad definition of journalist provided in the Act and the proliferation of nontraditional journalist (bloggers) in our society almost anyone could be shielded from disclosing classified or proprietary material under the Act.
If signed into law, the Act would basically create a "privilege" situation similar to the attorney-client privilege and spousal privilege. This type of privilege allows parties to refuse to testify about the details of their conversations. These privileges have worked their way into our legal system because we recognize the unique nature of the attorney-client and spousal relationships. I don't think as a society we hold the relationship between a journalist and source in the same regard as that of my previous examples.
Setting aside the philosophical reasons, given the broad definition of journalist provided in the Act and the proliferation of nontraditional journalist (bloggers) in our society almost anyone could be shielded from disclosing classified or proprietary material under the Act.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Larry Craig
The fact that this yahoo is actually a member of the U.S. Senate is astounding and embarrassing. If he won't leave it will at at least cost the Republicans a messy primary battle for his seat and could cost them his Senate seat.
Republican Fundraising Numbers
If you are a die hard Republican you have got to be worried right now. The most recent fundraising figures don't look good.
I will be interested to see what the head to head fundraising numbers look like between the Republican and Democratic presumptive nominees. At this point Hillary's fundraising success is a factor of her position atop the democratic field.
I will be interested to see what the head to head fundraising numbers look like between the Republican and Democratic presumptive nominees. At this point Hillary's fundraising success is a factor of her position atop the democratic field.
Clarence Thomas v. Bill Clinton
Because of the attention Clarence Thomas' book has been getting recently, and the resulting rehash of the Anita Hill allegations, I became curious about what exactly Anita Hill alleged that Justice Thomas did to her. A quick search found this: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/36-40.pdf . (A copy of Ms. Hill's testimony before Justice Thomas' Senate confirmation committee.) In her testimony Ms. Hill alleges that Thomas repeatedly asked her out and discussed inappropriate sexual matters with her (porn, his sexual prowess etc.).
While reading Hill's testimony it occurred to me that the relationship between Thomas and Hill was not that different from Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's relationship. Granted Clinton actually has sex with Lewinsky, but the similarities are there. Both men engaged in inappropriate behavior with a subordinate and neither woman clearly told them to stop.
But what is different about the two situations is the reactions of Democrats and Republicans. If a Republican is caught with his hand in the cookie jar he is unfit to serve but if it is a Democrat the same behavior is a private matter. I am not bashing Democrats here, this double standard goes both ways. The same people who wanted to lynch Clinton will defend Thomas to the death.
While reading Hill's testimony it occurred to me that the relationship between Thomas and Hill was not that different from Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's relationship. Granted Clinton actually has sex with Lewinsky, but the similarities are there. Both men engaged in inappropriate behavior with a subordinate and neither woman clearly told them to stop.
But what is different about the two situations is the reactions of Democrats and Republicans. If a Republican is caught with his hand in the cookie jar he is unfit to serve but if it is a Democrat the same behavior is a private matter. I am not bashing Democrats here, this double standard goes both ways. The same people who wanted to lynch Clinton will defend Thomas to the death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
