Here's a real shocker for you: the same people who deliberately misread climate science are now offering a phony explanation for the Alaska primary loss of incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who conceded the race yesterday.
If you listen to the wing nut brigade, they will tell you clean energy/climate legislation did in Murkowski. Phil Karpen -- who, as the policy director of Americans for Prosperity, is as good as on the payroll of Dirty Energy -- said this even before Murkowski bowed out, in an op-ed on FoxNews.com:
"Joe Miller has a narrow lead over Sen. Lisa Murkowski in a surprising Alaska Senate primary. If the absentee ballots break hard for Murkowski she may narrowly escape, but at the moment it looks at least as likely that Miller will pull the upset. If he does, Murkowski's support for energy taxes may be one of the major reasons."
In a sad commentary on modern journalism, this unfounded, inaccurate notion was echoed by Reuters who said, "Murkowski, the most senior Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, has been considered a moderate on several issues and a potential compromise vote on national climate legislation. Miller is on record as denying that human-caused emissions are responsible for climate change."
Even the usually very sharp team at ClimateWire took the bait: "Republican Joe Miller, a former judge with a Yale law degree, showcased Sen. Lisa Murkowski's past support for climate legislation, among other things, before slipping by her at the voting stations Tuesday to capture a 1,900 vote lead with several thousand absentee ballots still being counted."
Well, if there was even a shred of evidence that it was true, this would qualify as an interesting bit of political analysis. Given the lack of evidence, it is just another lie that has filtered in from the crackpot world of climate science deniers to mainstream political reporting.
Over the next few posts I will be previewing a select few competitive Senate elections. These posts will focus less on individual personalities and more on overarching state dynamics - what parts of the state vote Democratic, swing, and vote Republican.
These states will be mainly Democratic strongholds, rather than swing states, because this election cycle is the first in many in which they have been competitive. Another opportunity for analyzing these places will probably not occur for a while.
If I were President Obama, I would spend the next year showing how government can serve a humble, helpful and supportive role to the central institutions of American life.
David Brooks' insipidly abstract advice gives me the perfect opening to repost this diary, my first, which itself touches on institutionalism.
Specifically, I argue that we’re at a point in history where our institutions are preventing the complete collapse of our standards of living while steadily skimming an increasing percentage off the top and concentrating it in the hands of the people who control them.
What if the economic collapse - and bank bailout - had occurred in the fall of 2005 instead of the fall of 2008? This question occurred to me again when I read Ed Kilgore's superbly thought out analysis of substantive intra-left ideological and strategic differences.
I was particularly struck by his take on hidden majorities:
So if you're like me, you have been wondering just exactly what all this "tea party" stuff is about. There's going to be some sort of protest, that we know; but beyond that the whole thing seems a little...vague.
Alternatively, it's possible that you were unaware that "tea party" has recently become a word reborn in conservative political circles.
Well, whether you knew it or not, April 15th was indeed a day of protest, with citizens gathering for what were reported to be a series of grassroots events across the nation that was intended to invoke the spirit of the Boston Tea Party.
In an effort to find out exactly what is motivating these folks, and to find out what they are trying to accomplish, I took my handy recorder and captured a conversation with a "tea bag" protester.
We will review that conversation, and we will follow it up with a few thoughts about how this group of voters might impact electoral politics going forward.
I would have asked these questions yesterday, however, at home, have been without internet connection for a few days.
So I thought I would ask them here - hopefully, someone can direct me to this post election analysis.
1. Obama wins by about 6 percentage points - this means this is the largest percentage win of a democratic non-incumbent, since 1964, correct?
2. Obama seemed to match the polling - but looking at the polling predictions for the Senate, and the House, it seems that the mainline democratic UNDERperformed - is this accurate?
I'm looking at Merkely, Stevens, and also at Franken, specifically. Even the winners, seemed to win less than the average polling seemed to signify.
3. As much as I've paid attention these last 8 years, this election, to me, simply seems a relief - euphoria sure, but I think I mainly started paying attention to things, because it seems so clear that the Bush junta were, basically, evil in a way I hadn't experienced any other President to be.
In a way, I feel I can pay less attention now, because there are decent "grown-ups", in charge. Not that it would be perfect, but at least people PAYING ATTENTION to all americans, and not being destructive from a negligent, ideological standpoint.
Which issue is most important to you?
- Economy
- Taxes
- Iraq
- National security
- Health care
- The environment
- Abortion
- Energy
- Other
I've been so caught up in the political tactics of the elections that it's been a long time since I thought about American politics from this perspective, so answering this question was a bit harder than I thought. However, I think this is an important question for all of us to consider, if only briefly, before the election. I share my thoughts (and ask for yours) below the fold.
Hi, everyone. I woke up with a bit of insomnia, so I thought that I would post something that had occurred to me in my sleep. (Yes, I know that it makes me an inveterate dork that I think about these things in my sleep. I don't care.) Recently, my colleague, Student Redux, has been exploring methodological problems in sampling and weighting, and I had an idea that I wanted to explore as a possible solution. Now, granted, I'm not committed to this, and I'd love to have your comments as further exploration of the topic.
A lot of useful, interesting ideas have been expressed here and elsewhere regarding Sara Palin and this race. It is often times difficult to keep our biases at bay in such matters. As a lifelong Democrat and political junkie, my biases are strong. As a budding social scientist (Ph.D. candidate in International Studies), my desire to keep my biases out of it are also strong. And as a 43-year-old American, my desire (if not ability) to use the Force to avoid going over to the Dark Side, also strong, it is.
So this is my attempt to divide this campaign into the Good (optimism), the Bad (Pessimism) and the Ugly (things we don't want to admit to.)
This is the nucleus of a project or research idea for American Blogger - but it's also a topic on which the Open Left community can likely provide a great deal more insight than I. Here's what I'm thinking about:
Thanks especially to Chris Bowers' and Paul Rosenberg's interests and expertise, on Open Left we've seen a strongly data-oriented approach to political forecasting, strategy, and activism.
Folks like Chris and Paul have mined the internet for data, and this data shapes their political analysis, supports their arguments, and lends credibility to their political commentary.
They and others have aggressively 'trawled the tubes' for publicly-available datasets about American political knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors; demographic and geographic information; financial data; polling breakdowns; and more.
This body of data is foundational to the good work done in the progressive blogosphere - especially here at Open Left and at fivethirtyeight.com. And though this data is being put to great use by some, the unwashed majority of us don't give much thought to where it comes from and to whom it is available.
As a response, I propose that we develop a "Progressive Data Bank":
a place where many types of relevant raw data, basic analysis, and guidance on how to use and apply this information, can all be shared broadly, to democratize the enterprise of political analysis and further a wide range of progressive aims.
I've written so much about injustice, lately, that I thought I would focus on something positive, for once. "Las Mujeres de La Patrona" are more than positive. They are humanity's hope. They stand up for all of us with their goodness.
As Central American migrants cling to rickety old trains with the hopes of making it North the are exploited by police, corrupt officials, and gang members. But a small town on the outskirts of Cordoba in the state of Veracruz, Mexico, offers a welcome respite. The Ladies of La Patrona, who have very little means, give all that they can to the migrants passing on the trains. Why? Just because it's right.
Immigration Orange Lessons are a series of essays aimed at combatting the talking points that derail every public conversation about immigration. They can all be found on Immigration Orange.
"I am in favor of legal immigration." "I am not anti-immigrant. I am anti-illegal immigrant." "I am for enforcing the law."
Every migrant advocate has heard these phrases or phrases like these. They're usually used to justify the atrocities that migrants suffer in the U.S.. People also use these statements with a smug tone, as if migrant advocates haven't heard them before. It's not worth my time to keep on addressing unimaginative talking points straight from the mouths of pundits and politicians. So I'll address them once and for all here. Following is a discussion of immigration law and it's history.
STATE BLOGS
