Newsmaker

 

The tour series is called the Steel Blitz for Barack sponsored by the United Steel Workers. The tour features a clever mix of Steelers football, steelworkers, and Barack. The heads of the USW are rallying their members to turn out the vote for Obama by touring Pennsylvania with the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers and some retired players. We luckily were invited along for the ride. While the idea is simple the task is not. Union membership does not automatically mean a Democratic vote.

We spent our morning at one of the Steel Workers’ smallest locals. It did not go off as planned. The AFL-CIO decided not to bring the stage for the rally. This was just as well because it was not the correct weather for an outdoor rally. As we sloshed around in the rain with the steel workers, we got an interesting portrait of the election in the Northeast’s only swing state. The union was passing out flyers, “Barack Obama WON’T Take Away Your Gun…But John McCain WILL Take Away Your Union.” One thing has become very apparent, the polls are lying, the race in PA is extremely close.

I was struck by the sense that Obama supporters are getting overly excited. I overheard the union officials saying the internal polls were a lot closer. Then there is the fact that John McCain more or less needs to win Pennsylvania to win and has shifted his resources accordingly.

The Steelers were clearly a big draw. It was two old timers, one guy a receiver I gathered was really good in his day. As much as the Patriots fan in me doesn’t want to admit it, the Steelers are pretty cool. At the second and third events, the owner of the Steelers showed up with his son. There is something really nice about rich people saying, “I don’t pay enough taxes, and you, the middle class, are getting screwed.” The Steelers embody the working class heroes, whom they are named after. It is clearly instilled in the players and it seemed only natural that they give back in this way.

It was a pretty unique opportunity to travel around with the USW. Much to my surprise the international president of the union joined us. Leo Gerard is the president of the International, which represents nearly 3 million of the 15 million unionized workers in the US. Leo was extremely down to earth. He started as a coal miner and has worked his way up to where he is today.

Over breakfast Leo, covered head to toe in Steelers and Obama garb, was all jokes as he was busy recounting something he had heard on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown the night before. I listened as Leo was talking about which parts of his stump speech seemed to be connecting with the workers most. He found the old timers really connected with Obama choosing to go visit his dying grandma, despite the election sprinting to its close.

Leo is a smart guy who has a true brotherhood with the workers. I was really impressed with Leo’s speech. So often on the news we hear people attempting to turn Obama into a saint. Leo, while appreciating Obama’s character, sees the election in terms of the issues that affect him and the steel workers. The speech was about why Obama is better for the middle class than McCain. In fact, his stump speech spends more time attacking McCain’s policies then claiming Obama is the savior. It is an interesting distinction. It is almost seeing one’s vote as a defensive measure rather than an investment.

Leo also had no problem going after McCain’s character. “McCain came back from Vietnam to find his beautiful queen wife disabled, not so beautiful; so he cheated on her and left.” Everywhere we went, McCain’s divorce mattered more than I realized. In these small communities, where everyone works at the plant, betrayal becomes a community matter, and they were holding McCain to this same standard.

It occurs to me that maybe the way these candidates are talked about in kitchens across the country is vastly different from the impressions presented on TV and in the papers. It is hard to pin down how each community’s unique social reality frames the larger world.

Around 4 o’clock we headed on to Ohio. We drove across the point where Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia meet. Frankly, I found it fitting that these are the places that determine our president because they are the ones most in need of help. The poverty was striking. Homes and trailers reinforced with cardboard. There were no stores nor any semblance of a town to be found. One thing that struck me as particularly odd was that with so much open land, all the houses were right on top of each other. It was beautiful land of rolling hills and corn fields running along the banks of the Ohio River. The closer we got to Cleveland the ratio of McCain to Obama signs switched. Not surprisingly somewhere in the middle the signs stood at a 50-50 ratio. Particularly interesting was that the Obama houses were also sporting handmade signs reading, “You can steal my sign but you can’t steal my vote!” One last comment on yard signs, they were ridiculously big in Ohio. I would say 4 times the size of the average NY yard sign.

I hoped to interview some voters in Cleveland, but there weren’t any people to talk to. We seriously drove around Cleveland without even seeing a soul. Judging from the vast number of churches in the town we could only assume that’s where they must all be. Although, I feel no ill feeling for Cleveland my breakfast was only $3.95 after all.

My experience driving through the ultimate swing states are that this really is a referendum on Obama. The partisans are partisan.  But the middle class voters we meet have a decision to make. For some they need to decide if Obama will take away their guns or if God will allow them to go blue. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way.  It is just that these were the issues people were talking about. As for racism, I confirmed that there are racists, but they seem to have found other reasons to justify voting for McCain. God, Guns, and Race…our economic futures hangs in the balance in the American Midwest.

Erie, Pennsylvania 10:59 just fed the car some much needed oil. It is extremely windy. I guess when it’s not cold enough it’s just lake effect wind. I am lamenting the fact that it is night because I am sure we are traveling through some beautiful rolling hills.

So far I have not met any racists.

It is funny to think that it is places like this that decide the

fate of our election and some might say that of

the whole world. I don't say it is funny because

these are backwards parts of our country, but

because they aren't really all that different

from anywhere else. A rural gas station in Erie

is much like a rural gas station in New York,

Massachusetts, or Wisconsin. People are people;

we all want to be safe and healthy.

We had an amazing dinner in Almond, NY. Not

dressed in native garb, we did stick out like

sore thumbs. When we entered the restaurant heads

clearly turned in our direction. The menu said it

all though. They had a special “Inflation

Busting” section, a Burger for only 4.95. We live

in an increasingly connected world, one where we

find people with sources and streams of

information that just a few years ago were

unavailable. People are surprisingly informed.

I suppose it is important to discuss unions. We

will be working with the United Steel Workers.

Unions represent at best 12% of the American workforce

down from a high in the early 50's of around 33%. 

More importantly, unions in the private sector 

account for only 7% of all workers. The decline 

of unions has many causes be it unfair laws, 

aggressive management, poor union leadership, 

and globalization. What is more important 

are the effects of the decline. The

middle class has shrunk over the last three

decades, pensions are a foreign concept to my

generation, and for most families their

children’s lives will not be better than theirs.

Simply, the American dream is moving further and further away from a reality.

Ronald Reagan once said “Government is not the

solution it is the problem.” It is funny because

I couldn't agree more. Our laws are getting in

the way of the American dream. Unionization is a

near impossible task for most workers. That is

what is at stake in this election.

Barack Obama Supports EFCA (the Employee Free

Choice Act), a measure that would legalize and

mandate the process of workers signing cards

asking for a union, if over 50% sign a card…

blamo…there is a union. It should not be too hard

to see why employers would hate this. The GOP has

claimed this is an assault on democracy and the

sanctity of the secret ballot. A claim anyone who

has ever witnessed or read about a unionization

election would brush off as hog wash. More

importantly this is the process most unions

already use. Obama just wants to give it further legal legitimacy.

Bruce Raynor, President of UNITE-HERE a union of

textile, hotel, and service employees, claims

that if EFCA is passed there will be 5 million

new union members in two years. For unions this

election is about far more than Obama.

That’s what we hope to explore on our journey.

For unions this is about EFCA. Getting back to

Reagan, what is so interesting is that if the

government made is easier to unionize many of the

nation's problems would correct themselves. Unions

mean higher wages, more insured, more job

security, fewer people on food stamps, fewer people

showing up to the emergency room with a cold,

fewer people living off the tax payer dollar, and

more tax dollars to be collected.

It strikes me as we travel through the state

where McCain is supposedly pitching his last

stand that we live in an artificially polarized

country. Though one thing is clear: when menus

in Almond, NY mock the financial crisis something has got to give.

On the day that OPEC, the Mideast oligopoly of

oil producers, announced that it will cut oil

production to keep prices artificially high I

decided it was a perfect day for a road trip.

Four of us have piled into a purple hand painted

mini van and are heading to Pennsylvania. The

purpose? We got invited by the Steelworkers’

Union to help staff rallies for Barack Obama

featuring the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers.

Clearly, it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity.

We head off as the election has been blown as

wide open as the stock market. With the

inevitable recession looming over this nation’s

historically racist parts this country has

decided to close their eyes and pull the lever

for a black man, whose middle name is Hussein. As

The Atlantic reported earlier this month,

door-to-door canvassers in Pennsylvania at one

house asked a man who he was voting for; without

blinking he responded, “I am voting for the nigger”…wow…America!

 

With the numbers and reality turning against

them, the GOP media has gotten silly. Michelle

Bachmann, congresswomen from crazy town

Minnesota, in a circular interview with Chris

Matthews said that she was worried that Obama was

anti-American and that we should do a serious

investigation into who in Congress hates

America…I’ll save her the time and trouble…it’s

the Democrats. The National Review’s Christopher

Buckley not only endorsed Obama but did so

because he claims to no longer know what

Conservatism stands for. Then he resigned from

the publication his father, the conservative ideological juggernaut, started.

 

Even Karl Rove has been forced to admit that

statistically Obama should win. The National

Review and the Weekly Standard have suddenly

become statistics journals, investigating and

exploring any possible issue with the unfriendly

polling numbers. Day after day articles can be

found about the way this poll is garbage or how

this poll’s sample size is out of whack. They

claim the polls are over-sampling Democrats. As

fivethirtyeight.com points out this is because

there are currently more registered Democrats

than Republicans and therefore it is almost

impossible to not sample more Democrats.

 

Tina Fey has completely highjacked Palin’s public

persona. We no longer talk about Sarah Palin we

talk about Tina Fey’s Palin. This week the only

talk of the real Sarah was that the RNC spent

$150K to clothe her and her family. While normally

not a big deal that sum is pretty much equal to

the average cost of a home in the US, and

remember we are losing our homes in record

numbers? -1 one for relating to voters. It’s all

part of the side show this election has become.

We ran out of substantive debate a long time ago.

Now we just have the political equivalent of the squirrel jet skiing.*

 

But me and my fearless journeymen are going into

the belly of the beast. We will unlock the truth

behind the claims that racists are voting for the

black guy. More importantly we will figure out

who convinced the Steelers to drive around

Pennsylvania with a bunch of college kids in a purple van.

 

*See Daily Show for Clarification

and yes anyone who reads this and takes me up on this will get a free beer if I am wrong…I am that convinced…

Barack Obama will win the US presidential election with 54.5% of the popular vote, because of efforts to overcome voter disenfranchisement, the increase in Democratic party identification, the theory of economic voting, the theory of the directional spatial voting, and because of the polling trends and the trends of the political betting markets. On all important categories that political scientists have identified as predictive of election outcomes, Obama holds an advantage. Above all else, it is the political betting markets that have been found to most accurately predict election outcomes, and with the Iowa market currently trading at Obama receiving 54.5% of the popular vote, it is apparent that all available information is indicating an Obama victory on November 4^th.

It is important to look at who is likely to vote in this election and whom this will benefit. Beyond individual and social reasons people will choose to vote, there are institutional rules that govern voting. Much fuss has been made about the issue of voter disenfranchisement, either legal bars on felons or practical bars such as long voting lines during lunch time. Manza and Uggen concluded in their paper Punishment and Democracy that felon voting laws disproportionately affects minorities. They also noted, “…states with larger proportions of nonwhites in their prison populations were more likely to pass restrictive laws…”[1] They also found that this provided a small advantage for Republicans, since minorities are more likely to be Democrats, looking at data from 1972 to 2000.[2] While this research seems to indicate an advantage for McCain, the consistency of this advantage makes it seem unlikely to truly determine this election’s come.

Far more important than felon voting laws is the Republicans’ attempts to purge voters whose homes have been disclosed in swing states. But Obama’s legal team has effectively nullified this practice.[3] Obama’s team has gone even further by trying to help those voters, who traditionally have found it harder to vote,: such as students, nurses, firemen, and others who work long shifts or are traditionally mobile. Their biggest success has been in Ohio, where early voting allows an entire week of same day registering and voting.[4] These targeted registration campaigns are important because research has shown that they are the most effective way of increasing turnout, even beyond simply liberalizing registration laws.[5]

Beyond who will vote, it is important to evaluate the theories of how people determine their vote. The research on vote choice has found party identification and the state of the economy as the most important factors in determining vote choice. But there are also issues associated with the campaigns and political ideology that could affect the outcome of this election. The theories on vote choice are broken down into the importance of party, issues, and candidates.

According the Michigan Model of vote choice Party identification is the most important factor affecting vote choice, and since the Democratic Party has been enjoying a huge increase in party registration this would indicate an Obama victory. In Miller and Shanks’ paper Multiple –Stage Explanation of Political Preferences the found that when holding all other variables constant Party ID’s coefficient of correlation was still statistically significant at 0.16.[6] This is to say, when all else is accounted for, 16% of the vote is still determined by party ID. The authors explain the effect as such, “It acts as a ‘tie breaker’ because the effects of other political attitudes are balanced, or as the only influence for individuals, who do not have any other basis for choice…”[7] So Party ID is heuristic. It either tells people what their best choice is, when all other information leaves them with tied impressions of the candidates, or it is the only deciding factor, when the voter has no information on the candidates.

More importantly, this same paper found that party ID was the most important factor determining vote choice. Issues were not as relevant. For example, holding all other factors equal government assistance to the disadvantaged had a coefficient of 0.04, homosexuals in the military a coefficient of 0.05, and abortion -0.01. What this indicates is, not that these issues are necessarily important, but that they tell us almost no new information about vote choice when party ID is known. Knowing someone’s party identification is the best way to determine how they will vote. So the rise in Democratic registration should equal an increased support for Obama.

Another way to look at the importance of Party ID in this election is to observe its effects on the campaigns. It has been shown in studies that campaigns do not have a huge effect on the election. Campbell in his paper How Campaigns Matter hypothesized that this is because campaigns are really about convincing members of the candidates party not to jump ship. He explains,  “…reinforcement is one in which  the voter at the outset of the campaign intends to defect from their predispositions (usually partisanship) but change their intention and remain loyal as a result of the campaign’s reinforcement…”[8] This is consisted the Michigan Model which says that your perceptions of the candidates are influenced by your party ID. The classic example from this election was John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his VP choice. Facing large defections from the evangelical base McCain needed Palin to secure these votes. But the fact that this was even a problem for McCain means he is campaigning from a disadvantage.

Although Party ID might be the most significant predictor of vote choice, the increase in the number of Americans not identifying with a political party might indicate the importance of issues on vote choice. The literature on the issue of vote choice identifies economic conditions as the most important variable. Additionally, people tend to vote sociotropicly, looking at business conditions as a whole instead of their own personal condition when they vote.[9] As a result, Nadeau and Lewis-Beck’s found that voters first and foremost attribute the state of the economy to the actions of the president despite that we often have divided government, where the president and the congress are not of the same party.[10] They conclude that when the incumbent president is running for reelections people evaluate the economy retrospectively, looking at how the economy has been However, when no incumbent is running (such as the current election) voters look at the economy prospectively. They explain the effects as follows, “The classic V.O. Key economic voter then compares an in-party to an out-party, rather than an in-candidate to an out-candidate (since both candidates are “out”).”[11] Since the future outlook of the economy is not good, John McCain is disadvantaged, because he is of the in-party.

The research did find that with no incumbent running economic voting is weakened, which would lead to the conclusion that the economic conditions will not automatically give the election to Obama. It seems that with the financial crisis and the potential of recession that there is no possible way that economic voting is weaker simple because no incumbent is running. The Obama campaign’s constant attempts to convince voters that McCain and Bush’s economic policies are the same is further evidence that prospective voting is tied to “in-party” status and this it is important in this election. Given the literature on economic voting and the large degree to which economics affects vote choice, one can say with a high probability that this issue alone should be enough to predict an Obama victory.

The final, variable that the literature of vote choice attributes to vote choice is the candidates. Candidates are personified by their campaigns and their ideology. In Campbell’s paper, he concluded that campaigns have about a 4% effect on the outcome on the election.[12] Clearly campaigns do not have the effect on vote choice that party ID and economics do. Campaigns do attempt to locate the candidates ideologically. The literature on the effect of a candidate’s ideology on voting is summarized in two spatial models,: the proximity and the directional models. The proximity model predicts that two candidates will split the vote by aligning themselves just on either side of the median voter. So McCain goes just to the right of the median voter and gets everyone to the right. The model further predicts that support for candidates should peak where the candidates are located and then taper off on either side, a fact not supported by the data. The proximity model would predict that John McCain should win because he has long been considered a centrist. There is a problem with this model, namely that it is hard to decided where candidates are located on either issues. In response, political scientists came up with the directional model, which says that politicians try to locate themselves as taking sides on the issues and then people vote for the candidate that is on the same side as they on the greatest number of issues. This model would support Obama because there are a greater number of registered Democrats and a larger number of people who think he would be better at fixing the economy. One way to examine the model’s validity is to look at the candidates’ voting records. We will look at the 2006 voting records for the two candidates because both men voted very little in 2007 and voted only when their party most needed their votes, meaning their ideological rating would be more extreme. According to Lewis and Poole, using a formula developed by political scientists, reporting for voteview.com they found that ideologically Obama was the 20^th most liberal senator and McCain was the 2^nd most conservative senator.[13] Now their actual rank does not say much because who knows what they were actually voting on and senators tend to be more moderate than other elected officials in the first place. What is important to note however is that they are not located in the middle in terms of ideology. They seem to be following the logic of the directional model by choosing sides without going to a punishable extreme. This makes sense because the candidates want to offer the voters actual choices on the issues instead of seeming like slightly different shades of gray. It seems that the data supports the directional model of voting which should help Obama win.

Beyond the theory, it is also important to take into account the polls that are predicting the outcome of the election. As of 10/4/08 the polls are predicting a large Obama victory. RealClearPolitics.com (RCP), which averages all of the polls, shows Obama winning nationally by 5.9%.[14] More importantly however, RCP’s electoral vote calculator shows Obama with 264 electoral votes either locked in or learning his way (where leaning means a RCP state average of 5%). That means Obama only needs six more electoral votes to win and RCP shows him up in many of the leftover toss-up states. Furthermore, fivethirtyeight.com which adjusts its polls given historical trends, a method found to be more effective[15], computes probability scenarios and finds that the probability that McCain loses either Ohio and Michigan but still wins the election at 1.51%[16] and McCain’s campaign announced a few days ago that they were giving up on trying to win in Michigan.[17] Simply put, Obama has far more ways of winning the Electoral College than McCain does. But polls are not even the best method for determining who will win. Far more effective are political betting markets.[18] The markets are so accurate because, just like actually stock markets, they represent all available information. This includes all of the above theories mentioned. The markets were accurately able to predict how every state would vote in the 2004 presidential election and predicted every senate race in 2006.[19] The Iowa University market as of 10/5/08 has Obama’s vote share price quote at 0.545 or 54.5% of the vote with a 73.7% chance of an Obama victory.[20] The intrade market as of 10/5/08 closed with a 66.7% chance that Obama will win.[21] Given the history of these political markets accurately predicting the outcome and the unfavorable Electoral College map for McCain, it seems extremely unlikely that he could win.

Beyond the media punditry and the coverage of gaffes and counter gaffes the political science theories all indicate an Obama victory this November. Despite the effective disenfranchisement of voters through purging and other tactics by the GOP in years past, Obama’s legal team has more than a reason to fight this challenge. More importantly, they are engaging in rigorous targeted voter drives, a technique found to be far more effective at increasing turnout than liberalizing voting laws. The increased number of registered Democrats also strongly indicates an Obama advantage. The theory of prospective economic evaluations explains that simple by being a member of the “in-party” John McCain is at a disadvantage. The directional model of voting also favors Obama and his expanded Democratic party. All the polling is trending Obama’s. Most importantly, John McCain’s possible Electoral College maps to victory are becoming more and more impossible. Finally, the extremely predictive political betting markets are all predicting over a 65% chance of Obama winning. While campaigns do fluctuate and change, with only a few weeks to go John McCain will not find favorable news from the electoral theories.

---

[1] Manza, Jeff & Uggen, Cristopher. 2004. Punishment and Democracy: Disenfranchisement of Nonincarcerated Felons in the United States. Perspectives on Politics 2 (3): 293.[2] Ibid: 497

[3] Halloran, Liz. 2008. ACLU Sues Michigan Over Voter Purge Program. U.S. News and World Report. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/09/18/aclu-sues-michigan-over-voter-purge-program-saying-it-hurts-college-students.html. (accessed October 4, 2008).

[4] Majors, Stephen. 2008. Ohio election officials brace for early voting. AP Report. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmJpgsrR27lwSUQ24_WSSrU0W-JwD93GUI9G1. (accessed October 4, 2008).

[5] Mitchell & Wlezien. 1995. Article sited in lecture on 9/11/2008.

[6] Miller, Warren & Shanks, Merrill. 1996. Multiple-Stage Explanation of Political Preferences. In Controversies in Voting Behavior, ed. Richard Niemi, 226. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

[7] Ibid: 227.

[8] Campbell, James E. 2008. The American Campaign. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 197.

[9] Prof Peter Ens Cornell Government Dept

[10] Nadeau, Richard & Lewis-Beck, Michael. 2001. National Economic Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections. In Controversies in Voting Behavior, ed. Richard Niemi, 209. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

[11] Ibid: 208.

[12] Campbell: 191.

[13] Lewis, Jeff & Poole, Keith. 2006. 109^th Senate Rank Ordering. Carnegie – Mellon Unversity. http://voteview.com/sen109.htm (accessed October 4, 2008)

[14] RealClearPolitics. 2008. General Election: McCain vs. Obama. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html (accessed October 4, 2008)

[15] Prof Peter Ens Cornell Government Dept

[16] Silver, Nate. 2008. Scenario Analysis. FiveThirtyEight.com. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/. (accessed October 5, 2008)

[17] Chris Cillizza. 2008. McCain Moves out of Michigan: What It Means. Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/mccain_moves_out_of_michigan_w.html?nav=rss_blog. (accessed October 6, 2008)

[18] Wolfers, Justin. 2007. Best Bet for Nest President: Prediction Markets. The Wall Street Journal, December 31.

[19] Ibid

[20] Iowa Electronic Markets. 2008. Market Quotes. http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/quotes.cfm. (accessed October 5, 2008)

[21] Intrade. 2008 Realtime Electoral Vote Predictor. http://www.intrade.com/. (accessed October 5, 2008)

The rolling out of a VP is a lot like the announcement of a company’s quarterly earnings. In both cases the media flips out and makes a huge deal of it. Average people merely make a mental note and move on. This observation applies to much of the media’s coverage of the election. It is the obvious result of 24 hour news. There are simply more hours in the day than hours of news.

Every hour and half hour the networks must have headlines. But, it might take three hours for the news to be made. The result: at the top of the hour the breaking news was that Obama had left the gym to head home as Biden was still sitting in his home. That is not news. There is very little drama to be had. We would have been better off with 5 hours of coverage of the situation between Georgia and Russia than five hours of waiting for Biden to leave the house.

Oh, and yes, it is Biden. The media was all a scoff with what this means. Does it show Obama is weak on Foreign Policy? Did Obama give up on Change? Is Biden an attack Dog? While it does mean all of this and more, I find truth in McCain’s estimation that the VP has two jobs: to cast tie breaking votes in the senate and to check in daily as to the health of the president.

My point is that the coverage was downright over the top. The networks’ contrasting styles of covering the whole ordeal were interesting and say much about how the media approaches this race. I think Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics.com put it best, when he said the media reports on the bubble of Washington and talks about the average people like they are stupid. This was eye opening because I realized I find myself doing this. When I watch cable news it is largely a cerebral exercise in assessing the effect of each move on the “average American.” This is dumb of me! The average American has a visceral and gut reaction to a politician’s actions, but they also apply a large degree of reason.

For example, the gas tax. It simply won’t work. It’s a fine idea, but you won’t find an economist who isn’t employed by an oil company who thinks it will work. The average American gets this. Just like the average American understands that drilling won’t solve all our problems. But the media talks about whether or not this will stick with Bob in Kansas.

I take offense because not only should Americans be treated like they aren’t dumb but it’s the media’s job to report when politicians lie. If the gas tax won’t work, CNN should be explaining this, not in a partisan way but in a factual way. There is a difference between fair and balanced. Balanced is not always fair. If 90% of people are against issue A, but you give 50% of your air time to the other 10%, that is wrong. So is silencing the minority. But it’s the media’s job to report reality, and they fail to do it.

So CNN and MSNBC were largely spending their time in a Washington bubble. They were talking on a Macro level about emotions instead of facts or people’s gut reactions. Fox, on the other hand, was only talking about emotions. I am not sure who the newscaster, I was watching, was but whoever he was, he should get a raise. He spent most of his time watching Biden’s door, as the world waited for Biden to leave the house, complaining about how he had to cover Biden instead of playing Bocce and eating Italian sausage with his family. At least he was honest that it was boring. But he also spent much of his time talking about how expensive Biden’s house must be and how this neutralizes McCain’s gaffe about not knowing how many houses he owns. This type of coverage focuses on shaping people’s emotional reactions towards a political point. It makes Micro logic trump Macro logic. It tells people to think only emotionally, just like the other networks tell us only to think logically. We need both.

Basically, we get too much news coverage. The coverage never focuses on facts. Fox is too emotional. The rest of the news is too cerebral. And I also wish that I had played bocce instead of watching Biden’s door for 3 hours.

Well folks…I doubt anyone will be tuning into Kitsch until the school years gets started…but I’m a sucker…

Our blogs have been silent all summer. I have been compelled many times to add a story (Most notably about my new favorite Fox News show “Porked: Earmarks for Profit“). The media has done a piss poor job and I probley could have called them out. Frankly I was suffering from election over load. I personally could not deal with it any more. Obama and McCain are running poor campaigns. And the media is doing a bad job covering it. It is all…BORING..

But with the Dem VP coming in just a few hours and the conventions starting. I am bound not to be board and I should get my blogging juices back. But to transition back into things here is the best article I have seen all summer:

D.C. bartenders favor Democrats as patrons

By Michael O’Brien

Posted: 08/22/08 10:22 AM [ET]

Partying Republicans in Washington will have to step it up after a recent survey of D.C.-area bartenders praised Democrats as being better tippers and talkers than their GOP counterparts.The survey of 100 D.C.-area bartenders, conducted by Clarus Research Group for Beam Global Spirits & Wine, cast Democrats as more favorable bar patrons, as bartenders said they were better tippers, have better pick-up lines and were better at giving toasts.Conversely, the bartenders said Republicans were more likely to order their drinks “straight-up” than Democrats, who were described as being more likely to order up “pink (girly) drinks” at the bar. Republicans, however, were slightly less likely to party later into the night, according to the survey.Republicans and Democrats, however, were almost tied for who is more likely to show up first for happy hour.“Said survey is obviously complete BS,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) spokesman Michael Steel. The Beam company, which produces beverages such as Jim Beam, Knob Creek and Maker’s Mark bourbon, stood by the results. “We think it’s fairly accurate,” said Chris Swonger, Beam’s senior vice president for corporate affairs. “The results are just like politics. Some will agree, while others may disagree. Brynna McCosker, the director of operations for Clarus, said the firm had tried to reduce sampling bias by surveying bartenders in parts of Washington seen as Republican strongholds, as well as Democratic hotspots. The capital city, however, tilts heavily Democratic in elections. Eighty-five percent of D.C. residents voted for Al Gore in 2000, and 90 percent voted for John Kerry in 2004. The suburban areas in Virginia and Maryland that serve as home to many Washington-area commuters also tend to be Democratic, though not as overwhelmingly. McCosker said that, in her mind, there’s no question about the accuracy of the results. “It was really interesting because some of [the bartenders] had certain feelings about Republicans or Democrats for a certain question,” she said, while also noting some bartenders refused to answer, fearing they might scare off a segment of their clientele. Nonetheless, some Democrats reveled in the poll’s positive depiction of the party. “Who would you rather party with: Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner?” joked one Democratic staffer. “Republicans seem to care little about America’s tomorrow,” quipped another Democratic staffer. “Between mixed drinks, body shots and pitchers of beer, Democrats seem to care little about their tomorrow morning.” Swonger said the poll was just meant to be a fun endeavor, with bartenders interested in what other bartenders say. “I’m sure tipping status is not the first question that will be covered in the debates,” he said, adding that he hopes Republicans will “think twice when taking care of their bartender.”

So my predictions quickly before it’s too late. These are stuff I came up with before, I just forgot to post it.

Clinton by 3 in Indiana

Obama by 7 in NC. (though watching the early reporting I would have changed that to 12)

Tomorrow evening the news will be 15 or so super delegates get behind Obama. Before June we will have a McCain-Obama race. Look for Hillary as VP.

Update 9:03 pm

My econ prelim will not go well tomorrow because I am crunching numbers. But I was dead on in Indiana if CNN exit polls were right.

I have Clinton 51.6% and Obama 47.4% with 1% unaccounted for.

Though Obama is going double digits in NC.

Update 9:11

I have the NC numbers from the exit polls now.

Obama 54.23% Clinton 40.15 and 5.62% no preference

Look to see no preference turn out to have voted for someone but to have not wanted to tell CNN on the way out of the polls.

Oh…and he won every region. Even the west,the first Appalachian victory for him in the whole campaign.

Update 10:39

Hillary is in total la-la-land. She can’t win. This is insane.

Let’s not be surprised if her tune changes soon.

When I decided earlier this year to start a politically themed blog for Kitsch, I decided to be more than just a talking head. Instead I wanted to focus on what has become known as “Meta-News.” Meta-News is simply covering the way the media covers the news. It felt inventive, quirky, and most importantly fit Kitsch’s aims more so than being some partisan yahoo would.

As I watched the news this week, however, I started to become very worried. I felt like suddenly Meta-News was the news. Everyone from CNN to slate.com to the Christian Science Monitor was abuzz with coverage of ABC’s debate questions…. Frankly, that’s my job.

Now normally I would applaud such a venture as a much-needed debunking of the horse race mentality–a plea from the journalistic community to free itself from the bond of lunacy. But as the coverage dragged on, I realized a few things.

First, Meta-News has itself become an increasingly important part of media coverage. I believe this is in large part a response to the emergence of new media. The networks are shocked by YouTube and blogs and anything new is newsworthy. It is also a product of a healthy self-analysis. I sense that many in the media feel like they really messed up the last presidential election by allowing the “Swift Boat” ads to go unfettered for so long.

Second, the length of this race has made Meta-News a reality simply because the networks are competing for viewers. This has been the depressing part of the new trend. No one has won bigger this election season then MSNBC. They have slowly but surely chipped away CNN’s dominance of the news game. While this is almost exclusively due to superior coverage, I have started to wonder if their Meta-News coverage is really just an attempt to put the other guys down. Cornell’s own Keith Olbermann is probably most at fault here. His show became famous for attacking Bill O’Reilly. Very creatively, in fact, he once brought on a psychologist to analyze O’Reilly’s mental issues following his physical altercation with an Obama body guard. At times, however, it becomes a game of “we’re-better-than-you.” This is demonstrated by his propensity to read his ratings numbers among college students in comparison to Anderson Cooper’s. This is barely Meta-News; it is pettiness.

Third, old habits die hard and the Networks have turned Meta-News into another metric for this endless horse race. It has become a game of pointing out which media station has said “Hillary” more, which news source has written more pieces about Obama, or how many times one can say “McCain” in a row. The cries this week against ABC’s petty politics were part of this second horse race; not the race between the candidates but the race between competing media outlets. The issue becomes this: are the media ignoring substantive issues and instead covering each other? How much does political coverage become the media covering other reporters’ gaffes? Meta-News then becomes a substitute for real news.

When musing on this, I realized I might be part of the problem. I try to point out where the media’s coverage becomes weak and misses substance, but am I offering any substance of my own? I am just another talking head who tries to save himself by only talking about other talking heads? Eh… who knows?

With this said, overall I am so glad people jumped all over ABC’s simplistic, idiotic, and laughable debate. As Jon Stewart pointed out, Question 16, which began the debate’s second hour, was prefaced with “Now lets turn to the economy, as America says it is the number one issue.” This was the first issue-based question, the first question not about one of the candidates’ political gaffes. The number one issue becomes the number 16 question. How stupid do they think Americans are? I don’t give a flying crap if Obama eats arugula, or even if he is an elitist. Nor do I care if Hillary drinks whiskey or that she thought she had been attacked by sniper fire in Bosnia. (Hell, if I was in Bosnia during that mess I might have scared myself into thinking I got shot at, too). What I do care about is who is going to fix the economy, who is going to get us out of Iraq, and who is going to stop global warming.

In stark contrast to ABC’s best hits of bad journalism was Robert Reich’s post on his blog yesterday announcing his defection from the Clintons, whom he met at Yale Law School, to Obama. Reich was Clinton’s Secretary of Labor and is my political hero because he is the only man in politics shorter than me. He did not defect because of the calculus of political missteps, but instead as he said:

[Obama’s] plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding…. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.

Imagine if ABC actually offered us a chance to hear the two on these issues. Maybe then the networks wouldn’t have to spend all day talking Meta-News.

Stop Shopping! Change-a-lujah, Children!

This Saturday night we are going to be blessed (literally) to have the Reverend Billy come to Cornell’s Anabel Taylor Chapel & preach his gospel of Stop shopping?

What does stop shopping mean you ask? It isn’t about completely stopping your consumption but about thinking about why and how we consume. Its about our local communities and rediscovering our families. It’s about Sweat Free, it’s about fair labor practices, it’s about human rights. Its also about HAVING FUN!

Come get absolved of your shopping sins!

Watch the Rev on CNN

The Director of Rev’s movie What Would Jesus Buy? on what the Rev is about

Also the movie trailer if you are interested…